An early winter storm has swamped Reno with record-setting rain and dropped enough snow at the top of the Sierra Nevada to close a mountain highway pass near Lake Tahoe. A winter weather advisory is in effect for Reno, Tahoe and Carson City. The storm, says AP, follows record heat in northern Nevada.
The other side of the world, following a reasonably benign winter, the Southland region of New Zealand (NZ) has in the past week been hit by "the worst spring storm in living memory" according to the NZ Herald.
Six days of blizzards have caused deaths among new lambs numbering in the hundreds of thousands, and raised concern over the welfare of ewes yet to lamb. Besides the effect of the cold weather itself, the continued snowfall has not allowed snow on the ground to thaw, making it much harder for stock to feed. Losses to farmers may run to NZ$50 million or more.
And, as one starts into another weather round-up, at the start of what some are forecasting may be a terrible winter, a curious sense of déjà vu begins to intrude. Look at my report from November 2008.
This I was writing on 12 October - and it was followed here in the UK by a pretty rough winter. Now, following the weather day-by-day through 1940 - as I have been - I am struck by how similar this year has been to 1940, including the winter of 1939/40.
This is not terribly good news, because the winter of 1940/41 was even worse. As the photograph above shows, seventy years ago, it was pretty rough. This scene is on 11 November 1940, the so-called Armistice Day Blizzard, showing the Excelsior Boulevard, west of Minneapolis. Just look at the AP article from 23 November 1940 (right). And in England, it was so cold that, during some air raids, fire hoses were freezing up as firemen sought to tackle the blazes.
All the signs are stacking up for an unhappy experience. But at least it will put the warmists back in their boxes.
COMMENT THREAD
Curtis congratulates the 10:10 team. Godwin's Law has been ripped to shreds and stuffed down the toilet. I hope Dellers knows a good plumber. And we had to have a "downfall". Dellers does the honours – I was too embarrassed to post it here ... even if it is from the superb Boiling Frog, who has it posted here.
And then there's this (er ... "adult" language):
... and this ...
But for a real horror movie, this is it:
... and a bit more. I make it 1,048,158 views on six pages of youtube listings for the "no pressure" snuff movie by Richard Curtis. You must also add the views for the version that 10:10 took down, so it is actually way past a million views. But, the evidence is there to count – this is a million-plus "hit". Well done Franny and the 10:10 team!
COMMENT THREAD
Splattergate, splattergate, ten-ten Fran,
Blow up a kid as fast as you can,
Roll it, pat it, explode it for free,
Save all the Carbon for baby and me.
(traditional nursery rhyme)
The greenie poster was promoted by ACT Reponsible's exhibition at Cannes in 2009. According to creative director Fred Claviere, it was a hard choice to use an image this provocative. But in his own words: "We have to make people react ... it was simply too urgent to not use it."
And we've heard similar sentiments from who else?
COMMENT THREAD
On WUWT, the Marc Morano film on Fox, talking about "no pressure" and the exploding children. Priceless. And Sony and O2 get good plugs. They must be happy.
Meanwhile, Grumpy Old Twat gives us his version of the Curtis interview, and the stylish advert above.
COMMENT THREAD
By my count, on six pages of youtube, there have been 979,854 views of the "no pressure" movie, tantalisingly short of the million mark - but up on the 600,000 count measured yesterday.
It it really rather telling that eco-fascist Adam Vaughan over at The Guardian cannot cope with the idea that the movie has gone viral. He is only prepared to state in his piece that "it has received over 170,000 views on YouTube and postings on countless other sites" - and that was at a time when it was well over the 600,000 mark.
Vaughan is turning out to be a classic example of warmist denial. The film, he says, was "intended as a tongue-in-cheek spoof of hectoring greens, shows schoolkids, office workers, football manager David Ginola and actor Gillian Anderson being blown up for not signing up to cut their carbon emissions". Not a few commentators rather dispute that version and even greenie-queen Jo Abbess is a little miffed.
"In a critical stage of the the battle to win hearts and minds with a massive global campaign," she writes, "Franny Armstrong has decided to blow up every ounce of credibility she has ever earned by agreeing to produce what has to be the most repulsive, sick little film in the entire universe." She adds: "So much for decades of trying to convince people that the green movement isn’t all about world domination through domestic fascism and mind control."
Of course, The Guardian is "media partner" to the rapidly sinking 10:10 organisation, which somewhat constrains its coverage - "distorts", some might say. But it might do well to read its own copy, in its own original launch article, where we find an interview with Franny Armstrong:
"Doing nothing about climate change is still a fairly common affliction, even in this day and age. What to do with those people, who are together threatening everybody's existence on this planet? Clearly we don't really think they should be blown up, that's just a joke for the mini-movie, but maybe a little amputating would be a good place to start?" jokes 10:10 founder and Age of Stupid film maker Franny Armstrong.Oddly, there is no suggestion there that the film is "intended as a tongue-in-cheek spoof of hectoring greens ...".
But why take such a risk of upsetting or alienating people, I ask her: "Because we have got about four years to stabilise global emissions and we are not anywhere near doing that. All our lives are at threat and if that's not worth jumping up and down about, I don't know what is."
"We 'killed' five people to make No Pressure – a mere blip compared to the 300,000 real people who now die each year from climate change," she adds.
Then, however, Damian Carrington wrote: "The public reaction to the film will be fascinating – please add yours below," referring to the comments section ... which is now closed. And of course, subsequent comment columns are open only to a dwindling band of believes as the eco-fascist moderators move in to pre-moderate (i.e., exclude) critical commentators. It really is interesting how greenery and censorship go so comfortably hand-in-hand.
As for the genius behind the film, "It amazes me that my life is so much more meaningful than what was planned for it …" says Franny Armstrong, in another gushing Guardian interview. But she is being interviewed in a pavement cafe, to avoid the noise and frenetic activity from her own staff who, prophetically, she calls "Team Stupid". Well, she said it, and who are we to disagree?
COMMENT THREAD
The Muslim version has been pulled, for "copyright" reasons. Obviously, the idea of a Muslim-loving teach blowing up kafirs is a bit too much for the sensitive little greenies - even if it is OK for teach to blow up white kids for not reducing their carbon signature.
I've found a replacement, pro temp - until that one is pulled as well.
COMMENT THREAD
As The Guardian and the New York Times pick up the pieces on the latest developments on Splattergate, it is now evident that Sony does not see the funny side of 10:10's "snuff movie". In ane-mail statement, it says:
... we strongly condemn the "No Pressure" video which was conceived, produced and released by 10:10 entirely without the knowledge or involvement of Sony. The company considers the video to be ill-conceived and in extremely bad taste. We also believe the video risks undermining the work of the many thousands of members of the public, schools and universities, local authorities and many businesses, of which Sony is one, who support the long-term aims of the 10:10 movement and who are actively working towards the reduction of carbon emissions.This was hinted at in the American Spectator earlier yesterday, with the suggestion that corporate sponsors and supporters were bailing out. The other biggy, of course, is O2 and we have yet to hear its intentions. That could well be the acid test.
As a result we have taken the decision to disassociate ourselves from 10:10 at this time.
Nevertheless, it is clear that, as the enormity of what they had done (or, at least the consequences) started to trickle into the 10:10 offices, they have been having a serious re-examination of their stance.
Thus we see a new message on the blog – very different in style and tone from the earlier, truculent "sorry" from Franny and Co. This one, from Eugenie Harvey, calling herself formally, "UK Director" (illustrated above), comes right out into the open:
As you may have heard, last week, 10:10 made a mistake by releasing a short film about cutting carbon which was supposed to be humourous (sic) but in the event upset a lot of people. We quickly realised that we had made a serious mistake and took it down from our website within hours."We are going to investigate what happened," adds Eugenie, "review our processes and procedures, and share the results with our partners. Responsibility for this process is being taken by the 10:10 board of directors."
We also issued a statement apologising but there has subsequently been quite a lot of negative comment, particularly on blogs, and understandable concern from others working hard to build support for action on climate change.
We are also sorry to our corporate sponsors, delivery partners and board members, who have been implicated in this situation despite having no involvement in the film’s production or release. I am very sorry for our mistake and want to reassure you that we will do everything in our power to ensure it does not happen again.
This is serious stuff, and could not be further removed from the earlier 10:10 stance. Had this tone been adopted right from the very start, there might have been a different, less damaging response. But, it seems, these people always have to learn the hard way. The lady director complains, incidentally, that although she has been followed developments closely, she has "been working from home with a four-week-old baby." Well, Eugenie, there's always that red button that you thought was so funny.
What this whole affair does, though, is demonstrate that those of us who did respond sharply are closer in touch with public (and corporate) sentiment than the so-called communication professionals, and the snot Guardian commentators who are still soooo superior, even if they are having to re-write history to stop themselves looking like the prats that they truly are.
But, of course, the paper is at one with the rest of the MSM, which hasn't even begun to understand what is going on - and the game is nearly over. Once again, the blogosphere has made the running.
Posts
