When Blowing Up Children Seems Like a Good Idea

My new Forbes column is up this week, and discusses the 10:10 video as a logical outcome of the years of ad hominem attacks hurled at skeptics.


  1. sabril:

    Nice collumn; I would add that the video demonstrates warmist thinking in another more subtle way.

    The fact that the video itself was produced and released shows that the warmists have a tendency to engage in groupthink. Probably all of the people involved in the film's production went along with it because they thought that everyone else was going along with it.

    Which is a big part of the reason the global warming hoax has gained so much traction: Very few people are willing to dissent.

    Anyone in the warmist movement who would have said "Wait a second, this video is a terrible idea" is unlikely to be in the movement in the first place. Because people who are not afraid to think for themselves and speak out will tend to end up on the skeptical side.

  2. John Cheek:

    I agree with sabril;Very nice column Warren.I hope it is a turning point too.It is so absurd though,sort of like the race card,that if it weren't so graphic,I would immediately dismiss them as goofballs.(I'll still dismiss them)However, it does show who we are dealing with;serious statists who think they know better and probably are too emotionally involved to even listen to the science.JaC

  3. wintercow20:

    Do we think this will mark any more of a turning point than the ad that ran a year or two ago showing a plethora of 747s striking the World Trade Center? I doubt many folks even remember that incident, and I would argue that the image of 747s running into Manhattan is just as gruesome for folks as the 10:10 video.

    Terrific article nonetheless.

  4. IgotBupkis, President, United Anarchist Society:

    When I first saw that video, this was my response:

    Did someone ACTUALLY produce that video in SUPPORT of the 10:10 idea?

    You've GOT to be pulling my leg!!

    This is got to be a spoof of something the 10:10 group did... right?

    I'm still boggling at the idea that someone actually didn't Get It when they made it, and no one successfully made them Realize It upon seeing it.

  5. IgotBupkis, President, United Anarchist Society:

    As far as your article, Warren, a good one, except for this part:

    Perhaps this video will mark a turning point where we can finally start talking about the science rather than attacking motivations.

    If so, I'll just warn you I own all the patents on existing extra-strength umbrella designs.

    I'm sure people will be needing lots of protection against the droppings from those aerial porcines...

    MWAAAAhahahhahahahhahaha!! I'll be RICH!!! RICH RICH RICH, I TELL YOU!!! MWAAAAhahahhahahahhahaha!!

  6. DMS:

    Very good article. As you would expect by now expect ad hominem non sequiters in the comments (I'm trying here to compete with your once-again excellent use of "tu quoque").

  7. GT:

    There should be a concerted effort to 'meme-ify' the 10:10 disgrace; I propose that '10:10' becomes interchoobs shortspeak for either

    (a) a level of adherence to an ideology that generates a preparedness to exterminate your opponents; or
    (b) a level of unintented FAIL that is so massive that it rivals organised religion for stupidity; a monster fuckup.

    or derivatives thereof (similar to 'an hero' which is now a noun and a verb).

    So one could write:

    (a1) if you don't give me your bukkit I will totally 10:10 you;
    (a2) for me, this issue is 10:10; if you disagree with me I will RAGE;


    (b1) Everything Bill Kristol ever writes or says is full of 10:10;
    (b2) Wolfowitz, Perle and the rest of the foreskin-mutilating Stone Age Sky Wizard cult have encouraged the US to 10:10 in Iraq and Afghanistan; as a result the US is in the middle of the biggest collective an hero since Rome.

    Now obviously (since Kristol and the rest of the neocons are sociopaths) (b1) is ambiguous; Kristol and his ilk would gladly exterminate their ideological enemies, as well as being so full of asstardery that one's eyes burn anytime their names appear on a byline.



  8. GT:


    Good point - there ought to have been some point at which someone said "Wait... what?".

    Then again, history is full of instances where that didn't happen.

    I often imagine Avram's face when God said "I have chosen your people... blah blah blah"... Old Avram thinks "Hmmm... this is going well, considering I'm screwing my half-sister..." and then he hears "and your half of the bargain is that you have to cut the end of your cock off to please me (and those of every male child in perpetuity) for I am the Lord thy God."

    The fact that Abraham/Avram didn't say "What the FUCK? I don't even..." is testament (get it?) to the fact that folks get a bit too focussed on the upside, and ignore the fact that they have signed up for something really really idiotic (e.g., Ezekiel, who ate shit sandwiches under orders from God, as well has being genitally mutilated).

    !0:10 is no different: zealots of all stripes are compeltely immune to self-examination of their lunatic ideas: from AGWism to Wahhabism to Chabad Lubavitchers to snake-kissing Southern Evangelicals, the whackjobs who are conviced that their tribal lunacy is the best, are incapable ot seeing themselves as tards./



  9. sabril:

    Thanks, GT. In fairness to Abraham, he did try to talk the Almighty One out of being so hard on Sodom and Gemorrah.

    I do agree that history is full of examples of groups of people doing stupid things because everyone is going along with the group.

    That said, I would argue that the Jewish religion in modern times is in many ways more tolerant of dissent than the global warmist movement.

  10. smurfy:

    Round up the heretics in the crowd and execute them. Wasn't that the M.O. of the church in the dark ages? Now that's a progressive model to emulate!

  11. Bearster:

    Warren, maybe it's possible to honestly falsify scientific data with "good" motives, to propose that "every scientist must choose the right balance between honesty and effectiveness", and cavalierly propose that people's livelihoods and quality of life be ruined. Maybe. For a simpleton who hath no understanding.

    But to promote the idea of mass murder??

    To go out of your way to say that these people are "well meaning" undermines everything you say, and the very language with which you must say it!

    Was Hitler well-meaning? Pol Pot? Robbespierre? Stalin? Is there ANYone anyWHEEE or anyWHEN who was not well-meaning, but who meant ill?

  12. Val:

    smurfy: "Round up the heretics in the crowd and execute them. Wasn’t that the M.O. of the church in the dark ages? Now that’s a progressive model to emulate!"

    Yes, but that was religious!!! This is scientific!!!