Who complained to the ASA about the global warming advert?

[VxDuncan]

Done.

As an aside, can people please copy + paste the link to the complaint website not clickthrough, just incase they are monitoring traffic and where it's referred from. I wouldn't want a whole load of complaints to be rejected becasue they all come from here.*

* I think I'm right in thinking a referral link can be tracked back to this thread if they wanted to, be willing to stand corrected...

[Pobolycwm]

I like the advert, ok so it doesn`t mention de-forestisation, farting cows, jet vapour trails, industrial scale pollution, burning fossil fuels etc

But it might make some people think about the consequences of what is happening to the climate ( warming up probably as a consequence to the way we treat the earth ) and by showing how each individual can make a small positive effect personalise the issue for them

You only have to look at MP`s expenses to see how effective the public can be when they become passionate about an issue

[AndrewW-G]

Pobolycwm said:

But it might make some people think about the consequences of what is happening to the climate ( warming up probably as a consequence to the way we treat the earth ) and by showing how each individual can make a small positive effect personalise the issue for them

Ignoring the argument on whether or not global warming actually exists (global temps are apparently down over the past couple of years according to one source) or if it does whether or not humans are responsible

Unless China, India, America and countless other countries also join in there is no point in doing anything.

Oh and the politicians responsible for all this ......................they use more energy / CO2 per head than almost any other person in this country, the best way to lead is by example, rather than simply using it as an excuse to increase the taxation generated by people who blindly believe what they read in the press

Edited by AndrewW-G on Saturday 17th October 12:36

[Bing o]

Pobolycwm said:

You only have to look at MP`s expenses to see how effective the public can be when they become passionate about an issue

Haha - really - do you actually believe that?

[s.m.h.]

J500ANT said:

Complain that it scared the life out of your child, they had nightmares and you had to stay up all night with him/her turning appliances off and promising to drive more slowly.

Apart from the obvious inaccuracies, who on earth would tell their child a bed-time story where the illustrations show a pet dog drowning ffs?
My missus said about the dog as I didn't notice it straight away. Feckwits.

[Monki]

Yes I complained, had a confirmation of my complaint 3ish days ago but nothing since.

Doubt anything will be done as it's part of the Winky & Co. Propoganda but it's worth trying

[turbobloke]

Pobolycwm said:

But it might make some people think about the consequences of what is happening to the climate ( warming up probably as a consequence to the way we treat the earth ) and by showing how each individual can make a small positive effect personalise the issue for them

As already said, let's ignore the fact that there's no evidence human emissions are doing anything to global climate.

UK is responsible for 2% of global emissions.

Each of us is responsible for 2% divided by 61 million (%) of global emissions.

To make a hit on emissions we would need to address something like 10% of global emissions, and again that's assuming there's an impact to reduce, which there isn't. So this 'everybody can make a difference' is pure folly. We can only make our own lives more difficult.

Never mind, let's go for the 2% max - so to make any difference we would need everybody to leave the 21st century.

This would entail regression to a localised medieval lifestyle with no industry and no mechanised transport, no electricity to speak of, the economy would collapse and millions would die in the first phase of chaos alone.

Yet you seem to advocate this as somehow beneficial. Do you understand this topic?

[Pints]

Anyone care to remind me on which channel I saw this heinous advert?

ETA: And when?

Edited by Pints on Saturday 17th October 12:52

[The Excession]

VxDuncan said:

Done.

As an aside, can people please copy + paste the link to the complaint website not clickthrough, just incase they are monitoring traffic and where it's referred from. I wouldn't want a whole load of complaints to be rejected becasue they all come from here.*

* I think I'm right in thinking a referral link can be tracked back to this thread if they wanted to, be willing to stand corrected...

That is a very good point!

Copy and paste this directly into a new session of a browser:

http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/how_to_complain/complaints_form/

or condsider going from Google here

[The Excession]

turbobloke said:

To make a hit on emissions we would need to address something like 10% of global emissions...

Remind me where Kyoto got us to again...... :snigger: :snigger: :snigger: :snigger: Fat fookin waste of time and money that was.

[turbobloke]

The Excession said:

turbobloke said:

To make a hit on emissions we would need to address something like 10% of global emissions...

Remind me where Kyoto got us to again...... :snigger: :snigger: :snigger: :snigger: Fat fookin waste of time and money that was.

Total, and son of kyoto needs strangling at birth.

Mankind currently manufactures energy globally at a rate of about 16 terawatts. If we take one nuclear power station as producing 1.6 gigawatts then about 10,000 nuclear power stations will 'solve' the non-existent problem that submarxists and various bedwetters are jumping up and down about. To make a 10% hit on our 3.4% perturbation to the carbon cycle, and keep things in the first decimal, only 1000 new nukes would be needed. But we get quotes like this from the current crop of environmental experts with access to politicians' ears (can't say brains):

"Nuclear is not the answer. There is no way it can replace a significant amount of coal globally. What is needed in Britain is a serious focus on energy efficiency, a swift development of and promotion of carbon capture and storage, electrification of the terrestrial transport system and more renewables."

[ludo]

ofcorsa said:

channel 5 11.30am 17/10 2009

Just came on PH to find out how to complain about an advert, what scaremongering twaddle

The message of the advert was broadly correct IMHO (I know that will shock many readers of this forum to hear me say that ), however it is completely unethical to try and change the behaviour of adults by getting their children to pester them until they do. One would hope that adults would look into both sides of the issue and decide rationally what to do about it, so the government ought to be making sure that the adult population know it is an issue worthy of their concern, but this is not the right way to go about it.

BBC said:

The government has already been prevented from screening the ad during children's programmes.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8317998.stm

well that is my concern dealt with. I think the other complaints are rather less likely to be upheld.

Edited by ludo on Wednesday 21st October 16:43

[turbobloke]

Tell your MP what you think of expensive state sponsored propaganda.

[e-mail]

e.g.

[e-mail]

This works for the vast majority of MPs.

[The Excession]

turbobloke's quote said:

...What is needed in Britain is a serious focus on energy efficiency...

This I have no problem with at all.

turbobloke's quote said:

...a swift development of and promotion of carbon capture and storage...

It's this nonsense the make me want to

[johnfm]

Ad space is becoming so cheap at cash strapped ITV I am surprised no consortium of non-idiots haven't clubbed together to broadcast some sense into the 'debate' on tax gas.

[VxDuncan]

johnfm said:

Ad space is becoming so cheap at cash strapped ITV I am surprised no consortium of non-idiots haven't clubbed together to broadcast some sense into the 'debate' on tax gas.

You think that would be allowed under anti-terrorist laws?

[Jasandjules]

Let's face reality here, IF the AGW stuff was true, then there would be little/no need for the emotional s***e, it would simply be facts, figures etc. It speaks volumes to my mind that they have to play the "won't somebody please think of the children" remark.

I'd also like to know what caused the Sea Level rises a few thousand years ago (remember that little greek city now under the sea found in the 60s? They are now looking at it again. Not to mention the settlement in the English Channel).... I don't think there were all that many cars around in those days....

[ludo]

Jasandjules said:

Let's face reality here, IF the AGW stuff was true, then there would be little/no need for the emotional s***e, it would simply be facts, figures etc. It speaks volumes to my mind that they have to play the "won't somebody please think of the children" remark.

I'd also like to know what caused the Sea Level rises a few thousand years ago (remember that little greek city now under the sea found in the 60s? They are now looking at it again. Not to mention the settlement in the English Channel).... I don't think there were all that many cars around in those days....

IIRC Greece is in a tectonically active area, so a submerged city is not necessarily evidence of rising sea levels, it could equally be subsiding land. Be interested to read more details though if you have an URL.

ETA: According to wikipedia, the northern edge of the small Aegean plate forms a divergent boundary with the Eurasian plate, so the land between will be stretched and hence may well subside. If the underwater city is in southern Greece, e.g. gulf of Corinth, I expect that may well be why it is underwater.

ETA: Also IIRC during the last ice age, sea levels were much lower than today because of the water locked away in the ice sheet, and the English channel was almost dry, in which case it wouldn't be surprising to find a stoneage settlement in the English channel.

Edited by ludo on Saturday 17th October 14:41

[turbobloke]

More than 200 complaints by Friday, total inevitably growing:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/16/compla...

[s.m.h.]

"Only 202 complaints"
Its the first one Ive complained about..

Reading the replies from some, I find it rather amusing that quoting "peer reviewed papers" and "thousands of scientists agree" justifies calling those that question the MMGW as fools etc.
Surely those that accept the findings of the government backed scientific research might wish to look at themselves in the same light. I don't think anyone disagrees the climate is changing - though which way - the issue is the way the government is hell bent on making the consumer pay regardless, scaring kids seems fine in their book...

So, what happens in 10 years time when we are sitting in the dark as the nuclear power stations wont have been finished (or indeed ordered), those fking green idiots have forced the closing of coal stations and the whole country ends up in the dark age. Silly expensive wind farms are standing still as the companies that build them go bankrupt due to no gov. funding and start failing...Yup the climate debate will be old news, as there will be feck all power and the world will continue warming and cooling just as it always has.

TB quoted a while back on a guy that to me summed it up perfectly. It was along the lines that the world is not in danger - just mankind. This spinning lump of rock will be here for millions of years, whether man is on it or not!!