It's been more than two years since 'splattergate' and it is now more than 16, 18 or 19 years with no statistically measurable rise in Average Global Temperatures (depending how you interpret the data). It is therefore timely perhaps to reflect on the mindset that enabled these high profile 'spattergate' people to donate their highly priced time to such a grotesque project as this.
Watch the three (3) minute 'splattergate' advertisement by 10:10 here and read what James Delingpole predicted correctly on October 1st 2010,
"....that No Pressure – Richard Curtis's spectacularly ill-judged eco-propaganda movie for the 10:10 campaign – would prove a disastrous own goal for the green movement.
But what I could never have imagined was how quickly public disgust – even among greenies – would reach such a pitch that the campaigners would be compelled to withdraw it from the internet.
That, at any rate, is what they keep trying to do – cancelling it whenever it appears on You Tube, pulling it from their campaign website and so on.
Unfortunately their efforts are being frustrated by people on the sceptical side of the climate debate, who keep peskily insisting on reposting the video where everyone can view it. And rightly so. With No Pressure, the environmental movement has revealed the snarling, wicked, homicidal misanthropy beneath its cloak of gentle, bunny-hugging righteousness."
Many people have forgotten this little 'turning point' in the debate on human induced catastrophic global warming. They have practised a wilful blindness involving substantial effort and a powerful blind faith powered by their 'knowledge' that they are right and that then end justifies the means.
Here's the excuse posted by the 10:10 organisers on the Guardian website:
Today we put up a mini-movie about 10:10 and climate change called 'No Pressure'.
With climate change becoming increasingly threatening, and decreasingly talked about in the media, we wanted to find a way to bring this critical issue back into the headlines whilst making people laugh. We were therefore delighted when Britain's leading comedy writer, Richard Curtis – writer of Blackadder, Four Weddings, Notting Hill and many others – agreed to write a short film for the 10:10 campaign. Many people found the resulting film extremely funny, but unfortunately some didn't and we sincerely apologise to anybody we have offended.
As a result of these concerns we've taken it off our website.
We'd like to thank the 50+ film professionals and 40+ actors and extras and who gave their time and equipment to the film for free. We greatly value your contributions and the tremendous enthusiasm and professionalism you brought to the project.
At 10:10 we're all about trying new and creative ways of getting people to take action on climate change. Unfortunately in this instance we missed the mark. Oh well, we live and learn.
Onwards and upwards,
Eugenie, Franny, Daniel, Lizzie and the whole 10:10 team
What were they thinking? Did they really believe most found this funny? Do they not have inquisitive children?
The fact that the 'science', in the form of empirical observational and experimental evidence is now pointing very strongly away from human carbon dioxide emissions as the major influence on global temperatures, has absolutely no impact on their religious certainty, and everything to do with their 'denial' of the science and the evidence.
Jo Nova more recently discussed the antics of the Greens Party here in Australia openly suggesting that deception and fraud done in the name of saving the planet is completely ok, apparently the end does justify the means,
"PR is more important than anything else to the Greens. When Johnathon Moylan fraudulently tricked investors, costing some of them thousands of dollars, Green leaders praise him for “drawing attention” to something. It’s as if stupid punters are so dumb and Green’s brains so Omniscient, that any crime is forgiven in the quest to tell the world a green “fact”. Did Christine Milne think Australians don’t know the Greens blame coal miners for hot days? Did she think that people would hear for the first time that Greens really really don’t like the coal industry and they would suddenly awaken from their stupor and be converts to the cause? Did she think if Green chicanery raised the cost of capital formation in the coal industry, causing that industry to suffer, that everyone else would overlook Green illegality and applaud?
A delusional anti-coal mining activist, Jonathan Moylan, impersonated a bank spokesman and issued a fake media release, falsely declaring that the bank had withdrawn a $1.2 billion loan facility from Whitehaven Coal because of ”unacceptable damage to the environment.” He created a dummy email inbox to push the deceit further to cause real damage. The story was picked up by some news outlets, and shares fell by 9% before people realized it was fake. Those who want to downplay the seriousness are calling it a “hoax”. The real world knows it is fraud."
For me, part of the little 'turning point' involved assimilating the horror of the children in the classroom being 'spattered' with the biomass of their classmate 'deniers'.
The strange pathways ones' mind follows in a state of shock.
For me, upon seeing the 'spattergate' Youtube, ....I got it. I understood what Richard Curtis and his like minded Green Zealots were trying to do.....as I am familiar with Goebbels style propaganda.
First, I understood that these people wanted to frighten, threaten and indeed terrorize people into subconsciously (with NO PRESSURE) accepting that by holding any doubts or actively questioning the 'consensus' as a minority, we are vulnerable to 'liquidation' by the majority.
Second, I observed the biomass of those splattered 'sceptic' children oozing off their classmates, and in my analytical mode, asked the simple question, "what is the biomass of humanity?" If everyone questioned the 'consensus' and was 'splattered', how big a volume would we all take up with our biomass?
Please remember, I was in shock with that image of the splattered children (who could've been my children) imprinted in my mind's eye, and so my mind drfited down this strange path....
If population growth levels off with prosperity (which seems the only guaranteed population management program incorporating Jeffersonian human rights) and if humanity reaches 10 billion souls by 2050, what volume will human biomass occupy? If we conservatively assume each human 'splattered by the 10:10 crowd' fills a 100 litre container, then I calculated that we could pour the biomass of 10 humans into one cubic metre. Thus, the sum total of humanity, 10 billion people would fill a volume bound by a vessel 1000 metres long, 1000 metres wide and 1000 metres high (or one cubic kilometer).
It struck me that humanity's volume in terms of the dimensions and resources of the earth is puny. It struck me that with freedom (genuine informed democracy), proper education (not Green propaganda), and a new 'Enlightenment 2.0' we can readily feed and house and productively occupy all of humanity on earth. We just need to practise science and logic and the golden rule.
So when we manage to help people back into Enligthenment 2.0, we must be forever vigilent that the 'mindset' of the 'anointed' does not return unchallenged. The END does NOT justify the MEANS because, humans being humans, the END may be ill-conceived and the MEANS may be worse.
Humans are fallible and as such, each of us can find ourselves possessed by an unusual and downright dangerous END to thus justify a destructive and inhuman MEANS. Many have trodden this PATH.
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions and unfortunately, on this road any signposts to heaven are deliberately obscured.