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
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.
Somone has put up quite a good rebuttal video on youtube:
“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.
“Kate (03:26:08) :
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6868896.ece
Lethal gas”
Like Nitrogen?
“New bylaws might have to be passed prohibiting bedrooms on the ground floor because of the risk of CO2 poisoning as people slept.”
Which would suggest CO2 is heavier than air, no?
Good catch Kate, The Times was a great paper once, it seems less than useless, even for cleaning up after dinner.
My complaint is in too.
Lethal Carbon Dioxide? hahaha. sorry. I’m laughing here
actually it is lethal at 100,000ppm. 30,000ppm is the maximum safety level
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.
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.
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 ]
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
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.
With reference to Martin Brumby’s suggestion to complain to the Advertising Standards Authority about the recent governments propoganda ad ( http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/how_to_complain/complaints_form ), a quick look at the web site gives you the advice that adverts need to be ” legal, decent , honest and truthful” ! In my opinion, this ad fails on all counts.
Honeybunch: “Daddy, if we inhale O2, what do we exhale?”
Daddy: “CO2, honeybunch.”
Honeybunch [peering at CO2 monster]: “Bwaaaaa-hahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaa!”
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.
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.
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:)
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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!!!
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.
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.