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
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]
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.
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.
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.
Robin Guernier:
There’s more:
“No advertisement may show partiality as respects …. current public policy.”
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
I suggest that we may have grounds to complain about the advert on the grounds of govt money being used to promote a particular religious belief, following the recent ruling that AGW is a religion…
http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MjJlYTY2ZDAyZjRjNTFiZDU5ZjkyODIwZjA5YWZiMGQ=
I suspect Robin will have a better idea of the practicality of those grounds
tonyb
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.
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.)
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).
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
Phillip: touché
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.
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.
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
Here in the US, religious topics are entirely taboo in the public schools.
Well, almost entirely!
Bastards!
DBTR
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.
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!
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!
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
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.
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
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.
My complaint is also in to the ASA.
Serious exploitation of children.
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