Attenborough: "irrelevant" whether climate change is man-made


Sold out

UPDATE: Attenborough is bankrolled by the BBC, so it’s hardly surprising that he toes the alarmist line. As a commenter pointed out, look what happened to David Bellamy when he dared speak his mind.

We still have to do something about it, apparently. Another icon of my youth, David Attenborough, sells out to the Dark Side and reveals himself as a climate alarmist. Like the Natural History Museum and the BBC, these institutions have sullied their reputations by abandoning impartiality and embracing alarmist hysteria.

Attenborough’s latest pronouncements on the climate make interesting reading, because he seems to suggest that we should take action on climate change irrespective of whether, or to what extent, it is caused by man. I actually heard this in the wee small hours on ABC News Radio and thought I was having a bad dream:

“I don’t think anyone can seriously deny it is happening,” he said. “What the controversy is about is whether mankind has been a factor in that. I personally think we have and it would be surprising if we hadn’t given what we have been doing for the last 125 years.”

We’re all with you so far. Man has had some effect on the climate. Continue.

“But in the way it is irrelevant given temperatures are increasing and we know that is potentially doing a lot of damage and if we can we should try and stop that happening. Whether it is caused by us or not, we can bring down carbon emissions and that could stop temperatures rising.” (source)

Just run that past me again… “whether it is caused by us or not, we can bring down carbon emissions and that could stop temperatures rising.” Right, so you’re not sure whether man-made carbon emissions have caused the recent warming, but cutting those emissions will stop it somehow? Sorry, not following that logic at all, I’m afraid. In fact, it’s complete and utter nonsense.

Not surprising, because this isn’t an argument based on logic, it’s an argument based on an environmental ideology. Thankfully we have Nigel Lawson to put the more rational perspective:

Sir David Attenborough is one of this country’s finest journalists, and a great expert on animal life. Unfortunately, however, when it comes to global warming he seems to prefer sensation to objectivity.

Had he wished to be objective, he would have pointed out that, while satellite observations do indeed confirm that the extent of arctic sea ice has been declining over the past 30 years, the same satellite observations show that, overall, Antarctic sea ice has been expanding over the same period.

Had he wished to be objective, he would have pointed out that the polar bear population has not been falling, but rising.

Had he wished to be objective, he would have mentioned that recent research findings show that the increased evaporation from the Arctic ocean, as a result of warming, will cause there to be more cloud cover, thus counteracting the adverse effect he is so concerned about.

Had he wished to be objective, he would have noted that, while there was indeed a modest increase in mean global temperature (of about half a degree Centigrade) during the last quarter of the 20th century, so far this century both the UK Met Office and the World Meteorological Office confirm that there has been no further global warming at all.

What will happen in the future is inevitably unclear. But two things are clear. First, that Sir David’s alarmism is sheer speculation. Second, that if there is a resumption of warming, the only rational course is to adapt to it, rather than to try (happily a lost cause) to persuade the world to impoverish itself by moving from relatively cheap carbon-based energy to much more expensive non-carbon energy. (source)

%d bloggers like this: