From The Times
Ed Miliband’s adverts banned for overstating climate change
by Jonathan Leake, Environment Editor
TWO government advertisements that use nursery rhymes to warn people of the dangers of climate change have been banned by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) for exaggerating the potential harm.
The adverts, commissioned by Ed Miliband, the energy secretary, used the rhymes to suggest that Britain faces an inevitable increase in storms, floods and heat waves unless greenhouse gas emissions are brought under control.
The ASA has ruled that the claims made in the newspaper adverts were not supported by solid science and has told the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) that they should not be published again.
It has also referred a television commercial to the broadcast regulator, Ofcom, for potentially breaching a prohibition on political advertising.
The rulings will be an embarrassment for Miliband, who has tried to portray his policies as firmly science-based. He had commissioned two posters, four press advertisements and a short film for television and cinema, which started appearing in October last year in the run-up to the Copenhagen climate talks.
They attracted 939 complaints — more than the ASA received for any advertisement last year. The deluge posed problems for the ASA, which is not a scientific body, so it decided to compare the text of Miliband’s adverts with the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Based on that comparison, it ruled that two of the DECC’s adverts had broken the advertising code on three counts: substantiation, truthfulness and environmental claims.
Of the two banned adverts, one depicted three men floating in a bathtub over a flooded British landscape, and the text read: “Rub a dub dub, three men in a tub — a necessary course of action due to flash flooding caused by climate change.”
It then explained: “Climate change is happening. Temperature and sea levels are rising. Extreme weather events such as storms, floods and heat waves will become more frequent and intense. If we carry on at this rate, life in 25 years could be very different.”
The second showed two children peering into a stone well amid an arid, post-climate-change landscape. It read: “Jack and Jill went up the hill to fetch a pail of water. There was none as extreme weather due to climate change had caused a drought.”
It then added: “Extreme weather conditions such as flooding, heat waves and storms will become more frequent and intense.”
It was these additional claims, rather than the nursery rhymes or illustrations, that fell foul of the ASA, which ruled it was not scientifically possible to make such definitive statements about Britain’s future climate.
The ASA said: “All statements about future climate were based on modelled predictions, which the IPCC report itself stated still involved uncertainties in the magnitude and timing, as well as regional details, of predicted climate change.” It added that both predictions should have been phrased more tentatively.
The ASA did, however, reject other complaints, including one suggesting the DECC adverts were misleading because they presented human-induced climate change as a fact.
Miliband said: “On the one issue where the ASA did not find in our favour, around one word in our print advertising, the science tells us that it is more than 90% likely that there will be more extreme weather events if we don’t act.”
Greg Barker, shadow minister for climate change, said: “It is so unnecessary to exaggerate the risks of global warming, and also counterproductive.”
Read the complete article here
========================
Here’s the website where the ads originate from ActOnCO2
Here are some of the advertisements in question:
“Have you guys overlooked this rather curious shift in position (if not actual complete volte-face) concerning climate change by James Lovelock:
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/162506/How-carbon-gases-have-saved-us-from-a-new-ice-age-”
I noticed that the last time it was posted, and I found it very strange coming from Lovelock (who has typically been extremely alarmist about climate change). I found his views previously to be strange as well, as his notion of Earth as a self regulating organism kind of runs counter to CAGW, as far as I understand his theory. Humans are after all a part of the system… according to the Gaia hypothesis the Earth operates on an intelligence which surpasses any kind of human knowledge- that suggests to me that what ever we’re doing, it’s most likely directed by Gaia itself/herself, so no need to worry. 😉
(if you look at the long term trend of CO2 over very large scales, the trend is downwards. If it ever went below a certain level life on Earth would certainly be in trouble. Perhaps humans were actually bought forward by Gaia in order to release more CO2 into the atmosphere? That’s my take on Gaia and CO2 anyway. A bit philosophical but when you’re talking about big pictures you kind of need to be).
DirkH (05:30:13) :
Digsby (05:14:59) :
[Lovelock:]“They (climate models) are the battleships of climate change and the scientists have to sail in them.””
Its the Titanic. But there are torpedoes…..;
@Digsby re: Lovelock – from The Times:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article7061020.ece
He is saying 1-2deg C rise this century and that the UK needs sea walls and nuclear power.
The sad part about the ASA’s ajudication is that the IPCC report is seen as the benchmark of climate change truth. Whilst that remains the position of panels who adjudicate on such issues, then I am afraid that there is no hope for a balanced outcome in, for example, the climategate enquiry.
@ur momisugly Mike: “Why would anyone take the Times of London as a source for accurate news reporting?”
Indeed, why would anyone take anything that ANY newspaper states as a source for accurate news reporting? But still, experience tells me the Times is much more likely top be accurate than the childish alarmism of The Guardian, The Independent and the NYT.
In this case, the facts of the report are easily verifiable, so what’s your point?
I too received the ASA’s response to my complaint about the tv advert.
I could not believe their ‘findings’ – all based on the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment – it did not ‘breach their code in any respect’.
Oh – right – the science is settled, then. That’s good to know.
son of mulder (05:25:04) :
“Jack and Jill went up the hill to fetch a pail of water.”
I never did understand the physics of that.
They had to go uphill to tap the melting Himalayan glaciers…
It appears to me we are seeing a fracture in the ranks of the warmists. Some still want to build scary scenarios while others are looking to stand back a little while still promoting AGW. This was also evident in the IOP article.
So, we now have warmists attacking warmists. Very interesting and could get even more interesting as time goes on.
I really don’t know anything really about the Times of London, but this article about the Lovelock talk took my breath away. I had to pinch myself to see if I was dreaming. Looks like “green shoots” of sanity on this issue are popping up everywhere.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article7061020.ece
marchesarosa (04:08:56) :
Please read the Action: the very last line.
A C Osborn
” just read the last line of the Adjudication.
Those Adverts SHOULD NOT APPEAR IN THEIR CURRENT FORM.”
This judgement applies to only two of the four press adverts. The
ASA has nothing whatsoever critical to say about the TV advert where CO2 is depicted as black smoke forming a monster shape in the sky nor about the statement that “40% of the CO2 was coming from ordinary everyday things like keeping houses warm and driving cars”.
Which form of advertising has more influence over children – newspapers or tv?
Just to remind you, the TV ad can be seen here:
I took exception to WWF’s “Sponsor a Polar Bear” ads because the WWF don’t in fact run any polar bear sanctuaries and their “scientists” would actually sooner SHOOT an approaching polar bear than save it. I could find no connection at all between the “sponsor a polar bear” ad campaign and any direct action to save polar bears from drowning due to vanishing polar ice. I found the ads wholly misleading.
“Extreme weather events such as storms, floods and heat waves will become more frequent and intense”
I thought the new narrative from the “computer models” down to Al Gore talked about lower frequency but high intensity.
For example from today’s climate audit on hurricane research:
http://climateaudit.org/2010/03/13/hurricanes-2010/
“Existing modelling studies also consistently project decreases in the globally averaged frequency of tropical cyclones, by 6–34%”
It seems like this could be sufficient to claim the ads have no scientific basis. These guys should at least use the same alarmist playbook!
James
Schneider’s Open Letter
http://www.openletterfromscientists.com/index.html
btw – according to the letter I got from the ASA this story is confidential until Wednesday 17th March. It was only scheduled to be made available to journalists under strict embargo on Monday 15th March (tomorrow).
Obviously this unjustified demand has failed – if anyone can see any good reason for the ASA to have taken this position I’d be interested to hear it. A quick check just now on the ASA site shows it is not reported there so perhaps they think it is still “under wraps”. The only angle that springs to mind is news management to avoid the Sundays, but perhaps I’m missing something?
The UK ads remind me of a radio ad that played repeatedly during the warmest summer months of 2006 in the USA. (Fervor pitch targeting AGW was high at that time, following the release of Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth”.)
Female voice: “Melting polar ice with a dirty look. Shrinking glaciers, a nudge. Then dying coral reefs pushed us … hard. Rising ocean temperatures and extreme weather, an upper cut. And record breaking heat waves hit us right where it hurts. Has it occurred to anyone that maybe the earth’s trying to get our attention?”
Male voice: “We can still reduce greenhouse gas pollution. To find out how, go to fightglobalwarming.com. Brought to you by Environmental Defense, The Robertson Foundation and the Ad Council.”
Going to that site, their main recommendation is to replace all of your incandescent lights with compact fluorescents.
I’ve always wondered if these entities might be on the payroll of “Big Compact Fluorescents”.
The Ad Council does receive funding from the US Government for certain PSA’s, but it is unknown if this particular ad had any funding from Uncle Sugar.
Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall,
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.
All the king’s horses and all the king’s men
Tried to advertise him together again.
Little Boy Blue,
Come blow your horn,
……….;
But where is the boy
Who looks after the sheep?
He’s in a hurricane shelter,
Fast asleep.
London Bridge is falling down……..
Fix it with scads of scary ads, scary ads…..
Mary, Mary, quite contrary,
How does your garden grow?
Under spring’s cloudy skies
And a foot of frost and snow
Old King Cole was a merry old git
…….
And he called for his fiddlers three.
Mike Mann, Phil Jones and Gavin Schmitt
They tweedle deed and tweedle deed
But couldn’t play worth a spit
You should read up about how FDR used children to get them to support his socialist programs. It is disgusting. And now we have the public school system trying the same thing.
It’s really not new that governments do this stuff, for their own reasons, for instance taxing people. Or giving grants to scientist to support government’s hoaxes.
As to the joke about stopping a new ice age … well that’s as funny as we are melting the earth.
The biggest travesty of all was banning DDT with a hoax. 35 million Africa children have paid the ultimate price for that hoax.
about [snip] time, the UK government wastes far too much taxpayers money on stupid pointless lying ads
In a way, this is cheering news.
Baa Humbug 23:02:02
I can understand your resentment of us Poms taking the Ashes from you last year, but don’t let it blind you to the failings of your Mr KRudd (I believe he spells it that way, though personally I prefer it with a “c” and no capitals). You are fortunate in having a choice to make fairly soon, and one between distinctive parties. As you so correctly note, our choice is much more limited. Yous truly is “The Lucky Country”
Yours – oops!
You should post a link to the actual ruling. In it, it is quite clear that vast majority of complaints were thrown out. However it should of been stated the probabilities to better inform viewer e.g. 90% chance of more extreme weather events globally. There is less certainty at smaller regions so this should have also been reflected in any future use of ads.
Most of this is actually reflected in the article so whats with all hyperbole statements in the comments. The ASA agreed that global warming and resultant climate change is occurring. The ruling lists those consulted such as IPCC, Royal Society, World Meteorological Organization as well as 19 other national or international academies.
Sou (04:59:17)
In related news, cigarette packets in the UK have had their labels changed to be more tentative:
Smoking kills, but then so to do many other health and occupational safety factors, so you might not die younger than otherwise
Smoking seriously harms you and others around you, unless you are smoking by yourself out in the countryside, or others around you are already smokers and likely to die soon
Smoking causes fatal lung cancer, usually, unless something else kills you first or you have really, really lucky genetics, and you’ll be fine
Smoking can damage the sperm and decreases fertility, but if you are a young lad you still better be careful
Stopping smoking reduces the risk of fatal heart and lung diseases, unless you are still obese and not exercising, in which case, you might as well smoke
Smoking clogs the arteries and causes heart attacks and strokes, in some people, but we don’t really know why some people seem to have no problems, but chances are you won’t be so lucky
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_packaging_warning_messages#United_Kingdom
Bernie (05:47:52) :
Ric Werme:
What ever happened to the Science Museum poll?
Conviently forgotten, it was going the wrong way with a strong majority against AGW.