Log in

(Digression) British climate group 10:10's video fiasco: don't just move on, learn lessons from it

October 2nd, 2010 (09:45 am)

Bill McKibben writes over at Climate Progress:

But I'd barely turned on my computer when that good feeling turned to a kind of quiet nausea. There were emails from people all saying the same thing: Have you seen this? This was a gross video making its way around Youtube, purporting to show people being blown up for not believing in climate change. It's been "pulled" from Youtube by its creators, the British climate group 10:10, but of course nothing is ever really "pulled" from Youtube. If you want to watch it bad enough, I'm pretty sure you can find it. Or you can look at the stories by climate deniers assailing it as the latest example of eco-fascism.
I've not yet watched the video, but if climate activists Joe Romm and Bill McKibben think that it sucks, then I guess it does suck.

What surprises me is that many people have decided to defend this video, saying that 'oh, it's just black humour' or 'it's OK, the message is complex' or 'but the denialists are worse!'; and some others just said 'yeah, it's a mistake, let's move on'.1 This is wrong-headed. We should be asking why this PR fiasco was allowed to happen in the first place, and what we can do to prevent such lapses next time. And once we've determined what can be done, we should do it.

It amazes me that even among supposedly enlightened pro-science people, when it comes to matters of PR, we start getting the same old extreme naïvete, idiotic and pointless turf wars, reluctance to change ways, and general closed-mindedness. This must stop.

  1. On the good side, at least no one has literally advocated blowing up global warming inactivists.

* * *

Update 2010-10-02: Tim Lambert weighs in.

Update 2010-10-03: Professor Scott Mandia presents us A Modest Carbon Proposal by Jonathan SwiftHack.

Update 2010-10-05: Responses from Matt Wootton and Michael Tobis. And Coby Beck.


Posted by: Decoding SwiftHack (ijish)
Posted at: October 2nd, 2010 06:25 pm (UTC)
Re: Hi from climate progress

I have little faith in the GCM's to accurately forecast temps but on the other hand I have no reason to suggest that they might not be true. We will of course find out in time.
So you're saying that you think climate models are no good for projections of future climate, and you think climate models are good for projections of future climate?
I accept an element of alarm (I've been quite fearful of possible AGW effects for years) but I also accept that there are other positions one can take on this.
And you think that one should be alarmed at the prospect of climate disruption, and that one need not be alarmed at the prospect of climate disruption?

You need to make yourself clearer if you want to convince me that you're really espousing doubt, not bullshit.

Posted by: Decoding SwiftHack (ijish)
Posted at: October 3rd, 2010 01:20 pm (UTC)
Re: Hi from climate progress

(Stu: You're basically only rehashing your talking points above. Sorry, but no go.)

7 Read Comments