Like my peers in the 1990s, I watched plenty of wildlife shows on TV. David Attenborough, the famous natural historian, was among the most powerful voices.
Many nature lovers admire him. He helped kindle my passion for wildlife conservation. After university, I worked on many assignments to conserve species around the world.
Never would I have guessed that Attenborough would undermine science. But he does.
Attenborough is Wrong
How? He says civilization is near collapse. And he wrongly blames man-made global warming.
I spent 8 years as an academic in climate science. I understand the diversity of opinion. I can say without doubt that Attenborough is wrong.
Recently he spoke at the United Nations climate conference in Poland. He implored leaders to act: “The continuation of our civilizations and the natural world … is in your hands.”
Earlier this year, he claimed that global warming is turning our landscapes into “plantless deserts.” He couldn’t be more wrong.
Humans Didn’t Cause Warm Phases
Global warming doesn’t threaten civilization. Hundreds of articles in science journals document the Roman Warm Period (1st century) and Medieval Warm Period (10th century). In both, global temperature was remarkably similar to today’s — and people thrived.
These two warm phases occurred without significant human emissions of carbon dioxide. Clearly, then, humans did not cause them.
Lack of Warming
Attenborough should join other climate alarmists and admit the bankruptcy of climate doomsaying. Michael Mann, a staunch alarmist, admitted the lack of warming in recent decades. He exposed faulty forecasts from computer climate models that guide global temperature forecasts. For the past 18 years, global temperature has failed to rise significantly. At the same time, carbon dioxide emissions have surged.
More disappointing to me, Attenborough claims that global warming is making the earth a “plantless desert.” He ought to tell his listeners about the Little Ice Age. In the 16th century, it crippled agriculture and caused disruption globally.
The Benefits of Warmer Temperatures
In the last two centuries, warmer temperatures and increased atmospheric carbon dioxide have boosted plant growth immensely. They have boosted modern agriculture. They enable us to meet expanding food demands.
Warming prolongs growing seasons. It expands plant ranges into higher latitudes and altitudes. And it brings more rainfall. All of these green the planet.
With more carbon dioxide, plants grow better. They grow better in warmer and cooler temperatures. They thrive in wetter and drier soils. They make better use of soil nutrients. They resist diseases and pests better. They expand their ranges, greening more of the planet. They improve their fruit-to-fiber ratio. All of this means more food, especially for the poor.
But Attenborough ignores these facts. Why? Because they threaten his alarmist narrative.
Once an admired voice on television, Attenborough now undermines climate science. He leads millions into believing the false alarm of climate doomsday.
This article was originally published at The Stream.
Featured Image courtesy of Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade website – www.dfat.gov.au [CC BY 3.0 au (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/deed.en)]
David says
Good article Mr Jayaraj. thank you.
However, I am not surprised by Attenborough’s spreading false narratives about man made climate change. Because although an impressive narrator, Attenborough has consistently championed and promoted one of most foundational and massive false premises in science, namely the development of life on earth by evolutionary process.
Prof. Dumbfounded says
Haha. That’s your biggest issue – is evolutionism. The problem with this entire site is its members trying to bend and find only the science that supports their own world view. It’s hilariously ironic.
Ian Woodland says
Totally agree with you. I have been trying to find data to support some of the claims that this site reports to be truth. In fact, all they do is ‘cherry pick’ some of the data which supports their own view and carelessly disregard the rest. I have been sympathetic to others views, but the more I look behind the headlines and review the data, the more I fall in line with the world’s scientists rather than this collection of ‘flat earth’ proclaimers. I appreciate that the Climate Change brigade cry wolf far too often but it’s even more sad that there are too many conspiracy theorists (as in the case of the UK’s MMR travesty) who are there to catch the unwary and easily led.
RD says
Please name a claim that you attempted to find data to support but were unable. That way the rest of can know if it’s this site that is not trustworthy , or you!
Vijay says
Data is out there in the public domain. When I mean data, I infer to peer-reviewed scientific journals. It is a very well established fact that not all scientific publications agree with each other and the same applies to climate science. And, Your accusations of cherry-picking are puzzling, as I’ve followed the same methodology used by scientists to argue on subjects: 1) Make a presupposition 2) Provide evidence for the same 3) Conclude by declaring the presupposition to be true or false.
You feel I am cherry picking because the papers I refer to do not necessarily comply with warming papers, such as the ones by alarmists like Michael Mann, etc. Using available evidence to substantiate your opinion is not cherry-picking. I am surprised that you use the term ‘flat earth proclaimers’, because, in my 32 years on this planet, I’ve not met a single Christian or Hindu or any religious person who believes in a flat earth. At least not those who regularly subscribe to this site, as they have been following scientists who are well acclaimed in climate science circles, including those who are recognized by NASA, US Government, top Universities and fellow alarmist scientists. I myself have worked with top climate scientists in UK and Canada, and none of them thought it is a conspiracy to question existing data on land, air, and sea temperatures, their interpretations, and what they mean for our world.
Edie Morse says
Sir David Attenborough has made wonderful wildlife series. Unfortunately, he’s become the Useful Idiot for the WWF, the Oligarchy, and Pop-Mediocrities who have nefarious motives for pushing an alarmist agenda. Nobody would dispute the need to take care of our planet; reduce carbon emissions & the use of plastics; and, to consider the ways in which we can recycle, rather than pollute. But, there are forces who wish to de-population rural areas in order to steal the resources and land for themselves. Attenborough may be sincere, or he may be desirous to be popular amongst a certain group of celebs. But he should look to who benefits versus who pays the price for his recommendations. The rich & powerful expect the working & poor people to make all of the sacrifices. That’s the definition of hypocrisy.
Judy Auger says
The rich and the powerful are those deeply entangled and rewarded from the oil and gas corporations…..
Judy Auger says
We CAN move forward with clean energy.
Vijay says
Certainly, and Wind is not one of them.
https://townhall.com/columnists/vijayjayaraj/2018/10/07/blood-on-the-blades-is-bird-life-facing-global-catastrophe-from-wind-turbines-n2524722
George Mallory says
How do you fly an airplane via hydro-, wind power or solar power? You cannot. Clean energy will, for the conceivable future, be a modest adjunct to the concentrated and transportable riches of fossil fuels. We will continue to find ways to make fossil fuel discovery, recovery and use even cleaner. The record of progress in these areas is never acknowledged by climate alarmists. Be smart, be informed, resist simple-minded talking points.
Par says
What do you consider clean energy?
Electricity for the most part is not from clean sources. Many are still from coal.
So you have unclean coal using mined wired and plastic coatings to deliver to a home with more mined wire and plastics, to mined metal boxes.
The you use more of the same to charge an EV. That EV’s batteries was from mined things like lithium, which a lithium mine is about the least clean mining you can have and takes offensive amounts of water not typically close to a feasible mine. Then you pollute getting that to a factory across the world in China, which is more polluting in logistics. Then they manufactured the battery there with no environmental systems in place because you feel better if the pollution isn’t here.
All in the name of feeling like not needing a gas station saved the planet. Despite all parts of the EV required oil based products or products obtained from oil. Even the manufacturing machines use oil for hydraulics and lubricant.
As an industry whole and lifecycle, a gas car is more environmentally friendly.
Mark says
I have never met a Climate Alarmist who doesn’t drive a fossil fueled car,cook using fossil fueld eletricity.They are like alcoholics telling everyone that they need to stop drinking.Then they wonder why the silent majority don’t believe them.It must be very frustrating pushing an agenda that the majority will never be a convert to.People are getting sick of this Climate Change Religion.