Filmed free for nothing

1010 logo

UPDATE1: OCT 3 12:25 AM

Apology from O2. See end of story.

UPDATE2: OCT 3 10:30 AM

Many more sponsors and partners than I realised. H/T Huub Bakker.

Join the boycott of Sony, O2 and Kyocera

(see end of story)

After all the work they put into it, the film “No Pressure” lasted just a few hours on the Internet before the torrent of abuse from scandalised viewers forced the producers to apologise and withdraw the movie. Or they tried to. Unfortunately for them it went viral and is still available all over the place. Anyway, their apology wasn’t worth the ether it was posted into.

What a storm of outrage the film aroused! Oddly enough, it affronted both sides of the climate debate equally. The film was deeply disturbing because it crossed a boundary in gruesomeness and the corruption of youth. Even in the cause of saving the Earth, reasonable people everywhere are saying “that’s a brutality too far.”

Slick but sick

I’m talking, of course, about the mini-movie released yesterday by 10:10, a global campaign to “cut carbon” by 10% a year, starting in 2010.

Produced by Richard Curtis (writer of Blackadder, Four Weddings, Notting Hill and others), acted by some famous names along with footballers from Tottenham Hotspur and with a full professional film crew giving their time for free, the film production was certainly slick.

Slick, but sick. Let us hope we never see its like again for any reason. The production of “No Pressure” marks a terrible new low in the propaganda that passes for information in the climate wars. What a shame all that effort went for nothing.

Sweet teacher incapable of cruelty

There have been illuminating descriptions and comments at WUWT, James Delingpole at the Telegraph. Anthony Watts, by the way, gives our friend Gareth Renowden a sound scolding.

Of the four different scenes, I would like to mention the classroom. The teacher is a sweet young woman, credible, caring and clearly incapable of cruelty.

Here she is, after asking the class whether they’d be interested in changing their light bulbs for the good of the Earth, telling two of the children that it’s perfectly all right to demur.

video capture

After reassuring them she mildly presses a big red button which makes the two children explode in a storm of red gore. She cheerfully dismisses the stunned classroom with blood on her face without a hint of disturbance.

video capture

Among the many depictions of evil people, none are more chilling than those who dish out mayhem and death with a smile on their face. So it is here, where mild-mannered actors destroy those who merely disagree with them.

Supporters of the film can simply be ignored. It’s a fitting sentence for those who trample on the feelings of others.

Gareth Renowden said:

“It’s only offensive if you have a sense of humour failure (IMHO).”


“I turned off the “dislike” button because of the influx from Watts.”

So he requires us to laugh at exploding innocents yet he cannot stomach readers simply disagreeing with him. It is a shallow outlook.

Time for a boycott

The film was partly sponsored in the UK by public funds. Delingpole informs us that the three commercial sponsors of this tasteless insanity are Sony, O2 and Kyocera.

If you’re of a mind to, feel free to inform them of your disgust at this film and to boycott their products. I have.


Contact page
You must fill out a form which is sent to them.


Contact page
You must fill out a form.
You must quote a valid UK postal code; I used one from Southampton: SO32 3PN


Contact page

The message I sent them

I’m disappointed you sponsored the disgusting UK film “No Pressure” for the 10:10 campaign. I am now boycotting [name of sponsor] products until you apologise and advising all my friends to do the same. Shame on you!

UPDATE 1: OCT 3 12:25 AM

Just one hour and two minutes after sending my complaint to O2 about their sponsorship of the disgusting film “No Pressure” I received this reply:

Hello Richard

I’m sorry that you’re unhappy with the environmental campaign’s video 10:10.

Please accept my apologies about this as we weren’t aware about the content of the video. We also weren’t consulted when this video was made and published. You can find the apology statement by clicking the link below:

I Hope you understand the situation. If there is anything else, please reply to my email or visit our online help centre at:


O2 Customer Service

Telefónica O2 UK Limited, Registered in England No 1743099. Registered
Office: 260 Bath Road, Slough, Berkshire SL1 4DX.

It’s revealing that they didn’t seem to know much about the project. We’ll see if they escalate this apology to a press release. Send in more complaints!

UPDATE 2: OCT 3 10:30 AM

Wow! Did I leave out some research! In my haste to publish I took Delingpole at face value. Now reader Huub Bakker tells us the true extent of support for the 10:10 campaign:

some of the other sponsors are mentioned at Troy Media:

“Around 100,000 people from 152 countries have signed up. British Prime Minister David Cameron has pledged the entire British government to participate. Large companies are associated with 10:10, including Britain’s Royal Mail, the electronics giant Sony, and Facebook. The United Nations-backed Climate Neutral Network is one of its many “partner” organisations. The World Wildlife Fund for Nature and Greenpeace are supporters through their proxy the Global Campaign for Climate Action.”

Then he says rather drily: “So it’s not exactly a fringe group, is it?”

This rather changes things and it certainly makes me angrier. Governments and large organisations ought to be better behaved.

First, it makes it even more important to complain vociferously to all the sponsors. It might look like a huge campaign, but as the Tiger Woods debacle showed, nobody wants to be associated with bad behaviour, no matter how big the show.

Second, since large numbers of people have been offended by the campaign (around the world) there’s a momentum of odium; if we add to it quickly it could be the death of the campaign.

Third, a lot of people consider the film has exposed the underlying political inclinations of the modern environmentalist. Kill the disbelievers. Not hard to agree with that, especially if there are degrees of “killing” that might include sanctions that believers avoid.

What to do

Mine the 10:10:10 global site for email addresses and contacts.
Let them know the film was unacceptable.
Write letters to editors, complaining about the film and asking why have a campaign.
Ask them why try to limit carbon — the element that life’s built on?

Make suggestions here

This is a first attempt. Think of things, post them here. Share the messages you send, especially the pithy, hard-hitting ones. We don’t all want to send the same message, but we can repeat pithy phrases or slogans.


Carbon — the element that life’s built on

Leave a Reply

14 Comment threads
22 Thread replies
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
11 Comment authors
Notify of
Huub Bakker

Richard, You can also send a message directly to 10:10 in New Zealand at although some of the other sponsors are mentioned at Troy Media: “Around 100,000 people from 152 countries have signed up. British Prime Minister David Cameron has pledged the entire British government to participate. Large companies are associated with 10:10, including Britain’s Royal Mail, the electronics giant Sony, and Facebook. The United Nations-backed Climate Neutral Network is one of its many “partner” organisations. The World Wildlife Fund for Nature and Greenpeace are supporters through their proxy the Global Campaign for Climate Action.” So it’s not exactly a fringe group is it? My email to is presented below in full. (Apologies to those that read it in the other thread.) I was also moved to email Nick Smith yesterday as well. I’ll post his reply if I get one. Hello, I write to you as someone with a doctorate as a Chemical Engineer and as a senior lecturer at Massey University for more than 20 years. I have the training to intelligently analyse the issue of anthropogenic global warming and have spent hundreds of hours doing so. My conclusions… Read more »

Richard C

Coincidence or what? From WUWT “Blow Me Up, Blow Me Down. “Geoffrey Allan Plauché says: October 1, 2010 at 9:41 pm The organization’s name, 10:10, and their push to reduce carbon emissions by 10%, coupled with the slaughtering of a few dissenters in every scene (roughly 10%?), reminded me of the Roman disciplinary practice of decimation. Decimation was a punishment imposed on Roman military units for failure, cowardice, or mutiny in which one in ten (10% of) soldiers were selected by lot to be slaughtered by their comrades. Only the decimated victims in 10:10′s video are chosen for this ultimate punishment by their failure to make the “right” choice. No pressure. Decimating the global population sure is one way to reduce carbon emissions by 10%” My protest. To 10:10 UK DON’T BRING YOUR VILE UK PROPAGANDA TO NEW ZEALAND (In the email title so they MUST read before deleting) In the email body: Re “No Pressure” Moving the carbon emission reduction awareness campaign to the realm of propaganda and the indoctrination of children stoops to a very depraved level. It proves how empty the substance of the case for carbon reduction… Read more »

Huub Bakker

Well done Richard. You’ve captured the disgust beautifully. 🙂

David White

The rhetoric over at hot-topic is becoming disturbing.

One character, RedLogix, is writing things like:

“We are at the point now where reasoned persuasion has demonstrably failed; coercion or mass death are the only choices left on the table.

“If that makes us ‘eco-fascist nazis’ … then so be it. By fiddling while the planet burned you brought it on yourselves.”


“We have a powerful right to defend our civilisation against the greedy and irresponsible; it trumps your selfish desire to drive a motor car.”


“The time for reasoned persuasion is over. We now get to be held responsible for the consequences of our choices…as do all grown ups.”

Richard C

For these people, we are paying our ETS dues?

Yes, this is very disturbing. I just hope it’s confined to the lunatic asylum that is Hot Topic. When these views start to be aired on Sciblogs or in the newspapers there are authorities who can stop it. In the meantime, it is superb and I am grateful that there are reasonable people like you and other visitors prepared to investigate, report and engage in calm debate here. Eventually, when people tire of emotion and want just the truth (and they will), they go to a place like this where they can trust what is said.

Richard C

“Eventually, when people tire of emotion and want just the truth (and they will), they go to a place like this where they can trust what is said.” Given my propensity to wax between lucidity and lunacy, I hope that anyone reading my comments here, does so with an appropriate degree of scepticism. Unfortunately, the flip side of the information age is that it is also a mal-information age and it is very easy to become ill-informed by taking seemingly authoritative reports for granted. Thus one can very easily find oneself in the unsettling position of being wrong. In my youth, I would have clung to an erroneous position un-movingly because at that time I was always right, so why adjust? I have since discovered that conceding defeat where my position has been based on error and moving my position becomes easier with age and I now regard this trait in others as a strength of character. It takes guts and some humbling to move from a firmly entrenched position so I have a great deal of respect for those who do so. I also have respect for those who have laboured and… Read more »

Richard C

Antony Watts on “An over the top view of satellite sensor failure”

A little reassuring but only just.


Well, you guys might end up on WUWT’s blog roll. I asked this the other day and Anthony responded.

“A good NZ website with a NZ focus is
They’ve had some good stuff about NIWA’s fiddling with temp data.
Wonder if Anthony would add them to the blog roll?

REPLY: I’m working on a guest post with them, but we are waiting for some additional details. – Anthony”

Yes, this is true, and the one he’s waiting for is me! I was looking for photos of the Albert Park weather station to document its history through the 20th Century. Willem de Lange gave me a reference to a collection in the Auckland Public Library and I’ve located suitable pics which I’m about to send to Anthony.

It would give this blog a big boost to get noticed on WUWT.

Thanks for your comments to Anthony, David, that’s a big help!


Can you please list the offending sponsors of this vile campaign, I intend to never spend another cent with any of them.

Well, the article gives some names and addresses, then Update 2 repeats Huub Bakker’s contribution. Finally, I suggest you go to the 10:10:10 global site at for names of other sponsors and partners. There are a great many of them. Some of us are in the process of writing to each one of them…

I guess I should write a list, to make it easier for others! I’ll do it in the morning.

Bob D

Apology from Kyocera:


Thank you for your email. I totally understand your reaction to this video, which was very similar to my own.

Kyocera Mita UK has supported the 10:10 campaign because we share its ambition to reduce carbon emissions. However, we don’t support the “No Pressure” video and are dismayed by the suggestion that we might have been knowing partners in its production; in fact, we had no knowledge of its content until it appeared online. We consider that 10:10 made a serious error of judgement in its choice of creative approach, which is totally at odds with the inclusive and positive attitude that has been the hallmark of its other activities. We understand that 10:10 has acknowledged its mistake, withdrawn the video and issued an apology.

I assure you that we are taking this issue extremely seriously. A formal statement will be issued in due course.

Kind regards

Tracey Rawling Church
Director of Brand and Reputation


Bob D

I sent the following to

Wow! Just Wow! What an amazing own goal.


Bob D


10:10nz sounds like it is a one greenie nutter affair. I wonder if our government is sponsoring him and his lame web site? THE 10:10 TEAM Meet one of the people behind 10:10 NZ: Rhys Taylor Job title: Voluntary 10:10NZ hub person Actual job: Christchurch-based freelance community educator, project manager, photo-journalist and science researcher. 10:10er since: 2009 10:10 plan: Building an eco-house, flying less often, cycling when here in the city, eating less meat and growing more of my own food, choosing and testing energy-efficient appliances. Favourite 10:10er: Fellow New Zealander Lizzie Gillett, for her tenacity in producing ‘The Age of Stupid’ movie! Guilty pleasure: Having to drive, although in a shared car, to reach our organic vege garden and orchard in South Canterbury. Best 10:10 moment: Realising that 10:10 is ready made for the urgent education and action needs in NZ, whilst we wait for politicians to catch up. This has saved re-inventing it! Background: Lincoln Masters Degree in natural resource management, experience in both UK and NZ of community development and education for environmental action, mostly within NGOs and alongside local government. Two recent research projects with Landcare Research Ltd… Read more »

Richard C

Was debating RedLogix at Hot Topic “No pressure – 10:10 on the button” but was unable to post the following comment (for some reason -duplicate apparently)

RedLogix @ 188, 189

You seem to imply here (correct me if I’m wrong) that the assumption is: because there has been a 40 year sustained MSL rise prior to the 5 yr fall (blip) then a return to continued sustained rise is guaranteed in the near future.

This assumption is at odds with the planets warming-cooling cycle and has been challenged by Geologists



So over the next 30 years one faction will be proved right and the other wrong by simple observation. In view of the cycle, can a cool 30 yr phase be discounted?

I note that Akasofu’s cycle shows a much hotter climate around 2050 than we are currently experiencing but again this is natural and not ACO2 induced.

Richard C

I’m back in business at Hot Topic @ 210

The enthralling debate continues…….

Richard C

Have now engaged with Gareth @ 202, 212

Richard C

Called a halt to hostilities with Gareth. The real debate is taking place here: What can we learn from climate models? by Judith Curry This will be an ongoing series among very influential people that will have international repercussions. The quality of input and diversity of views (post and comments) is staggering, except for the spelling in the example below (he’s a Dr BTW): Roy Clark | October 4, 2010 at 2:49 pm | Reply The fundamental goal of any simulation is to reproduce (and then hopefully predict) the behavior of the physically measurable variables in the system. These ideas go back to the start of quantum mechnical models in the 1920′s. In the case of climate models, the basic variable is the ‘surface temperature’. The claim of global warming is that the 1.7 W.m-2 increase in ‘clear sky’ downward flux from a 100 ppm increase in atmopspheric CO2 concentration has produced an increase in surface temperature of 1 degree C. This is based on the use of the meteorological surface air temperature record [‘hockey stick’] as a proxy for the surface temperature. The idea of radiative forcing goes back to Manabe… Read more »

Richard C

Have issued this challenge to Gareth at Hot Topic: Richard C2 October 6, 2010 at 9:01 am “So you are happy to accept that you are wrong in the particular respects I have pointed out? Or are you just not prepared to continue the discussion” Whether you or I are right or wrong at this juncture is immaterial in this 1:1 debate. The appropriate international forum for all the issues we are covering has now opened up at Judith Curry’s blog. I suggest that our respective points of view are presented on that forum where deficiencies of argument are immediately taken to task by experts. Given that the focus of the forum is uncertainty in the models, I think you will find that you are defending the indefensible. So I will be continuing this discussion on that forum (but not here) and whether you contribute or not there is up to you. Thank you for the opportunity to present my point of view on your Blog; this discussion has been much more stimulating than preaching to the converted at sceptic sites.

Richard C

An interesting development.

05 Oct 2010: Analysis
“On Climate Models, the Case For Living with Uncertainties” by fred pearce


Clearly, concerns about how climate scientists handle complex issues of scientific uncertainty are set to escalate. They were highlighted in a report about IPCC procedures published in late August in response to growing criticism about IPCC errors. The report highlighted distortions and exaggerations in IPCC reports, many of which involved not correctly representing uncertainty about specific predictions.

But efforts to rectify the problems in the next IPCC climate-science assessment (AR5) are likely to further shake public confidence in the reliability of IPCC climate forecasts.

Last January, Trenberth, head of climate analysis at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., published a little-noticed commentary in Nature online. Headlined “More Knowledge, Less Certainty,” it warned that “the uncertainty in AR5’s predictions and projections will be much greater than in previous IPCC reports.” He added that “this could present a major problem for public understanding of climate change.” He can say that again.

Richard C

Fred Pearce’s article is making headlines.

Reuters have now picked it up the same article, different headline:

“Climate Models: Get Ready for More Uncertainty”

Richard C

Also this progression: 30 Aug 2010: Analysis “The Effect of Clouds on Climate: A Key Mystery for Researchers” by michael d. lemonick Excerpt A major problem facing climate modelers is extrapolating the behavior and impacts of clouds from an individual level to a regional scale. The resolution of climate models — the grid boxes researchers divide the atmosphere into for the purposes of simulations, analogous to the pixels that make up a digital image — is much bigger than any individual cloud. And, says Randall, what goes on inside those grid boxes in the real world varies widely depending on local conditions, including the type of particles around which water vapor condenses to form clouds. And Randall cited one example of a huge regional cloud phenomenon in the tropics whose behavior in a warming world is uncertain. Known as the Madden-Julian Oscillation, the phenomenon involves the formation of enormous systems of thunderstorms over the oceans, driving weather patterns affecting millions of people. “Most models do not even produce this phenomenon, even though it’s the largest feature in tropical atmosphere,” said Randall. “If you’re missing that, you’re missing an important thing. We’d like… Read more »

Richard C

Youza! Climate science modeling now getting serious stick from other fields – nuclear, chemical etc. Some very astute and knowledgeable comments in this (very long) thread at Climate Audit: “Curry Reviews Jablonowski and Williamson” Samples:- # Frank K. Posted Feb 3, 2008 at 10:24 PM | Permalink “There aren’t any standard test cases used by atmospheric modelers.” I find this utterly astonishing! You mean no one has bothered to apply various GCMs to reference solutions until now? And we’re talking about just the dynamical cores here… There is also another related issue that I believe plagues many of the numerical models. How do you prove that the algorithms expressed in the computer code are actually solving the equations they purport to be solving? That is, has anyone done a software audit on these codes? Many organizations, like NASA GISS, provide little to no documentation of the algorithms, even though the code itself is provided. For those who are interested, take a look at Model E for instance at the GISS website. What equations are used for the dynamical core? Are they implemented correctly? Has any stability analysis be performed on the discrete… Read more »

Richard C

At the risk of brow-beating, some thoughts on the state-of play re climate model uncertainty as the result of my solitary up-thread odyssey. Our worst nightmare is just around the corner. That is the cobbling together of climate simulation models and economic simulation models. Think Gareth Renowden – Gareth Morgan. If dear reader, you are overwhelmed by the sheer volume of discussion, complexity and concept in regard to climate models, then let me alleviate your pain. First, the significance of this development. Think of how globally: politicians, policy-makers and the public have been hoodwinked by the results of the climate models. Now consider that the next phase for IPCC AR5 will be policy built on the results of climate-economic coupled computer simulations with AGW hard-wired in. If this is news to you then you are behind the 8 ball and without further education you will be blind-sided when you first encounter the executive summary. Gareth Renowden is up to speed: Gareth October 5, 2010 at 9:39 pm Yes, the models are run to equilibrium state with a prescribed atmosphere and other forcings, before being fed the trajectory chosen for study. This does not… Read more »


Thanks for that Richard, it is shocking to see that those objections at Climate audit date back over 2 and a half years and seem to have had zero effect. At least Judith Curry is showing a more honest approach to scientific enquiry.

Richard C

Ron. Judith Currey’s approach may not be that honest but am willing to give her the benefit of doubt. I get the impression that she is either: A. Protecting the status quo by raising a strawman, or B, Just has not investigated other avenues. e.g. Her observation: “So far, it seems that the biggest climate model uncertainty monsters are spawned by the complexity monster.” I disagree entirely. My thinking is that as models evolve and unknown functions addressed (clouds etc), certainty in the functions INCREASE but over the last 7 years say, certainty in the results have DECREASED (uncertainty increased). As time progresses, certainty in functionality should continue to increase and therefore uncertainty in results SHOULD decrease but wont for the following reason which is the notion that I do not think she has entertained in B. above. WE HAVE NOT TO DATE BEEN PRESENTED WITH ACTUAL SIMULATION COMPARISONS BETWEEN COMPETING CLIMATE DRIVER HYPOTHESES AND COMBINATIONS OF SUCH. The PCMDI project that supposedly makes model inter-comparisons is a massive group-think exercise and somewhat incestuous. The IPCC’s assertion that: well, we took out CO2 forcing and ran 15 simulations on 5 different models using… Read more »

G.S. Williams

Just a couple of points.

Your header should be, “Filmed free for nothing”, The word “for” MUST be followed by a noun not an adjective. In the context of your header “free”, is an adjective. Also, the word “but” is superfluous in that context.

I hope that this is of help.

G.S. Williams.

Thank you, G.S. Williams.

Efficient. Lovely. Changed.

P.S.: I’ve left the hyperlink as it was or things would break.


Don’t want to get embroiled in a prescriptivist grammar stoush here, but the expression “do something for free” is perfectly acceptable colloquial English. It is in e.g. Cambridge Learner’s Dictionary, Chamber’s 21st Century Dictionary.
(I suppose “for free” is an adverbial phrase not preposition plus adjective)


Richard North has provided a lot of background to this over at

In addition to the various spoofs (including a Monty Python remix) there is some interesting feedback from disgruntled supporters of 10-10.

It really does seem like they have blown it this time.


If there’s one video that you have to watch, it’s this one

It neatly segues all the propaganda used to terrorise children over recent years.

Bob D

Segues. What a useful word. I’ve never heard of it before.


The internet is full of spoof 10-10 videos now

This one is pretty good

Richard C

Delingpole is still wringing every drop from this one. His latest:-

10:10: who are YOU going to kill to help save the planet?

Post Navigation