ASA objected to government climate change ads

The campaign is (was?) a pointless waste of money and could be seen to be simply a preparation for the government to levy more taxes on the excuse it was good for the planet. If the whole of the UK shut down completely it would not affect the climate to any measureable degree. There is evidence of MUCH higher temperatures in the past few hundreds of years as well as much lower extremes. These occurred before industry became evident but the green brigade ignore the truth in favour of their blinkered interpretation of recent statistics.
Reply to
cynic
On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 09:04:43 +0000 someone who may be Tim Watts wrote this:-
"We stand by our campaign, we will continue to do this," said a spokeswoman for the Department of Energy and Climate Change. "The ASA hasn't upheld any complaints about our TV advert, the reality of man-made climate change has not been challenged, nor has any of the imagery we used been called into question. The ASA has found against one word in our newspaper adverts and we'll take care to provide better explanation in any future advertising campaign."
Reply to
David Hansen
Perhaps it should read "ASA upheld objections to climate change ads".
But what is really misleading here is your response, quoting pure spin from the government department that placed the very expensive ads.
Entirely predictable, alas.
On the contrary, the ASA upheld complaints that the campaign presented scare stories based on one-sided climate change research as definite predictions.
On the contrary, the ASA criticised the fact that the adverts in no way reflected the diversity of scientific views on climate change and its causes.
Perhaps the spokeswoman for the Department of Energy and Climate Change should go back to the ASA and find out what its ruling really meant!
In recent months the climate change research community has been shown to consist of barefaced liars who selectively publish research results that support only one conclusion, suppress publication of research results that support contrary conclusions or are inconclusive, deny funding to researchers who won't sign up to "agreed" conclusions before even starting their research.
These same liars have also made prominent and well-publicised claims about Himalayan glaciers, the Arctic and Antarctic ice sheets (including the demise of polar bears) and the Amazonian rainforest that bear no relation to the results of research into those subjects. Unfortunately, our government (and others) apparently remain in thrall to these lying scientists and their madcap theories and refuse even to contemplate the possibility that they have been comprehensively hoodwinked.
Of course it suits governments to have a reason to impose yet more taxes to fund their political objectives, most of which have nothing whatsoever to do with climate change.
Reply to
Bruce
That bit I'll grant you.
Not relating to the TV campaign.
Not quite.
Perhaps you should use the BBC website to "listen again" to the ASA bod who explained their ruling on radio 4 this morning, and the DECC spokesman. The *only* thing the ASA objected to was use of the word "will" in relation to more severe weather instead of "may" or qualifying it with the statistical likelihood. The DECC spokesmak accepted this and admitted it should have been worded with less certainty to reflect the fact that there are doubts.
I agree with very little Hansen says about AGW, but you do no favours to the truth (whichever way it may turn out) with this post.
MBQ
Reply to
Man at B&Q

Site Timeline Threads

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.