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
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”.”
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.”
vigilantfish
The UK English equivalent of “jump the shark” is, I would suggest, “complete bollocks.”
Vigilantfish
There’s no English for Jump the Shark, but after this “Crying Bunny” might do (like crying wolf but less effective)
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.
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.
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.
Rereke Whakaaro: Kia ora, my friend. Where’s your whare?
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.
Rob M: It’s scheduled for prime time – check the lead post and confirmed by the Times coverage:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6867046.ece
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.
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.
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)
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
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
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.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tu9T9NaQPQ8&hl=en&fs=1&]
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/
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”
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.
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/
You can make a complaint to the UK Advertising Standards Authority on:
http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/how_to_complain/
“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.
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.
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.