Climate change and the tale of two Davids

This article is about the tale of David Attenborough, still going strong, and David Bellamy, who died last month. Good ol’ Wikipedia provides as it usually does, good info about the two (here and here).

But before I do tell the tale of the two Davids, at least with respect to the hot topic of the hour – climate change, I want to get off my chest something that has long been bugging me, and especially now we enter a new year, as it is to do with one of the (for some “the”) big question(s) facing us right now – which it is to do with climate change and, in particular, the man made contribution to and the untoward effects of climate change and how these can be overcome.

When I kicked off the new year with my article “When to put one’s head above the Parapet and why”, climate change clearly fell into that category and was one topic, whatever I said, that would likely receive adverse reactions, which is made more difficult because despite my efforts to become wised up on the subject, especially the science, there remains big gaps in my knowledge.

Since then articles / videos and pontifications have come in thick and fast, including:

  1. Is There A Climate Change Cult?
  2. David Attenborough is making the same mistake as Greta Thunberg
  3. Global warming the greatest scam in history’ claims founder of Weather Channel
  4. Piers Morgan To Climate Activist: ‘Why Don’t You Practice What You Preach?’

While it is true these are tending to put forward views aligning to one side of the debate (the one I am more inclined toward), there has been other material (on top of loads of stuff I have read in the past) that provide an alternative perspective and the one (it seems) most people who have anything substantial to say on the subject are more likely to adopt, yet needs to be taken into account regardless:

  1. The Australian bushfires – the facts and fakes
  2. The Biggest Threat to Our Civilisation | Professor Brian Cox
  3. The Voyage to the End of Ice
  4. There’s no extremism in Extinction Rebellion

I am resisting the temptation to critique the above articles, but find all of them are interesting and pertinent and believe all are worth checking out.  I share these “for” and “against” links not so much to back up my “I am keeping an open mind” and “I need to understand what makes the “opposition” tick before I engage” stances, but rather to set the scene for my two David’s comparison and my final arguments, while recognizing coming to a view isn’t that simple and I still have some way to go before reaching a definitive one.

When one thinks of who to regard as “national treasures”, it is quite possible the name of David Attenborough will feature highly in that list. When it comes to presenting and educating the public on natural history and matters to with the environment, he is virtually without peer, and some of his television documentaries on these subjects have been excellent as is much of his advocating for the looking after our natural environment. In more recent years, he has become a strong voice, like that of a prophet, for dealing with the, as he sees it, climate emergency that we face and ought play a part in allaying. Like Greta Thunberg at the other end of the age spectrum, he is often revered as a saint, whose words are authorative and is held up as “the expert”; and one dissents at their potential peril.

Comparing David Bellamy with David Attenborough may be seen to be tantamount to comparing apples with oranges, yet the two have a lot in common. Both have been exemplary communicators to do with matters concerning the environment and natural history, both possessing excellent credentials, track history and success when doing so. One major difference is David B, unlike David A, is a man-made climate change skeptic – denier even. I remember David B in my youth and was fascinated and enlightened by what he had to say, and while his style was different to that of David A, he was just as effective. Where it went wrong for his career, if the six-year-old “The Independent” article: “David Bellamy: ‘I was shunned. They didn’t want to hear” is to be believed, is that his “poppycock” view on notions of man-made climate change did not go down well with those who called the shots and he was subsequently dropped (check out You Tube “David Bellamy climate” for more on David B’s views – and how he attributes much of climate change to changes in the activity of the Sun, especially around sunspots).

Of course, there may be a lot more to why David A’s career went from strength to strength and David B’s career went into decline, but there is a lot for the view that as far as the establishment was concerned David A ticked the right “man made climate change” boxes and David B didn’t, but like much else on such matters it is an opinion, yet does colour my final thoughts on the subject.

My particular angle, that will differ from many, is theological. It is for this reason, I refuse to align myself to the monied interests that affect and likely dominate the carbon and renewable energy lobbies respectively. Since searching out truth is a given when it comes to having correct theology, I am beholden to do so even in the light of conflicting “evidence”, including that of human ambition and the tendency to substitute the worship of Almighty God with that of Mother Nature. Nor do I deny climate change. The historical record alone provides strong evidence the climate of the planet has always been changing. Neither do I deny we (i.e. the whole of human kind) have a responsibility to look after the planet (which we have failed to do), and you can read all about that in the first chapter of the Bible. I reckon the two poles rather than fighting one another will do better by agreeing on the substantial common ground that exists.

But here is the crunch: it is why I write as I do and is what may well consign me to the company of nutters (even though I take comfort in the story of Noah – who warned of things to come that seemed impossible at the time and was ignored). It bothers me that good, honest folk, including those I often rub shoulders with, have been taken in with the climate emergency narrative and, unless we do something drastic now, the world is going to end soon. Let me be clear; the world as we know it is going to end soon (although how soon, no-one can say) but it won’t be because of climate change and since we need to prepare to meet our God it should be our priority. The Bible tells of many natural disasters, some with a climate change connection. Until recently, these and post Bible examples were referred to as Acts of God. It also predicts there will be more disasters on an even grander scale as we approach the very end.

In most cases, other than our returning to God, there seems little we can do about it, even though good stewardship of the environment is important to do. I doubt whether increased CO2 emissions is the main contributor to global warming and question the extraordinary attempts by the climate change lobby to reduce these even though I recognise some controls are needed to protect the environment. It bothers me that the young are often being brainwashed and fear mongered into believing this man-made climate change catastrophe narrative and things people should be concerned with: abortion, transgenderism, relgious persecution, and other assorted evils, are hardly ever mentioned. I detect in these “last days”, in which we now live, a growing AntiChrist spirit and, for those who are beholden to such, pushing this narrative is a convenient way to divert the attention of the wider populace away from the one who claimed “I am The Way, The Truth and The Life” and enslaving them without them even realizing it. I see this as helping to bring about the reign of the AntiChrist and his destructive one world government.


One thought on “Climate change and the tale of two Davids

  1. Glen Hague says:

    Here you have correctly pinpointed why so many religious people are climate sceptics…you state that the world is gong to end soon and it won’t be because of climate change but because of judgement day and the end off the world.
    Fair enough. But how soon is ‘soon’? After all Christians have been prophesying the end of the world and the imminent second coming of Christ since the first century! What you seem to be saying is that there is no need to act because the end is coming anyway. These weather events could be part of that. Also, human beings have to survive until Christ comes again so there is nothing to worry about…
    There are two serious flaws in this argument, even for those who believe that such an event will happen:
    1. These events are explainable. They are not mysterious signs from God with no cause behind them. The huge majority of scientists (David Bellamy notwithstanding) are agreed that human beings are responsible for the warming that is happening.
    2. The human race will probably survive in isolated areas of the world like the poles or mountain areas and perhaps be able to rebuild to extent. There will no doubt be among them, various religious persons who will continue to prophesy the second coming far into the future. In other words, the terrible disasters to come if nothing is done about climate change will not mean the extinction of the human race. There will probably be human beings around for him to come to, when he comes.

    So should we do nothing when the experts tell us what is going wrong. Nowadays the deniers cannot deny any more. We look around us and we see what is happening. The oceans are warming at an alarming rate. The wildfires in Australia, California, the Arctic Circle and elsewhere are extreme and not what we have seen before. The Great Barrier Reef is dying. The warmest years are all happening now. So instead they have to fall back on other explanations as denial is now impossible. And so they fall back on ‘susnspots’ or blame the Greens for mismanagement or variations in the eath’s orbit, or a worldwide conspiracy or ‘acts of God in preparation for the second coming – anything in fact to ensure business as usual and to keep the money coming in.
    So your message seems to be ‘do nothing’ and everything will be fine. But what if you are wrong? What if you doom your children and grandchildren to an horrific future and a breakdown in civilisation, mass deaths and a return to an animal existence, short hard, brutish lives if they are lucky enough to survive? The people who actually know, are telling us we must act now and change the way we live. Your reply is you don’t believe it, like it’s something to do with religion. If your child was ill and you took him to see 10 doctors and 9 said he needed a serious operation in a foreign country which would cost a you a lot of money and would mean you would have to change the way you lived dramatically, while the tenth one came up with an alternative explanation that meant basically doing nothing as there wasn’t really a ups thing wrong with him, whose advice would you go with? If you wouldn’t take the risk of doing nothing as regards his health, why do you advocate taking the risk of doing nothing about his future?

Have your say

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s