View Full Version : Another Insane Ad From the Enviro Wackos
red states rule
10-02-2010, 03:03 PM
The "10-10" campaign from the tree huggers has hit a new low even for them
Watch the ads - if you can sit thru all of them - and see how nutty these idiots have become
<object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/PDXQsnkuBCM&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/PDXQsnkuBCM&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object>
revelarts
10-02-2010, 05:58 PM
this is not insane, it's insidious. It goes to the core aim of many who promote the eviro lies. they want a load of people dead. the ad is down right evil, they make a joke out of what some would really would like to do.
BoogyMan
10-02-2010, 06:06 PM
Heh, I already posted this one here: http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?29409-No-Pressure&highlight=pressure.
It is a pretty despicable effort from the enviro-loons and gives us a peek into their mindset.
That's pretty damn dry, I love it :laugh:
SassyLady
10-03-2010, 12:25 AM
10:10 Apologizes and pulls video.
Climate Change Group Apologizes for Violent Video (http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/10/02/climate-change-group-apologizes-violent-video)
by LA Holmes (http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/contributors/la-holmes) | October 02, 2010
Emaciated polar bears clutching to melting icebergs. Smokestacks fading to reveal wind turbines and clear air. These are the kinds of images you typically see in a TV spot for climate change awareness or clean energy use.
But exploding children?
That's precisely what's depicted in a new ad released Friday by British clean energy group 10:10 (http://www.1010global.org/), ironically titled "No Pressure."
The ad, or "mini-movie" as the 10:10 website describes it, features four vignettes where groups of people discuss their efforts to reduce their carbon footprints. In the first, a schoolteacher tells her class about energy-saving light bulbs and transportation alternatives, then asks students to raise their hands if they agree to use those "green" options. Most comply, but two shrug their shoulders and decide not to participate. "That's fine, it's absolutely fine; your own choice," the teacher says before she pulls out a detonator and summarily blows up the dissenters, to the shock of their classmates.
This theme carries throughout the film-at an office, a soccer field, and a radio studio-and each time, those individuals who appear indifferent toward or choose not to adopt energy-saving technologies meet their bloody demise at the hands of their "greener" cohorts. Information about 10:10 and its mission isn't delivered until three-quarters into the four-minute film, when a woman's voice asks, "Care to join us? No pressure."
Carey Campbell, chairman of Virginia's Independent Green Party, expressed shock when he heard a description of the video: "Holy cow, those people are crazier than a loon! Drunk on moonshine!"
"We need more candidates, less apathy. We need more trains, less traffic; nationwide high speed rail; cut dependence on foreign oil in half," and depictions of violence aren't the way to get there, he said.
The video went viral Friday, but it soon appeared that 10:10 was the one under pressure. Just hours after the film was posted, 10:10 removed the ad from its website and issued an apology (http://www.1010global.org/uk/2010/10/sorry).
"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 to the headlines whilst making people laugh," the statement read, so the group enlisted a comedy writer to put the concept together.
"Many people found the resulting film extremely funny, but unfortunately some didn't and we sincerely apologise [sic] to anybody we have offended."
Though the ad is no longer posted on 10:10's website, the group said it would not attempt to "censor or remove" copies that exist elsewhere online.
"Unfortunately in this instance we missed the mark," the mea culpa continued. "Oh well, we live and learn."
Read more: http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/10/02/climate-change-group-apologizes-violent-video?test=latestnews#ixzz11GosdoVJ
They aren't saying sorry, this advert has *worked*. Yes they made it, and thus incurred the production costs, however, they avoided the biggset cost, paying TV companies for ad slots. They simply made the controversial video, waited for it to go viral and then pulled it.
SassyLady
10-03-2010, 04:08 AM
They aren't saying sorry, this advert has *worked*. Yes they made it, and thus incurred the production costs, however, they avoided the biggset cost, paying TV companies for ad slots. They simply made the controversial video, waited for it to go viral and then pulled it.
They did apologize, and I do agree that they got exactly what they wanted....which is to go viral. They are not going to pursue censoring or removing it from other websites. I must say that it was extremely offensive and just confirmed to me that a lot of environmentalists are a little wacko.
Gaffer
10-03-2010, 07:58 AM
They did apologize, and I do agree that they got exactly what they wanted....which is to go viral. They are not going to pursue censoring or removing it from other websites. I must say that it was extremely offensive and just confirmed to me that a lot of environmentalists are a little wacko.
I disagree, I think most environmentalists are a LOT wacko.
bullypulpit
10-06-2010, 04:34 AM
Monty Python couldn't have done it better...well maybe more of a smoke and flash kinda thing. But just 'cuz y'all choose to ignore the fact of global climate change doesn't mean you will be able to ignore its impact. You should have outgrown the magical thinking of childhood long ago.
red states rule
10-06-2010, 04:41 AM
Monty Python couldn't have done it better...well maybe more of a smoke and flash kinda thing. But just 'cuz y'all choose to ignore the fact of global climate change doesn't mean you will be able to ignore its impact. You should have outgrown the magical thinking of childhood long ago.
Is this comedy BP when the enviro wackos say that those of us who do buy into their doom and gloom crap should be put on trial for treason and KILLED?
The video goes along those same lines
bullypulpit
10-06-2010, 04:48 AM
Is this comedy BP when the enviro wackos say that those of us who do buy into their doom and gloom crap should be put on trial for treason and KILLED?
The video goes along those same lines
Might wanna ice yer groin after that stretch Red.
red states rule
10-06-2010, 04:58 AM
Might wanna ice yer groin after that stretch Red.
Now I know why you are such a loyal liberal BP. You have no idea what the hell your party leaders say and believe in
Speaking to Al Gore's minions during "Live Earth: The Concerts for a Climate in Crisis," Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., said of political leaders who suggest global warming is not predominantly manmade, "This is treason, and we need to start treating them as traitors." Junior added, "Get rid of all those rotten politicians we have in Washington, D.C." We presume his bloated uncle is excluded?
The Oregon State University's George Taylor is that state's official climatologist, but Gov. Ted Kulongoski wants to strip Taylor of that title because his skepticism about CO2 as a primary factor in global warming contradicts Oregon's goals to reduce CO2.
Elsewhere, the Weather Channel's Dr. Heidi Cullen is demanding decertification of weather reporters who dare question global-warming orthodoxy.
Academicians who express their skepticism about global-warming causes are at high risk of losing research grants. Conversely, those who advocate for CO2 causation are in line for some big-money handouts. Thus, when academicians say "green," they aren't necessarily referring to the environment.
"Journalist" David Roberts is setting his sights on the "denial industry," proclaiming, "When we've finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we're in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war-crimes trials for these bastards [read: "skeptics"] -- some sort of climate Nuremberg."
http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2007/09/17/global-warming-fact-fiction-and-political-endgame/
revelarts
10-06-2010, 06:58 AM
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5950442.ece
"JONATHON PORRITT, one of Gordon Brown’s leading green advisers, is to warn that Britain must drastically reduce its population if it is to build a sustainable society." that gut is a "patron" of the Optimum Population Trust (OPT) "The Optimum Population Trust is the leading environmental charity and think tank in the UK concerned with the impact of population growth on the environment "
"The trust will release research suggesting UK population must be cut to 30million if the country wants to feed itself sustainably."
the population is now around 61 million.
You don't get to 30 million using condoms.
Plane and simply they want a lot of people to die . Funny, but they never volunteer.
SassyLady
10-06-2010, 04:11 PM
Sounds like some of them are advocating suffocating their disabled with a pillow over the face to end their suffering....killing two birds with one stone theory I suppose.
red states rule
10-10-2010, 06:22 AM
Wow, BP got bored fast with this thread :laugh2:
Sounds like some of them are advocating suffocating their disabled with a pillow over the face to end their suffering....killing two birds with one stone theory I suppose.
By 'them' I hope you mean humans, just sayin'
red states rule
10-10-2010, 07:35 AM
By 'them' I hope you mean humans, just sayin'
It is another example of liberal compasion
Now words of wisdom from Ms Pelosi. What the hell this had to do with "stimulation" the economy is beyond me
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is defending the fact that hundreds of millions of dollars of the forthcoming stimulus package are to be spent on “family planning.” Her argument is very simple. The economy is bad. Having babies costs money. Would-be parents need to save their money by not having babies.
Without a doubt, Pelosi’s remarks reflect the spirit of the age. In general, our culture has come to view children as a burden rather than as a blessing. Even among those who are married, children are increasingly viewed as add-ons—an option that may or may not be pursued by the couple.
http://www.dennyburk.com/nancy-pelosi-thinks-we-need-less-children/
It is another example of liberal compassion
There is q very real debate to be had about at what point a life is not worth living, and who should make such a decision. Don't you think?
I also find it someone odd, that on the one hand you'd condem me for me not being compassionate enough towards humans because of my *liberal* views, while on the same hand claiming I'm a typical soft lefty for my compassion towards animals :laugh:
So am I too compassionate or not compassionate enough?
red states rule
10-10-2010, 07:53 AM
There is q very real debate to be had about at what point a life is not worth living, and who should make such a decision. Don't you think?
I also find it someone odd, that on the one hand you'd condem me for me not being compassionate enough towards humans because of my *liberal* views, while on the same hand claiming I'm a typical soft lefty for my compassion towards animals :laugh:
So am I too compassionate or not compassionate enough?
Noir, what I am pointing out is how liberals are the one who want to decide you lives and who dies. Of course, liberals are the one only ones smart enough to make that decision
Look at Obamacare Noir. Rationed care for kids and the disabled. Life means very little to the far left Noir
Bradley Mattes, the director of Life Issues Institute, says Emanuel was quoted in 1996 saying medical benefits of a government-controlled healthcare plan would not be given to “individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens.”
Emanuel clarified his stance by adding, “An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.”
As Mattes says, "If you don't think the healthcare plan of Barack Obama and the leaders in Congress will result in widespread rationing of medical services," then he urges Americans to pay attention to Emanuel.
"So who else will be killed by medical neglect under such a health plan? It will likely be patients with Down syndrome, Parkinson’s or one of many other debilitating illnesses," Mattes continues.
He points to more recent comments from Emanuel defending discrimination against senior citizens in an article that appeared in the January 31, 2009 issue of the medical journal Lancet.
“Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious [offensive] discrimination," Emanuel wrote.
As Mattes says in an email to LifeNews.com, "The 'allocation' he’s talking about is healthcare services -- many of which are critical to sustaining life or at the very least, a better quality of life. We're talking about everything from life-saving bypass surgery to joint replacements."
Chuck Colson, a pro-life syndicated columnist, has also noticed Emanuel's quotes and goes further in complaining about them.
"I'm sorry, but this is the same logic the Nazis used to exterminate the physically and mentally handicapped," Colson.
He says Emanuel's view forgets the worth and dignity of human beings -- "a dignity that is not derived from the majority’s opinion (or a government definition) about the quality of their life or their contribution to society."
He worries Emanuel's vision of health care allows "every decision about the allocation of health care-and indeed about any area of life" to become "an occasion for the young and strong to impose their will on the old and weak."
Betsy McCaughey, a former Lt. Governor of New York State and a prominent patient advocate, has also sounded the alarm on Emanuel.
"Emanuel bluntly admits that the cuts [rationing in health care] will not be pain-free," she said.
She points out that Emanuel wrote that health care cost savings will require changing how doctors think about their patients.
Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, "as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others," Emanuel complained in the June 2008 edition of JAMA.
"Yes, that's what patients want their doctors to do. But Emanuel wants doctors to look beyond the needs of their patients and consider social justice, such as whether the money could be better spent on somebody else," McCaughey says in an editorial. "Many doctors are horrified by this notion; they'll tell you that a doctor's job is to achieve social justice one patient at a time
http://www.lifenews.com/bio2908.html
Noir, what I am pointing out is how liberals are the one who want to decide you lives and who dies. Of course, liberals are the one only ones smart enough to make that decision
Look at Obamacare Noir. Rationed care for kids and the disabled. Life means very little to the far left Noir
I'd contest that, life means a hell of allot to me (that's all animal life, not just human life) but that is not to say that there are not times when death is the better option.
red states rule
10-10-2010, 08:12 AM
I'd contest that, life means a hell of allot to me (that's all animal life, not just human life) but that is not to say that there are not times when death is the better option.
What makes you feel better Noir - watching animal rights people trying to ave a whale that beached itself or a liberal bellowing about a womens right to murder her unborn child?
The bottom lines is, libs are getting mroe truthful about how little they treasure human life when that life become to big of pain i.e expensive) to perserve under Obamacare
What makes you feel better Noir - watching animal rights people trying to ave a whale that beached itself or a liberal bellowing about a womens right to murder her unborn child?
The bottom lines is, libs are getting mroe truthful about how little they treasure human life when that life become to big of pain i.e expensive) to perserve under Obamacare
Obviusly watching (if not helping) the people trying to save the whale.
As an aside, I'm an opposed to abortion in most cases.
red states rule
10-11-2010, 05:13 AM
Obviusly watching (if not helping) the people trying to save the whale.
As an aside, I'm an opposed to abortion in most cases.
The botom line is Noir, the left goes out of their way to snuff out the lives of the unborn, while bending over backwards to save an animal
In fac,t Dems put alot of other peoples money to support those beliefs
The botom line is Noir, the left goes out of their way to snuff out the lives of the unborn, while bending over backwards to save an animal
In fac,t Dems put alot of other peoples money to support those beliefs
Yeah some of the left do, I personally don't, and know plenty of others that don't,
revelarts
10-19-2010, 02:09 PM
Senior scientist breaks silence on climate change issue. Leaves Science Society.
Basically Calls Climate Change info CRAP SCIENCE a Big Fraud. And the the science associations are willing and complicit dupes.
http://thenewamerican.com/index.php/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/4926-climate-change-a-pseudoscientific-swindleq
Until his resignation on October 6, Harold Lewis, a man who has been described as “one of America’s most distinguished physicists,” was a member of the American Physical Society (APS) for 67 years. What could lead Lewis, an emeritus professor of Physics of the University of California, Santa Barbara, to tender his resignation after nearly seven decades of membership in the APS?
In Lewis’ words,
"It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist."
In Lewis’ estimation, the vast amount of money connected with the “pseudoscientific fraud” of anthropogenic climate change has corrupted the scientific endeavor; in his opinion, "science" has been corrupted by a lust for wealth. Lewis’ decades of involvement in the scientific community lend tremendous credibility to his charges against the APS, and the paucity of proof for the controversial theory that human activity is destroying the environment. As Lewis declares in his resignation letter:
"Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford's book organizes the facts very well.) I don't believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.
So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it."
Lewis offers numerous reasons for his assessment of the APS. Among his enumerated accusations regarding the "unscientific" actions of the society:
"1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate
2. The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer "explanatory" screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original. The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe. It is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is. This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake.
3. In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work."
Lewis’ point regarding the “poison word incontrovertible” is particularly noteworthy; when such an adamant position is taken, one may expect professionals working in the field to perceive that the time for discussion and debate has been terminated. A scientist who perceives such views to still be debatable, might worry that verbalizing such dissent will have a deleterious effect on his career.
The Climategate scandal, numerous related scandals, and the debacle of last year’s Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen seem to have left climate-change militants on the defensive. The angry denunciations of those who doubt the reality of manmade climate change usually are a combination of appeals to authority (‘thus saith Science’) and ad hominem attacks on critics.
Lewis will be a little harder to dismiss, and thus seemingly ad hominem assaults centered on his “anger” have begun.
Lewis’ accusations gain greater weight from the simple fact that he has not always been a "sceptic" of the theory; as Andrew Revkin of the New York Times wrote on October 15,
Almost 20 years ago, Harold Lewis, a respected physicist who had advised the government and the Pentagon on matters ranging from nuclear winter to missile defense, included his assessment of climate change from the buildup of human-generated greenhouse gases in a book on technological risk:
All models agree that the net effect will be a general and global warming of the earth; they only disagree about how much. None suggest that it will be a minor effect, to be ignored while we go about our business.
For some readers, Revkin’s article appears to have the clear intention of debunking Lewis’ criticisms of manmade climate change; in fact, Revkin offers the following assessment by David Ropeik:
I just read Dr. Lewis’ angry letter of resignation from the APS. It puts him at an extreme on the spectrum of debate over climate change in both tone and substance. So I guess the old reporter instincts in me would be cautious about anything he’d have to say, as would be the case with any extreme advocate on any side of any issue.
And Revkin throws himself behind this assessment with a blanket endorsement of such a dismissal of Lewis: “I share Ropeik’s view.”
But it is difficult to present Lewis as an “extremist” and talk about his past support for the theory of manmade climate change at the same time. A dispassionate consideration of his letter of resignation may lead a reader to see Lewis as a scientist who has come to oppose a theory he once supported because he found that the science did not support the theory. Furthermore, any “anger” present in Lewis’ letter of resignation may actually sounds more like the indignation of a man who believes he has been misled in the past, and has the attendant zeal of someone who earnestly desires to uphold his lifelong commitment to the advance of honest science. In keeping with that commitment to science, Lewis has joined the Academic Advisory Committee of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which is “composed of researchers, scientists, economists and science authors who provide the GWPF with timely scientific, economic and policy advice.”
full text of resignation letter
http://thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1670-hal-lewis-my-resignation-from-the-american-physical-society.html
revelarts
10-19-2010, 02:24 PM
<object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/eXcdxSC-0-k&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/eXcdxSC-0-k&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object>
gabosaurus
10-19-2010, 04:54 PM
they want a load of people dead. the ad is down right evil, they make a joke out of what some would really would like to do.
So do the gun nuts and the military wackos. BFD.
red states rule
10-19-2010, 06:24 PM
So do the gun nuts and the military wackos. BFD.
It is fun to watch desperate liberals try and change the subject when they are confronted with what their fellow libs say, do, and believe in
revelarts
01-28-2011, 10:24 AM
Genghis Khan the GREEN: Invader killed so many people that carbon levels plummeted
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1350272/Genghis-Khan-killed-people-forests-grew-carbon-levels-dropped.html#ixzz1CLLl6A6p
Genghis Khan has been branded the greenest invader in history - after his murderous conquests killed so many people that huge swathes of cultivated land returned to forest.
The Mongol leader, who established a vast empire between the 13th and 14th centuries, helped remove nearly 700million tons of carbon from the atmosphere, claims a new study.
The deaths of 40million people meant that large areas of cultivated land grew thick once again with trees, which absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
And, although his methods may be difficult for environmentalists to accept, ecologists believe it may be the first ever case of successful manmade global cooling.
‘It's a common misconception that the human impact on climate began with the large-scale burning of coal and oil in the industrial era,’ said Julia Pongratz, who headed the research by the Carnegie Institution's Department of Global Ecology.
‘Actually, humans started to influence the environment thousands of years ago by changing the vegetation cover of the Earth's landscapes when we cleared forests for agriculture,’ she told Mongabay.com.
The 700million tons of carbon absorbed as a result of the Mongol empire is about the same produced in a year from the global use of petrol.
.....
revelarts
01-28-2011, 10:34 AM
Another Green says says in response
...
But this notion that Genghis was green in any way is really off base. If there was anything he liked more than slaughtering entire cities, it was fathering children. As Ian Frazier writes in his book Travels in Siberia:
"Genghis had hundreds of wives and concubines among different harems around his empire. ... Of course, Genghis and his heirs fathered many children. A Persian historian writing about the Mongols in 1260 [Ed.: Genghis died in 1227] said that by then the Mongol leader had twenty thousand descendants living;"
the historian added that he knew he would be accused of exaggerating.
http://www.grist.org/article/2011-01-26-genghis-khan-not-that-green-after-all
SO he's not green after all becuase he had so many kids.
to many people.
that's the problem.
Thunderknuckles
01-28-2011, 11:07 AM
WoooooooooW.
These people are insane. Nice article link revelarts.
To quote from the end of it:
‘Based on the knowledge we have gained from the past, we are now in a position to make land-use decisions that will diminish our impact on climate and the carbon cycle,’ she said.
Nice. In the context of the article I guess that means we know we have to murder a few million people to reach a carbon footprint that we are comfortable with.
Gaffer
01-28-2011, 03:52 PM
I think all greenies need to commit suicide and save the planet. They won't be missed and the rest of us can go about our daily lives.
red states rule
01-28-2011, 07:16 PM
I think all greenies need to commit suicide and save the planet. They won't be missed and the rest of us can go about our daily lives.
We need to to have them around (but not in political power) to keep reminding us how nutty they are
After all, it is fun to remind them when their doom and gloom tales fall flat and watch them squirm
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.