Guest Submission: Colin Ector on David Attenborough

David Attenborough and his change of stance on CO2 and Anthropogenic Climate Change. 

 

I have read and heard a lot of chatter and excited urgency online recently about getting off our reliance on fossil fuels, with reference to David Attenborough’s documentary as the source of this renewed call to action. 

 

I grew up watching David Attenborough from as early as I can remember. I have fond memories of sitting around the television as a family witnessing the wonders of the natural world combined with the soothing sound of the knowledgeable Mr Attenborough’s commentary on everything from the tiniest brightly colored insect, to the hazardous migration of the Wildebeest through fast flowing crocodile infested rivers.

 

This is something most will be familiar with and like me, will have grown up watching. Never did I distrust anything that was said. David Attenborough’s enthusiasm for the Natural world and his longing to be connected to the animals he presented was infectious. The psychological connection to Attenborough’s voice, words and the trust that was built over the decades is strong in a similar way to that of music we listened to in our formative years. 

 

With this in mind I don’t expect that making this analysis available for all to read will win me any new friends.  David Attenborough is probably one of the most respected and liked TV personalities in the world.  

 

For years Attenborough refused to go along with the catastrophic Anthropogenic climate change narrative along with the other famous TV nature documentary presenter of the time in the UK, David Bellamy.  Bellamy did not change his mind and his career ended amidst mockery of his refusal to turn to the other side. There was nothing that the “experts” could show him, or any amount of pressure that could be exerted on him to bring him into the religion of C.A.C.C (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change). He held fast to his beliefs and he paid the price for it.

 

There doesn’t appear to be any interviews with Attenborough about why he refused to go along with the demonizing of CO2 online.  If he was interviewed, it has disappeared from public view. 

Is this an opinion that is not allowed to be seen?  

 

Without his reasons we are left to guess. I expect they were the same as others who refuse to believe that the trace gas CO2, which is the very building block of all life on this planet, is the thermostat for the globe and that humans, putting back in CO2 by the burning of fossil fuels will cause catastrophic Climate change.  

 

When I write “back in”, that is not in error. In my opinion, this is one of the most important factors to realize when looking at this topic.  All of the CO2 that comes from burning coal is CO2 that used to be part of the carbon cycle of the planet.  It simply became trapped. 

 

What is coal?  Coal is trees.  When plants first developed the ability to form hard material (wood) using lignin there was nothing on earth that was capable of breaking down the wood.  As the trees died, they fell over and with nothing to break them down they piled up in some places hundreds of meters thick. Compressing down and eventually forming what we know as coal.  All the CO2 that was inside the trees, which would have gone back into the cycle of life on earth, otherwise known as the carbon cycle, became trapped. This process which continued over millions of years reduced the amount of carbon in the atmosphere from upwards of 4000 parts per million all the way down to 180 parts per million. Plants cease to be able to survive at 150 parts per million.  It was only the evolution of “white rot fungus” which stopped this decline going any further and wiping out all life on Earth.  This fungus was able to break down the wood and put it back into the cycle of life. All life on Earth is dependent on CO2.  We are all Carbon-based organisms.

 

It is very likely that David Attenborough is familiar with this information. Even now as we have put more CO2 back into the atmosphere, plants are doing better.  It is easier to farm crops. Forests, if left alone thrive and even the Sahara dessert is being encroached on by plant life.  When plants flourish so does all life on Earth.

 

In Attenborough’s “Statement documentary” he talks a lot about over-fishing, and the cutting down of rain forests. He also offers some solutions to these issues which sound great.  Large protected areas of the oceans and protecting the rain forests.  The issue of CO2 however is brushed over. It is assumed we all agree Carbon dioxide is bad. The counter on the screen showing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere spins around correlated to the planet’s population and the amount of wilderness remaining untouched. Another thing of note is that Attenborough calls it Carbon which it is not. I am not a scientist but there is a big difference between Carbon and Carbon Dioxide which is the main building block of life itself. Was this an effort somewhere down the line to confuse the invisible gas with dirty soot in an effort to portray CO2 in a negative light?  Surely, it’s important to be clear what we are talking about.

 

For optimum growth plants require a level of CO2 about 4 times higher than it is today with no adverse effects when it gets higher. Life Thrives with more CO2 unless other factors such as a Glaciation hinder it, and long-term CO2 / temperature data shows it is not the main driver of temperature on the planet if it has much effect at all.  The planet has been in the middle of Ice ages and Glaciations when the levels of CO2 have been far greater than today.  The cycles of the Sun appear to be the source of temperature change and it is this that drives the long tropical periods on Earth as well as the Ice ages and Glaciations. We have only to observe the seasons of the year and even the hours of day and night, to remind ourselves of the effect of its presence and proximity.

 

 

Surely Attenborough is aware of this information, so what was it that changed his mind?

 

I held a great deal of respect for Mr Attenborough and with my skepticism in hand I went looking for the information that changed him from likely holding similar views to myself to becoming a true believer and advocate for ending the burning of fossil fuels. What was it that made him believe we will destroy the planet literally in the next few years if we do not make drastic changes and sacrifices? If his educated and experienced mind can be changed surely mine will be too? One of the fundamental principles of Statement Analysis is to not fall in love with your own idea. We must be willing to change or dismiss any question or assertion when presented with new evidence or a stronger argument.  

 

This should be true for all science. It used to be didn’t it?

 

The only thing in the media I can find from Attenborough to explain his change of mind is a short 14 year old Youtube clip entitled “Sir David Attenborough: The truth about Climate Change”

 

If we consider what I written above as likely at least part of Attenborough’s reasons for being skeptical in the past, what will he tell us about what changed his mind? 

 

 

What are our expectations for his explanation considering the implications to the planet and the future of mankind? Surely to be convinced and for Attenborough to convince us these must be addressed.

 

1.     Clear reliable language.

2.     Addressing the data on CO2 and temperature going back going over millions of years.

3.     Why the previously much higher levels of CO2 are not relevant.

4.     The high levels and the low levels of CO2 over history and the impact this has on life.

5.     The level of CO2 for optimum plant growth.

6.     Why human activity putting CO2 back into the carbon cycle is a bad thing.

7.     Addressing the far higher CO2 levels during extremely cold period s in the Earth’s history.

 

 

 

We want to hear how he was convinced. Who convinced him? Were all his questions answered? This is not a trivial subject that can be brushed over lightly.

 

Here is the clip.

 

https://youtu.be/S9ob9WdbXx0

 

 

David Attenborough Transcript

 

For the first time legendary broadcaster Sir David Attenborough speaks out about global warming.

 

“The key question of course, is how can we distinguish between variations due to natural causes and those variations of the climate that are induced by human activity. And the key thing that convinced me at any rate was a graph like this one that we have marked out on the floor that had been prepared from climate scientists like Professor Peter Cox.”

 

“The key question of course, is how can we distinguish between variations due to natural causes and thosevariations of the climate that are induced by human activity.

 

1.     Where a subject begins shows priority and may be the entire reason for what is stated. The subject’s priority here, is to establish without question, what the key and only question that is to be addressed here.  The existence of “the key question” presupposes that there are other questions. What are they to the subject and why is the subject not addressing them? One of the main questions would have to be “why is more CO2 in the atmosphere bad for the planet now when it has been so much higher in the past? Why is human activity putting CO2 back in, different and more dangerous?

2.     The use of the words “Of course” is to tell the audience to agree without question. In analysis we do not. The first thing we ask, is what other questions could there be and does the subject wish to divert attention away from them? 

In this case there are many. Why would the subject wish to divert attention away from them?

3.     The subject includes the unnecessary words “those” and “that” when referencing “those variations”. The sentence works without these words. It makes these words more important and important enough to include.  The brain added them in a fraction of a second as the subject spoke.  They are distancing words we use when we do not wish to be close to something. “this” and “that”. “These” and “those”. “These” and “this” brings things close whereas “those” and “that” adds distance. Why would the subject have a need to distance himself from variations of the climate that are induced by human activity”?

 

 And the key thing that convinced me at any rate was a graph like this one

 

1.     This is the subject’s second use of the word “key”. Any word that is repeated shows importance. This is important to him. We had the “key question” and now the “key thing” that convinced him.  This is the first time that Attenborough has spoken publicly on climate change and he has reduced it down to these two key things.  Again, this focuses attention here, on these two things rather than anywhere else.  The question is raised where else could we focus attention? Where else has the subject focused attention, that he does not wish to focus on now?

2.     “The key thing”.  “Thing” is weak in context. We expect “evidence” as a bare minimum or a description of what convinced him.  The subject is describing a life changing transformation of knowledge that effects every aspect of his life-long work and if it is to be believed, the existence of life on this planet. In the subject’s verbal perception of reality this is reduced to “the thing”. 

3.     Who convinced him with “the thing”? This is passive concealing the identity of the person or persons.   

4.     What are the other things? If there is a “key thing” there are things that are not “key things”.

5.     Note the word “convinced”.  This confirms that Attenborough did not believe the Climate change narrative.  It takes time to convince and is likely a word involving human interaction and discourse. If Attenborough held a position of skepticism it is unlikely a simple graph would “convince” him otherwise. He is withholding information here.  The identity and methods of this person or persons convincing has been withheld.

6.     Attenborough’s words of what convinced him are weakened further by his inclusion of the unnecessary wording “at any rate”. We always look at unnecessary words.  Although they appear unnecessary to us, they are important enough to the subject to include. The inclusion here tells us that this “graph like this one”, in the mind of the Attenborough may not be enough to convince others.  It admits weakness in the evidence.

 

7.      We sometimes find what we call leakage in the words people choose when they speak.  The brain knows what it knows and words sometimes “leak out” as we speak. The inclusion of “at any rate” here may be an indication of a financial motive for his change of position? We get “rates of pay”. This is not definitive, but it is noted. 

 

 

8.     It was not this graph that convinced Attenborough. According to his words it was a graph “Like this one”. What was this graph? Where is this graph and why is it not the graph we are being shown? Was the subject supposed to say it was this graph?  Did the brain not allow him to tell a direct lie or is there another graph? He has just told us that this is not what convinced him.

 

 that we have marked out on the floor that had been prepared from climate scientists like Professor Peter Cox.”

 

1.     Passivity is used again. Who are these climate scientists? 

2.     “had been” and “from” add distance between the subject and the climate scientists.

3.     It was not observed or concluded. It was prepared. Is this appropriate scientific language or does it demonstrate the subject may believe the graph has been manufactured?

4.     Professor Cox is brought in, but it was not him. It was climate scientists “like him” that made the models used for the graph. The explanation of how the models were made is what is important here. A model can be made to do and show anything. This is becoming more common in science presented to the public with varying degrees of accuracy.

 

This is extremely weak language from Attenborough. Either he does not believe his own words and has not changed his mind, or he is concealing the other reasons behind his change of mind.

 

What of Professor David Cox? He did not create the modelling for the graph, but he is the “expert” brought in to explain it.

 

He states that the graph tells us two things

 

 

“One is that the model looks realistic. It looks like the real world and the second thing is that 

The model tells us that this recent warming is due to human beings”

 

Professor Cox passes responsibility to the model.  He references that it “looks realistic” and what it “looks like”.  This is a lack of commitment to what it actually is. It may be appropriate language in the context of what he knows but it still lacks reliability.

 

The professor places all responsibility for the conclusions on the model.  He does not commit himself linguistically to this. If the model is wrong so is the conclusion. 

 

None of the questions about the relationship between CO2 levels and temperature, throughout the Earth’s 4.6 billion-year history have been addressed here. We are expected to believe without question that a graph of the last 170 years is enough to change Attenborough’s mind when he is not able to say it did.

 

This graph of such a tiny period in the history of the Earth’s temperature and atmospheric Co2 levels, is equivalent of taking the temperature at 8am, seeing the dog pass wind at 8.01am and concluding that the temperature increase that is measured at 8.15am was caused by the dog, rather than the sun rising.

 

I am not convinced, and from his words, from his language, I don’t believe David Attenborough was either.

 

What Mr Attenborough believes now I do not know.  He is nearly 95 years old and has no doubt been under constant pressure to uphold the Anthropogenic climate change disaster narrative.  The fact remains that deception lies all around this subject. The need to silence all opposing points of view regardless of evidence betrays its weakness.  A scientist coming from a position of strength has no need for the tricks and smears used by those defending the CO2/ global warming / catastrophic climate change narrative.

 

For a more honest interpretation of climate data and CO2 levels Tony Heller of Real Climate Science is great as well as Dr Patrick Moore the co-founder of Green Peace. If you wish to learn about the stronger opposing view here are a few links to get you started.

 

Tony Heller

 

https://youtu.be/8-zaQWAaPAg

 

Dr Patrick Moore interviewed by Alex Epstein

 

https://youtu.be/uawp_w3V1xE