I think this concept is great. That said, I'm not all that impressed by the ads, perhaps they have more context than I'm giving them credit for, but when I see a lightbulb the words global warming don't jump to mind. The other two ads are alright, but c'mon I see far more talent in your average www.fark.com photoshop contest.

Global warming hasn't killed anyone. Don't be a tool of politically-driven falsified eco-propaganda.

I very much dislike fear marketing in any form, especially when it comes to something I care about.

So if I have a hamburger I'm ruining the planet? If I turn on a lightbulb to see at night, it's worse than a grenade?

All that does is heighten anxiety and powerlessness in a handful of people, and turn the other 90% off. You'd think that the ad world would tune in to positive solutions instead of trying old tactics that are far past their time.

"I hasn't killed anyone yet" is debatable, because it's hard to link it directly to climate events at this stage. But what is your point exactly?

Terrorism has been around forever (ask Europe, Africa, Asia), but since it happened in the US we're supposed to believe that suddenly it's the biggest threat ever? Hell, the cold war that the US had with the URSS was much more dangerous than that, and so is most of the wars that the US starts as far as the number of casualties and indirect damage (economic, social, etc) is concerned.

Something being a bigger threat than something else doesn't mean that that other thing isn't a problem. Obesity and car accidents are bigger threats to Americans than terrorism right now. They just aren't very effective as scare tactics to convince people to start waving flags and do whatever is asked. Same with global warming.

One can argue that the European heat wave a few summers ago was at least partly due to Global Warming. Same for the heat wave deaths in Chicago.

One of the most affecting Global Warming images I've seen was a documentary on the subject that showed an emaciated polar bear struggling to survive among the crumbling ice. That's not fiction or Chicken Little scare tactics. It has the advantage of being true.

Insurance companies sure seem to believe that global warming is causing damage.

Agreed with Joseph's comment - there must be much more constructive ways to have a public dialog that fear-imagery. This sort of heavy handed criticism only alienates the public from the message.

Thanks for the comments. Like others, I was generally dissappointed with the confrontational negative approach taken. Greenpeace did this doom-and-gloom stuff so much better and even they have moved onto better engagement with their audience.

One of the findings of Community Based Social Marketing ( www.cbsm.com ) is that to be effective you have get the audience to commit to some action, no matter how small. Once they have achieved that first small step, greater things become possible. Two of the ads did not even ask for any demonstrable action by the viewer.

But the two positives that I did derive from the exercise was 1. that the issue of Climate Change was interesting enough to Guardian readers that the newspaper went to the effort to try a new angle, and 2. that if highly paid marketing executives struggle to get the concepts across in a productive and proactive manner then we mere mortals should stop flaying ourselves with birch sticks, when the masses don't get such an obvious message. We can be less hard on ourselves and just continue on doing the best we can.

The organization that I work for (Climate Change Central which is an Alberta based nonprofit partnership), has some very clever ads developed as a part of Canada's One Tonne Challenge. Check out the website to watch the flash banners scroll through the cycle of images.

Look at climate data. I know that’s not as passionate and emotional as tree hugging…but you will see that the planet goes through huge swings in temperature change. This has happened for millennia. Looking at a short 100 or 200 year trend and trying to predict the future is dangerous. Perhaps it is even egotistical to think that we have changed the global climate. The truth of the matter is we don't know. We think there is a possibility so we work to prevent it. Over-sensationalizing the issue and blending fact and fiction diminishes the science and spreads misinformation. I am sure that isn't what you want, is it?

That emaciated polar bear a direct victim of global warming? Give me a break. How do you know that? Isn't it far more likely that the animal was sick? This indicates to me that you simply chose to interpret the picture in terms of global warming (most likely due to the publication wanting you to think that and manipulating the context of the photo). PhishJam is correct about the geological climate change time spectrum, although personally I would like to see non-carbon-based renewable energy sources take over from oil and coal. I like breathing clean air - but I'm not being forced into panicking about climate change by pseudoscience or shrill marketing.

"The truth of the matter is we don't know"
"How do you know that?"

How do you people know *anything*? Are you sure of *anything*? Perhaps you just pick-and-choose on what you think is "known" and ignore other things that interfer with your Fun Time...?

"you will see that the planet goes through huge swings in temperature change. This has happened for millennia. Looking at a short 100 or 200 year trend and trying to predict the future is dangerous. Perhaps it is even egotistical to think that we have changed the global climate."

lol You know, if you're going to make the same tired argument (put forth by the "junk science" and "earth is not my home" people), at least go to the effort of changing the wording a bit. I've heard the same exact thing probably 1,000 times -- especially the "egotistical" bit.

Personally, I think it's pretty egotistical to think that we should just roll the dice with the only known life support system we have. But then again, I know what it means to act conservatively.

"by pseudoscience"

Another one straight out of the playbook.

Dear Skeptic: Political talking points and WSJ editorial positions are not a reasonable basis for discussion of science. Insstead, please have a look at http://ww.realclimate.org/. I will be willing to take whatever time is needed to think carefully about any further remarks you might offer from that experience.

Temperature swings over Earth's history have indeed been big. However, you might want to look at the concentration of carbon in the atmosphere. Last time I looked, it hadn't been so many ppm for quite a few thousand centuries.

As for polar bears, the northern polar ice is thinning. There is no doubt about that. Thinning ice reduces useful polar bear habitat. Polar bears are thus in decline, according to everything I've read or heard. If you have some other information, please feel free to share it.

realclimate.org is ran by Environmental Media Services. EMS is a lobbying group, not a scientific foundation. The Environmental Media Services website and publications do not reveal their funding sources, nor do their IRS Form 990 annual reports. This is not a credible source of scientific data.

Try http://www.usgs.gov/ for raw scientific data. Do your analysis, and educate yourself on the truth about the climate. Write a report even showing the evidence that 1.) increased CO2 is a direct result of human activity and not natural processes or 2.) that the increase in climate change is due to human activity or 3.) that in the Earth's history there has not been a similar change in temperature or 4.) that there is direct evidence that the slowing of industrial pollutants has decreased the overall trend of global warming.

I look forward to reading your report.

These issues are important, but they should not be clouded by hearsay. I'm sorry if you keep hearing the same thing over and over again. Perhaps one of these times you will listen and think about the facts for yourself.

"I look forward to reading your report."

Troll.

Really, having some kind of debate over whether or not global warming is really happening or not is rather moot.

Regardless of the fact that such protestations are little more than the final bleatings of a significantly endangered species (the resource-hogging american fatcat), they are significantly behind the point which is, as far as I can tell, that: given that global warming is an increasingly depressing reality which we are all living with, and given that there is a need to increase public involvement with and commitment to this issue, what can be done to bring that to the forefront of the popular consciousness?

In general, I think that the adverts showcased by the Guardian in this instance are misguided, though the intent is honourable and encouraging. As has been noted, they take a heavy handed and exaggerated approach which is easily derailed. I think that the Climate Change Central ads mentioned by Murray Birt are excellent examples of an approach to the campaign that engages the viewer in a non-judgemental manner, and creates a positive impression of the 'privations' involved in doing one's part for the future of the planet.

I prefer "Ogre" as "Trolls" are sort.

Keep blaming America and hating America...and quit asking for our help. You can't have it both ways. Why aren't you blaming the "resource-hogging european fatcat" for anything? Do you think that Europe doesn't contribute to the problem just as much as North America or is it that it's more politically correct to blame America first?

The problem with many in the Environmentalist movement is that they are driven by emotion and politics (As has been demonstrated here by the name calling and references to lobbyist groups) and not driven by science. It is driven by false assumptions and the ubiquitous use of dooms-day scare tactics.

It is time for the environmentalist movement to grow up. These adds prove just how emotional and immature many (but not all) in the environmentalist movement are.

"Keep blaming America and hating America"

Gee, an also-ran computer science major who is obsessed with horsepower and big tits, and drinks deep from the well of right-wing radio nonsense and fancies himself a "libertarian" along the lines of Star Trek "philosophy", and who can't spell, formulate a coherent thought, or think one original thing, all the while being an open-ended anger and hatred machine. Oh, and likes to troll, since he obviously receives no attention in real life.

How original.

Personal attacks are a sign of desperation and ignorance. Stick to the science, folks.

"Personal attacks are a sign of desperation"

Then you must be pretty desperate, troll, as you threw out about 15 personal insults so far on this thread.

Please - tell me exactly what you think you're accomplishing by coming here and making an ass of yourself. If you wanted legitimacy for your viewpoint/position, then you would be able to make a compelling argument without playing childish troll games.

Whatever. We know what you are, and if you ever choose to post using the "phishjam" moniker again, people will just go "oh, yeah, the useless troll - human garbage" and scroll on by.

Take care now.

We provide the 'comments' section for discussion of a post, not for name calling. Please address the issue, not the person. If you disagree with a stance taken by a commentor, then provide referenced information to clarify your own position. Let's try and raise the standard of debate at Treehugger. This is not a venue for personal attacks. Future posts of this nature may be deleted, as they do not add anything constructive to the discussion.

Comment on comments.

"These adds prove just how emotional and immature many (but not all) in the environmentalist movement are." The ads were not written by environmentalists but by marketing executives in the UK.

None of the adverts address any nation state as the cause of the issue, so am unsure of how the comment "Keep blaming America and hating America" relates.

"Do you think that Europe doesn't contribute to the problem just as much as North America or is it that it's more politically correct to blame America first?"

Figures from the UN suggest that Germany (as an example of an European state) has reduced greenhouse gas emissions by about 200 million tonnes, while the USA has increased by about 170 million tonnes, over the same period.

http://www.grida.no/db/maps/collection/climate6/

"Stick to the science, folks." That's also what 1,000 scientists were requesting, when they published an open letter saying:"The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue."

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/global_warming/page.cfm?pageID=1264

The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) also states: "The overwhelming majority of scientific experts, whilst recognizing that scientific uncertainties exist, nonetheless believe that human-induced climate change is already occurring and that future change is inevitable.

Such statements, in the past, have included 104 of the 178 living Nobel Prize winners in the sciences.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/archive/page.cfm?pageID=530

But regardless of the cause, whether anyone is to blame, or who is biggest contributor, the real nub of the issue is how to enact positive change to reduce future impacts.

Let's stay more focussed on the heart of things, rather 'labelling' other people because they hold a different 'world view' to us. Any solution to environmental or social issues will only occur when we respect one another.

"Let's stay more focussed on the heart of things, rather 'labelling' other people because they hold a different 'world view' to us. Any solution to environmental or social issues will only occur when we respect one another."

Whoa, Warren, this isn't about "different world views". Perhaps you haven't been around on the Internet very long, but phishjam is using all the standard tactics of a troll. Trolls deserve no respect, no discussion, no seriousness. They should simply be pointed out so that people know what they're doing.

Go back to this part, for an example:
"Try http://www.usgs.gov/ for raw scientific data. Do your analysis, and educate yourself on the truth about the climate. Write a report even showing the evidence that 1.) increased CO2 is a direct result of human activity and not natural processes or 2.) that the increase in climate change is due to human activity or 3.) that in the Earth's history there has not been a similar change in temperature or 4.) that there is direct evidence that the slowing of industrial pollutants has decreased the overall trend of global warming.

I look forward to reading your report."

He "looks forward to reading my report"?? Come on.

Not only does he not reference anything in particular (ie, a speicifc study to support his assertions", he then uses an age-old "goose chase" tactic trolls are fond of -- wanting to make someone run around and prove something when in fact the troll doesn't really care about anything other than getting the person to run around.

All of those assertions he made are nonsense, and anyone with interest in the subject could look at the NAS paper or IGCC resources and find out the facts. There is no "debate" about climate change, only people wishing to be troublesome and seeding doubt where there no longer is any.

I went to the person's website and every mention of Treehigger is disparaging, full of all kinds of insults and namecalling. This isn't a person who is interested in finding common ground, seeking understanding, or being mature. In fact, I'm sure he's ecstatic at all the attention he's received and especially how you are giving him the benefit of the doubt, which he doesn't deserve.