<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:times new roman,new york,times,serif;font-size:12pt">How do you get people's attention in the constant bombardment of media messages? By being outrageous, or in bad taste (<span style="font-style: italic;">eg, </span>Lady GaGa)? Here's a clever ploy that brought the airline all kinds of grief from the usual PC enforcement squads:<br><br><span><a target="_blank" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lqh8e2KYIrU&feature=player_embedded">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lqh8e2KYIrU&feature=player_embedded</a></span><br><br><br> Ron Force<br>Moscow Idaho USA<div><br></div><div style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br><div style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"><font face="Tahoma" size="2"><hr size="1"><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">From:</span></b> Paul Rumelhart
<godshatter@yahoo.com><br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">To:</span></b> Ted Moffett <starbliss@gmail.com><br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Cc:</span></b> Vision2020 <vision2020@moscow.com><br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Sent:</span></b> Tue, October 5, 2010 4:59:56 PM<br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Subject:</span></b> Re: [Vision2020] "Hard to Get Discussion Going?" Re: Bill McKibben Commentary Re: 10:10 "no pressure" video<br></font><br>
<br>Actually, I was looking for your opinion (and the opinions of others on <br>this list). If I had wanted to know what Bill McKibben thought about <br>it, I'd either have asked him or googled it.<br><br>Myself, I wasn't really all that shocked by the video, rather I saw it <br>as an opportunity to ask the question "how far is too far". I did think <br>it was in bad taste, but I'm generally a fan of black humor. That kind <br>of humor works best, though, when there is some truth to it. If we <br>really are talking about the possible end of the human race (which I <br>don't believe), then how far *is* too far?<br><br>I have given up on asking people to watch the video, though.<br><br>Paul<br><br>Ted Moffett wrote:<br>> *Paul Rumelhart* godshatter at <a target="_blank" href="http://yahoo.com">yahoo.com</a> <br>>
<mailto:vision2020%40moscow.com?Subject=%5BVision2020%5D%20%22Age%20of%20Stupid%22%20Director%20a%20Woman%2C%0A%20Not%20a%20%22Guy%22%20Re%3A%20%2010%3A10%20%22no%20pressure%22%20video&In-Reply-To=921570.20683.qm%40web46102.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>wrote:<br>> <br><span>> <a target="_blank" href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-October/071795.html">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-October/071795.html</a></span><br>><br>> /Mon Oct 4 16:56:02 PDT 2010/<br>> Believe me, I'm as big a Monty Python fan as anybody.<br>><br>> I'd still like to see a discussion about how far is too far, though.<br>><br>> Why is it so hard to get a discussion going here?<br>> ---------------------------<br>> I offered the commentary, sent again below, regarding the "No <br>> Pressure" film from author, professor and promoter of the <br><span>> <a target="_blank"
href="http://www.350.org">http://www.350.org</a> effort to lower greenhouse gas emissions, Bill </span><br>> McKibben, and given what I have read about this film, I agree with <br>> McKibben. I did attempt to view the film, but the URL requested a <br>> log-in. I suppose the URL requested a log-in because of efforts to <br>> block viewing of the film originating from the "10:10" campaign, given <br>> the widespread negative reaction.<br>> <br>> Apparently, you don't think Bill McKibben's commentary worth <br>> commenting on, at least as far as what I have read on Vision2020... <br>> But the fact I posted it certainly qualifies as an effort to "...get a <br>> discussion going..." McKibben states rather unequivocally that the <br>> film in question goes "too far," though he did not use those exact words.<br>> <br>> While on the topic of subjects on which it is hard to get a discussion
<br>> going, below are two posts I authored from recent months that <br>> specifically addressed issues regarding climate science, that you has <br>> previously commented on, that as far as I have read on Vision2020, <br>> unless I missed it, have never received a response from you. <br>> <br>> I also sometimes feel frustrated by the lack of discussion on this <br>> list regarding important subjects, but also appreciate the voluntary <br>> nature of participation here... So respond or not, as you wish.<br>> <br>> In the first post below, I emphatically disagreed with your statement <br>> that the list of estimates of climate sensitivity sourced from <br>> Levenson's research, from the work of many scientists for over a <br>> century, are "all over the board," and explore other critical issues <br>> regarding climate sensitivity:<br>><br>><br>> [Vision2020] Exploring Implications of
Levenson's List of Estimates<br>> of Climate Sensitivity<br>><br><span>> <a target="_blank" href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-July/070882.html">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-July/070882.html</a></span><br>><br>><br>> ---------------------------<br>><br>> In the following post with the subject heading mentioning Edward's <br>> well reviewed book, "A Vast Machine," a must read for anyone who <br>> thinks they understand how data is gathered on weather and climate, I <br>> made the following statement regarding one of your posts:<br>><br>> "Regarding the DiPuccio "weblog" on ocean heat, for a self described <br>> "skeptic," you are remarkably unskeptical when it comes to presenting <br>> "scientific" statements as reliable, from sources that do not <br>> represent a comprehensive and balanced view of all the published peer <br>> reviewed science on a
given issue."<br>><br>><br>> [Vision2020] MIT Press: Paul N. Edwards "A Vast Machine: Computer<br>> Models, Climate Data, and the Politics of Global Warming"<br>><br><span>> <a target="_blank" href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-September/071648.html">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-September/071648.html</a></span><br>> <br>> On 10/4/10, *Ted Moffett* <<a ymailto="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com" href="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com">starbliss@gmail.com</a> <br>> <mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com" href="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com">starbliss@gmail.com</a>>> wrote:<br>><br>> <br><span>> <a target="_blank" href="http://climateprogress.org/2010/10/01/bill-mckibben-days-that-suck/">http://climateprogress.org/2010/10/01/bill-mckibben-days-that-suck/</a></span><br>><br>><br>>
(A response to the "No Pressure" Video)<br>><br>> October 1, 2010<br>><br>> /Bill McKibben — some-time guest blogger and the author most<br>> recently of the must-read<br><span>> <<a target="_blank" href="http://climateprogress.org/2010/05/22/review-bill-mckibben-book-eaarth/">http://climateprogress.org/2010/05/22/review-bill-mckibben-book-eaarth/</a>></span><br>> book ///Eaarth — has asked me to post this response to a noxious<br>> video that some irresponsible folks in the UK put together.//<br>><br>> I just climbed off an airplane at Boston’s Logan Airport. The day<br>> began in Monterrey, Mexico–and though I was tired, I was also<br>> feeling pretty good. Our big day of action on October 10th has<br>> been building to a crescendo: we yesterday broke our record
from<br>> last year, registering more than 5500 actions for the big Global<br>> Work Party.<br>><br>> But I’d barely turned on my computer when that good feeling turned<br>> to a kind of quiet nausea. There were emails from people all<br>> saying the same thing: Have you seen this? This was a gross video<br>> making its way around Youtube, purporting to show people being<br>> blown up for not believing in climate change. It’s been “pulled”<br>> from Youtube by its creators, the British climate group 10:10, but<br>> of course nothing is ever really “pulled” from Youtube. If you<br>> want to watch it bad enough, I’m pretty sure you can find it. Or<br>> you can look at the stories by climate deniers assailing it as the<br>> latest example
of eco-fascism.<br>> The climate skeptics can crow. It’s the kind of stupidity that<br>> hurts our side, reinforcing in people’s minds a series of<br>> preconceived notions, not the least of which is that we’re<br>> out-of-control and out of touch — not to mention off the wall, and<br>> also with completely misplaced sense of humor.<br>><br>> We put out a statement at <a target="_blank" href="http://350.org">350.org</a><span> <<a target="_blank" href="http://350.org/">http://350.org/</a>> saying we had</span><br>> nothing to do with it–we didn’t see it till it had made its way<br>> around the web, and as soon as we did we let people know we<br>> thought it was disgusting. We’ve known the creators for<br>> years–they put out a statement apologizing
for their lapse. But<br>> it’s the kind of mistake that will hurt efforts. What makes it so<br>> depressing is that it’s the precise opposite of what the people<br>> organizing around the world for October 10 are all about. In the<br>> first place, they’re as responsible as it’s possible to be: <br>> They’ll spend the day putting up windmills and solar panels,<br>> laying out bike paths and digging community gardens. And in the<br>> second place, they’re doing it because they realize kids are<br>> already dying from climate change, and that many many more are at<br>> risk as the century winds on. Killing people is, literally, the<br>> last thing we want.<br>><br>> There’s no question that crap like this will cast a shadow, for a<br>>
time, over our efforts and everyone else who’s working on global<br>> warming. We’re hard at work, as always, but we’re doing it today<br>> with a sunk and sad feeling.<br>><br>> – Bill McKibben<br>><br>> /JR: The video is beyond tasteless and should be widely<br>> condemned. Individual anti-science, pro-pollution disinformers,<br>> of course, routinely promote hate speech but you rarely see anyone<br>> on their side denounces them. I’m speaking of people like Anthony<br>> Watts, with his utterly offensive comments on the Purported<br>> eco-terrorist who was shot and killed by police<br><span>> <<a target="_blank"
href="http://climateprogress.org/2010/09/01/eco-terrorist-shot-and-killed-by-police-wattsupwiththat/">http://climateprogress.org/2010/09/01/eco-terrorist-shot-and-killed-by-police-wattsupwiththat/</a>>. </span><br>> And of course there’s the Swift Boat smearer (see “UK Guardian<br>> slams Morano for cyber-bullying and for urging violence against<br>> climate scientists<br><span>> <<a target="_blank" href="http://climateprogress.org/2010/07/15/uk-guardian-slams-morano-for-cyber-bullying-and-for-urging-violence-against-climate-scientists/">http://climateprogress.org/2010/07/15/uk-guardian-slams-morano-for-cyber-bullying-and-for-urging-violence-against-climate-scientists/</a>>“). </span><br>> And the worst of all is Lord Monckton **(see Monckton repeats and<br>> expands on his charge that those who embrace climate science
are<br>> “Hitler youth” and fascists<br><span>> <<a target="_blank" href="http://climateprogress.org/2009/12/12/tvmob-hate-speech-lord-monckton-hitler-youth-fascist-climate-activists/%3E%29*.*/">http://climateprogress.org/2009/12/12/tvmob-hate-speech-lord-monckton-hitler-youth-fascist-climate-activists/>)*.*/</a></span><br>><br>> */None of this excuses that disgusting video. But the difference<br>> is that those who are trying to preserve a livable climate and<br>> hence the health and well-being of our children and billions of<br>> people this century quickly denounce the few offensive<br>> over-reaches of those who claim to share our goals — but those<br>> trying to destroy a livable climate, well, for them lies and hate<br>> speech are the modus operandi, so such behavior is not
only<br>> tolerated, but encouraged./*<br>><br>> /Please keep the comments civil. And no, I’m not linking to the<br>> video. You can find it only if you want.<br>> --------------------------------------------/<br>><br>> /Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett/<br>><br>> On 10/3/10, *Paul Rumelhart* <<a ymailto="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com" href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</a><br>> <mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com" href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>>> wrote:<br>><br>><br>> I got the gender of the director of "the Age of Stupid" wrong.<br>> My apologies.<br>><br>> If any one out there is brave enough to watch this video that<br>>
is intended for mass consumption by the public at large,<br>> please do so and let me know what you think. If you can spare<br>> some time from your researches on climate change, of course.<br>><br>> Paul<br>><br>> Ted Moffett wrote:<br>><br>> The director of "the Age of Stupid" is not a guy, given a<br>> meaning of this word to be "a male." When this film came<br>> out last year, I repeatedly posted information to<br>> Vision2020 about it, specifically referring to the<br>> director, Franny Armstrong, who also directed such<br>>
noteworthy films as "McLibel" and "Drowned Out." Read<br>> about Ms. Armstrong and her film making efforts at website<br>> below<br><span>> <a target="_blank" href="http://www.spannerfilms.net/people/franny_armstrong">http://www.spannerfilms.net/people/franny_armstrong</a></span><br>> ---------------------- Some people toss the word "guy"<br>> around in a gender neutral way, as in "you guys" referring<br>> to a group of men and/or women. But when specifically<br>> referring to the director of a film, to call them a "guy"<br>> I think in most people's minds indicates they are a
male.<br>> I did not watch the video you posted a link to, given I<br>> have far more professional and in depth sources to spend<br>> my limited time studying, regarding what is required to<br>> address lowering CO2 emissions. However, I did a quick<br>> search on the 10:10 campaign and found a different video<br>> on YouTube regarding "The Guardian's 10:10 climate change<br>> campaign," which I did not watch either, but I suspect<br>> refers to the major United Kingdom newspaper "The Guardian."<br><span>> <a target="_blank"
href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=314UCvMmgrU">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=314UCvMmgrU</a></span><br>> ---------------<br>> For anyone serious about considering plans to lower CO2<br>> emissions to address anthropogenic climate warming, I<br>> recommend study of the following plan from the Earth<br>> Policy Institute for lowering global emissions 80 percent<br>> by 2020, or read NASA climate scientist James Hansen's<br>> book, 'Storms of My Grandchildren." There are numerous<br>> professional and in depth sources addressing this problem,<br>>
but these two sources are certainly worth consideration.<br>> The Earth Policy Institute has discussed "tax shifting"<br>> to encourage less reliance on fossil fuels, and James<br>> Hansen has advocated a "fee and dividend" plan.<br>> Peculiarly, these alternative plans to "cap and trade"<br>> are rarely discussed in mainstream media, as far as I have<br>> noted. James Hansen has specifically stated that "cap and<br>> trade" is a flawed approach.<br>> I have posted information on the Earth Policy Institute<br>> plan and
James Hansen's plans repeatedly, yet I do not<br>> recall anyone on this list ever responding "onlist"<br>> specifically to these sources:<br>> Information on Earth Policy Institute's "80 by 2020" plan:<br><span>> <a target="_blank" href="http://www.earth-policy.org/datacenter/pdf/80by2020doc.pdf">http://www.earth-policy.org/datacenter/pdf/80by2020doc.pdf</a></span><br>> James Hansen on "fee and dividend" plan as discussed in a<br>> New York Times article "Cap and Fade." The article title<br>> makes it rather clear that Hansen does not promote "cap<br>> and
trade:"<br><span>> <a target="_blank" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/07/opinion/07hansen.html">http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/07/opinion/07hansen.html</a></span><br>> ------------------------------------------<br>> Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett<br>> On 9/30/10, *Paul Rumelhart* <<a ymailto="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com" href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</a><br>> <mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com" href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>> <mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com" href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</a><br>> <mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com"
href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>>>> wrote:<br>><br>> I just stumbled upon this (may contain disturbing images):<br>><br><span>> <a target="_blank" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UHN3zHoYA0">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UHN3zHoYA0</a></span><br>><br>> It's a video about the "10:10 campaign" that encourages<br>> people to cut<br>> their carbon footprints by 10%, with a rather remarkable<br>> punishment for<br>> those who aren't willing to do so.<br>><br>>
This isn't a small-time production, either. It's<br>> directed by the guy<br>> who directed The Age of Stupid, it's written by the<br>> screenwriters that<br>> wrote "Four Weddings", it has a soundtrack provided by<br>> Radiohead,<br>> and it<br>> has a cameo by Gillian Anderson of X Files fame.<br>><br>> While I'm not blind to the humor involved, is this<br>> really the<br>> message we<br>>
want to get across? Play ball or die? I mean, I'm<br>> willing to<br>> conserve<br>> energy and reduce gasoline usage without death threats.<br>> I just don't<br>> think that "climate change" is necessarily the<br>> Armageddon it's<br>> made out<br>> to be, and this makes me wonder about the people<br>> pushing that<br>> particular<br>>
agenda.<br>><br>> Anyway, take a look and let us know what you think.<br>><br>> Paul<br>><br>> P. S. I'm *really* hoping that Ted didn't get issued<br>> one of those red<br>> buttons...<br>><br>><br>><br>><br><br>=======================================================<br> List services made available by First Step Internet, <br> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. <br><span> <a target="_blank" href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</a> </span><br> mailto:<a
ymailto="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>=======================================================<br></div></div>
</div><br>
</body></html>