The 10:10 Splattergate goes “sploot” – a roundup

The 10:10 Splattergate goes “sploot” – a roundup. We get it Anthony, the 10:10 video was a bad idea and various environmental groups are dissociating themselves from it.

But can you explain why failing to cling tenaciously to a dumb idea is a bad thing? I know that truculence is an admired quality in the denialist community, but those of us with more limber brains are actually quite likely to respond rationally to events like this.

By the way, I know you embrace the dumbed-down use of “-gate” on every accusation you can make up, but the stupid is starting to get a bit obvious. Leave it for political or business conspiracies or allegations of the same.

5 thoughts on “The 10:10 Splattergate goes “sploot” – a roundup

  1. SKEPTIC WHINING………It is patently obvious that people were exploded because they wouldn’t reduce their production of CO2. Yet apparent end-justifies-the-means logic lets skeptics complain that the targets were skeptics.

    INFLATION……….”Over 50 film professionals and more than 40 actors and extras gave their services for free.” Let’s allow for some other people’s involvement, and round it up, to a 200 person mistake.

    It was cancelled before being used, because of universal condemnation by 10:10 organizations, sponsors, environmentalists, and all global warming worriers. So it has received only voyeur viewership. And yet these concerned people who condemned it are still blamed, for this 200 person mistake.

    Though 200 of their own have done something wrong, I’m reminded of other things that the British have gotten right. Producing Monty Python and Black Adder. Burying Charles Darwin in Westminster Abbey next to Isaac Newton.

  2. Good luck trying to keep this genie in the bottle!

    Check out this related video playlist here:

    [Whatever. Your earth-shattering videos are merely (sub)standard amateur misrepresentations. – Ben]


    Richard Curtis interview video near the end. (includes shocking juxtaposition with realistic violence)

    Orwellsspectre’s brilliant synopsis: second video

    Many classic eco scare ads and shorts

    parodies of the Richard Curtis Film

    Pachauri talks about using children to shame adults

  3. Pachauri saying he wants to shame adults with children is misrepresentation? [Yep. He’s saying that children, with unhardened perspectives, can help their parents see past their own set views. Clearly a radical commie! – Ben]

    The bedtime commercial was produced by amateurs? [“CO2 helps plants grow” and other partisan bunk from the “Minnesotans for Global Warming”? Yeah, amateur. – Ben]

    The National Geographic is amateur or misleading? [Um, no. You’re misleading when you suggest that Nat Geo is somehow ‘skeptical’. The Nat Geo clips list the expected unwelcome consequences of global warming. – Ben

    Three strikes.]

  4. 2. You missed the actual commercial, it’s in there.

    3. The National Geo is misleading. In no way do I suggest they are skeptical.

    1.Indoctrination of children is clearly part of the Global warming movement.

    My point was that the genie is not going back into the bottle, the above is just noise.

    “Three Strikes”–same attitude as the No Pressure group.

    [Oh I see, every non-skeptic is now exactly the same as the No Pressure group. Interesting argument. – Ben]

  5. I’ve just noticed, I may be misreading your post. You seem to say that Watts said taking down the video was a bad idea.

    Did he really say that? or are you talking to any who were defending the video?

    [Anthony seemed eager to point out copies of the video to help stoke denialist anger.The video obviously didn’t “go away” when the creators retracted it. – Ben]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s