UK television ad for “Action On CO2″ is beyond bad taste

Th UK Government has lost all sense of realism and decency. As a father of two young children myself, I’d like to smack the person(s) responsible for this upside the head and say “what were you thinking!”.

Even normally pro AGW Nature calls it the Worst. Climate. Campaign. Ever. Watch this.

Link to transcript

Nature writes:

The UK government has decided to convince us all that climate change is real. To this end it is spending £6 million on a prime time advertising campaign featuring a father reading a bedtime story about the evil carbon dioxide monster created by grown ups which is making rabbits cry.

In perhaps the worst advert for stopping climate change I’ve ever seen, the cringe worthy short has the father telling his child how scientists found that global warming “was being caused by too much CO2, and it was the children of the land who’d have to live with the horrible consequences”

In an article in the Register, Andrew Orlowski points out that even the UK  Met office doesn’t go this far:

Met Office climate modeller Vicky Pope has said apocalyptic predictions are misleading – “distorting” the perception of climate change. She cited shock-horror press releases about recent Arctic ice melt, which she said could equally be explained by natural variation.

Taxpayers are paying £6m so their children can be scared out of their wits. It’s not Halloween, but a new climate change TV advertising campaign that begins tonight, which features a young girl watching a dog drown.

See the new center of climate porn here:

http://actonco2.direct.gov.uk/actonco2/home.html

They do have a contact form. The question is: will they listen or just brand everyone who thinks maybe the campaign is “over the top” as paid shills of Exxon ?

http://actonco2.direct.gov.uk/actonco2/home/about-us/Contact-us.html

About these ads

223 thoughts on “UK television ad for “Action On CO2″ is beyond bad taste

  1. This is nothing less than government-sponsored child abuse and indoctrination, a typical outgrowth of any fundamentalist religion. That even the zealots at Nature (a recognized center of climate alarmism) finds this campaign beyond the pale is telling.

  2. Someone with good movie maker software should download this video, rework it and tell everyone how the evil government is trying to scare the shit out of kids to make them comply with the global governance agenda.

  3. That poor dog drowned because that evil kid and her dad kept their house warm, end of story.

    Brent in Calgary

  4. Ecofascists are hard at work. Remember Chamberlin and appeasement did NOT work.

    If you want to protect a free society then fight this outright FASCIST movement with all your might!

    If you don’t take a stanmd now then perhaps your own children will one day be goosestepping in the street and marching off industry leaders & workes (CO2 Monsters) to concentration camps in order to turn there bodies into carbon that can be buried back in to the earth (hence saving the world from evil industrialists).

  5. OMG! This is wretched.

    It will probably get worse through the Copenhagen faux-anxiety-fest. Early onset of NH winter, record-low ice melt in Antarctica, quick refreeze in the Arctic, and still no dang photo-op hurricanes in the Atlantic.

    What’s a committed Doomster to do?

  6. That’s it. I can’t bear the sight of a poor little crying bunny rabbit, sobbing because we destroyed the Earth.

    I’m going to switch off the electricity and live in the da

  7. Since they’re already scaring the hell of of kids, why not add “…and when naughty children watched TV, played video games, and used night lights.”

  8. I told you carbon taxing the world is the linchpin of the ruling elite’s plan to control the entire planet. They will try anything and stop at nothing to make it so. You have no idea who you are dealing with and what they are capable of. Now you get to see it before your very eyes. So sad.

  9. This sort of thing is not new. Governments have done it before.

    Stalinist Russia, Nazi Germany, and China under Mao Zedong are three examples that come to mind.

    Was this put out my a Ministry of Information (aka Propaganda)?

    It is one thing to put out dodgy press releases to dupe the popular press into publishing rubbish. But it is quite another thing for the Government to start believing its own spin.

    They will be burning books about real science next …

  10. When I see propaganda like this, which is beyond the worst parody of specious fearmongering, I have to ask “Is this is a turning point?”.
    At first it seemed to me that the producers of this are merely making a crass point about our future generations by talking in such blank childlike terms, but then it occurred to me that this is all they can intellectually manage to use as an argument, they really think that we are stupider than them. I think any child can see through this.

  11. Over the pond, you guys are not bombarded with the Madhouse/loony-toon fruit cake spin of the EU/Nu-labour government insanities, that constitute so called ‘POLICY’, although, with Waxman/Marky, you are getting a flavour.

    Bring on a cold winter in the northern hemisphere!!

  12. Maybe this will finally cause people to say enough is enough . Stooping this low might well force folks to step back and see climate change hysteria for what it is .

  13. Jim Cole writes ” quick refreeze in the Arctic”

    I hate to disillusion you, but the Arctic has stopped it’s quick refreeze over the last week or so. I think we skeptics ought to stick to facts.

  14. I can’t believe this one. I’ve already emailed my complaint to them. I think this one above all others deserves a complaint from every reader. I’m also going to complain to the advertising standards authority.

    Just when you think that they cannot stoop any lower…..

  15. maybe we can kill the rabbit and make the girl a fur muff so her father can turn the heat down. Two birds with one stone.

  16. This just shows how lunatic our discredited government has become. The country is essentially bankrupt and yet £6m can be found to fund propaganda.

  17. This is the logical outcome of allowing AIT and the religion of AGW into our schools.

    Despair people, it will only get worse. The only way to counter it is to teach the truth to your own children.

  18. The Met office vacillate between doom and apocalypse and “oh, maybe its not that bad really”. They are very confused and caught between a rock and a hard place. Not their fault: On the one hand they want to be accurate and objective. On the other they have to accept the current paradigm.

  19. OK. What is the deal with the UK? Why are they trash-talking about climate change? Can someone from the UK please repond? I mean….seriously what is going on?

  20. From my experience of children, most of them watching this advert will want to know where they can get a Carbon Monster outfit for Halloween, and if they could get the Carbon Footprint boots that leave black sticky goo everywhere that would be just great.

  21. Think how much CO2 would be saved from going into the atmosphere if dadies stopped reading their kids bedtime stories. Thats 10-15 minutes extra time with the lights on. We could save thousands of dogs and rabbits which by the way were reprted to be overpopulating because of the longer summers and shorter winters.

  22. Regular readers of this site know that the government is lying in this case because they have personal knowledge of the subject. The next time the government makes a case that the readers are unfamiliar with they can fairly assume the same level of honesty as shown in this bit of propaganda.

    So who loses? Once credibility is lost there are no words that can get it back.

  23. Hey little girl! Look outside your window. Do you see a big, black smoke monster that’s been formed out little black clouds that came out of people’s cars and houses? No. Okay, problem solved then.

  24. UK citizens please complain at:-

    http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/how_to_complain/complaints_form

    I said:-
    The advert is an emotionally charged and deliberately misleading piece of scaremongering propaganda which seeks to demonise carbon dioxide, a harmless trace gas which as plant food is essential to life on Earth. Claims are made that the “weather is very very strange” (which it is not – unless they mean that it has been getting colder for all this century) and it is stated that “scientists say this is caused by too much CO2″. Whilst some scientists claim this is the case, many other eminent scientists say that the effect of CO2 on climate is trivial and largely beneficial. No reputable scientist, (even those promoting alarmism and the IPCC themselves) claims that “weather” events (as opposed to climate) are caused by CO2 emissions. There is absolutely no evidence whatever that anthropogenic CO2 emissions have, are, or are likely to call flooding, sea level rise or threaten childrens’ future. There is also absolutely no evidence, if the UK’s anthropogenic CO2 emissions stopped completely, that there would be any measurable effect on the global climate.
    It is claimed that “the grown ups discovered that over 40% of the ‘CO2′ was caused by ordinary things like keeping houses warm”. This is completely wrong. It is claimed that CO2 levels were approx. 285ppmv before the industrial revolution as opposed to 385ppmv now. If these figures (ex. IPCC) are correct, there has been no more than 35% increase in CO2 from every (including completely natural, as well as transport and industry) sources. Many scientists estimate that a more likely figure is around 5%. There is ample evidence that CO2 levels and global temperature has been much higher many times in the past with few if any disbenefits.

  25. What happened to my previous post?

    In any case, you can see other “subliminal” messages in there: like the Noah’s ark curtains and the panda. But if they wanted to cut their carbon footprint maybe they should have put less pillows on the girl’s bed. Another one is when the little girl shut the light off, before she is all worried and after she is all smiling.

  26. My comment on the previous thread beat this post by about ten minutes! so I’m guessing that you were aware of this ahead of me.

    I would just like to reiterate in this more appropriate thread that this is a tv adertisement, and as such is governed by strict regulations on truthfulness. The impression is clearly made that more than 40% of CO2 is due to heating houses and driving cars etc, in fact I believe only an estimated 3-4% of CO2 is due to all fossil fuel combustion combined, the rest being natural sources.

    Apart from the nauseating tone of the whole thing, this serious factual innaccuracy is a legitimate cause for a complaint to the regulator (I think the Advertising Standards Authority in the UK). It would be great if a correction could be broadcast.

  27. The UK gov’t doesn’t even have the theory correct.

    “The term ‘greenhouse effect’ was coined to describe the way some gases in the atmosphere (such as carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and methane) trap some of the light energy from the sun after it is reflected from the Earth’s surface, and before it can escape out into space, so warming our atmosphere.”

    http://actonco2.direct.gov.uk/actonco2/home/climate-change-the-facts/Rising-temperatures-and-the-greenhouse-effect.html

    But the “trapping” of reflected solar shortwave isn’t part of the theory, rather the trapping of infrared (longwave) emitted by the earth’s heated surface.

  28. Re: Mike (13:22:45) :

    “OK. What is the deal with the UK? Why are they trash-talking about climate change? Can someone from the UK please repond? I mean….seriously what is going on?”

    Mike, I believe that at least part of the driver for this is the total hash our government here has made of our future energy requirement.
    Much power generation has used natural gas from under the North Sea, but this is now running out. They can’t go back to coal because of EU pollution directives, and they have reversed their anti-nuclear position too late to fill the gap. All they are left with is sourcing natural gas from unreliable overseas sources like Russia, covering half the country in wind turbines – and desperately trying to do everything they can to get consumers to reduce demand – hence (at least in part) the convenient ‘fig leaf’ of CO2 reduction.
    On a positive note, they have made such a mess of the economy that we won’t be able to afford much power consumption anyway – hope it doesn’t get too cold!

  29. LOL! “40% of the CO2 comes from everyday things like keeping houses warm and driving cars”

    So the “solution” which will bring a “happy ending” I suppose is to freeze your children in your home at night and refuse to drive them to school, or to the doctor.

    (little blond girl smiles, hugs her dad and says “what a wonderful environmentally responsible world it is”.)

  30. No TV at tallbloke towers anymore. Sold on ebay months ago. Looks like it was a good move.

    Stop paying the TV license fee as a protest against this crap.

    REPLY: Better yet, have a protest where citizens dump their TV’s on the office doorstep of these fools.

  31. Jim Turner (13:55:19) :
    …………..
    “On a positive note, they have made such a mess of the economy that we won’t be able to afford much power consumption anyway – hope it doesn’t get too cold!”

    And when is the next election?

  32. That was a very lame story, the kid was not impressed.

    The father’s expression at 0:26 is absolutely classic, his face says it all: [snip] … He’s definitely a skeptic.

  33. I sent my response, starting out nicely so they would at least start reading it.

    I don’t think they uise the expression “jump the shark” in the UK; how about hoping this is just “… Too Far”.

  34. To add to all the gloom coming out of the UK at the moment E-ON have decided to abandon plans for a new coal-fired power station at Kingsnorth, a victory for Greensleaze and Fiends of the Earth and our old friend James Hansen. Readers may remember a court case where he stuck his nose into UK politics and persuaded a jury that it was OK for the Little Green Men to invade private property to stop the evil electricity suppliers from building a new (and in about 5 years vitally needed) power station at Kingsnorth.
    Thanks, James. Brown-outs, or even blackouts, will be knows as hansens in future.

  35. Six months ago I complained to the ASA (advertising standards authority) about the ‘Change 4 Life’ health campaign. My complaint, along with others, resulted in the advertisement being dropped.

    I intend to complain about this advertisement also. I am a father of young children and I find this advertisement to be dishonest and offensive.

    I suggest that if anyone feels the same that they do the same.

    Here is the web site … just follow the instruction.

    http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/how_to_complain/

  36. Mike @13:22:45

    “OK. What is the deal with the UK? Why are they trash-talking about climate change? Can someone from the UK please repond? I mean….seriously what is going on?”

    Mike, the UK ruling elite have gone insane. Really. The government, incredibly unpopular and desperately broke, is trying to “lead the world” in dragging the country down to King Canute levels of energy use. Even the Conservative Leader of the Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, David Cameron, has a windmill on his house. Remember that Prince Charles is a believer, as is the Guardian’s Moonbat.

    The government has a minister of “Energy and Climate Change”. Goal: To shut down electricity production.

    They’re all demented over there. The government’s policy on global warming has been handed over to a committee for climate change, run by proifteers. It’s not in the control of Parliament.

    The scammers have taken over while the deluded in Parliament are bamboozled by the criminally insane.

    EUreferendum.com is a good web site to follow some of this, as well as climateresistance.com. Both explore the politics of it all.

  37. Jim Turner (13:55:19) :
    Re: Mike (13:22:45) :

    “OK. What is the deal with the UK? Why are they trash-talking about climate change? Can someone from the UK please repond? I mean….seriously what is going on?”

    Mike, I believe that at least part of the driver for this is the total hash our government here has made of our future energy requirement.
    Much power generation has used natural gas from under the North Sea, but this is now running out. They can’t go back to coal because of EU pollution directives, and they have reversed their anti-nuclear position too late to fill the gap. All they are left with is sourcing natural gas from unreliable overseas sources like Russia, covering half the country in wind turbines – and desperately trying to do everything they can to get consumers to reduce demand – hence (at least in part) the convenient ‘fig leaf’ of CO2 reduction.
    On a positive note, they have made such a mess of the economy that we won’t be able to afford much power consumption anyway – hope it doesn’t get too cold!
    —————-

    Plus, they’ve already defrauded the taxpayer out of billions of quid on this garbage. I assume that they have to be somewhat concerned about the ramifications of that. Spending more taxpayer money on keeping the hoax and taxation going, hoping that it will turn around, is the groupthink equivalent of that famous Englishman Nick Leeson.

    Maybe they think that if they can keep the hoax going a bit longer, then they can claim that they cooled the planet with their wind turbines and saved us all.

    The people in the UK I’ve talked to already also agree that this is an own goal. If they have to spend more taxpayer money to lie this hard, it shows the desperation of their position.

  38. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8299079.stm

    What has happened to global warming? Well this article on the BBC is not a conversion to the climate sceptic side, and I believe the BBC should NOT be climate sceptic, but this is a big step in the right direction in the BBC finally acknowledging that there is distinct changes in opinion and science over how much and the cause of the warming that has happened.

    Will they finally go the one step further and actually state the fact that there is NO consensus within the scientific community as a whole or even the climate science community, as this article clearly implies? I hope that this is not a single one off article of the kind that the BBC quietly publishes just so that they can claim impartiality.

  39. I hope this advert is the real tipping point of global warming propaganda.
    Appalling!

    This is a desperate attempt to cover up the truth before the Copenhagen meeting.
    But, a glimmer of hope. BBC has finally opened the door a little bit with some climate change glasnost.
    It will be interesting to watch the next coming weeks of the global warming farce.

  40. Jim Turner (13:55:19) :

    On a positive note, they have made such a mess of the economy that we won’t be able to afford much power consumption anyway – hope it doesn’t get too cold!

    One of my new pastimes now I got rid of the TV is to go hunting for fallen wood with my van and chainsaw. I like a nice cheery fire of a winter evening. Watching it is far more restful than watching Govt climate claptrap on the box too.

  41. I’ve filled in an, on-line, complaints form with the Advertising Standards Authority here in the UK, a thing I would recommend all UK based citizens to do. Surprise, surprise, their on-line complaints form won’t submit; twice I’ve tried it. Are we overloading their server? I do hope so! I’ll try the phone tomorrow 020 7492 2222 or textphone 020 7242 8159 or fax 020 7242 3696.

    Enjoy.

  42. As I mentioned on another thread; there is no left-right divide on AGW in the UK – all the main parties are true believers. The chairman of the Environmental Audit Committee, the main parliamentary committee dealing with climate change, is a Tory, Tim Yeo, and David Cameron is keen to stress his green credentials at all times.

    And let’s not forget the prime mover behind the current climate change rhetoric in the UK was Margaret Thatcher (going back to her ‘green speech’ in 1988).

    Anyone expecting a change of direction under the incoming Tories is going to be very disappointed, unfortunately.

  43. “Mike (13:22:45) :

    OK. What is the deal with the UK? Why are they trash-talking about climate change? Can someone from the UK please repond? I mean….seriously what is going on?”

    A large part of the it is the present political situation. As part of their strategy to re-invent themselves and become electable again (still when Tony Blair was PM and before the financial crisis), the Tories with David Cameron as leader found it convenient to emphasize their “green credentials”. Labour’s own base (and the government bureaucracy in institutions like the BBC, besides the Met office, etc) was inclined to environmentalism in any case. Whatever Gordon Brown’s personal views on the subject may be (I’d be surprised if he turned out to be a “true believer”), he’s so weak politically now that he can’t afford to be controversial on that issue even if he wanted to. He may even be giving a free rein to those in the Department of Energy and Climate Change (created by him one year ago) in order to maintain the support of the alarmist crowd.

    As for the Tories, they’re so anxious not to damage their likely victory next year that the only “dissent” (at least with a high profile) they have had regarding this topic has come from Nigel Lawson, Thatcher’s Chancellor of the Exchequer and now pretty much out of active politics except as a member of the House of Lords.

    This debate, in 2008, between Lord Lawson and the Tory policy chief, Oliver Letwin, illustrates the mindset in the Tory leadership: http://www.standpointmag.co.uk/node/134/full

  44. From that BBC article:

    “Professor Latif is based at the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University in Germany and is one of the world’s top climate modellers.

    But he makes it clear that he has not become a sceptic; he believes that this cooling will be temporary, before the overwhelming force of man-made global warming reasserts itself.”

    So when it is cooling it’s natural but when it is warming it’s man-made!!!??? [snip]?

  45. The University Of Calgary is advertising its ISEEE department in the Globe and Mail. Intrigued, I checked their site iseee.ca and wondered about the level of science and found out that their next speaker is “Ed Struzik, an award-winning journalist who has worked extensively in the North, will speak on climate change in the Arctic as part of Arctic Change, a speaker series hosted by the Arctic Institute of North America.”

    Yes University of Calgary cannot even find a climatologist to speak about arctic climate!

  46. nanny_govt_sucks

    your LOL! “40% of the CO2 comes from everyday things like keeping houses warm and driving cars”

    So the “solution” which will bring a “happy ending” I suppose is to freeze your children in your home at night and refuse to drive them to school, or to the doctor.

    Worse than that. 80% cuts are the target, for many groups, and governments.

    Perhaps this would have been more honest for the ad:

    40% of the CO2 comes from everyday things like keeping houses warm and driving cars. So, no heat or lights for your house, no video games or music, and absolutely no driving. The other 40% will have to come from cuts in food production and manufacturing jobs.

  47. Meanwhile in America . . .

    A kid watching the NASA moon bombing video reports –

    “It was cool seeing actual pictures of the moon live,” said 10-year-old Jackson Bridges, but he added: “I wanted to see the debris flying out. It was still interesting to watch, but it was less interesting without the flying debris.”

  48. What is so shocking is not the lies, the emotive images or the mental abuse of children, it is the fact that this execrable propaganda was government sanctioned. This is the type of filth one might expect from activist groups, not a democratic government. It raises the question of why the UK bothered to resist the Nazis or the Soviet Union.

    The good news is this story is going to have a very, very unhappy ending for those in the massive AGW hoax. Despite the attempts of the UK government and others, we do not live in George Orwells’ 1984. We live in the age of micro media and the internet. The evidence for the corruption of science and the names of those involved are recorded for all time. Imagine what fun it will be playing this ad back in 10 years time to those who would rather we forget their crimes. I for one will never forgive and never forget.

  49. There is a British govt department behind the rationale for this advert that is known as Defra

    Here is Defras ‘communication strategy scoping report’ which directly led to Futerras “new rules of the game” (Futerra is a very high powered environmental PR Agency)

    http://www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/social/behaviour/documents/behaviours-1206-scoping.pdf

    extracts;

    “This work has contributed to a shared understanding of the vision for environmental behaviour to underpin ‘one planet living’

    “ as part of our mapping of Defras work we drew up an initial set of ‘desired’ behaviours”.

    This scoping report was the original basis for the advert on itv through implementing Futerras ‘new rules of the game’

    http://www.futerra.co.uk/downloads/NewRules:NewGame.pdf

    These are their directors:

    http://www.futerra.co.uk/about_us/directors

    Some of their clients:

    http://www.futerra.co.uk/clients/

    which includes the BBC;
    Extract from Futerra web site:

    ‘Various BBC teams have enjoyed training sessions on communicating sustainable development. Participants have ranged from producers for EastEnders ( a polular soap) to researchers on the CBeebies channel.’ (The latter a childrens channel)

    Part of Defra metamorposed into;

    http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/about/about.aspx

    In oct 2008 and became The ‘dept of energy and climate change’

    The Four principals are Ed Miliband Lord Hunt Joan Ruddock David Kidney

    Joan Ruddock’s work focuses largely on how ‘we can change behaviour across UK society and reach an ambitious global agreement to reduce our carbon emissions in a fair and effective way’.

    Joan needs no introduction to British readers

    http://www.joanruddock.org.uk/index.php?id=13

    for years she was chair of CND (Campaign for Nuclear disarmament) Eventually moved to Defra and ended up in this new dept.

    Ed Miliband is a senior labour Govt figure. His father was Ralph Miliband, the Marxist political theorist, one of the most influential left-wingers of his generation. Eds girl friend is an environmental lawyer
    From here;

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/article4449710.ece

    Britain likes to think of itself as a leader in climate action but the EU only got on board in 2005 with this matter;

    http://74.125.77.132/search?q=cache:eGPj89Zrb2EJ:ecologic.eu/download/zeitschriftenartikel/meyer-ohlendorf/g8_impact_on_international_climate_change_negotiations.pdf+tony+blair+ad+hoc+working+group+for+annex+first+session&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

    or as a pdf

    http://ecologic.eu/download/zeitschriftenartikel/meyer-ohlendorf/g8_impact_on_international_climate_change_negotiations.pdf

    Extract:
    “The UK Prime Minister Tony Blair defined climate change as “probably, long-term the single most important issue we face as a global community” and made climate change one of his priority topics during the UK’s G8 Presidency, along with Africa. Climate change was also made a priority for the
    UK’s EU Presidency (1 July 2005 – 31 December 2005). In a keynote speech on climate change, Tony Blair set out three ambitious targets for the UK’s G8 Presidency in 2005:
    •To secure an agreement as to the basic science on climate change and the threat it poses, to provide the foundation for further action
    •To reach agreement on a process to speed up the science, technology and other measuresnecessary to meet the threat
    •To engage countries outside the G8 who have growing energy needs, like China and India”

    The following year was the first meeting of the ‘ad hoc group’ to set up integrated action betwen the EU and the IPCC working groups. Both the EU and the UN are following Agenda 21. In the case of climate change that relates to the IPCC whose findings are endorsed by those countries following the agenda and who therefore subsequently have a legal obligation to implement that agenda. This includes teaching propaganda to our school children

    Agenda 21 is clearly linked to the AD Hoc working group. The group has five chairs of whom 4 are green activists. Several of them have openly written of the need for a new world governance. The SAGE21 education agenda from the UN clearly sets out to influence schools.

    The Agenda 21 aims has been endorsed at Govt level, and various councils and govt bodies have been instructed to follow this agenda.

    Below is the first session of the AD Hoc group in 2006

    http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/cop_11/application/pdf/cmp1_00_consideration_of_commitments_under_3.9.pdf

    Good resumee of events below;

    http://www.iisd.ca/vol12/enb12357e.html

    This is minutes and action plan of latest meeting in April 2009

    http://unfccc.int/meetings/items/4381.php

    This is the overall aims of Agenda 21.

    http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/

    Extract

    Internationally Agreed Development Goals & Climate Change;

    Internationally agreed frameworks and goals have set an agenda for integrating climate change and sustainable development. Agenda 21, which addresses climate change under its Chapter 9 (Protection of the atmosphere), recognizes that activities that may be undertaken in pursuit of the objectives defined therein should be coordinated with social and economic development in an integrated manner, with a view to avoiding adverse impacts on the latter, taking into full account the legitimate priority needs of developing countries for the achievement of sustained economic growth and the eradication of poverty.’

    Both Agenda 21 and the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation (JPOI) assert that the United Nations Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is the key instrument for addressing climate change. The Kyoto Protocol, which entered into force on 16 February 2005, sets binding emission reductions targets for industrialized countries for the first commitment period 2008-2012.

    The science behind the IPCC is shaky at best and is intended as the means to persuade the populace to follow broader social objectives in a ‘one world’ scenario.

    The UK government is attempting to implement social engineering on a grand scale in the Uk and in the EU, obviously believing George Orwells 1984 is a handbook for action, not a work of fiction.

    Tonyb

  50. Remember WMDs in Iraq and the secret service reports given to the Bush administration. The reports were less certain about actual posession but the politicians used spin to create certainty and we got a war with no WMDs.

    The Met Office and Nature just don’t understand politicians. Politics is about power.

  51. Mike (13:22:45)

    Global carbon trading, increased taxes, utility bills and the fact that London’s financial centre has the ambition to be the world centre for carbon trade. Banks are mainly the ones calling for these measures – they can only be made acceptable via the media.

  52. I couldn’t believe they’d put this load of ‘pony’ on the box tonight, I wanted to scream & tear my hair out (before I remembered I have none). This is typical of the brainwashing rubbish the media feeds us daily in the UK, apart from the occasional commentator such as Christopher Booker. My reply on being asked my opinion on the ad was 8 letters beginning with b & ending with s. I have to agree with the earlier comment by a jones, unfortunately our parliament is full of acolytes to the new religion.

  53. This TV spot from Action on CO2 cannot be described: this is incitation to generational culling. They really need the boomers nest egg now not in 30 years. They aim at brainwashing the kids and grand kids to do the job for them. These people are dangerous and ruthless.

  54. Regardless of folks opinions, unfortunately this kind of crap is effective. The question is not whether any number of bloggers, newsies, etc. debunk it, ridicule it and so forth. The question is: What is being done in real terms to effectively counter it? It seems to me that the sceptic community has been on the defensive since day one, and no battle has ever been won thru purely defensive tactics. You/we are allowing the alarmists to set the agenda. If it continues, there is no doubt they will win. At this point in the process scientific “truth” is irrelevant.

  55. My apologies; I should have been agreeing with SJones. although A jones has got it right.But would they listen?

  56. Given the net carbon consumption of making, broadcasting and watching TV the most natural thought would be that the TV companies should close themselves down to make and immediate and, likely, measurable impact.

    Of course this may not please the Government since a population not controlled and made comatose by TV might start to re-discover its critical thinking ability.

    I guess that would leave it with no option but to take state control of the Internet.

    Stranger things have happend.

    In recent times ther have been some very odd, and getting odder, decisions by the Norwegians about the destination of the Nobel Peace Prize. Gore, obviously, but before that Arafat and others. Could this award be co-opted as a proxy for the degree of madness exhibited by the ‘Ruling Elite’? And then be extrapolation help us to understand and predict what idiotic policies are about to be publically aired by the ‘World Government’?

  57. Just complained to the ASA … Two tracks …factual inaccuracies (lies) and the way that they are being peddled.

    I strongly advise this action. The ASA have teeth and they can stop this sort of rubbish pretty quickly.

  58. If you’ve ever had any involvement with animal research or animal agriculture you won’t be surprised by this or the one posted by Gary Hladik (13:51:04).
    How long will it be before these fascists are terrorizing you and your family because you don’t drive an electric car or because your business or home isn’t powered by wind and solar? PETA, ALF , WWF, the radical greens and, apparently now the British government are willing to use any means to make you conform to their world view, no matter how warped and misanthropic. They’ve already brainwashed your kids’ teachers into brainwashing your kids; now they’re bringing it into your home. This stuff is not only sick, it’s dangerous. A UCLA researcher conducting critical neurological research using monkeys recently gave up because of fear for his family after they had been terrorized in their own home. You could be next.

  59. Now if the UK government owns the TV networks, how’s come it costs them £6 million to put up an advert in prime time?

    Maybe the government should demand the resignations of the BBC Chairman and Director General if it can’t get a bargain rate.

    Speaking of top level BBC resignations, I see that Wikipedia has whitewashed the David Kelly affair in its bio page on Andrew Gilligan.

  60. You need to make your voices heard very loudly. In letters, emails and comments, ask every government department, environmentalist, activist, media outlet, bank and carbon trade lobbyist if there will be a refund or reimbursement for money spent on carbon taxes or carbon credits if temperatures fail to rise when greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise (because they will not stop rising for a long time). Say it loudly and say it everywhere and watch how the cretins cringe when they can’t answer the question.

  61. Hey, we have 2-Jags as our climate change spokesperson, who says we Brits don’t have a sense of humour?

    As for Kingsnorth being canned, we’ve also been treated to news preparing us for domestic energy bills increasing by 60% between now and 2016!-

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8297882.stm

    Lemme think. Build powerstation, more power, harder to justify price hikes. Don’t build powerstation, demand increasing.. Yup, sounds like a plan!

    But it’ll be ok, £6m (or $9.6m) is a small price to pay for our future kid’s nightmares. Me? Think I’ll risk the wrath of PETA, skin some bunny wabbits and make some nice warm slippers and gloves.

  62. Interesting. They pull Ren and Stimpy, the Road Runner, the Cat and Mouse one (can’t remember the name of that one), and Yosemite Sam because they are too violent for little children. But a drowning dog is okay????

  63. @tallbloke

    We dumped our TV 20 years ago now. Never missed it, not once. People ask “What do you do with all that time?”, and I reply, “How do you find the time to watch TV?”

    It was dull crap back then. Now, it’s “999 channels and nothing on (except repeats)”, to paraphrase Bruce Springsteen IIRC.

    The best part? Our children READ. And I mean read, really read, every single day and love it. A trip to the bookshop is the highpoint of any week.

    That you will never be able to buy, and I will never give it up or stop trying to convince others of the benefit.

  64. Anthony,

    Thanks for running the story. I get much of my climate news here; not a day passes without visiting.

    It’s one thing to fulminate on a blog such as this, but unless direct messages are sent to the responsible party, they will always say: “We’ve had no complaints.” So hats off to Martin Brumby, Nick Name Game and EricH, above, for sounding their complaints in the appropriate ear.

    I’m glad we’re not all saying exactly the same thing, but there’s enough similarity to strengthen each other’s theme. I said:

    Dear Sir,

    Your campaign “Change how the story ends”, featuring a father reading a frightening bed-time story to his daughter, is the most blatant modern example of political indoctrination I have seen. Perhaps only North Korea, China and, earlier, the USSR might furnish better examples. Or Goebbel’s efforts for the Nazis.

    You should not disturb children’s minds, pollute them with untruths and pervert their youthful innocence. To set out deliberately to make them fearful with your global warming propaganda as you have done is deeply depraved. What kind of person sets out to frighten children? Don’t you love them?

    You do this on behalf of the government? I’m deeply shocked and disturbed for the future of democracy and civil society. You forget your humanity and betray your roots.

    There is not the space now to refute the assertions in your section “Climate change: the facts”. It must suffice to say that those pages are riddled with half-truths, unscientific innuendo, exaggeration and outright falsehoods. The material is easily refuted by reference to published data and papers; many of the statements knowingly mislead your audience by failing to mention recent contrary research, about which you are surely not ignorant.

    I am not a citizen of your fine country, though my wife is, and I live in New Zealand, but my interest in this matter is justified nonetheless on the simple grounds: 1. That much of British practice is still an exemplar for the rest of us. Whether that surprises you or not, you should improve your performance in this climate change charade. 2. That the global warming farce covers the globe.

    About the science: you should also know that those who actually observe the climate and its history quickly doubt that anything dangerous is about to happen.

    On these several grounds, I hope to see this campaign withdrawn in quick order.

    Yours,

    Richard Treadgold,
    Convenor,
    Climate Conversation Group.

  65. Totally disgusting.
    Parents should not let thier children watch sci-fi horror ads made to look like it already happened.
    Send your kid to bed with a nightmare, what a message.
    This is what happens when you let the government into your private lives.

  66. Les Johnson (15:29:51) :

    The other 40% will have to come from cuts in food production and manufacturing jobs.

    What’s a manufacturing job? /sarc

    DaveE.

  67. Nick Name Game

    My children are grown up, and my grandchildren live in Australia, but I hate the thought of this vile rubbish being propagated, so I’ve sent my complaint.

  68. “MattN (13:30:22) McCarthy may have been a bombastic bully but unlike the AGW crowd he was right.”

    When he was “right”, does the saying “sometimes even a blind squirrel can find a nut” mean anything? He was more wrong than he was ever right, ruined the lives/careers of many perfectly decent Americans who dared question what he was doing, and when he began investigating the FBI for commies, his act came to an abrupt end….

  69. “Jump the shark” indicates that something is ludicrous and unbelievable, whilst “beyond the pale” means “outside of accepted behaviour”. I don’t know what the British equivalent of “jump the shark” might be.

  70. Mike (13:22:45) :

    OK. What is the deal with the UK? Why are they trash-talking about climate change? Can someone from the UK please respond? I mean….seriously what is going on?

    Be careful Mike – it could be coming to a country near you sooner than you think.

    Nick Name Game (14:32:40) : (and others)

    Six months ago I complained to the ASA (advertising standards authority)
    I suggest that if anyone feels the same that they do the same.

    For the first time ever – I made a complaint …

    http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/how_to_complain/complaints_form

    Moving slightly OT …

    Michael (12:58:54) :

    A small Victory?
    BBC
    What happened to global warming?

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm

    Paul is a familiar face in these parts (Yorkshire) as the “weather man”. Comes across as really good natured and quick thinking. He has occasionally had to tell people to leave town (York*) as serious flooding is imminent. Can’t think of a nicer bloke to hear it from.

    I don’t see the article as any kind of about turn from the BBC but it says something that at least there is an acknowledgement in there that there may be another point of view. Who knew?

    “The UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre, responsible for future climate predictions, says it incorporates solar variation and ocean cycles into its climate models, and that they are nothing new.

    In fact, the centre says they are just two of the whole host of known factors things that influence global temperatures – all of which are accounted for by its models“. There you go then, no more research required. Again, who knew?

    (*) There is a Pub in York called The Kings Arms, right on the river bank. At the bar they have a brass “measuring stick” (floor to ceiling) that marks the heights of bar flooding going back to 1640 (IIRC). Will try to get a photo next time I am there.

    Jim Cripwell (13:03:07) :

    I hate to disillusion you, but the Arctic has stopped it’s quick refreeze over the last week or so. I think we skeptics ought to stick to facts.

    Could you point me to your source for that one?

    I just knew WUWT would drag me out of the despondency following the advert …

    James Allison (13:33:09) :
    Who are they trying to fool eh! We all know rabbits can’t cry.

    This is CO2 – anything is possible. (may, could, might, possibly …)

    and my nomination for QOTW….

    Telboy (13:23:34) :

    From my experience of children, most of them watching this advert will want to know where they can get a Carbon Monster outfit for Halloween, and if they could get the Carbon Footprint boots that leave black sticky goo everywhere that would be just great.

    And finally.. what were they thinking when they came up with this one!

  71. dearieme (15:14:59) :

    “It’s the legacy of Mr Blair: fascism-lite”.

    Right, and now he comes back to screw the entire EU as their first President.

  72. I think the “The World’s End” sign for the pub with the drowning dog and cat at the background was the best part of this ad. Fantastic!

    I am not really keen about politics but now I must say that the labour government has finally lost the plot, completely. How much more crazy can they get?

  73. DaveE (17:22:02) :

    Les Johnson (15:29:51) :

    The other 40% will have to come from cuts in food production and manufacturing jobs.

    What’s a manufacturing job? /sarc

    Don’t think the /sarc was required, probably an exam question for UK school leavers about now.

    (i) What’s a manufacturing job?

    a) A job where something real is produced.
    b) Tree selection for climate reconstruction.
    c) A job made for you by Government using tax revenue from adults still employed in manufacturing .
    d) A drowning Puppy.

  74. TonyB (15:38:44) 09-10-09:

    “Joan Ruddock’s work focuses largely on how ‘we can change behavior across UK society and reach an ambitious global agreement to reduce our carbon emissions in a fair and effective way’”.

    Joan Ruddock was, at one time, chair of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND). I think it is now reasonably well established that CND received some, if not most, of its funding from “anonymous donors” that were actually conduits associated with the old KGB, and hence the USSR.

    I am not suggesting a grand conspiracy here, I am just saying …

  75. Curiousgeorge (15:46:51) 09-10-09:

    If you are going to fight the AGW’s on their terms, you are going to have to have very deep pockets … don’t forget they can increase taxes in order to up the pressure if they need to.

    All we have is the truth – it will have to do.

  76. I would like to see some rational counter argument commercials. Like remember the small US biofuels policy and the disruption that caused to corn prices and therefore social unrest in Mexico and other countries? Not to mention increased fertilizer runoff into the Gulf of Mexico…

    Now the big bad government is proposing an ETS which will have much more far-reaching impact. Throw in an estimate of the number dying to starvation as food prices escalate etc etc…

    But I guess we shouldn’t have to stoop to that level.

  77. Gordon Bennet.

    The UK Government is wasting taxpayer’s money on this garbege? The lunatics really have taken over the asylum. I do not regret shipping out of the UK muself a few years back.

    But then again maybe they are right? After all, AGW, ‘climate change’ (man made, that is) is just a fairy story…

  78. The Spanish Inquisition — religious zealots saving souls by putting them on the rack. UK AGW zealots — saving children by telling them CO2 is evil. Does anyone see a difference?

  79. Good post from TonyB.

    Blair is a prominent member of the Bilderberg Group. Forget democracy, this is a propaganda war leadiing up to a fascist dictatorship under the guise of a twin party system. Labour and Conservative – two cheeks of the same arse.

  80. to British readers, echoing EricH and others: get on to the Advertising Complaints Authority at

    http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/how_to_complain/complaints_form/

    and fill in their form; up to 5000 words. Don’t cut and paste, say it in your own words. Someone will have to read and collate it all. Concentrate on the factual aspect. Crying bunnies are repulsive, but not illegal. Showing an English town under metres of floodwater is a lie, and therefore illegal advertising.. They can’t hide behind “the science is in” on this one. Get them to retract.

  81. Fear, uncertainty and doubt is indeed a fearsome weapon to influence public. The latest example was the yes campaign of the Irish government who successfully spread economic fears and insecurities among the population. In 2008, Ireland voted “no” to the Lisbon Treaty, on 4 October 2009, after the new campaign, Ireland voted “yes”.

    FUD is a dreadful weapon. When someone says: “In 2050, the sea level will rise 3 meters”, and it does not show up, the author will not be denounced. Meanwhile, the consequences for health can be very devastating: blood pressure, hart deseases, etc.

  82. What if “climate change” was really a masked metaphor for a foreign invasion of greenies? And greenies have unlimited funds and power to propagandize? How to combat that?

    Constant, regular, vocal doubt and disbelief. Conscious comment, and criticism. AKA healthy skepticism. Real power there.

  83. tallbloke (14:08:36) :

    No TV at tallbloke towers anymore. Sold on ebay months ago. Looks like it was a good move.

    Stop paying the TV license fee as a protest against this crap.

    REPLY: Better yet, have a protest where citizens dump their TV’s on the office doorstep of these fools.

    Hey, we are talking about the UK here. The TV’s would be on ebay before the office fools even saw them. :-)

    There was a pig farmer who left a few tons of much richer deposit on the doorstep of the local tax office I recall.

    The French are much more effective at this lkind of thing:

    http://www.deseretnews.com/article/714034/

  84. What an utterely irresposible advert has been produced.
    There is no reliable scientific proof of mans effects on the climate of the world and yet they dare to indoctrinate children with this rubbish. When are the adverts for Scientology being broadcast because they will fall into the same catagory of fiction.
    When we advance into the next cold period of the temperature cycle it will be proved what an utter waste of money this global warming fad has been and how the actions of government departments should be held to account. £6 million would be much better spent helping to clear the astonishing debts that this country is in, something that is going to be passed onto our childrens shoulders without any shadow of doubt.
    Not only has our tax money gone to shore up an industry of greed but now we are funding the indoctrination to provide a means of gatting more tax money from us. The whole UK economy is proving to be a ponzi sheme.

  85. I wrote down the words from the video (a worthwhile exercise in itself – you find out how weak they are). Then I made a few small changes to the sound-track. Here’s my take:

    “There was once a land where the politicians were very, very bad. There was awful fear in some parts, and in others, terrible unemployment and poverty.

    Scientists said it was being caused by too much hype, which went out over the airwaves when the politicians and media opened their mouths. They said the hype was getting dangerous. Its effects were happening faster than they had thought. Some people’s minds could even disappear under the sea of hype. And it was the children of the land who would have to live with the horrible consequences.

    The grown-ups realized they had to do something. They discovered that over 40 per cent of the hype was coming from political lies, like Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and catastrophic human-caused climate change. Which meant, if they made less hype, maybe they could save the minds of the children.

    Is there a happy ending?

    It’s up to you how the story ends. See what you can do. Search on-line for ACT ON HYPE.”

  86. The worst AGW junk I´ve seen until now ! Scaring children with such evil propaganda,
    Baaa….!That´s Goebbels up to date!

  87. As a UK taxpayer I seriously object to my money being used for this. There are so many things on which this money could better be spent. It is no wonder we have such a scary budget deficit.

    Want to put CO2 on trial? How about a class action by sceptics to recover this money (and other money spent on the non-problem of CO2). Plenty of evidence, but would it get a fair hearing?

  88. I went to the “Act on Co2″ website and left some very terse, but choice feedback (And stuff it if they’ve trapped my IP addy). I haven’t been to ASA yet as I am still totally awestuck, in a totally bad way, at this advert. I will advise all my UK based relatives to view their opinion of this child abusing scare campaign.

    Communism failed in Russia (Fear, control, rationing). Maybe there is hope for it in the UK?

  89. Nobody seems to have mentioned that CO2 is a non-toxic colourless and odourless gas, not black and sooty as depicted. (Incidentally doesn’t it seem ironic that the motor industry spent billions cleaning up cars to emit only CO2 and water vapour rather than the earlier poisonous CO?).

  90. The Times has a classic GW story today to illustrate how insane the situation here has become:

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6868896.ece

    Lethal gas may have to be stored under villages, says adviser.
    Millions of tonnes of potentially lethal carbon dioxide may have to be stored deep under towns and villages to prevent climate change, according to a senior government adviser.
    The storage sites would have to be closely monitored to detect any leaks and an alarm system would be needed to warn nearby residents of the danger of asphyxiation. New bylaws might have to be passed prohibiting bedrooms on the ground floor because of the risk of CO2 poisoning as people slept.
    Nick Riley, head of science policy at the British Geological Survey, was speaking at a Department of Energy and Climate Change briefing on the planned expansion of schemes to capture and store the carbon emitted by coal-fired power stations.
    The Government is planning to subsidise several carbon capture and storage demonstration projects and next Tuesday will host a meeting on the issue in London attended by energy ministers from 20 countries.
    Related Links
    Dr Riley, who advises the Government on carbon storage, said that the areas of Britain with suitable geology for carbon storage included parts of Dorset, Hampshire, Gloucestershire, Cheshire, Norfolk and Lincolnshire.

    …Notice here the two key points:

    “The Government is planning to subsidise several carbon capture and storage demonstration projects…”

    and

    “Dr Riley, who advises the Government on carbon storage”.

    See how the whole GW thing has now become a massive financial bonanza complete with “Government advisors” and taxpayer subsidies for “carbon capture” companies. That’s why the whole GW fantasy has to be propped up.

  91. “simon abingdon (03:17:36) :

    Nobody seems to have mentioned that CO2 is a non-toxic colourless and odourless gas, not black and sooty as depicted. (Incidentally doesn’t it seem ironic that the motor industry spent billions cleaning up cars to emit only CO2 and water vapour rather than the earlier poisonous CO?).”

    I am sorry, cars do not emit only CO2 and water vapour. internal combustion engines still emit CO, and people still use that as a tool for harm. They do emit many other gasses and particulates, diesel being much more harmful than petrol. It was the oil companies who passed on the “cost” of “cleaner fuel” (Because it is expensive to make cleaner fuels) to car makers, who, in the end, passed on those costs to, the consumer.

  92. Ok, I would like to complain to ASA as well, but other than the 40% claim I cannot find anything that is factually wrong, since it just parrots the IPCC position and that is unchallengeable. Furthermore, it doesn’t even claim that these things will happen, because it is expressed as a fairy tale. Even the 40% claim is only wrong because it we assume they mean 40% of all (including natural) CO2 emissions, but it could be argued that most people will understand that they meant 40% of manmade CO2 emissions.

    I think we need to throw a few ideas together, since just saying how awfull it is. doesn’t really acheive very much.

  93. Rereke Whakaaro (19:44:19) :

    If truth is the only weapon available, then we will likely lose, as any trial lawyer (or politician ) will tell you.

  94. The BBC (British Brainwashing Corporation) are a disgusting propaganda machine for the New World Order.

    The entire “carbon footprint” of the whole of the human race is a mere 4.1 ppm per year.

    Plants need sunlight to produce CO2 and as more than approximately 60% of the Earths surface is in perpetual darkness, this causes CO2 to fluctuate up and down like a giant sine wave.
    From peak to trough the difference in natural CO2 production can vary by more than 100 ppm in any 24 hour period. Yet the daily maximum of human CO2 emissions is less than 0.0112328767123288 of a single part per million.

    In order for a substance such as CO2 to absorb heat or IR energy it must also re-emit that energy equally. See the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

    Or simply consider this:
    If there was a substance in our atmosphere that could trap in heat, it would produce a net energy increase in the climate system. As this would have to be a fundamental law of thermodynamics (which it is not) then this situation would have always occurred and therefore the Earth would have experienced a net energy increase from the year dot and so would have over heated billions of years ago. Or at any time through out history when CO2 levels have been much higher than todays historically low levels.

    In other words CO2 does not trap but rather simply absorbs and then re-emits heat. Having absorbed heat, atmospheric gasses rapidly expand and due to the process of convection quickly rise up towards the freezing depths of space. But before they get too high they re-emit the IR energy and then become heavy and dense, and fall back toward the ground. Due to the second law of thermodynamics the IR energy continues on out into space never to return. This effect can only be described as temperature regulation.

    A substance that does not emit much energy will be a substance that does not absorb much energy such as certain plastics and rubbers. These types of substance are useful for insulating such things as electrical wiring carrying electrical energy. The ability of a substance to insulate is not the same as trapping energy. In order to trap energy a substance must first absorb energy. But since all substances that absorb energy, always without exception re-emit equally there is no substance we know of which can trap energy.

    The fact is that there is no substance known to man that possesses the ability to trap in heat. If there was we would not need to use thermos flasks and we certainly would not need to buy our energy from large corporations but instead we could take this heat trapping substance and paint our roofs with it.

    AGW is a scam and the proof is 4.5 billion years of life on Earth. Without this temperature stability we could never have had the time to evolve from single celled organisms into human beings. We are living proof that the Earth enjoys relative temperature stability, the climate is extremely robust and our annual 4.1 ppm in CO2 emissions is not only insignificant but totally irrelevant.

    For a more detailed look at the AGW scam download: CO2 The Debate Is Not Over, free .pdf

    [snip - self promotion ]

  95. Vincent – if it’s any help I wrote:
    Dear Sirs

    I object to this advert on the grounds it is misrepresentative of the view of “scientists” regarding climate change.

    Many respected scientists (for example John Christy, Roger Pielke Sr.) are skeptical of the primary role assigned to CO2 as a driver of the earth’s climate and in order for this to be a properly representative public information campaign this side of the argument should also be presented. Similarly many environmentalists (for example Bjorn Lomberg, David Bellamy) are skeptical of the future climate scenarios reported in the IPCC literature.

    Without balance this advertisement is propaganda – I request it is withdrawn or reworked so that it can present more complete and constructive information to the public at large.

    Yours faithfully

  96. I should add that I would support a public information campaign on the value of energy conservation and efficiency and I echo some of the comments upthread about the apalling shortcomings of UK energy policy.

  97. Honeybunch: “Daddy, if we inhale O2, what do we exhale?”

    Daddy: “CO2, honeybunch.”

    Honeybunch [peering at CO2 monster]: “Bwaaaaa-hahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaa!”

  98. Vincent, I have complained to the ASA on the grounds that the ad goes way beyond the IPCC position.

    In the latest (2007) IPCC report the range of predicted sea level rise by the end of the century is 18 cm to 59 cm. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/the-ipcc-sea-level-numbers/

    That sort of rise (less than 2 feet even in the worst case) over a hundred years is not going to cause any serious flooding problems in Britain. People living near coastal areas in rich countries would have plenty of time to adapt even if global warming does cause a couple of feet of sea level rise. Some people who live in poor countries already suffer from floods, and the way to help them is to help them become more prosperous, but most global warming fanatics do not want them to do this if it means more industrial development.

  99. Re: Vincent (04:52:58)

    Vincent, don’t panic, let’s not over-play ‘devils advocate’ here.

    “Even the 40% claim is only wrong because it we assume they mean 40% of all (including natural) CO2 emissions, but it could be argued that most people will understand that they meant 40% of manmade CO2 emissions”.

    That sounds like the desperate technical argument of a defence lawyer who’s client is obviously guilty. No reasonable person, when given the actual facts, would doubt that this statement is blatantly misleading. Remember that the responsibility is incumbent on the advertiser to be honest and clear, not the viewer to work out the obscure intent of the advertiser.

    “…I cannot find anything that is factually wrong…” is not the whole point.
    It is quite possible to create a wholly misleading impression without telling lies, just by selectively presenting ‘facts’. People are wise to this and the tone of the ad will be taken into account.

    I believe that the complaints made by people here (and presumably others) will be upheld.

  100. This could actually be a fortunate overstep on their part, pushing the AGW nonsense to such absurd lengths that it becomes truly visible and creates a massive backlash.

    I expect we will see many angry remakes of that ad on YouTube:)

  101. Bye baby bunting
    Father’s gone a hunting
    to get a little rabbit skin
    to wrap his baby bunting in.

    This old nursery rhyme probably wouldn’t be allowed in modern UK nursery schools.
    Hee hee let’s not go back to the olden days. How hard it must have been just to make it through the winter alive.

  102. I haven’t read all the posts so sorry if anybody has mentioned Josef Goebbels. In another time Goebbels would have been a top advertising man. He was probably the shrewdest of the Nazis. On one occasion he rubbished some proposed propaganda on the grounds that it was so ridiculous that people would just laugh at it and it would achieve the opposite of what was intended. I think Brown’s government needs a Goebbels working for them. This is as subtle as a brick and is what you would expect of Gordon “hammer ‘em into the ground” Brown. As a UK citizen I am in despair.

  103. “I am sorry, cars do not emit only CO2 and water vapour. internal combustion engines still emit CO, and people still use that as a tool for harm. They do emit many other gasses and particulates, diesel being much more harmful than petrol.”

    Modern cars with efficient engine management are very clean.

    3 way catalytic converters convert NO2 + CO + unburned hydocarbons into CO2+ H2O at better than 90% efficiency.

    Modern diesel engines with particulate filters are very clean.

    I have a VW diesel van with a particulate filter and apart from doing better than 6L/100km after more than 20,000K the inside of the exhaust pipe looks almost like a new one with just a few black spots on the shiny bare metal.

  104. Thanks to those who suggested complaining to the ASA. Here’s mine:

    The so-called facts in this advertisement are hotly disputed within the scientific community. In 2007, Mr Justice Burton in the High Court found that the “apocalyptic vision” presented in the global warming film ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ was politically partisan and not an impartial analysis of the science of climate change. He ruled that the film could only be shown to children on the condition that it was accompanied by guidance notes to balance the film’s “one-sided” views.

    It is true that, at the time, Mr Justice Burton agreed with the argument: “That climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide (‘greenhouse gases’).” However, an increasing number of scientists – including some of those who formerly subscribed to a causative link between CO2 emissions and climate change – are disputing this theory and, instead, pointing no a number of entirely natural causes together with the cyclical nature of climate. Much of this goes unreported in the mainstream media but it is widely disseminated via websites such as Climate Audit, Climate Realists, Watts Up With That, Climate Depot etc: even the BBC is now admitting to the fact that any link between CO2 and global warming is questionable – http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8299079.stm . It is also the case that the predictions of climate apocalypse have been based on computer models, all of which have failed to predict the current global cooling phase, a fact that should give cause for concern about their validity. Steve McIntyre, a Canadian mathematician has recently demonstrated that a tree core study that has underpinned global warming alarmism for the past 20 years was flawed, being based on carefully selected data that was then withheld from proper scrutiny until an intervention by the Royal Society last year.

    While none of this proves or disproves a link between human emissions of carbon dioxide and climate change, it does indicate that the view taken by Mr Justice Burton in 2007 is no longer safe and – in line with his concerns about the one-sidedness of nine significant errors contained in ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ – the claims for anthropogenic CO2 as a main driver for climate should be balanced with the growing evidence for other causes.

    Grounds for complaint:

    1. despite claims that the science is settled and for the oft-claimed consensus amongst scientists, it is clear from both observation and growing scientific opposition that the effects of CO2 on climate are far from proven and probably wrong. This advertisement is driven by a political agenda and seeks to indoctrinate children;
    2. the advertisement is permanently available on a government-sponsored website. It is clearly aimed at children and was first shown on a terrestrial TV channel in a pre-watershed slot. As such it should comply with the spirit of Mr Justice Burton’s 2007 ruling in respect of the climate change film ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ and show both sides of the argument when presented to children;
    3. the advertisement clearly predicts an apocalyptic future and features the World’s End pub under water and a drowning dog. This breaches the code that prohibits the use of fear to advertise to children;
    4. CO2 is harmless and essential to life; we all exhale it and its effect on climate is minimal. Plant growth and crop production rely on adequate CO2 levels;
    5. the claim that ‘Scientists say this [climate change] is caused by too much CO2’ is a distortion of the truth – some scientists postulate this to be the case, many others do not;
    6. some scientists say that heat is causative of more atmospheric CO2, the reverse of what this advertisement claims;
    7. the claim that humans are responsible for 40% of the CO2 in the atmosphere cannot be substantiated. We currently have a 385ppmv CO2, a little over 35% higher than at the beginning of the industrial age but considerably lower than at other times in our history – http://www.junkscience.com/images/paleocarbon.gif ;
    8. the advertisement features a flood – a regular, natural occurrence throughout history: Noah experienced one well before cars, aircraft and central heating were developed. The advertisement seeks to trade on the green lobby’s case that anthropogenic global warming will lead to significant flooding but this was one of the arguments singled out by Mr Justice Burton as ‘distinctly alarmist’ and that any suggestion that it would occur in the immediate future (the advertisement talks about saving the land ‘for the children’) was ‘not in line with the scientific consensus.

  105. Vincent
    It’s not just a question of factual errors in the text. The image of an English town under metres of water (due to CO2) is a lie, as is the image of CO2 as a sooty pollutant.
    Another line of approach might be the suggestion that it’s inacceptable to frighten children with images of non-existent events. Public opinion is sensitive to the misuse of children in advertising, and advertising to children has been the subject of stricter government controls in Britain.

    I used to be involved in market research, testing government advertising campaigns in Britain, and the body concerned (the Central Office of Information) contained many conscientious people who were concerned about ethical standards. A good outburst of public indignation might encourage dissenters within the system to come out. There’s no hope of resistance to AGW in Britain at the political level. The best hope would be some Deep Throat emerging at the BBC, the Guardian or some other AGW propaganda centre.

  106. 6 million quid could have funded some nice laboratory measurements of CO2 forcing with varying levels of humidity and pressure (1000 to 100 mbar). But alas no. It went into making an advert.
    20 years on and still no-one has measured forcing or defined values for radiative-convective coupling. I know, I know..its because the SCIENCE IS SETTLED!!!

  107. It’s somewhat ironic that the action needed to save the planet may well be to render powerless those who are obsessed with saving the planet.

  108. This is a very slick piece of psychological manipulation, which uses the most advanced tactics of the advertising industry.

    It’s designed to get the adult viewer to identify with the child in the advert.
    The voice of the parent(authority) then becomes the voice of Government.

    The objective is to bypass critical faculties and use emotion(not reason) and the simple storyboard to hammer a message into the unconscious.

  109. Complaint with ASA duly logged:

    “This is the single most disgraceful advertisement I have ever seen on television, or indeed elsewhere. Based on utterly inaccurate and misleading “science”, it is outright emotional blackmail of the worst kind. The worst of many inaccuracies was the claim that 40% of CO2 comes from domestic sources. As only 3% of the annual CO2 flux is even man-made, this is clearly utter rubbish. As is confusing “weather” and “climate”.”

  110. Thanks to all those of you who posted advice on raising a complaint abot this ad. I took most of the points and arranged them into the following message which I posted on the complaints form:

    “This is an ad by the government that depicts a father reading a bedtime story to a young child. This story is meant to convey the state of consensual science on global warming, which ends with an apocalyptic vision of flooding and drowning.

    The government ad is dishonest. Although it uses images to convey a message as much as spoken words, the images it conveys is one of an apocalyptic future which is way beyond the position taken by the IPCC. There is a depiction of a dog drowning in a rural landscape which clearly implies that sea levels will rise and “flood the land”. Yet the IPCC give a range sea level rise of between 18cm to 59cm by 2100.

    The words used are also dishonest. The ad mention terrible storms that will get worse, but the latest research shows no correlation between hurricanes and global warming. It also says that 40% of CO2 is created by everyday human activities like switching lights on and driving cars. This is also a falsehood since about 95% of all created CO2 is released by the natural world and not by man.

    The government ad is indecent and offensive because it is a shameful attempt to indoctrinate children by seeding their minds with fearful images of the world that they cherish disappearing under the sea “unless people act”. The image of the dog disappearing under the water is particularly upsetting to young childrent. Moreover, given that children are powerless to act, this is a double twist of cruelty.

    The government ad is propaganda. It contains the same images rendered in Al Gore’s “An incovenient truth,” yet this was found by Justice Burton in a 2007 ruling to be politically partisan and not an impartial analysis of the science of climate change. Justice Burton ruled that that film could only be shown in schools if accompanied by a statement that is is a political and not a scientific film.

    In summary, I find this ad to be unbalanced, untruthful, indecent, offensive and grotesque.”

  111. vigilantfish

    The UK English equivalent of “jump the shark” is, I would suggest, “complete bollocks.”

  112. Vigilantfish
    There’s no English for Jump the Shark, but after this “Crying Bunny” might do (like crying wolf but less effective)

  113. I too have made a complaint to the ASA.

    Slightly OT: This advert cost £6 million to produce/air. The government want the army to cut its training budget by £22 million even though some of the troops affected will be visiting Afghanistan/Iraq in the near future.

    Well at least we know our kids will be safe from the CO2 monster.

  114. timbrom (11:11:02) :

    vigilantfish

    The UK English equivalent of “jump the shark” is, I would suggest, “complete bollocks.”

    ITYM “Complete and utter bollocks”

    This ad is pissing people off mightily. Brits dislike having any kind of govt message rammed down their kids throats. It will backfire.

  115. I don’t want to suggest complacency in the face of propaganda,but,the only time I can remember seeing this sort of media is in the early hours of the morning, when most (adult) viewers have either dozed off in front of a repeat of “Law And Order” or popped to the kitchen to make a cuppa.

  116. Here is what Wikipedia have to say about jumping the shark:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumping_the_shark

    “Jumping the shark is a colloquialism coined by Jon Hein and used by TV critics and fans to denote the point in a television program’s history where the plot veers off into absurd story lines or out-of-the-ordinary characterizations. This usually corresponds to the point where a show with falling ratings apparently becomes more desperate to draw in viewers. In the process of undergoing these changes, the TV or movie series loses its original appeal. Shows that have “jumped the shark” are typically deemed to have passed their peak.”

    Don’t know what British equivalent would be. “Last convulsions” sounds about right.

  117. The fairy tale forgot to mention the CO2 that each human emits when they exhale. It should end with the advice to hold one’s breath to avoid another CO2 contribution.

  118. Mike MacMillan

    Only the BBC channels are in any sense “government owned” (though that’s a simplification). All the numerous – if you include cable and satellite – commercial channels would charge for running the ad. The ad itself wouldn’t have been cheap to produce.

    OT:
    vigilantfish:

    “Jump the shark” as a phrase has become known to a certain extent in the UK. There hasn’t been an exact equivalent before although “over the hill” as a general phrase covers much the same ground.

    Before hearing about “Jump the shark” I did coin a slightly similar phrase, “Morse goes to Australia”. The idea being that the makers of a TV series often become tired of the concept before the audience does; so in the case of Inspector Morse they send him as far away from Oxford as possible on a non-whodunnit, cod-Western adventure. Of course, Morse Goes To Australia is often also the point at which a series starts to jump the shark because the makers have lost sight of the original concept of the show and what made it interesting and popular in the first place.
    You can see “Morse Goes to Australia” moments in numerous series – “Poirot” drops Hastings, Japp and Miss Lemon leaving our hero a sad lonely figure and the UK “Cracker” did an almost literal “Morse goes to Australia” by sending Fitz on a dull trip to Hong Kong.

  119. Kate (03:26:08) :
    ………………
    “New bylaws might have to be passed prohibiting bedrooms on the ground floor because of the risk of CO2 poisoning as people slept.”

    ROTFLMAO
    (again)

  120. tallbloke (15:25:13) : SAid

    “timbrom (11:11:02) :

    vigilantfish

    The UK English equivalent of “jump the shark” is, I would suggest, “complete bollocks.”

    ITYM “Complete and utter bollocks”

    This ad is pissing people off mightily. Brits dislike having any kind of govt message rammed down their kids throats. It will backfire.”

    Tall bloke and others:
    The message to our children through their schools is already very well advanced.

    Unfortunately the the UN had a son called the IPCC. whose sibling is Agenda 21. Agenda 21 had a child themselves called SAGE. SAGE is a bit of a rogue as she has inherited the family alarmist genes and has a particular penchant for frightening little children. She works in schools and spreads her message of doom by encouraging children to enact plays, write stories and carry out projects about a nasty out of control monster called AGW. Unfortunately SAGE is a little economical with the facts and as a result scares the children, who naturally then tell their own parents about the terrible harm they are doing.

    Kindly uncle DEfra, itself a bastard child of the British Govt- grandfather of AGW- has decided it is time the parents realise that they are abusing their children by drving them to their school in cars, heating homes and generally living.

    Uncle DEfra has therfore passed over the matter to his younger and smarter brother the Dept for Climate Change, who called on a very good friend he knows in the pr business called Futerra, to create caring adverts to tell the parents to change their evil ways sharpish. If they didn’t there would be serious consequences for their children, their planet and themselves, and they really need to get on board with the ‘one planet ‘ concept agreed at a family meeting in 2005 and display the correct ‘desired behaviours.’ before the correct ‘desired behaviours’ were forced on them.

    Of course the birth of the newest member of the family, the Copenhagen treaty, will undoubtedly lead to a whole new generation of this close knit and extemely bossy family becoming even bossier, untruthful and loud. This will delight their numerous influential friends, who long ago decided that Orwells ‘1984’ was a handbook for government and not a work of fiction.

    The full story of the chicanery of this extended family is contained in my earlier post, repeated below:

    “There is a British govt department behind the rationale for this advert that is known as Defra

    Here is Defras ‘communication strategy scoping report’ which directly led to Futerras “new rules of the game” (Futerra is a very high powered environmental PR Agency)

    http://www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/social/behaviour/documents/behaviours-1206-scoping.pdf

    extracts;

    “This work has contributed to a shared understanding of the vision for environmental behaviour to underpin ‘one planet living’

    “ as part of our mapping of Defras work we drew up an initial set of ‘desired’ behaviours”.

    This scoping report was the original basis for the advert on itv through implementing Futerras ‘new rules of the game’

    http://www.futerra.co.uk/downloads/NewRules:NewGame.pdf

    These are their directors:

    http://www.futerra.co.uk/about_us/directors

    Some of their clients:

    http://www.futerra.co.uk/clients/

    which includes the BBC;
    Extract from Futerra web site:

    ‘Various BBC teams have enjoyed training sessions on communicating sustainable development. Participants have ranged from producers for EastEnders ( a polular soap) to researchers on the CBeebies channel.’ (The latter a childrens channel)

    Part of Defra metamorposed into;

    http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/about/about.aspx

    In oct 2008 and became The ‘dept of energy and climate change’

    The Four principals are Ed Miliband Lord Hunt Joan Ruddock David Kidney

    Joan Ruddock’s work focuses largely on how ‘we can change behaviour across UK society and reach an ambitious global agreement to reduce our carbon emissions in a fair and effective way’.

    Joan needs no introduction to British readers

    http://www.joanruddock.org.uk/index.php?id=13

    for years she was chair of CND (Campaign for Nuclear disarmament) Eventually moved to Defra and ended up in this new dept.

    Ed Miliband is a senior labour Govt figure. His father was Ralph Miliband, the Marxist political theorist, one of the most influential left-wingers of his generation. Eds girl friend is an environmental lawyer
    From here;

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/article4449710.ece

    Britain likes to think of itself as a leader in climate action but the EU only got on board in 2005 with this matter;

    http://74.125.77.132/search?q=cache:eGPj89Zrb2EJ:ecologic.eu/download/zeitschriftenartikel/meyer-ohlendorf/g8_impact_on_international_climate_change_negotiations.pdf+tony+blair+ad+hoc+working+group+for+annex+first+session&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

    or as a pdf

    http://ecologic.eu/download/zeitschriftenartikel/meyer-ohlendorf/g8_impact_on_international_climate_change_negotiations.pdf

    Extract:
    “The UK Prime Minister Tony Blair defined climate change as “probably, long-term the single most important issue we face as a global community” and made climate change one of his priority topics during the UK’s G8 Presidency, along with Africa. Climate change was also made a priority for the
    UK’s EU Presidency (1 July 2005 – 31 December 2005). In a keynote speech on climate change, Tony Blair set out three ambitious targets for the UK’s G8 Presidency in 2005:
    •To secure an agreement as to the basic science on climate change and the threat it poses, to provide the foundation for further action
    •To reach agreement on a process to speed up the science, technology and other measuresnecessary to meet the threat
    •To engage countries outside the G8 who have growing energy needs, like China and India”

    The following year was the first meeting of the ‘ad hoc group’ to set up integrated action betwen the EU and the IPCC working groups. Both the EU and the UN are following Agenda 21. In the case of climate change that relates to the IPCC whose findings are endorsed by those countries following the agenda and who therefore subsequently have a legal obligation to implement that agenda. This includes teaching propaganda to our school children

    Agenda 21 is clearly linked to the AD Hoc working group. The group has five chairs of whom 4 are green activists. Several of them have openly written of the need for a new world governance. The SAGE21 education agenda from the UN clearly sets out to influence schools.

    The Agenda 21 aims has been endorsed at Govt level, and various councils and govt bodies have been instructed to follow this agenda.

    Below is the first session of the AD Hoc group in 2006

    http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/cop_11/application/pdf/cmp1_00_consideration_of_commitments_under_3.9.pdf

    Good resumee of events below;

    http://www.iisd.ca/vol12/enb12357e.html

    This is minutes and action plan of latest meeting in April 2009

    http://unfccc.int/meetings/items/4381.php

    This is the overall aims of Agenda 21.

    http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/

    Extract

    Internationally Agreed Development Goals & Climate Change;

    Internationally agreed frameworks and goals have set an agenda for integrating climate change and sustainable development. Agenda 21, which addresses climate change under its Chapter 9 (Protection of the atmosphere), recognizes that activities that may be undertaken in pursuit of the objectives defined therein should be coordinated with social and economic development in an integrated manner, with a view to avoiding adverse impacts on the latter, taking into full account the legitimate priority needs of developing countries for the achievement of sustained economic growth and the eradication of poverty.’

    Both Agenda 21 and the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation (JPOI) assert that the United Nations Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is the key instrument for addressing climate change. The Kyoto Protocol, which entered into force on 16 February 2005, sets binding emission reductions targets for industrialized countries for the first commitment period 2008-2012.

    The science behind the IPCC is shaky at best and is intended as the means to persuade the populace to follow broader social objectives in a ‘one world’ scenario.

    The UK government is attempting to implement social engineering on a grand scale in the Uk and in the EU, obviously believing George Orwells 1984 is a handbook for action, not a work of fiction.

    Tonyb

  121. Tallbloke

    I know you saw and responded to my earlier post. My last post was to update later arrivals to the thread who may not be aware of the background. I would enjoin everyone to complain to the UK ‘Advertising standards authority.’

    tonyb

  122. Watch the Rebuttal Video!

    It overlays the official advert with text showing the reality behind the claims and inserts graphs showing the Yamal Scam and more…..

    ROTFLMAO!

    I can has viral on the rebuttal?
    Send your friends both videos.

  123. timbrom (11:11:02) vigilantfish geoffchambers
    “Jump the shark” —–
    is explained here, having to do with the “moment when something — particularly a TV series — peaks and begins to go downhill into self-parody and decay. It originally referred to the “Happy Days” episode in which Fonzie literally tried to jump a shark in a daredevil water-skiing stunt.”

    http://www.wordspy.com/words/jumptheshark.asp

    Seems to be true, but who knows?

    See also, http://www.tvguide.com/jumptheshark/

  124. MikeF (16:27:52) :

    Here is what Wikipedia have to say about jumping the shark:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumping_the_shark

    “Jumping the shark is a colloquialism coined by Jon Hein and used by TV critics and fans to denote the point in a television program’s history where the plot veers off into absurd story lines or out-of-the-ordinary characterizations. This usually corresponds to the point where a show with falling ratings apparently becomes more desperate to draw in viewers. In the process of undergoing these changes, the TV or movie series loses its original appeal. Shows that have “jumped the shark” are typically deemed to have passed their peak.”

    Don’t know what British equivalent would be. “Last convulsions” sounds about right.

    The phrase would be: “Losing the plot”

  125. My complaint is in:

    UK weather is not, and never has been very very strange. The recent warming period we enjoyed is by no means unusual and doesn’t stand out in the climate record as anomalous.

    CO2, a trace gas, is at one of its lowest levels ever in the history of the planet. There is no empirical evidence to support the ad’s claim that CO2 affects weather, causes sea level rise or drives increasing temperatures. The recent warming period reached a plateau in 1998 and has begun to cool despite CO2 levels rising slightly. None of the “horrible consequences” that alarmists insist are happening NOW are evident and there is no evidence to suggest they occurred in much warmer periods either. In fact, during the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period, the temperatures were higher than modern times and did not lead to Thermageddon and sea inundation. The Roman and Medieval warm periods were natural, not man-made, so why are we to believe the recent and very modest one is any different? There is no hard evidence to suggest that it is.

    40% of CO2 does NOT come from keeping the lights and the heating turned on. The ad claim that is does is a cynical misdirection that flies in the face of SCIENTIFIC observation and is designed to frighten the living daylights out of people. Atmospheric CO2 is overwhelmingly sourced from nature with only a small percentage (roughly 5% or less) being down to human endeavour.

    Demonising CO2 is ridiculous. Compared to millions of years ago, when CO2 was up to ten times higher than today (and where fauna and flora flourished profusely) there was no “runaway” climate. CO2 is a vital, life-giving gas. Without it we would not exist. Plants need it to feed and grow and the less there is of it the less plants (inc. Food crops) prosper. Any farmer can tell you that. Reducing CO2 is not only reprehensible, it’s suicidal.

    More and more scientists are becoming sceptical about AGW. Positive feedbacks only exist in climate computer models (which are NOT empirical evidence) which failed to predict the current downturn in temperature and have now been discredited. They cannot predict short range weather with any great accuracy so how can they predict what the weather will do in 50 years time? The infamous Hockey Stick Graph used by Gore in his work of fiction, “An Inconvenient Truth”, upon which so much of the current alarmism is based, has been thoroughly trashed to the extent that even the UN has quietly dropped it from its latest climate report.

    The Arctic ice grows and shrinks. It’s not AGW, it’s a natural cycle down to weather patterns and ocean currents. Currently the trend is a refreeze. Since the Arctic ice is sea ice it won’t cause sea level rises. The Antarctic ice sheet is growing, not shrinking.

    The ad is nothing more than a cynical political manipulation of the UK population. The government has spent £6 million of OUR money to try and frighten people into believing they must be taxed to the hilt to save the planet. Destroying our energy security to appease environmentalists is reprehensible. Windmills won’t keep us warm when the winter hits. There is every indication that this winter will be as cold as the last one. Despite what the government wants to tell us; warm is good, cold kills.

  126. This is where it’s going, they have screwed up our energy policy by allowing the NGO’s into government, and they are being pushed to make it all happen:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/6292328/Energy-sector-set-for-revolution.html

    You can hardly slide a sheet of paper between the major NGO’s and UK government bodies and research institutes. Check out E3G and see what I mean:

    http://www.e3g.org/index.php/about/Who-we-are/

    In particular, check out John Ashton, Founding Director of E3G and the recently-appointed Special Representative for Climate Change of the UK Foreign Secretary. http://www.e3g.org/index.php/about/John-Ashton/

  127. “Ripper (08:21:21) :

    Modern cars with efficient engine management are very clean.”

    Only if it works, 100% of the time. Most of the vehicle “fleet” in the world is less than efficient, if we assume 35% efficiency (Which the IC engine is’nt).

    “3 way catalytic converters convert NO2 + CO + unburned hydocarbons into CO2+ H2O at better than 90% efficiency. ”

    And their disposal? Highly toxic bits of metal, ok they “convert” stuff, but only if the engine management systems are at 100%. So there’s is at least 10%, or more, less efficiency. And these converters need long journey times, not 10-min trips to the shops, to work at 100%. We have these systems because, fuel producres didn’t want to make top quiality, clean, fuel, and passed on that “cost” to us. Catalisers, unleaded fuel, poor quality fuel etc etc. One sensor failure, the “management system” fails.

    “Modern diesel engines with particulate filters are very clean.”

    Crickey! Depends where you are…clearly you are in Europe. There are some countries, like NZ for insatance, who do not supply “European quality diesel”. There is a reason. And it is not “clean”.

    “I have a VW diesel van with a particulate filter and apart from doing better than 6L/100km after more than 20,000K the inside of the exhaust pipe looks almost like a new one with just a few black spots on the shiny bare metal.”

    Well that is good. Trouble is, VW does not supply the world with diesel engines. Ships, locomotives, trucks, generators etc etc, are all supplied by other mfgs, and have no filters. So the world “fleet” of diesels are much bigger than VW can ever supply.

    But, a word of caution for you, if you like poking into that exhaust pipe…..don’t. Unless you enjoy PM10 particulates.

  128. My complaint is in. I am getting my wife to complain too. I have also emailed my contacts to spread the word to complain. It is very easy to file a complaint.

  129. Perhaps unsurprisingly, Al Gore is well established in UK government warming circles, in spite of the now famous court judgement. It helps that the Chief Scientific Advisor to Defra and Director of Strategy at the Tyndall Centre for “Climate Change Research”, is an old friend and advisor of ex-VP Gore, namely Professor Robert Watson.

    He was IPCC chairman before Pachauri and when asked in 1997 at Kyoto, about the growing number of climate scientists who challenged the conclusions of the UN that man-induced global warming was real and promised cataclysmic consequences, Watson responded by denigrating all dissenting scientists as pawns of the fossil fuel industry. “The science is settled” he said, and “we’re not going to reopen it here.”

    http://sovereignty.net/p/clim/kyotorpt.htm

    Al Gore to advise UK Government:
    Oct. 30, 2006 At a high-profile press conference, releasing a 700-page report on climate change by British government economist Sir Nicholas Stern, British Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown, the heir-apparent to outgoing Prime Minister Tony Blair, announced that he had “hired” Gore to “advise the British government on climate change.”

    http://www.larouchepac.com/pages/otherartic_files/2007/0312_blood_gore.shtml

    15th March 2007 – Al Gore in London:

    http://blog.algore.com/2007/03/

    I had some really interesting and productive meetings in London this week — discussing the climate crisis with the Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown, who is widely expected to be the next Prime Minister when Tony Blair retires.

    Chancellor Brown has introduced a package of binding CO2 reductions in the United Kingdom that represent real leadership. The same day I met with the leader of the Conservative Party, David Cameron, and 80 of his fellow Tory Members of Parliament.

    They were unanimous in their determination to propose meaningful solutions to the climate crisis. There has been a revolution in British politics, with the two largest parties now wholeheartedly committed to CO2 reductions and international leadership to solve the climate crisis.

    26 March, 2007 – Al Gore in Cambridge this weekend

    http://www.cambridgenetwork.co.uk/news/article/?objid=33269

    Al Gore is giving a public lecture (sold out) in the Corn Exchange on Monday 26 March. Gore’s book and Oscar-award winning film ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ are based on his lecture, which he is now delivering around the world.

    Gore’s presentation will offer a passionate and inspirational view of the urgent need for action in order to prevent the dire and irrevocable changes to the planet that global warming threatens.

    Gore’s visit to Cambridge is being organised by the University of Cambridge Programme for Industry. He will be in Cambridge on Sunday and Monday. On Sunday he will be training more presenters to give his slide show through The Climate Project: http://www.theclimateproject.org .

    5 July 2007 – International climate change expert is Defra’s new Chief Scientific Adviser http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2007/070705a.htm

    “Prior to joining the World Bank, Dr. Watson was Associate Director for Environment in the Office of Science and Technology Policy in the Executive Office of the President in the White House. Prior to joining the Clinton White House, Dr. Watson was Director of the Science Division and Chief Scientist for the Office of Mission to Planet Earth at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).”

    July 13, 2007
    Watson’s World Bank leaving party:

    http://info.worldbank.org/etools/BSPAN/PresentationView.asp?PID=2129&EID=963

    Jack Gibbons, Watson’s former boss at the White House, read aloud a letter written to Watson by Al Gore. In this letter, Gore calls Watson his “hero of the planet,” commends him on his incredible career and contributions, and congratulates him on his new jobs.

    Gibbons also spoke about the challenges facing scientists whose scientific evidence is often viewed not as strict science but as efforts to steer policy.

    13th October 2007

    http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2007/10/13/news/local/news02.txt

    “We need an advocate such as Al Gore to help present the work of scientists across the world,” said Bob Watson, former chairman of the IPCC and a top federal climate science adviser to the Clinton-Gore Administration.

    He started the 4 degree scare last year:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/aug/06/climatechange.scienceofclimatechange The UK should take active steps to prepare for dangerous climate change of perhaps 4C according to one of the government’s chief scientific advisers.

    For anyone suggesting any co-incidences in the above, I would remind them that asssociation is not causation.

    The nature of Defra funding is described here in this DEFRA staff document of self-congratulation relating to the Nobel Prize award for IPCC and Al Gore: http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/news/2007/December/Defra-IPCC.aspx

    “Defra provides financial support to the co-chairs and their supporting secretariats. As such the UK has provided underpinning funding for almost one-third of the major scientific reports produced by the IPCC, which the Nobel committee believes have “created an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming.”

    The nature of UK research is described here:

    http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=GA01012_6499_FRP.doc.

    The Climate Prediction Programme was not an academic research programme; its work plan and deliverables was driven by Defra’s requirements for science to inform UK government policy on climate change mitigation and adaptation. As the policy requirements changed, so did the research programme objectives.

    The Met Office will focus on research that contributes to UK government policy objectives and will communicate the results to government and the public. ”

    The Agenda is very deeply ingrained and they hold all the cards.

  130. That idiot Leake is at it again in the Sunday Times.
    “Some will argue that it was alarmist. No, it was accurate.”
    Sorry, Jonathan old son, it was bunch of horsecr*p from beginning to end. A few complaints to the Sunday Times pointing out the extent to which Leake persistently misleads his readers with his inevitable aside about climate change each week might be helpful.
    Stick to writing about weather, why don’t you!

    [Though I doubt it]

  131. I fear complaints to ASA are unlikely to be effective. Any complaint would, I think, be twofold: (1) re the facts and (2) re the appalling way they are presented – exploiting adult guilt and frightening children. As to (1), with one exception, the “facts” presented, although almost entirely inaccurate and misleading, fall squarely within the current orthodoxy as propounded daily by IPCC and Royal Society spokesmen, by the MSM and by politicians from Obama to Ed Miliband. So they could correctly be said to be squarely in line with the “mainstream” or “consensus” position: and it’s not the ASA’s job to adjudicate on the science. Re the exception (the claim that household emissions are 40% of all CO2 emissions), it’s likely to be said that the intention was obviously to refer to mankind’s emissions – so any objection is a nitpick. As to (2), I foresee the response that the “facts” are so serious that a little manipulation is warranted. After all, this is about “saving the planet”.

    I hope I’m wrong.

  132. I think that Robin Guenier is basically right. The ASA will treat the IPCC reports as established fact and that they will not entertain any arguments that are out of line with those reports. It is therefore be a waste of time and effort to base any complaints about the ad on any of the well known arguments against the global warming orthodoxy.

    Therefore to be successful a complaint has to start from science expressed in the most recent IPCC report. This does not mean that no complaints can be made, because the global warming alarmists deliberately go far beyond the consensus in their propaganda.

    I have made a complaint, but I have based it on my belief that the ad goes way past the consensus of current scientific opinion. The gentle rise in sea level predicted in IPCC (2007) of 7 inches to a maximum 23 inches over a century should not cause floods in Britain. The ad is therefore dishonest and misleading and can be attacked on that basis because it aims to give the impression that most scientists believe that there would be widespread floods which are many feet deep.

  133. Robin Guernier:

    The ASA website states amongst other things:
    “No advertisement may directly or by implication mislead about any material fact or characteristic of a product or service.
    Advertising is likely to be considered misleading if, for example, it contains a false statement, description, illustration or claim about a material fact or characteristic.
    Even if everything stated is literally true, an advertisement may still mislead if it conceals significant facts or creates a false impression of relevant aspects of the product or service.
    Scientific terms or jargon, statistics and other technical information should not be used to make claims appear to have a scientific basis that they do not possess. Equally, statistics of limited validity must not be presented in such a way as to mislead, for instance by implying that they are universally true.
    Advertisements must not cause serious or widespread offence against generally accepted moral, social or cultural standards, or offend against public feeling.
    Advertising must not take advantage of children’s inexperience or their natural credulity and sense of loyalty.”

    I consider there are plenty of grounds for complaint.

  134. Robin Guernier:

    There’s more:

    “No advertisement may show partiality as respects …. current public policy.”

  135. Dennis A

    Your post nicely complements mine.

    I suggest you try your links. Several of those I posted about Defra now have the sign ‘system locked’

    Tonyb

  136. On top of the obvious blowback arriving on the heels of this advert – are the reports of main stream media collapse. Weekly it seems there are new announcements of newspaper and TV networks’ dismal failed ratings/readership. What’s astonishing is these purported businesses refuse to get the message: BS and agenda-driven propaganda does not sell. Alternative views do sell. Witness the explosion of internet sites carrying alternate (fact-based) news and commentary.

    This confirms what Tonyb’s detailed posts tell us. AGW fronts a political agenda and it is more important to its proponents than healthy business. They’re trying to buy “desired behaviors” at any cost. But they are caught in a trap. The public rejects their ideas, and grows increasingly suspicious of propaganda disguised as fact. Each new visitor to WUWT etc. confirms public doubt of their agenda. The harder they spin, the faster the exodus.

    And the clarity arising from skeptics increases mindshare. Mindshare has convinced a tiny minority in the MSM to start printing the facts. BBC now in one trembling article confirms cooling for the next 30 years. Expect to read more intrepid voices from the main stream admitting “Maybe we were wrong.” It is all because people like the readers/posters here are acting. Acting to fight a virtual war entirely by mindshare. And we are turning the tide. But we should not quit until GISS hangs their collective head, kicks the dirt… and sues for peace.

  137. Philip (and Patrick): I really hope you’re right. But I fear the ASA will simply say that it’s not for them to adjudicate on the science and that, therefore, they have no option but to accept as accurate the widely reported views expressed, not only by the MSM and leading politicians from all sides (in the UK), but especially by spokesmen for the IPCC, RS, etc. They may add that there’s nothing to be “impartial” about. Sadly that’s probably true: controversy is largely confined to the blogosphere.

    (PS to Philip: my name is spelled Guenier not Guernier.)

  138. Robin: Humble apologies for the mis-spelling. I suffer from it too (as does Leif!) – my name is Phillip, not Philip (perhaps that was sarc).

  139. You have a point TonyB given the tribunal’s decision which I will check out tomorrow beause it doen’t just affect the ASA but also the BBC ITV etc.

    Kindest Regards

  140. Tonyb:

    “Under the new law “philosophical belief” is protected by the law alongside religious belief if it passes a legal test requiring it to be cogent, serious and “worthy of respect in a democratic society”.

    Doubtful one could complain on strict separation grounds as this ruling attempts to distinguish “philosophical belief” as a new category. But at some point democratic societies must step in and confirm that proselytizing religious or “philosophical belief” with public funds – is unfair to the public. Else we can expect publicly funded adverts for Dyanetics, Theosophy, the Silva Method, and Deepak Chopra’s ideas.

    The presentation of fact in this ad are wrong and make the strongest grounds for complaint.

  141. Robin Guenier (08:46:37) :

    …they have no option but to accept as accurate the widely reported views expressed, not only by the MSM and leading politicians from all sides (in the UK), but especially by spokesmen for the IPCC, RS, etc.

    Because a theory is proffered by a respected organization does not by itself confirm the theory. Were that so, the Royal Society, British Museum, journal Nature, Scientific American, The Times, The Guardian, The New York Times, etc. would not have swallowed whole the unquestioned existence of the Piltdown Man for 40 years.

    There are 600+ skeptical scientists who credibly question the facts of AGW. You can start with Pielke and Plimer.

  142. More than 10 years ago, here in the US, I was waiting for my then-youngest nephew to come home from school.

    Joey came home, and was not his usual bright, happy 10-year-old self. His whole demeanor was such that I was very concerned. So I pressed him on what was on his mind.

    He wailed, “We’re KILLING the planet!”, sobbing all the while.

    It took two entire days to set him straight!

    Bastards!

    DBTR

  143. Here in the US, religious topics are entirely taboo in the public schools.

    Well, almost entirely!

    Bastards!

    DBTR

  144. Indiana:

    You don’t understand my point. Of course, I wholly agree with you. But IMHO it’s exceptionally unlikely that the ASA will go out on a limb and take a view at variance with the widespread orthodoxy. As I said, taking a view on science is not their job – especially when the authorities’ view of the science appears to be uncontroversial. After all, the Piltdown hoax wasn’t exposed by the media or by a regulator. It was exposed by scientists. The sad thing about AGW is how few scientists (at least in the UK, where this is being broadcast) are prepared to speak out – and those that do are skewered by ad hominem attack. Plimer is a prime example.

  145. Very good points, everyone. I have very little to add, just to say I think this is something that absolutely should be complained about, even if the ASA do not uphold the complaints in the end.

    I wrote a letter to the ASA today which will go into tomorrow’s post; here’s the transcript of what I have written:

    http://alexjc38.wordpress.com/2009/10/11/uk-govs-toxic-tv-fairytale/

    There’s also an online complaint form but it has a strict word limit (max 5000 characters – approximately 800 words.) Not enough!

  146. Tony B: Yes some links disappear, which is why I always include an extract and always save the original piece rather than just the link. A search for the subject sometimes brings up a new location. The Defra links still work for me, except for the Watson appointment one. The Missoulian has gone but the World Bank remains. You can even watch a video of the leaving party, which I have never summoned up the courage to do!

  147. DennisA

    If you would contact me privately I will send you some more information I don’t want to put up in public at present. I assume you live in the UK-where abouts are you?

    tonyb

  148. Young students. This is a case of building distrust between students and teachers.
    When they discover false beliefs, they lose faith in the system. When surveyed, teens want truth. No one teaches truth. Just a few facts covered with opinions.

  149. to Alex Cull
    Great letter to the ASA. I wrote a complaint on their official form and got a mail back saying a Complaints Officer would be replying. If this means a few civil servants will be occupied thinking up excuses for a few hours, it may have an effect.
    I used to do market research for the Central Office of Information, the government body responsible for official advertising campaigns, and they were very sensitive about public opinion, especially where questions of political bias were concerned. If complaints are numerous and serious enough, the thing can get right up to the minister, which is what all civil servants dread.
    I wrote a serious letter, but I now wish I’d simply pointed out the implicit message: “switch the lights off, or your dog will drown”. The question to ask is: do they consider this message truthful, or is it a fairytale, as the context would suggest?

    toTonyB
    Many thanks for the useful links. Do you publish this stuff elsewhere? I’ve long thought we Brits need a website which would simply track down and publicise the sources of AGW propaganda, which are more often than not PR outfits and obscure consultancies

  150. Thanks Geoff! I’m also considering sending a copy to Mr Miliband at the Climate Ministry, especially if (when?) the ASA decide not to uphold the complaints.

    “The question to ask is: do they consider this message truthful, or is it a fairytale, as the context would suggest?”

    I think it likely they believe the essence of it is truthful (CO2 causing warming, warming causing more droughts, floods, etc.) but that they also believe that simplifying, exaggerating and overstepping the mark is justified, i.e., the end (cutting carbon emissions, reducing warming, stabilising the climate) justifies the means (being economical with the truth.)

    “…like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.”

    Stephen Schneider was talking about scientists, but these oft-quoted lines could equally well apply to politicians.

  151. Geoffchambers

    I do publish elsewhere and also have a variety of original studies thgat I am waiting to upload to my new website. I am currently writing a piece on pre 1850 temperature datasets and also one on individual temperatures datasets from 1850. This latter is particularly interesting as it is obvious that the increrasingly UHi affected urban areas (which are warming) are disguising the fact that many other places have been cooling, so the magic gas co2 is able to do both!

    This is illustrated in a study I have just done on Australia posted elsewhere which is reproduced below:

    ” I have been examining climatic cycles as evidenced by thermometers, and posted the results of some of the 30 I have discovered that go back to 1701 (excluding CET)

    The cyclic effect throughout the decades is very apparent.

    The question has been posed ‘has global warming stopped?’ First of all it was never global. An examination of the temperature records from 1850 (Hadley) or 1880 (Giss) shows that the warming that is driving the rise in ‘global’ temperatures is very largely coming from Urban areas (which has a very big part in the Giss database) Other areas have been cooling-some for very many years.

    Taking into account the last decade of acknowledged (even by the Met office) cooling, and accepting that a ‘trend’ is considered to be thirty years or more, we are finding that many more individual temperature records are now showing a cooling trend. These are increasingly counterbalancing the heavily UHI affected urban areas in the ‘global’ record.

    For the benefit of our Austrtalian friends, listed below are those places in Australia that are showing a cooling trend. (All these from Bom/Giss)

    Adelaide Airport cooling since 1881
    Brisbane-eagle Farm cooling since 1957
    Cape Otaway cooling since 1865
    Darwin airport cooling since 1905
    Dubbo cooling since 1882
    Echura (Victoria) cooling since 1881
    Willis island cooling since 1965
    Perth cooling since 1977.

    BOM seems to have a severe case of Hansenitis-in citing 2008 as Adelaides hottest ever summer they omitted to mention that 1914 was the hottest year. Other places in Australia are showing no trend or slight warming.”

    I agree with you about the need for a British web site that homes in on specific areas of concern. Where are you from?

    tonyb

  152. to TonyB
    I’m based in France (where libel laws are less stringent than in Britain – not that I’d ever say anything libellous). Look forward to seeing your new website.
    On global temperatures: given Anthony’s revelations, shouldn’t all graphs purporting to show average global temperatures since the onset of major C02 emissions be relabelled “Temperatures at the world’s airports since the invention of the jet engine”?

  153. Geoffchambers

    That is a great quote by Anthony!

    It is a shame we don’t look harder at what the local records are telling us (which is where we all live) which is often at variance with the ‘global’ record.

    tonyb

  154. Geoffchamber

    Sorry, in fact it is a great quote by you, not Anthony. I think I wouild add in ‘and the worlds greatest urban centres’ to be factual, but as facts never seem to bother some of those on the warmist side I’ll stick with your more succinct phrase.

    Tonyb

  155. “Temperatures at the world’s airports since the invention of the jet engine”

    LOL! I wonder what the result would be if they measured at both ends of the runway..?

  156. Despite my earlier comments, I was persuaded by Alex Cull (and others), but especially by Alex’s excellent letter, and sent an online complaint to the ASA. Here’s what I said:

    QUOTE

    My complaint is that this advertisement is (A) seriously misleading and (B) likely to cause harm. I say this for the following reasons:

    A. Seriously misleading

    Although presented as a fairy story, the message clearly applies to the UK today (otherwise the exhortation to “act on CO2” would be meaningless). But (1) the UK’s weather is not, by any measure, “very very strange” as claimed: despite the advertisement’s reference to “awful heat waves … terrible storms and floods”, we have not experienced and are not experiencing the unusual heat waves, storms, floods, sea level increases etc. said by some to be caused by CO2 emissions and the UK has experienced far “stranger” weather in the past – e.g. the regularly frozen Thames and the Great Storm of 1703; (2) although some scientists say that this (non existent) “very very strange” weather is caused, as claimed here, by “too much CO2”, others profoundly disagree as the hypothesis is unverified by empirical evidence and natural events obviously caused past climate problems; (3) in any case, far from “the effects … happening faster than [the grown-ups] thought” as is claimed, for the past eleven years UK (and global) temperatures have, contrary to expert expectation, not increased (indeed have declined slightly) despite significantly increased human CO2 emissions, casting doubt on the question of causation and obliging the Met Office, for example, to adjust its climate models; (4) CO2 is not, as shown here, nasty black stuff but, as well as being a necessary component of all life, is a colourless non-toxic trace gas; and (5) the concepts that children will “have to live with the terrible consequences” (e.g. houses under water) and that using less CO2 “could save the land for the children” are based, not on the empirical evidence demanded by good science, but on computer models that have been shown to be inadequate (see above) and are arguably no more reliable that those that were significantly responsible for the current financial crisis.

    It appears to me, therefore, that the advertisement is in breach of sections 4 and 5 of your TV Code – specifically, paragraph 4 (d) and paragraphs 5.1.1, 5.1.2 (see in particular Notes 2 and 6 and possibly 3, although little claimed is even “literally true”), 5.1.3, 5.2.1, 5.2.3, 5.2.6, 5.2.10 (b), 5.4.1 and 5.4.7/11 (it is not made clear that this is a Government advertisement).

    B. Likely to cause harm

    I consider it offensive and potentially harmful that the advertisement suggests unambiguously that normal domestic activities are the direct cause “terrible storms”, “awful heatwaves” etc. and that they are likely to make matters far worse (“terrible consequences”) in the future, when these are, as noted above, matters of considerable uncertainty. Specifically, I believe it’s clear intention of using this misleading suggestion to create anxiety and guilt (about irresponsibility to children) in the minds of adults is deplorable and likely to be emotionally harmful to them. Even worse, is the likelihood of its frightening children – with its pictures of horrible monsters hovering over flooded homes, sad animals and a drowning dog – especially when all these are directly linked to “normal” activities such as heating houses and driving cars. I suggest that to deliberately cause anxiety, even fear, in the minds of young children (this was shown before the 9:00 PM deadline) is especially reprehensible – and that would be my view even if the “facts” were more soundly based. The advertisement is, I suggest, likely to be especially harmful to children.

    It appears to me, therefore, that the advertisement is also in breach of sections 6 and 7 of your TV Code – specifically, paragraphs 6.1, 6.2 (b) (the drowning dog), 6.4 and (arguably) 6.6 and paragraphs 7.1.1, 7.4.1 and 7.4.6 (see Note on “Harmful Advertising”).

    UNQUOTE

    In earlier posts, I said that I considered complaint to be futile. I said I hoped I was wrong. That hope is now reinforced!

  157. to Robin Guenier
    Excellent letter! As I said in an earlier comment, my experience aeons ago working for the Central Office of Information, who are responsible for putting out government ad campaigns, leads me to believe that a well-argued case may have an effect. Most government advertising involves getting across neutral expert advice to the general public on such subjects as road safety or vaccination campaigns. If only all the parliamentary parties hadn’t hitched themselves to the AGW bandwagon, this campaign would have led to a minor political scandal, since it obviously breaches all standards of objectivity. There must be many in the corridors of Whitehall who are aware of this, and will be susceptible to any waves coming out of the ASA.
    It will be interesting to compare replies to our responses from the ASA. If no other British blog opens up a thread, I’ll look for comments on Harmless Sky’s New Statesman open thread.

  158. Geoffchambers

    There is no doubt that AGW took a highly political step in 2005 prior to Britain assuming the chair of both the G8 and the EU. Tony Blair thought he could make a name for himself by acting on advice from influencers that included Friends of the Earth, The Green party and WWF.

    After reading hundreds of documents I think there is no doubt that Britain is headed for a carbon ration card if the Govt can screw up its political courage and act on the advice of the astonishing variety of doom mongers it has hitched its wagon too. Read Orwells 1984 to stay ahead as clearly this govt sees that as a handbook for govt.

    Tonyb

  159. I’m telling my children that they are going to have pay for the CO2 mania thorugh a lower standard of living caused by high energy prices. I also tell them that more people in the world will suffer because of the global warming insanity will retard growth in the developing world.

  160. You can tell from all of the “against” comments, that you are all scared of the truth.

    The truth is that our children will have to pay for all the power hungry and greedy people across the planet, and the poor will die.

    The people in the third world are dying to let us drive big cars and run large factories producing mass-produced rubbish.

    All for the sake of using our brain to think of eco-friendly solutions.

    Remember drive a smaller car and switch of unnecessary lights, the outside of your big house does not need to be lit during the hours of darkness.

    The world resources belongs to all of the worlds people not a few rich and greedy people.

    The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few.

  161. [q] Vader2004 (05:47:49) :

    You can tell from all of the “against” comments, that you are all scared of the truth.

    The truth is that our children will have to pay for all the power hungry and greedy people across the planet, and the poor will die.

    The people in the third world are dying to let us drive big cars and run large factories producing mass-produced rubbish.

    All for the sake of using our brain to think of eco-friendly solutions.

    Remember drive a smaller car and switch of unnecessary lights, the outside of your big house does not need to be lit during the hours of darkness.

    The world resources belongs to all of the worlds people not a few rich and greedy people.

    The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few. [/q]

    Spoken like a good little socialist …”From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”

    It’s people like you that are the cause of videos like this. I only hope one day when it all comes to a boil you and your ilk are held accountable for your idiocy.

    Personally I couldnt care less about “people in the third world that are dying” so I can drive my big car. Its my choice…get it? MY CHOICE not yours! I dont understand what these crazies want..back to the middle ages with no lights and no cars?

    I truly hope that when the war starts its not the lawyers that are first against the wall but it will be the ones like you that have tried to ruin the world for the rest of us.

    P.S. If we do get back to the “good ol days” of villages and horses I’m sure you’ll be a shoe in for the job of Village Idiot…wait maybe Al Gore will run to be the King of Village Idiots and you’ll have a friend.

  162. Absolute rubbish – to put it mildly.

    This is just another example of the manipulation of our youth in this climate alarmism – the main one being the one-sided science curriculum in our schools. It is nothing short of propaganda.

  163. Sorry to come into this late, but you shouldn’t take too much notice of Vicky Pope (Met Office) trying to sound less alarmist. This is what she says on the Met Office’s site:
    “Decades like 1999–2008 occur quite frequently in our climate change simulations, but the underlying trend of increasing temperature remains. We cannot be complacent. Indeed, other signals of climate change are increasing as fast, or even faster than ever due to the combined effects of global warming and natural variability — the rapid loss of summer Arctic sea ice is one such example. Early action to reduce the extent and impacts of climate change remains vital.”
    So to Ms Pope, the Arctic summer melt is being caused by us, not natural ocean currents. Wonder how she’ll feel in 5 years time when it’s back to normal?

  164. This advert is typical of the mindset of ecofascists!!! Know doubt some idiot in a position of control will try and justify this disgraceful advert.
    If this was placed on the tv by a private company the powers that be would come down on them like a ton of bricks.

  165. ASA have just written to me telling me they are investigating my complaint along with many others.

    Unfortunately I cannot pass on any further details on the idetified issues or process as they have deemed the correspondence to be “confidential”.

  166. Oh dear…

    Funny how shocked you are by this cringeworthy ad. Makes you feel better about being a thgoughtless, selfish person huh?

    6 million pounds is nothing when compared to the amounts that can be saved. Even if global warming is NOT happening, and we are wrong- as you neoflat-earthers claim- the savings in energy costs and wasted resources will easily dwarf that miserable sum.

Comments are closed.