« Gallup Pre-Announces a Double-Digit Lead for Republicans | Main | Let the Right Vampire Movie In »

Saturday, October 02, 2010


Piers Corbyn


I attempted to comment on the Guardian’s thread on this matter but as as been mentioned before the Guardian of free expression subjects my posts to automatic censorship. My pass rate is 1/3 so as a precaution here is my posting on the Guardian:-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/sep/30/10-10-no-pressure-film?showallcomments=true&msg=a#end-of-comments -

Yes it’s a sick film but ironically the CO2 – climate change lobby and climate fraudsters are already causing deaths.

For example a number of people were killed on UK and European icy roads last winter (and Spring) due to the fact that the UK and Europe ran out of road salt. This running out of road salt was because Councils and Government heeded the Met Office advice that there would be a mild winter and ignored our WeatherAction warnings that the UK would run out of road salt.

As I explained to Hilary Benn on Sept 29th at the Labour conference in Manchester the reason why the Met Office long range forecasts were so deadly wrong last winter (and the one before etc etc) was because they back-tested them using (as well as failed assumptions ) CRU data which was fraudulently made warmer than reality so forecasts based on that are bound to come out too warm and cause deaths which could otherwise have been avoided.
I made the point specific in a recent video giving the tragic example of the child killed on 31st March in a school bus which crashed on snow covered black ice in Lanarkshire. See VIDEO via
and pdf -

Around the world thousands die from extreme weather events the solar-based forecasts of which are ignored by governments because they do not want to upset the CO2-Climate Change ideology on which they rely to control energy, resources, the public and to raise carbon taxes and boost the carbon trading bubble of false value.

Thank you


The eco-fascists have infiltrated the British establishment - the government, The BBC for example - to an unprecedented extent. You will find that the 10-10 organisation receives a lot of government cash, so this film is the latest in a long line of government funded propaganda that would do credit to the Soviet propaganda machine at the height of its power.

There is another similarity to the old communist totalities - dissent is verboten. Even to pose the question whether there is any doubt over anthropogenic global warming labels you as a 'denier', and these labellers go right to the top including government ministers, even Gordon Brown (although 'right to the bottom' would be more appropriate in his case).

Adherence to the party line (ALL political parties) is, of course, demanded, otherwise you are denounced as an heretical moron, obviously beholden to the dollar of the carbon barons.

Yes, my American friends, on this side of the pond, 'the science is settled'. The teaching of creationism is scoffed at - God does not exist and that's now official according to at least two of our most eminent scientists - but, by God, - sorry - but, by golly, kids in our schools WILL be taught that man is responsible for global warming and the consumers of oil - all of us - are therefore responsible for killing hundreds of thousands of people in the third world. We cannot afford to teach all young kids about the dangers of drug and alcohol abuse but we sure have enough cash to get the 10-10 message across.

And finally, to complement the propaganda, we of course have the 'green taxes' to go with it. We have the smoke and mirrors of the European Carbon Trading scheme (Obama's Cap and Trade), a financial lifeline to banking spivs, that doesn't save an ounce of carbon dioxide emissions but costs European consumers many billions. We have the out and out scam of Carbon Offsetting that has been shown to be downright fraudulent in many cases, ripping off gullible and trusting people who part with their cash with the best of intentions.

And do these 'green taxes' pay for something really useful such as improving energy efficiency and reducing dependency on imported hydrocarbons from some of the most vile regimes on the planet? Like Hell they do - sorry - if there's no God there cannot be a hell - Like Larry they do. The government use them to make advertising cartoons about gooey 'carbon footprints', showing them at great expense on TV, and films like the one we're discussing.

You think I'm exaggerating? Just google UK Labour government advertising budget.

So in Europe, the eco-fascists are well-entrenched but the fightback is under way. Let's hope America repels these pirates before they do any lasting damage to you and your grandchildren.

Bill Fleming

Well, it's shocking, disgusting and tasteless.
I think that's the point. Or part of it.
Monty Python comes to mind as does this:

I wonder what kind of movies Johnathan Swift
would have made had he lived in these times.

Donald Pay

Let's look at the lede.

"It has been clear during the long debate over global warming that the Alarmists considered any criticism of their position to be illegitimate. The phrase "global warming deniers" and the attempt to link critics of global warming alarmism to Holocaust deniers is a good example of this."

First, when someone begins a piece with "it has been clear," I start to wonder what it is they are trying to cover up. Rather than deal with the science, the "deniers" whine about politics or some side issue. It's a way of distracting people from the issue and making things quite muddled, which, after all, is their point.

Second, the phrase "long debate" is an interesting propagandistic devise. I don't think there is much of a scientific debate about global climate impacts of greenhouse gas emission. That's pretty much settled. There are legitimate scientific disagreements about various aspects of global climate change, but these are subject to continued study and interpretation. On the outside of science, there are industry funded efforts to spread misinformation, which attempt to use legitimate science combined with industry-funded junk science to fool people.

Third, the word "Alarmists" gives us a little tip about the propaganda effort underway in your piece. The science is clear, and if you want to ignore it, that's up to you. People who have to concern themselves with the impacts of climate change, particularly those along the coasts might consider it pretty rational to be alarmed. I guess some are alarmed by ginned up controversy about a mosque three blocks from "ground zero," and others are alarmed by something that has fifty years of science behind it.

Fourth, we get to the whining and the fake outrage, which is a big part of the industry propaganda effort. Criticism is required for science to move forward. However, criticism which ignores facts and established science and is just for the purpose of propaganda is not a productive way to move science forward. The reason most scientists consider much of the industry-funded critics to be illegitimate is that they are not working from a base of known facts. In essence they are making things up or misinterpreting the facts, and they are doing that not for scientific reasons, but for political ones.


I agree that the video is, to put it perhaps insultingly lightly, tone-deaf marketing. I don't think it takes hindsight to see the harm this video would do to the movement.

The explicit fascist message is not unlike the threats of deportation and trial for treason that I've received from occasional thoughtless extremist commenters (not the majority) for challenging their conservative dogma.


Cory: good point. Now imagine the exact same video, just with the teacher urging everyone to get behind the war on terrorism. Imagine it was produced with U.S. Government backing. Everyone on the left would recognize this as fascist in spirit.

The only trouble with your argument is nothing remotely like this exists on the other side. The film above is not a sign scribbled out by some lone wacko on his way to a rally. It was an offhand remark by a public official that was exaggerated and distorted by his critics. It was, as I noted, a slick and professional production, involving a lot of people and backed by public money. Someone had to conceive of it. Someone had to sign off on the expenditure. It got all the way from twisted imagination to YouTube.


[email protected] complaining about being linked to "holocaust deniers" after the title "eco-facists"


bob: equating critics of global warming with holocaust deniers is absurd and irresponsible. Calling the above clip "ecofascism" is simply accurate.

Donald: the question here has nothing to do with the issue of global warming. It has only to do with the question of political culture. The comparison between critics of global warming and Holocaust deniers was underhanded. Yet it was common on the activist left. Ellen Goodman at the Boston Globe made the comparison, as did climate expert Paul McCartney. CBS's Scott Pelley used to to explain why their documentary on global warming included not a single skeptic.

As for your complaint about the word "alarmist," there I think you have a point.


Interesting link, "BRITAIN'S science academy, the Royal Society, has acknowledged the limits of current scientific understanding of climate change, revising its outlook."


Which holocaust denial argument doesn't have a global warming denial analogue?


Denature makes my point. Holocaust denial and AGW skepticism have absolutely nothing to do with one another. The Holocaust is among the most if not the most thoroughly documented event in history. The physical evidence is immediate and overwhelming. It is not easy to see how an expression of doubt could be anything other than an expression fascist sentiments. See Ahmedinejad.

AGW is a very complex theory requiring the correlation of vast realms of data culled by numerous methods, and the projection of the data forward and backward in time. Even if you think that the case is very sound, it would be a very bad sign if there weren't critics. Science is supposed to have critics. That's how it works. See Freeman Dyson.

To suggest that Dyson has any resemblance to Ahmedinejad in this respect is a confession of bad faith.


"The Holocaust is among the most if not the most thoroughly documented event in history. The physical evidence is immediate and overwhelming."

Kind of like the greenhouse effect. Or the fact that rising co2 causes warming. But people deny it anyway.

"Even if you think that the case is very sound, it would be a very bad sign if there weren't critics."

Why doesn't that apply to the holocaust?

Anthony D. Renli

A much more apt comparison might be the evolution deniers from the first half of the 20th century. The Scientific community was pretty darn convinced that Evolution was good science, but they were discounted because there were people who were uncomfortable with the implications of the theory.

Yes, there is legitimate scientific debate on AGW. But the majority of the debate deals not with is it happening but with how much is humanity responsible for, what if anything we can do about it, and what actions are economically practical to take.


Bob: the greenhouse effect is not questioned by any critic of AGW that I know of. By contrast, the physical evidence for the Anthropogenic Global Warming thesis are not at all immediate and overwhelming. See the Royal Society review of climate science. Some parts of the world are getting colder. It snowed in Argentina recently for the first time in recent memory. And that's just the matter of whether we are in a warming trend. As to causes, that requires computer models and such. I am not saying that AGW is wrong. But the Holocaust had thousands of witnesses, mountains of documents, empty bottles of poison gas, thousands of photographs. Can you really not appreciate the difference?

Anthony: I think you put it very well. While I am a very convinced Darwinist (that is what I teach and what I do in my research) I think that a reasonable scientist might dissent from Darwinian orthodoxy. Consider Fodor's recent work.


Evolution denial is a relevant example. As are HIV denialism, claims the U.S. brought down the World Trade Center, and anti-vaccination. As well as Holocaust denial.

People do study denialism communities, and find they share rhetorical traditions. The groups ignore strong consensus established by scholarly literature, tend not to publish in the literature themselves, and rely on pseudo-experts, logical fallacies, and moving goal posts to project the illusion that significant doubts exist in the major tenets of a particular field of study, when in fact no such significant doubts exist.

Because of the weakness of their position, they ultimately must invoke the existence of a nebulous conspiracy that exists to keep the truth at bay (scientists have an ulterior motive, Zionist conspiracy, the first two comments on this thread).

Any remotely relevant piece of information is amplified, and false claims are repeated even after they've been shown to be wrong or irrelevant. We're still hearing about hacked e-mails and investigations into Hansen from global warming deniers. They forget to mention that independent investigations have shown no wrong doing on the part of scientists. And no evidence exists showing that global warming is fake or not primarily due to man's activities.

They also fail to mention the rampant plagiarism and false claims in the Wegman report to Congress, Monckton's numerous errors of fact in testimony before Congress, issuing a correction when journalist Jonathon Leake's original newspaper article gets retracted, or McIntyre admitting he already had climate data from the providing agency but still harassed CRU for the data they'd obtained from the same agency and signed a material transfer agreement with.

Holocaust deniers have sued for libel in an attempt to acquire legitimacy. They amplify the importance of a lack of evidence of people being gassed at Dachau as falsifying the Holocaust. On this thread KB points out it snowed in Argentina. In both cases, we are left to wonder about the relevance. Holocaust deniers constantly say documents were mistranslated or the context was misunderstood. How much different is that from KB saying that climate is complicated?

It still ignores that 95% of climate scientists accept the evidence for the consensus. It ignores this summer's report from NOOA
As well as all the other independent groups, like the NRC, that examined the evidence.

We do get a link to the Australian, known for climate denialism, and most recently claiming that the UN is about to appoint an astrophysicist to be first contact for space aliens. But what does the primary Royal Society document actually say?

In the section 'Aspects of climate change on which there is wide agreement' it includes a section stating the temperature has increased, the climate has changed, changes in the atmosphere resulting from human activity have enhanced the natural greenhouse effect, CO2 can lead to climate change, and the changes will have profound effects on ecosystems and coastal communities. These are the central tenets of the global warming consensus. Or do you want to move some goal posts now?

larry kurtz

Did that commenter really use the name "Larry" in vain?

Denature's analogue might be the resisters at Douglas High School refusing to recite the pledge of allegiance. South Dakota is all the evidence that anyone needs of how paradise has devolved into a chemical toilet.

Donald Pay

I generally don't watch violent "entertainment." Just by looking at the visual you display, I know I have no interest clicking on it. I do not know, nor care to speculate about why people might think it is funny. I do wonder, though, at people who watch this stuff, and then use the term "ecofascism." I suspect that the piece is making a snarky comment on the over-the-top rhetoric and beliefs of people on the right who throw around the term ecofascism to apply to the scientists who have spent fifty years studying this issue. Maybe they are trying to show you what real econfascism might look like to get you to realize that your rhetoric is as over-the-top as the visuals. I'm just saying maybe the movie hit too uncomfortably close to your own prejudices.


Donald: I sympathize with your desire to avoid viewing anything distasteful, but if you haven't seen the clip I am not sure what we have to talk about. I used the term ecofascism (but not ecofascists) to describe the clip and only the clip. I certainly did not apply it to any scientists. I used it because it is a perfectly accurate description. The idea that anyone who dissents from the party line should be murdered is the heart of fascism, if anything is. Whatever the intent of the clip, and whatever mood it was offered in, that is what the clip said and it said nothing else. That is fascism applied for purposes of ecological salvation. The nobility of the cause cannot redeem it.

Before you try to remove the splinter of prejudice from my eye, you might examine your own. Would you be defending this clip if it had been produced by Republicans? I certainly hope I would react the same as I have here. At any rate, I confess to being prejudiced against fascism, whether on the left or right.


denature: I agree that there are "denialist" cultures out there. Creationism, I think, is one we can agree on. Creationists are not honest interpreters of the evidence, and I know of no competent or serious scientist in that camp. I am a confirmed Darwinist. I teach the theory and use in in my scholarship. Darwin is one of my heroes.

That doesn't mean that any criticism of evolutionary theory is dishonest, unprofessional, or "denialist". I think the Intelligent Design people are waging a losing battle and I am quite unconvinced by their case. But they are serious people trying very hard to present a serious critique. Some of them are genuine scientists and scholars. Likewise I think the recent critique of Darwinism by Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini fails utterly. But it is a very instructive failure. As in the case of Intelligent Design, Darwinism emerges stronger from the encounter. I have a better understanding of after thinking the criticism through than I did before.

You, by contrast, seem to think that any and every criticism of the Global Warming Thesis is illegitimate. You clearly wish to isolate the argument from any challenge, and declare any contrary evidence falsified in advance. You keep talking about the scientific consensus, and citing very odd statistics like "95% of scientists" as if consensus or super-majorities had anything to do with science.

That, I think, is the difference between the two of us.


Clearly this is a marvelous marketing ploy; that will work wonders.

Look at two of their examples; teacher in a classroom, and boss at a business. Telling their employees to do something and seeing if any disagree. Then using lethal force to kill those who disagree.

Nobody likes an underdog, like those few who don't participate; but everyone loves a bully.

What, everyone doesn't love a bully, most people actually will root for an underdog? Oh, then this won't do them any good at all... whoops. I always root for the Terminator/Godzilla/CEO/Bully myself.

I almost shed a tear during Matilda when Trunchbull was driven from the school by that bratty kid who wouldn't do as she was commanded. I just assumed everyone thought it was a sad movie like I did.


Kudos. You managed to move the goal posts and construct a straw man argument. In fact you used the same straw man as creationists--we just want the weaknesses of the theory to be taught, why are scientists so unreasonable.

Consensus is important in science. The stronger the evidence the higher the burden of proof to overturn that evidence. With global warming we have 40 years of evidence and numerous independent reviews of the evidence reaching the same conclusion. There is a serious absence of dissenting views from the professionals. What other emerging science since the 70's has that strong of support? Endosymbiosis? The prion model of disease? Overturning that consensus requires more than a cold spell in Argentina.

That 95% of working climatologists accept the major tenets of global warming came from a published paper. Where is the publication and confirming follow-ups showing 1) the planet isn't warming 2) the warming isn't primarily due to human activities 3) And this warming will not have significant consequences overall for the planet?

These are the three points that denialists argue against. Not legitimate arguments about the facets of climate change in which there is less confidence. These arguments do take place in the literature and at conferences.

Similarly, creationists aren't interested in a discussion of the merits of punctuated equilibrium compared to gradualism. They want 'God did it' to be an option taught in a public science classroom.

If you're interested in legitimate criticism then why not state what that criticism is? We can look at the published data and ignore the ramblings from conservative think tanks. Or is the criticism related to one of the three tenets above, which comprise the major focus of funded efforts to cast doubt on global warming? The Royal Society writing you wanted me to read agrees with my viewpoint. As does our National Academy of Science.

That you think intelligent design proponents are serious people presenting a serious critique is disturbing. You might want to read the Dover decision or the Wedge document. Serious scholars also spend their money on actual research instead of funneling it all into PR. Like all denialist movements, their views are established first from ideology, not from a legitimate effort to critique the science. Portraying oneself as the underdog fighting for an inalienable right in the face of elitist scientists is also a common tactic of denialist groups.

If you are actually interested in a perspective about the difference between a climate denialist and someone with legitimate questions, you may want to examine this essay from David Brin.

Random interjection

Anyone here ever heard of Linkola?

I recall numerous occasions when I've asked about the empirical evidence for CAGW, and got only evasion. Now that we are talking about Green Supremacists openly revealing their amusement at the idea of murdering all the infidels, we're suddenly being diverted onto a learned discussion of scientific appeals to authority.

Consensus is *not* an important part of science. Anybody saying that reveals an utter incomprehension of what science is all about. It's like saying sin is an important part of Christianity. Argument from Authority is the opposite of science.

Nor is it even true. The ratio is roughly 85% to 15% amongst the publishing climate science community, although it depends on exactly what question you ask. If you phrase it one way, you'll get more, if you phrase it a slightly different way, you'll get a lot less.

There is plenty of good (and also peer-reviewed) science casting doubt on the CAGW thesis, but there's no point in even bringing it up because some weasel way of dismissing it will always be found. Anybody who followed the debate seriously would know about it, so anybody denying reality by saying it doesn't exist is not worth arguing with.

Evolutionists do not produce joke movies in which schoolchildren who are insufficiently atheist are summarily executed. Greens do. There's no comparison.

The comments to this entry are closed.