ASA objected to government climate change ads
 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8571353.stm



--
Tim Watts

Managers, politicians and environmentalists: Nature's carbon buffer.

ASA objected to government climate change ads
 

On 17 Mar, 09:04, Tim Watts wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8571353.stm

--
Tim Watts

Managers, politicians and environmentalists: Nature's carbon buffer.

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.

ASA objected to government climate change ads
 

On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 09:04:43 +0000 someone who may be Tim Watts
wrote this:-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8571353.stm

The thread title you have used is misleading.

"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."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/mar/17/asa-climate-change-ads



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt3-pb3-l1g54

ASA objected to government climate change ads
 

On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 10:34:05 +0000, David Hansen
wrote:

On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 09:04:43 +0000 someone who may be Tim Watts
wrote this:-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8571353.stm

The thread title you have used is misleading.


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.


"We stand by our campaign, we will continue to do this," said a
spokeswoman for the Department of Energy and Climate Change.


Entirely predictable, alas.


"The ASA hasn't upheld any complaints about our TV advert,


On the contrary, the ASA upheld complaints that the campaign presented
scare stories based on one-sided climate change research as definite
predictions.


the reality of man-made climate change has not been challenged,


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.


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."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/mar/17/asa-climate-change-ads


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.

ASA objected to government climate change ads
 

On Mar 17, 12:40*pm, Bruce wrote:
On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 10:34:05 +0000, David Hansen

wrote:
On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 09:04:43 +0000 someone who may be Tim Watts
wrote this:-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8571353.stm

The thread title you have used is misleading.

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.

"We stand by our campaign, we will continue to do this," said a
spokeswoman for the Department of Energy and Climate Change.

Entirely predictable, alas.

That bit I'll grant you.


"The ASA hasn't upheld any complaints about our TV advert,

On the contrary, the ASA upheld complaints that the campaign presented
scare stories based on one-sided climate change research as definite
predictions.

Not relating to the TV campaign.

the reality of man-made climate change has not been challenged,

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.

Not quite.

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."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/mar/17/asa-climate-change-ads

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!

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