10:10: who are YOU going to kill to help save the planet?

Hey kids, the big day’s here. It’s 10/10/10 and that if you’ve been following the campaign of Franny Armstrong, Richard Curtis, Eugenie and all their other nicely-spoken, privately-educated, Daddy-funded, Guardian-reading trustafarian chums at 10:10, you’ll know that means just one thing: Climate Action.

So what are you going to do today? Here are a few suggestions, inspired Richard Curtis’s campaign video which has proved so successful that at least 20,000 10:10 signatories were inspired to resign. Well done Richard!

(to read more, click here)

15 thoughts on “10:10: who are YOU going to kill to help save the planet?”

  1. James,

    Why is this chap Chivers, who apparently is somebody employed by the Dental Telepath, sticking his oar in on your Desperate Tonsillectomy blog? (Sorry, it’s less boring than ‘DT’ and much less boring than the real name.) Apparently there will be no discussion of words he doesn’t like. He has already put us on notice that ‘eco-fascist’ and ‘conspiracy’ are evil words to his mind, therefore no such things could possibly exist and certainly should not be bruited. Next it will be ‘agenda’, ‘watermelons’, ‘Leftist’, ‘taxes’, and other norty words that might alert certain unenlightened readers to the path of unenlightenment. And we can’t have that.

    But — soft! — how can I speak like that? For I am now one of the new-enlightened. I have seen, on account of the gentle chastening of the past few days, the error of my past life. I have come to see Michael Mann as a persecuted hero, and Phil Jones now looks quite lovely in my eyes.

    I do hope that you appreciate all that Chivers, and especially my own favourite darling Damocles, are trying to do. In the name of truth, justice, and the AGW way.

    Yours most sincerely and contritely,

  2. James,

    You may be (mildly) interested to know that there is a competition running here


    the best submissions of which, get to have their questions posed in the New Zealand Parliament to the Minister Responsible for Climate Change Issues, Nick Smith.

    International entries are invited.

    There is a separate category that is only of local importance – something to do with a Court Case that you could skip but I thought that you may wish to make an entry that is generic in nature.

    I provide my example below for your assistance but note that it is more specific, loaded to the hilt, and designed to induce squirming

    To the Minister Responsible for Climate Change Issues, Nick Smith:

    Question 1, Does the Minister concede that the case for an ETS has completely unravelled given the overwhelming body of scientific literature that has been presented since the beginning of the 21st century that is contrary to the consensus established by the IPCC that is its basis?

    Question 2. Does the Minister concede that recent revelations of the increasing levels of uncertainty in the conclusions of the IPCC with particular reference to climate models are sufficient for the repeal of the Climate Change Response Act 2002 and the December 2009 amendment?


    Richard Cumming (NZ)

  3. Trustafarians, eh? Well you’ll know all about that Delusionpole! So let’s precis what’s going on here: your qualifications in the field of climatology – nil. Your expertise in the field – nil. Your experience of experimental science – nil. Your credentials for commenting – being a right-wing loony. Your areas of specialist knowledge – using the usual upper-class right-wing network beloved of all Telegraph wannabes to ‘build’ a ‘career’, and shagging brainless debs called Jules or Melissa. Your source for the Martin Luther quote in the Telegraph today (what an insult to Luther!) – an ex-TV weatherman and right-wing loony who sees a ‘liberal’ conspiracy in the media.

    Conclusion – you’re a joke. You should have continued to plat Anthony in the Royle Family… answering the door and making pots of tea is pretty much at the limits of your intellect.

    Prediction – you’ll remove this post because right-wing loonies can’t stand to have their delusions challenged.

  4. re: Global Warming.

    I’ve never understood why people (mostly conservatives) who aren’t scientists comment on the work of other people who are scientists. I’m not a scientist so I haven’t got a clue whether Global Warming is true or not, real or unreal.

    When it comes to public policy, why shouldn’t the electorate just follow the advice of the majority of scientists, since they (the public) aren’t scientists themselves? I go to the doctor because he knows my body better than I do.

    Sure you can cite one scientist who refutes Global Warming. Then I’ll name one who supports it. Then you’ll cite another. And so on, forever & forever. Amen.

    Maybe this is a ten trillion dollar con game. But in the end, neither you nor I will ever find out whether we won or lost that game. (At least for another 50 years.)

    As for the present, let’s leave the debate to those who know what they’re talking about. I can’t speak for you but I know for sure that wouldn’t include me.


  5. I find it interesting, this notion that those of us who aren’t scientists should trust those who are. Well, up to a point.

    I’m happy to leave particle physics to the experts, having only an O level in the subject, but I still read enough to know what a boson is and (roughly) what’s going on at CERN. OK, my mind mists over a little when people start asking me to imagine 4-d spacetime, but I find their arguments interesting and compelling.

    In chemistry, again I only have an O-level there, so I’m quite happy to rely on others to figure out the best alloy to use in aeroplanes that I use, but again I’ve dipped into books an aeronautical engineering, and jolly interesting it is too.

    In the area of finance, I think many of us previously were happy for other people to understand the detailed ins and outs of complex derivatives, but I have to say that when mortgage-backed securities were first explained to me, it seemed quite clear to me that they weren’t achieving anything like the risk-spreading that they claimed to be. I wasn’t qualified to opine on that either, but I did, and I was right to.

    And when my children were being born, despite having no previous experience at all of obstetrics I was quite right to insist to the midwives that they needed to call the doctor immediately, which they acknowledged afterwards. If I’d followed your advice then my eldest would be a good deal more handicapped than he is, or perhaps wouldn’t be here at all.

    And in the few fields I am qualified in and do understand very well indeed, it’s always startling to see just how many mistakes people make, how many groundless myths become widespread beliefs, how many eminent, honest, brilliant scholars make foolish errors of judgement and careless slips.

    So on climate, I freely admit to not knowing the difference between a cumulonimbus and a tiger’s bum, but even a small amount of reading around this subject does not fill me with reassurance that all is well. Seemingly reasonable objections are met, not with rational argument, but with furious insults. Seemingly well-qualified scientists have plenty of doubts, while many of those claiming to represent the AGW science actually aren’t qualified in relevant science; I don’t really care what biologists or former vice presidents think about climatology.

    So you need to stop this “pay no attention to the man behind the curtain” approach and acknowledge that a geography (or any) degree is not in itself sufficient for me to believe unquestioningly.

  6. Yes Manuel, our common sense is being insulted.

    You say:

    “I find it interesting, this notion that those of us who aren’t scientists should trust those who are. Well, up to a point.”

    And I say:

    “It is not compulsory to be a climate scientist in order to check the weather or the climate.”

    The AGW faction of climate science seems to think that their particular branch of science is completely unintelligible to any other field of science, engineering, medicine, law, architecture etc and the trades: electricians, builders, nurses, HVAC technicians and farmers out in the weather/climate all year round and mums taking their kids to school and that the very special nature of AGW climate science must be interpreted to us in Janet and John “trust us” fashion.

    But the simple fact is: that climate science is not unintelligible to every-one but them; Stephen Wilde (a Solicitor) has figured it out, and anyone with a rudimentary education can do the same, and even that’s not strictly necessary when simple observation will suffice.

    Also, since when does the IPCC have a monopoly on knowledge of the future?

    I suggest that there are people who regularly work with heat or sea level or atmosphere such as boiler operators or port operators or airline pilots for example, that are in the same or even better position than “climate change communicators” and climate scientists to assess the merits or otherwise of the CAGW case.

    And Climate Action splatter videos do not assist the process of understanding except to provide insight into the barrenness of argument.

  7. Well said gents, the barren arguments are what turned me against these arrogant tits. As somebody who lives by and fishes the British coast (Anglesey to be precise) I asked an innocent question on a “Scientific” internet forum querying how sea levels can be rising in one part of the sea but not in another (because they definitely aren’t here). I never got a plausible answer. Instead I got a tirade of vicious abuse.

    So if George Monbiot, Prince Charles, Al Gore or any other eminent scientists want to explain to me I will greet them with a cup of tea and a plate of Welsh cakes.

    If not I will dangle them of the end of the Holyhead breakwater as mackeral bait.

  8. James,

    I’m confused.

    Is Grimble a friend masquerading in troll trappings or is he the real thing?

    I can’t make him out.

    Please excuse my lack of insight but when you’re upside down on the other side of the globe, there’s such a head-rush, it makes it hard to think – like bungy jumping, but without the bungy…or the jump.


  9. Re 10:54, 9:17, 10:04

    Joseph A Olson, PE says it better.

    Climate Science’s Worst Week in History

    Facing mass revolt from its determined objective members, the Royal Society was forced to back off from the previous total endorsement of the ‘human caused climate’ FRAUD. The RS issued new guide lines which included the following statements:

    “Lack of access to the latest knowledge about climate research is one of the primary reason[s] for the constant doubt and misinformation in the minds of COMMON PEOPLE”

    Yes, COMMON PEOPLE are too stupid to neglect ALL information that is not filtered by the PROPER authority figure. The RS then amplified this statement urging mob rule to demand immediate action:

    “COMMON PEOPLE armed with the right scientific knowledge would certainly exert pressure on their respective governments to take action on Climate Change.”

    Yes, COMMON PEOPLE of the world rise up and demand to be placed in carbon shackles and chains. Adding to the UK woes, the BBC was forced to admit bias and issued the following statement:

    “The BBC must be inclusive, consider the broad perspective and ensure that the existence of a range of views is appropriately reflected.”

    [Further on]

    It is time for the COMMON PEOPLE to rise up against the Royalist, Monopolists and Elitist Alliance. They have intentionally dumbed-down our schools, corrupted our governments, systematically lied through their puppet media and bankrupted us with fiat financing. It is time for universal freedom from these tyrants.


Comments are closed.