Skip to content

David Rose Attacks Attenborough’s “Flawed” Documentary

April 21, 2019

By Paul Homewood

I said the other day that the BBC might have gone too far with Attenborough’s pack of lies, and risked a backlash which would ultimately undermine their credibility on climate.

Well, the fightback has begun, with attack from David Rose:





One of the most talked-about programmes of the past week – a primetime documentary on BBC1 – featured two people many seem to regard as living saints.

One was the presenter, Sir David Attenborough, the other Greta Thunberg, the Swedish teenage activist inspiring climate change ‘school strikes’ in several countries, including Britain.

The film’s title was Climate Change: The Facts, and these, Sir David claimed, are now ‘incontrovertible’. The film’s message was so bleak it could have been made by Extinction Rebellion, the eco-anarchist protest group which has brought Central London to a standstill.

No one has done more to convey the marvels of the natural world than Attenborough, and his long career has rightly earned him public acclaim.

Sadly, on this occasion, I believe he has presented an alarmist argument derived from a questionable use of evidence, whose nuances he has ignored.

1: In the film an orangutan bounds along a felled tree trunk towards a digger bucket in a Borneo forest

In the film an orangutan bounds along a felled tree trunk towards a digger bucket in a Borneo forest

According to Sir David, climate change, is the ‘greatest threat’ to humanity in thousands of years. ‘We are facing the collapse of our societies,’ he intoned, insisting we ‘must all share responsibility… for the future of life on Earth.’

Attenborough is about to turn 93, while Thunberg is just 16, but they issued the same warning. ‘It’s our future and we can’t just let it slip away from us,’ she told viewers. Yet ‘nothing is being done, no one is doing anything’.

The film rounded off a week which had already seen the BBC invite Extinction Rebellion extremists on to its news shows to expound the message – without serious challenge – that unless we cut greenhouse gas emissions to zero by 2025, ‘our children will die’.

Last year, the BBC issued guidelines instructing editors that inviting comment from ‘climate change deniers’ was ‘false balance’. In practice, this has meant that those who accept climate change is real, but less threatening than some such as Attenborough claim, have effectively been banished from the airwaves.

Now the Corporation has given acres of airtime to protesters demanding the overthrow of democratic governments and an almost immediate end to fossil fuel-derived power, heating and transport – in other words, the abrupt termination of civilisation as we know it.

Thunberg has become a global media darling, her pronouncements cherished as if they were holy writ.

‘I want you all to panic,’ she told the Davos economic forum in January: and Attenborough’s film may well have persuaded viewers to do just that – and, perhaps, to join the Extinction Rebellion barricades.

Watching it did fill me with horror, but not at the threat from global warming. It was at the way Sir David and the BBC presented a picture of the near future which was so much more frightening than is justified.

Climate science remains a field riven by deep uncertainties. The film largely glossed over these – and where faced with alternatives, it plumped unerringly for the most pessimistic version of the ‘truth’.

Let me be clear: I am not a ‘denier’. Global warming and climate change are real, in large measure caused by humans. According to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), our emissions were responsible for more than half the 0.6C – 0.7C global average temperature rise recorded between 1951 and 2010.

But I am also convinced that the ‘panic’ Thunberg desires and Attenborough’s film will encourage is not helpful when it comes to making policy designed to tackle it. Moreover, it is a grotesque travesty of the truth to claim that ‘nothing’ has been done: for example, since 1990, UK emissions have fallen by 43 per cent, according to the Government’s Committee on Climate Change. Not only that, Government statistics say 56 per cent of our electricity came from low carbon sources in 2018, our last coal-fired power station will close in six years and the Government has pledged to ‘decarbonise’ electricity by 2030.

Above all, the Climate Change Act requires Britain to reduce its 1990 carbon emissions by no less than 80 per cent by the year 2050, making us the first major economy to make such a dramatic commitment. To say that ‘nothing’ has been done is as risible as it is dishonest.

One of the film’s most questionable aspects was its claim that extreme weather events such as floods and storms have already got worse and more frequent, thanks to global warming, along with wildfires.

It did say that attributing reasons to any single event is difficult, and derived from probabilities. But in the words of interviewee Michael Mann, a US climate scientist, the effects of climate change are ‘playing out in real time’, and are ‘no longer subtle’. Cue images of monster waves and hurricanes, accompanied by doomy music.

But is this true? The IPCC, regarded by mainstream scientists as the world’s most authoritative source, says there have been some changes, such as higher rainfall. But its Fifth Assessment Report, published in 2013, stated there are ‘no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century’. It added: ‘No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricane counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin.’

A separate IPCC report last year said that cyclones in the tropics would in future be less numerous, although some would be stronger.

In 2014, a group of IPCC experts published a paper about flooding. So far, they said, ‘no gauge-based evidence has been found for a climate-driven, globally widespread change in the magnitude/frequency of floods.’

Another memorable segment of the film showed a father and son narrowly escaping from one of several devastating fires last year in California. These, too, were ascribed to global warming. Surprisingly, several recent scientific papers suggest that wildfires have been declining in recent years – even in California, where statistics gathered by the local agency, Calfires, says the number across the state has roughly halved since 1987, following a peak in the 1970s.

According to a study published by the Royal Society in 2016, ‘many consider wildfire as an accelerating problem’. In reality, however, says the study: ‘global area burned appears to have declined in past decades, and there is increasing evidence that there is less fire in the global landscape than centuries ago.’

Equally questionable was the film’s claim that global warming is triggering a wave of extinctions, with eight per cent of species under threat solely because of it.

This also appears to oversimplify the findings of the IPCC, which said in 2014: ‘There is low confidence that rates of species extinctions have increased over the last several decades. Most extinctions over the last several centuries have been attributed to habitat loss, over-exploitation, pollution, or invasive species.

‘Of the more than 800 extinctions documented by the International Union for Conservation of Nature, only 20 have been tenuously linked to recent climate change. It says: ‘Overall, there is very low confidence that observed species extinctions can be attributed to recent climate warming.’

The IPCC is clear that further warming will make things worse, but has found ‘low agreement’ over which species are at risk, and when extinctions might occur.

Attenborough made yet another contentious claim about corals, claiming that one third of the world’s reefs have perished due to ‘heat stress’ in the past three years.

But why are Borneo’s forests being cut down? The reason, as Attenborough said, is palm oil, a lucrative crop used in products ranging from soap to biscuits. Unfortunately, he left out the final stage of the argument

But why are Borneo’s forests being cut down? The reason, as Attenborough said, is palm oil, a lucrative crop used in products ranging from soap to biscuits. Unfortunately, he left out the final stage of the argument

It is true that the record high temperatures recorded during the powerful ‘El Nino’ event of 2015/16 – which saw the central Pacific warm by several degrees and drove warmer weather elsewhere – damaged corals badly.

But many have begun to recover, including those of the supposedly moribund Great Barrier Reef.

I suppose it could be argued that this film merely jumped the gun a little, by portraying climate impacts which, while not discernible yet, soon will be.

But here we must turn to its most provocative claim of all – that IPCC computer model projections show that, by the end of this century, world average temperatures will be between three and six degrees higher than now. Needless to say, this would be devastating.

In fact, the IPCC issues not one but four such projections, each one showing what would happen with differing levels of future greenhouse gas emissions.

The most pessimistic – known in the trade as ‘RCP 8.5’ – suggests that by 2100, the world would indeed be much hotter: according to the 2013 IPCC report, between 2.6 and 4.8 degrees above the average between 1986 and 2005.

This, of course, is lower than the 3-6 degree range predicted by Attenborough.

Meanwhile, there is evidence that RCP 8.5 is almost certain not to take place. First, it posits population increases far higher than those now thought likely by many demographers.

UN forecasts claim the global population will reach 11 billion by 2100, but several expert teams now say falling birthrates mean it will peak much earlier.

‘It will never reach nine billion,’ says the eminent futurologist Jorgen Randers. ‘It will peak at eight billion in 2040 and then decline.’

For the RCP 8.5 prediction to become a reality would also require a massive increase in the use of coal, and the reversal of the emissions cuts which many countries have already achieved.

All of which means the world is more likely to conform to what are known as RCP 4.5 or RCP 6. Under RCP 4.5, the IPCC says, the ‘likely’ range of warming by 2100 would be between 1.1C and 2.6C; under RCP 6, between 1.4C and 3.1C.

A BBC spokesperson said yesterday that the film said the 3-6 degrees of warming was a reasonable estimate given the current emissions trajectory, and said emissions ‘have been following the RCP 8.5 curve rather than the alternatives.’ Under this, an upper limit of 6C was possible.

She added: ‘The film sought to make clear that scientists don’t know exactly what may happen.’

I’m not trying to argue that climate change is trivial, nor that the world doesn’t need ‘action’ to deal with it. On the other hand, we have already seen what can happen when ‘panic’ determines policy: the introduction of measures conceived by a need to be seen to be doing something under pressure from groups such as Extinction Rebellion.

Without making this clear, the film revealed one of the worst examples of this unfortunate effect. A powerful sequence showed an orangutan, fleeing loggers who have been eradicating Borneo’s rainforest.

This is disastrous for both wildlife and the climate because, as the film pointed out, a third of global emissions are down to deforestation, because giant trees lock up a lot of carbon.

But why are Borneo’s forests being cut down? The reason, as Attenborough said, is palm oil, a lucrative crop used in products ranging from soap to biscuits. Unfortunately, he left out the final stage of the argument.

Half of all the millions of tons of palm oil sent to Europe is used to make ‘biofuel’, thanks to an EU directive stating that, by 2020, ten per cent of forecourt fuel must come from ‘renewable’ biological sources. Malaysia says this has ‘created an unprecedented demand’.

To put it another way: misguided ‘action’ designed to save the planet is actually helping to damage it – although the EU has pledged to phase out palm oil biofuel by 2030.

Another example of a misconceived effort to save the planet is Drax power plant in Yorkshire which is fed, thanks to £700 million of annual subsidy, by ‘renewable’ wood pellets made from chopped-down American trees – while pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere than when it burnt only coal.

In theory, the trees it burns will be replaced – but a large part of its supply comes from hardwood forests that take 100 years to mature.

There are times when climate propaganda – for this is what this was – calls to mind the apocalyptic prophets of the Middle Ages, who led popular movements by preaching that the sins of human beings were so great that they could only be redeemed by suffering, in order to create a paradise on earth.

Perhaps this is how Attenborough, nature journalism’s Methuselah, sees himself. But climate change is too important to be handled in this manner. It needs rational, well-informed debate. Too often, cheered on by the eco-zealots of Extinction Rebellion, the BBC is intent on encouraging quite the opposite.

  1. April 21, 2019 10:33 am

    Rose could have gone further..

    Sent from my iPad

  2. quaesoveritas permalink
    April 21, 2019 10:50 am

    A well balanced article, but I doubt if anyone from Extinction Rebellion will read it.

    • HotScot permalink
      April 21, 2019 11:25 am

      Despite their hype, they are in the minority.

  3. quaesoveritas permalink
    April 21, 2019 10:56 am

    “All of which means the world is more likely to conform to what are known as RCP 4.5 or RCP 6. Under RCP 4.5, the IPCC says, the ‘likely’ range of warming by 2100 would be between 1.1C and 2.6C; under RCP 6, between 1.4C and 3.1C.”
    Actually RCP 2.6 is the most likely scenario since observed temperatures haven’t even reached the avergae levels it predicts.

    • MrGrimNasty permalink
      April 21, 2019 11:21 am

      I think the reality is very much what was first though back in 1971, an 8 fold increase in atmospheric CO2 might produce 2K(or C!) of warming.

      UAH suggest 0.13 C/decade since 1979, but that has probably captured some continued rebound from 1850, and the rising side of a ~70 year warming/cooling cycle too?

      Who knows, but it’s hardly grounds for totalitarianism regardless.

      • April 21, 2019 4:27 pm

        there is no evidence that CO2 has any measurable impact on the temperature. ask Piers Corbyn for his thoughts on the subject.

  4. MrGrimNasty permalink
    April 21, 2019 11:02 am

    It’s an indication of the times that everyone has to declare their ‘belief’ and the ‘need to do something’, before diving in. If you start from that standpoint, why bother? You’ve surrendered to the thought police/climate backlash mob already.

    BBC news was at it again just now – poor birds all out of sequence with plants/insects because of 1/4C warming or something. No intelligent questions, like how can the birds ‘fail to evolve fast enough’ as the ‘expert’ put it, when this gradual trend is a fraction of normal year to year variation?

    My garden is buzzing with insect and bird life at the moment. A dozen different bees, hoverflies, drone flies, wasps, butterflies – peacocks especially. As the Robin sat by my boot to grab a small worm, I didn’t have the heart to fork him to save him from climate doom. Oh to be completely oblivious to this insanity like him!

    • Harry Passfield permalink
      April 21, 2019 3:59 pm

      Spot on, MrGrimNasty! I always thought David Rose was a full-on sceptic so I was not prepared for his caveats that he was a believer in the scam that is AGW. Perhaps he has to cover his a…. in order to placate his new masters.

      • dennisambler permalink
        April 21, 2019 11:44 pm

        Agree 100%. When the IPCC speaks of “95%” certainty that any warming has been caused by humans, few people realise that this figure is based on “expert elicitation”. Guess who the experts are…

  5. Gerry, England permalink
    April 21, 2019 11:20 am

    David Rose is a ‘lukewarmer’ as he says he believes humans are the main cause of global warming, and even citing the IPCC in his defence, but at least he can see that the programme was pure alarmist propaganda. It is ironic that in terms of extreme weather, the IPCC does not back up the BBC claims. As for the IPCC being an ‘authoritative source’, I bet very few mainstream scientists have actually read beyond the summary as they would then learn how poor the content of the report is. Fritz Varenholtz – co-author of Die Kalte Sonne – was stunned to find how bad the science content was when he finally read an IPCC report.

    I agree with Paul that with this the BBC might just have damaged themselves in their panic to get the public to fall for their alarmism before the Great Donald brings it all crashing down.

    • HotScot permalink
      April 21, 2019 11:29 am

      The Lancet has published credible evidence that 50% of peer-reviewed scientific papers cannot be replicated. Bayer Industries put that figure at 75%.

      I had an online exchange with Peter Ridd, the Australian scientist sacked by James Cook University for exposing their biased claims about the GBR and who has recently won his case against them 100%. He confirmed his belief that The Lancet is probably correct.

    • dennisambler permalink
      April 21, 2019 11:47 pm

      Just so long as the Democrats don’t bring him crashing down. The US hasn’t yet left the Paris Agreement, they just gave the 4 years notice. If Trump doesn’t make it for a second term, the Democrats will have the US back in quicker than Theresa May can say Brexit means Brexit.

  6. Rupert Wyndham permalink
    April 21, 2019 11:41 am

    Attenborough is a huckster and Rose is an ignoramus.

  7. Stevie Windward permalink
    April 21, 2019 12:07 pm

    Interesting how the deniers have had to change their tune now that climate change has been proven beyond doubt, only now they can’t deny the reality they are hanging their hat on anything that diminishes the facts. Dangerous deniers clinging to anything that might protect their deluded world view. It’s just a shame that as the death toll rises we can’t select the deniers to make up that toll in payment for their flawed rhetoric , no, instead it’ll fall on the shoulders of the worlds poorest. What a bunch of complete twonks.

    • Mike Jackson permalink
      April 21, 2019 1:54 pm

      Explain what “death toll” you are referring to. I’m not aware of any evidence that the current climate is responsible for any increase over, say, the climate of 30 years ago.

    • bobn permalink
      April 21, 2019 2:03 pm

      Stevie, No -one in my knowledge has ever denied that climate changes. a short study of history shows the earth has processed repeatedly through iceages and periods warmer than now. We are lucky to be living in an upswing phase of the 600yr milankovich cycle (Roman warm period, cold dark ages, medieval warm period, little ice age, now modern warm period before the inevitable post-modern cool period). We are double blessed to be in an inter-glacial period between major ice ages. However Stevie, i guess you are a climate change denier – one who denies that there were ever ice ages and other natural climate changes. Until humanity clearly understands natural climate change and its many influences (which it doesnt), there’s no chance of determining what (if any) influence man has on those natural changes. Suggest you read some History, Geology, Physics and Chemistry rather than just social media.

    • MrGrimNasty permalink
      April 21, 2019 2:08 pm

      Rolled one too many in Hyde Park did you.

      Thanks for confirming that you believe things with no basis in reality, it explains a lot.

    • quaesoveritas permalink
      April 21, 2019 2:25 pm

      Of course the climate changes.
      If it didn’t, then there would still be ice over large parts of N. America and Europe, as there was 10,000 years ago.
      What is in question is the cause.

    • Harry Passfield permalink
      April 21, 2019 4:05 pm

      “Proven beyond doubt”.
      Yet no qualification for such a statement.
      Tell me, Stevie, do you think Man can control the weather? And can you prove beyond doubt that he can?

      • Dave Ward permalink
        April 21, 2019 8:04 pm

        “Tell me, Stevie, do you think Man can control the weather?”

        He probably thinks Micky Mann can…

    • Peter Plail permalink
      April 21, 2019 5:37 pm

      There is one reality that I have pondered, and that is what caused the temperatures to rise so much between 1910 and 1940, especially as it went up at the same rate as it did when it started to rise again in the late 1970s.
      Now we are assured by the IPCC that anthropogenic CO2 only started having an effect after WW2 when CO2 started to rise dramatically.
      It’s a real puzzle, isn’t it.

      • dennisambler permalink
        April 22, 2019 12:00 am

        In a 1999 paper by Phil Jones:

        he says:

        “We present global fields of surface temperature change over the two 20-year periods of greatest warming this century, 1925-1944 and 1978-1997. Over these periods, global temperatures rose by 0.37 and 0.32C, respectively.”

        He is saying that the greatest increase in the 20th century was 1925-44, before the large increase in CO2 emissions from the war and afterwards.

        CO2 rose by 5.4ppm during that 1st period. In the 34 years from 1944 to 1978, temperatures cooled, for a rise in CO2 of 25.7 ppm.

        Judith Curry says that the BEST figures show we have already reached the magic figure of 1.5 degC. The sky didn’t fall in

        “Over land, we have already blown through the 1.5C threshold if measured since 1890. Temperatures around 1820 were more than 2C cooler. And then there is the goldilocks issue. Who would prefer the climate of the 18th or 19th century relative to the climate of the early 21st century?”

    • Coeur de Lion permalink
      April 22, 2019 8:58 am

      I like to say that CO2 has risen from just under three to just over four molecules per ten thousand in a hundred years.

  8. angryscotonfragglerock permalink
    April 21, 2019 12:38 pm

    It is easy for a 92-year old to advance an argument to (wrongly) get rid of all the scientific and technological advances of the past 100+ years for some fatuous socialist/ecomentalist dream. He will not be around to enjoy the calamity he and his fellow luvvies, certainly not scientists, are advocating…

  9. April 21, 2019 12:51 pm

    Mike Hulme is a leading voice striking a rational balance between concern about the planet and careful deliberation over policy choices. I have posted several of his articles, for example on extreme weather attribution and on attempts to link armed conflicts with climate change. Pertinent to this post, Hulme has spoken out on the obsession with global temperature anomalies: See Obsessing Over Global Temperatures

    “Global temperature does not cause anything to happen. It has no material agency. It is an abstract proxy for the aggregated accumulation of heat in the surface boundary layer of the planet. It is far removed from revealing the physical realities of meteorological hazards occurring in particular places. And forecasts of global temperature threshold exceedance are even further removed from actionable early warning information upon which disaster risk management systems can work.

    Global temperature offers the ultimate view of the planet—and of meteorological hazard—from nowhere.”

    And he has warned about the emergency rhetoric now on full display in the streets of major cities. See Against Emergency Countdown

    “But as we argued a few years ago, declaring a climate emergency invokes a state of exception that carries many inherent risks: the suspension of normal governance, the use of coercive rhetoric, calls for ‘desperate measures’, shallow thinking and deliberation, and even militarization. To declare an emergency becomes an act of high moral and political significance, as it replaces the framework of ordinary politics with one of extraordinary politics.

    In contrast, a little less rhetorical heat will allow for more cool-headed policy development. What is needed is clear-headed pragmatism, but without the Sword of Damocles hanging over these heads. Climate Pragmatism calls for accelerating technology innovation, including nuclear energy, for tightening local air quality standards, for sector-, regional- and local-level interventions to alter development trajectories and for major investments in improving female literacy. Not desperate measures called forth by the unstable politics of a state of emergency, but right and sensible things to do. And it is never too late to do the right thing.”

    • Harry Passfield permalink
      April 21, 2019 4:12 pm

      “Global temperature does not cause anything to happen. It has no material agency. It is an abstract proxy for the aggregated accumulation of heat in the surface boundary layer of the planet. It is far removed from revealing the physical realities of meteorological hazards occurring in particular places. And forecasts of global temperature threshold exceedance are even further removed from actionable early warning information upon which disaster risk management systems can work.

      Global temperature offers the ultimate view of the planet—and of meteorological hazard—from nowhere.”

      As I have said, many times, GAT has as much to say about temperature as the average of lottery balls since 1994 has to do with picking a winning set if six..

    • dennisambler permalink
      April 21, 2019 11:39 pm

      Whilst I welcome his roll back from his claims as the founder and Director of the Tyndall Centre, he helped to start this AGW ball rolling in 2000 and continued it for several years. They listened to him then, they don’t now.

  10. Broadlands permalink
    April 21, 2019 2:43 pm

    “….Yet ‘nothing is being done, no one is doing anything’.”

    There isn’t anything that can be done that would make any meaningful difference. Even if we stopped all carbon emissions tomorrow, the CO2 already in the atmosphere will still be there. Those who want action now do not realize, don’t understand, that just ONE part-per-million of CO2 is almost eight billion tonnes. Current capture and store technology is now able to remove CO2 in millions, not thousands of millions. No one is pointing that out. That’s what isn’t being done.

    • dennisambler permalink
      April 21, 2019 11:40 pm

      Even if we stopped all carbon emissions tomorrow, the CO2 already in the atmosphere will still be there.

      That is a great relief. Life on earth can continue.

  11. R Harding permalink
    April 21, 2019 3:40 pm

    It’s interesting that the country most likely to lose out over climate change is China. Yet China has yet to raise any concern about the effects so hysterically raised by others. Perhaps they know something we don’t.

  12. April 21, 2019 3:49 pm

    Reblogged this on Climate Collections.

  13. Andrew Lindley permalink
    April 21, 2019 11:06 pm

    I think anybody with half a brain will recognise that the science is correct about the future climate emergency and the realisation that this is man made.

    Here we go again in your article with the usual denial of science.

    The future restructuring of energy supplies requires a Marshall Plan with resources which MUST be extracted from the billionaires at the top of the fossil fuel industry.

    The truth is that big industry has been found out……the lies about tobacco, the lies about nutrition and production of food of no nutritional value. I could go on.

    Enough is enough. Maybe it’s a simple consequence of capitalism and insane consumerism……it hardly matters……it is crystal clear that we are lemmings to the precipice and that change WILL happen when the population sees the enormity of the denial and propoganda by big media and the politicians in their pockets.

    • April 22, 2019 10:19 am

      So it’s alright for Attenborough to lie then?

    • Broadlands permalink
      April 22, 2019 1:57 pm

      Andrew: “…anybody with half a brain will recognise that the science is correct about the future climate emergency and the realisation that this is man made.”

      Those who do have a brain understand that Man cannot control the Earth’s climate by attempting to remove oxidized carbon quantitatively. “just ONE part-per-million of CO2 is almost eight billion tonnes of oxidized carbon.” Don’t believe it? Go to CDIAC, “Frequently asked Global Change Questions”. Do the math on removing just 10 ppmv…back to 2015? 7800 million tonnes? When the population realizes the enormity of the solution Man can start to make progress toward adapting, not mitigating hopelessly.

    • MrGrimNasty permalink
      April 22, 2019 10:01 pm

      Andrew, the trouble is, you’re just spouting tired copy/paste climate alarmist propaganda.

      You assert a denial of science where there is none.

      There is no absolute proof in science that supports the theory that man-made climate change (from CO2) exists, and nothing at all that supports that it is dangerous. And it is just a theory, the supposed consequences only exists in models.

      All the empirical evidence and the manifest evidence of the politicization and malfeasance in climate science, indicates the theory is wrong and the movement is fraudulent.

      If you could read you own comment back to yourself with a neutral eye, you would realise that you are openly admitting that you are just using climate change as a vehicle to implement the sociopolitical changes that you want.

      Your mention of lemmings is interesting, as that too is a fake story, and now it is you that wants to throw us off a cliff.

    • Bertie permalink
      April 24, 2019 10:06 am

      Your knowledge base is obviously limited to non-scientific facts because Lemmings do NOT hurl themselves off cliffs. (Neither do walruses unless stampeded by Polar bears).

  14. Dhiraj Mirajkar permalink
    April 22, 2019 3:18 am

    Dealing with climate change and it’s possible adverse effects on life on this planet requires the application of the precautionary principle.

    Pseudo-scholarly criticism of a climate change documentary is what this article is all about.

    • April 22, 2019 10:21 am

      No, it’s criticism of outright lies

    • MrGrimNasty permalink
      April 22, 2019 9:42 pm

      Ah the fallacious precautionary principle application – some disciple always trots that out.

      The proposed ‘solutions’ to climate change will do immense economic and environmental harm (already are), likely kill millions, but at least cause immense misery and poverty.

      The effect will certainly be far worse than the worst case climate change lie.

      It’s ‘first do no harm’, not ‘do harm first’.

  15. Chilli permalink
    April 22, 2019 9:11 am

    Weak stuff from Rose. If he’s prepared to conceed that global warming is 1) a ‘problem’ that could be ‘devastating’, 2) is caused by humans, 3) requires ‘global action’ and 4) that being sceptical of any of these ‘facts’ is akin to holocaust denial – then he’s already lost the argument and is just nit-picking over minor details of Attenborough’s scaremongering.

    • MrGrimNasty permalink
      April 22, 2019 9:47 pm

      Nope, he’s merely reflecting reality, the political atmosphere and science is so poisoned, it’s the only way to get people’s ear or to get published.

      Well done on getting straight to the Nazi slur, shows the level of your debate.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: