UK Govt climate change ads banned
The Daily Mail reports:
Two government advertisements which use nursery rhymes to warn of the dangers of climate change have been banned for exaggerating the threat.
Commissioned by Energy Secretary Ed Miliband, the adverts are based on children’s poems Jack and Jill and Rub-A-Dub-Dub and assert that climate change will cause flooding and drought.
The Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) ruled the adverts – which attracted 939 complaints – made exaggerated claims which went beyond mainstream scientific consensus.
The proponents of man-made global warming are basically their own worst enemies. If they didn’t feel the need to over-state the position and scare-monger, then there wouldn’t be such a backlash against them.
The news that the UK Government’s own advertisements were so unbalanced, as to be banned, will just drive thousands more people towards the view that it is all a crock of shit – even if it is not.
March 17th, 2010 at 1:11 pm
They have to over state because they don’t have anything of substance to support their view.
It was game over when Phil Jones of “Climategate” fame conceded the Medieval Warm Period was probably warmer than today.
March 17th, 2010 at 1:18 pm
And the whole “the sky is falling, the sky is falling… we must raise/introduce-new taxes to avert the danger” also rings incredibly hollow (at least in NZ).
We’re told we should drive more energy-efficient vehicles and the government has even regulated that new cars must be demonstrated with clear evidence of those efficiency figures — but there’s no sensible economic incentives on offer — such as reducing the relicensing fee for more efficient vehicles for example.
We’re also told that we should use more efficient lighting in our homes — but there’s no move to subsidise CFLs by adding a surcharge to incandescents to cover that subsidy and provide price-parity.
We’re told that electric vehicles would be a great thing in NZ — but there’s no backing for an EV industry here in NZ and indeed, by continuing with the current punitive taxation regime on R&D (when compared to our peers overseas) there’s unlikely to ever be the R&D required to get such an industry going. And, while the US government offers massive credits for those who buy hybrids or EVs, Kiwis will just pay the sticker price with no government incentive to switch.
So why is it that we’re told to do one thing but not otherwise incentivised?
Could it be that the government wants you to continue using large amounts of electricity — after all, a good deal of the money we pay for our power ends up in the government’s coffers — it’s really just another form of taxation. To have businesses and households dramatically reducing their power use would really put a kink in the flow of funds into the state’s coffers!
Same goes for petrol. I’m sure the government rejoices every time someone buys a big V8 Holden or turbocharged whatever. All the extra litres of fuel that such a vehicle burns every day contribute proudly to the tax-take on which the government is so reliant to fund its salaries, perks and pleasures.
Tobacco kills how many people each year? If it were a new drug just on the market today it would never be allowed. So do we ban it, as we did with BZP and a few other allegedly *less* dangerous drugs that have recently appeared on the scene? Hell no, there’s a fortune to be made from excise tax and GST on ciggies!
The bottom line is that talk is cheap from government (or at least it’s paid for by the taxpayer) whereas action requires courage, commitment and integrity.
That’s why our politicians rattle their tambourines and bang their drums but, when it really comes down to the wire, stand back and do nothing except levy extra taxes.
March 17th, 2010 at 1:22 pm
Whilst I hate these climate activists – I must give due acknowlegdement when acknowledgement is due, the posters are quite creative!
March 17th, 2010 at 1:50 pm
I’ll be sticking with my “view that it is all a crock of shit”.
The fact that governments continue to push this crap on us despite the HUGE question mark over AGW just goes to show that the real motive behind so called AGW is to introduce taxation on a global populace to fund and facilitate, I believe, Global Governance.
Perhaps we could ask our inside contact at the UN?
March 17th, 2010 at 1:57 pm
Whether climate change is happening (and how/why/how much, etc) is one subject. What steps should be taken is another. That is where the real hysteria and danger lies. The far left has been demanding drastic changes be made immediately, without any time to discuss, question, re-asssess, mitigate, etc. And anyone who tries to do so must be attacked and discredited, rightly or wrongly (the ends justifying the means of course).
Fortunately, since the Copenhagen debacle the momentum of the AlGorists has been severely slowed.
March 17th, 2010 at 2:37 pm
What I love is the way the warm-mongers (including our own government) bat off the various exposes with, “But the underlying science remains sound.”
How can that be when so many of the scientists who did the underlying science were lying?
One thing would make the government defer the ETS:
Put a climate change invoice for $3000 in every letterbox. Include a crystal clear explanation of the climate facts, and a Dear John (Key) letter for people to send with their non-payment.
Bring the voters up to speed with the vast body of evidence for fraud, tell them how much the Nats want to put up their petrol and power by to pay for this ludicrous climate tax that won’t even work, and I suspect the ETA of the ETS will suddenly be somewhat later than July.
Now, which of you rich pricks can stump up $200,000 or so for the maildrop?
March 17th, 2010 at 3:07 pm
Climate changing.. when did it stop being … Summer Autumn Winter Spring… Summer Autumn Winter Spring.. whats changed.
March 17th, 2010 at 3:32 pm
Apart from their severe embarassment over climate gate I reckon we’ve heard a lot less of this nonsense recently for the very simple reason that there’s been a very severe north hemi (where all the news is made) winter. The bozos know they cant propagandise when Johnny Voter looks out the window and sees a snow drift. Now that it’s spring up there the alarmists will again be warming to their vocation to save mankind from itself.
March 17th, 2010 at 4:06 pm
I’m a conscientious objector in the war on climate change.
March 17th, 2010 at 4:14 pm
Jeez it’s like these guys share a P.R. team with NZ Labour party
March 17th, 2010 at 4:44 pm
The current UK Labour Govt. are in a similar position to the previous NZ Labour Govt. before they lost the un-winnable election – flailing and cocking up left right and centre (but mostly to the left).
March 17th, 2010 at 4:52 pm
It is a crock of shit and I for one can’t wait for the wholesale sacking of people who have been involved at the sharp end and their prosecutions for fraud.
The sooner the better and we can start at NIWA and set the example for the rest of the world to follow.
March 17th, 2010 at 4:54 pm
Now, which of you rich pricks can stump up $200,000 or so for the maildrop?
John
This is a fraud and if John Key can’t be honest about it, he shouldn’t be PM nor in parliament.
I think your idea of sending a $3,000 invoice to every home in the country is a great idea.
maybe he’ll come right and if he doesn’t out they go next election.
March 17th, 2010 at 5:29 pm
The ETS will never get off the ground in its current state. It is a political sop to trading partners. imho.
March 17th, 2010 at 6:18 pm
“It was game over when Phil Jones of “Climategate” fame conceded the Medieval Warm Period was probably warmer than today.”
Except he didn’t.
March 17th, 2010 at 6:25 pm
I recommend Gareth Morgans Poles Apart as it analyses the wrinkles in the global warming debate. In contrast I watched a presentation by David Attenbourgh where he just took the climate models as seamless. Nevertheless Gareth Morgan makes the mistake of objectively assessing the evidence ignoring the fact that we really need to be a bit selective in how we think, if we want to get by!
March 17th, 2010 at 9:14 pm
Andrew W:
don’t get stuck on semantics…
“Professor Jones conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon”. Daily Mail (Feb 13) amongst other news sources.
March 17th, 2010 at 9:30 pm
Pita, “possibly” and “probably” have very different meanings, mixing the two is just lying.
The claim that a warmer MWP “[suggests] global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon” is a claim by the Daily Mail, not by Jones.
March 17th, 2010 at 10:48 pm
“conceded” seems pretty operative, as a verb.
March 17th, 2010 at 11:24 pm
It is all a crock of shit.
Anyone who says otherwise is either ignorant, stupid, gullible or in it for the money.
I’m also slightly embarrassed to say that the ETS has provided a substantial percentage of my work over the past year or so.
March 18th, 2010 at 1:07 am
An ironic response and major mistake of AGW disciples.
March 18th, 2010 at 1:59 am
It is all a crock of shit.
Anyone who says otherwise is either ignorant, stupid, gullible or in it for the money.
Plus One.
March 18th, 2010 at 2:01 am
Human induced climate change is to quote DPF “a crock of shit.” So what we need is a conservation ad attacking human induced climate change and focussing on things humans HAVE done such as deforestation, acid rain, etc, etc instead of fighting the planet’s natural systems.
March 18th, 2010 at 4:08 am
Ahh Bruce, you’ve nailed one of my pet gripes with the past government (and maybe this one – give them time). You see: financial penalties for fuel inefficient vehicles would hurt those that could not afford modern marvels. Gosh, they might have to take public transport (Kiwirail). Plans for emissions tests, etc, were all abandoned because they would (rightly so) make old bangers more costly to keep.
Political translation: “cheap cars for the masses” is more important than climate change. I wonder if we will ever see government put those two conflicting ideas together in one sentence.
I wonder what the Greens position is on penalising fuel guzzlers? Perhaps they would like to penalise them with one hand, subsidise with the other.
March 18th, 2010 at 6:55 am
That is a half quote that has a substantially different meaning to what he said:
“towards the view that it is all a crock of shit – even if it is not.”
That statement’s a demonstration of real ignorance.
There is far more chance of there being significant human effect on climate than no effect. It may well be somewhere in between, it is possible that warming effects are balanced out by cooling effects, we could be warming or cooling, but the only certainty is we have no effect at all. Unless you believe something stupid like “god” controls everything so we affect nothing.
March 18th, 2010 at 8:16 am
More muddled thinking from DPF:
While it’s true that Russia is not too concerned about the climate effects of global warming – in fact, they often joke that a couple of degrees warmer would suit them fine, and one can’t disagree with that – the fact is that there are no sane “proponents of global warming.”
The scientists who present their facts and theories are horrified by the current reality, let alone future scenarios.
So DPF could perhaps strive for more accuracy, and I concede he must be a busy boy, especially with his leaking apartment, and have a think about his wording for future posts.
eg
And Pete, you prove the point I made to you a couple of days ago.
It’s actually hard to single out the most stupid statement out of those six you make in only two sentences. Possibly the last is the least stupid, but even calling belief in God stupid is stupid because many of our foremost thinkers and doers believe in a god of some sort. And they are not stupid.
But I would probably give the prize to
.
Sorry Pete, that is really off this planet.
Even most denialists don’t say that, because it is demonstrably untrue. They just argue about the causes, but have not had even one paper published in a credible journal.
You need to get off that fence and read more.