The Impact of Creative Ads on Climate Change
Published on October 15, 2009 / News
Today is Blog Action Day, an annual event uniting bloggers throughout the world in posting about the same issue on the same day. The issue of this year’s event is Climate Change.
I recently came across a creative ad campaign produced by the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). Their ads depict likable animals, in disastrous conditions caused by human activity, and push a clear message: help stop global warming. But is it safe to assume that simply acting on this message will save the planet from a global climate crises, or do these ads erroneously target human activity as the root cause of climate change?
Let’s take a look at what the experts say. I chose to research scientists not working for NASA to get a non-government perspective of the issue. I was led to the Global Warming Petition Project, signed by 31,478 American scientists, including 9,029 with PhDs. Each signer is equipped with the essential training to comprehend and measure the scientific data relevant to human activity upon the environment. Their petition states:
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.
So if human activity is not responsible for global warming or climate change, what is? Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg’s Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, believes the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun. Could it be that the star accounting for 99.86% of the Solar System’s mass is responsible for global warming? Or are our tail pipes really heating the climate on a planetary scale?
Getting back to the WWF’s creative ads, I agree with the message of preservation, conservation, and pollution reduction. However, what may spawn as a harmless thought in the mind of an animal lover, to improve upon one’s treatment of the environment, may grow into a stronger support for a dangerous global change – a change in the form of a new government energy policy based not on scientific truth, but on a human-caused global warming hypothesis that tens of thousands of national scientists openly reject.
Blog Action Day 2009 is seeking solutions to climate change so here are mine. First, get the facts straight. Do your own research and view the climate debate posts at MasterResource, a free-market energy blog. Find ways to conserve energy on an individual level for the sake of self-sufficiency. For example, one may produce a portion of one’s own food to reduce chemical consumption and lessen taxes and pollution culminating from farming, manufacturing, and transporting foods before they are sold by markets.
This isn’t an attempt to discredit the creative people at the WWF. They’ve done a great job at solving a problem visually and effectively present a clear message. Although if the data used to backup their message is false, the ads use imaginary scenarios to mislead us, conceal the true cause of climate change, and promote bigger actions to be taken on a notional issue. Perhaps it would be more accurate for the WWF to “help stop global warming” by creating an ad with a polar bear chillin’ next to a gigantic mirror that’s pointed at the sun to reflect heat back into space.
Subscribe to get the latest posts via RSS or follow me on Twitter.
Email Post / Print Post / Leave a Reply
10 Responses to “The Impact of Creative Ads on Climate Change”
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
-
[...] MatthewPaul (The Impact of Creative Ads on Climate Change) [...]
-
[...] The Impact of Creative Ads on Climate Change [...]
You can also take five minutes and discuss global warming with anyone who teaches Geology on a Collegiate level; a field of study that is becoming very unpopular because of their unanimous findings on heating and cooling cycles of the planet, that shockingly disprove any theory that humans contribute to the temperature of the planet.
Like you, I don’t think being poor stewards of our planet is acceptable, but again, lets base it on facts not hysteria. So many terrible decisions have been enacted on a Government level as reactions to worry or tragedy.
Jorell,
I agree. It’s unfortunate that the extensive observational and experimental studies, which many credible scientists believe disproves the claims of “global warming” advocates, have been ignored and refused debate. Thanks for commenting.
I’m impressed with your work and your strategies. Much of what you do is beautiful, but I am especially impressed that you are projecting to the world and sincerely hope they “get” your message. We are not largely, but totally, responsible for the demise of our planet and its inhabitants. If I had a million dollars, I would help do something about it, but I was laid off two years ago. My faith is strong, but it’s a challenge since the unemployment ran out last August. God Bless you for spreading the message and your beautiful work.
In a follow-up to my last comment, I usually put in my two cents prior to reading the opinions of others, because I don’t wish to be influenced before I’ve said my peace. I must modify my comment to say that it was encouraging to hear others also hold the government largely responsible. It is my belief that if the government would done their due diligence and given us our constitutional right to vote on all they do without our knowledge, much less our vote/consent, much of this could have been avoided. Their snap decisions, or long deliberations without sound results, hasn’t allowed us to voice another opinion. Town meetings are of little consequence if our ideas aren’t, at least, considered or put to a discussion. As I said, I’d do something to undo the damage if I had the money; an ounce of prevention, at this point, is too little…too late. Everyone wants their name on something, and damn the planet or the consequences. OK; I’m done. Sorry. I got riled over planetary destruction.
Okay, sorry…one more thing. I actually agree with the theory that increases in carbon dioxide increase environmental benefits among animal and plant life, but maybe there’s a problem with the exchange. Similar imbalance in exchange of atmospheric chemical levels takes place when thunderstorms occur, but the large abundance that we’ve recorded as recent as two years but as long ago as 1984 can have profound effects on our planet’s inhabitants. Likewise, while lightening fortifies the atmosphere by bringing new oxygen to the mix, too much of a good thing….it’s all in balance and ratio; ask any anesthetist. ———Thanks for the invitation. I yield to the next viewer.
very effective…good job indeed.i am highly touched..
Thanks, urvashi, if you meant me. If not, kudos to Matthew Paul, and I’d like to hear any updates from him (or anyone else) on this subject. —
While I am, obviously, not of the same caliber (or on the same scholastic level) as Matthew Paul and others (my expertise primarily in health care), I have held a keen eye on our planet, the universe and all that effects our world(s) since childhood (and NOT as a prodigy or product of Star Trek). I was nonplussed to discover how little those, who hold the gavel on making appropriate changes to save our planet, don’t begin to show knowledge of even elementary science, much less the more complex factors already bringing peril to our very existence.
Was I the only 11-year-old paying attention in class? Does no one else get the gist of potential cataclysmic disaster before us? Maybe I should have pursued my, then, proposed career as Aeronautic Space Engineer after all; maybe I could have been the one person with her hand on the light bulb that might have switched on some brains by now. As it turns out, perhaps it’s ROCKET SCIENCE science after all…come on people!! Pay attention!
Pounding on my chair arm, I am stupefied to never hear an educated description of the Van Allan Belt and how the ozone layer is involved in our safety. How can they even begin discuss microwaves, UV, UVA & UVB levels without bringing the belt into the equation? Do they, themselves, have a clue what’s at stake and what is the threat? — Tell ya what…go watch the movie “CORE”, let it scare the bejeezus out of you, and then come talk to me. —- I yield to the floor.
hi really your concept is very very nice true and thes concept are indicates
if global warming will be control by human it will be better for living