Science News article: ‘Case closed’: 99.9% of scientists agree climate emergency caused by humans

by Disillusioned JW 146 Replies latest social current

  • Disillusioned JW
    Disillusioned JW

    Regarding the post I made about an article in which Sir David Attenborough was interviewed, I say the following.

    The WT (in the Life How Did It Get Here book from 1985) in a criticism of evolution, mishandled a quote of David Attenborough from his book called Life On Earth (copyright 1979). I discovered the quote was mishandled a few years ago by checking the quote after borrowing a copy of Life On Earth from a library. The WT was disagreeing with the idea that any fossil of fish had been found that had transitional features between a fish which could not breathe through its mouth and later animals (including amphibians and all reptiles and mammals) which could [see ]. What the WT left out of the quote was mention of one fish (Eusthenopteron) which Attenborough says has the necessary features. Namely he says it has the crucial feature of '"...a passage linking its nostrils with the roof of its mouth. All land vertebrates have this feature and it is this which confirms that this fish is indeed very close to the ancestral line." Later I purchased Attenborough's book because it is a very good book and provides evidence in support of evolution. Later I watched science shows on PBS about nature in which Attenborough was the narrator of the shows. Attenborough is naturalist (in the sense of being a scientist in the field of science known as natural history). In at least one of those shows he mentioned that climate change is happening and that human activity is a major cause of it and that is major danger. What he said, a scientist whom I put much confidence in as being a knowledgeable sincere scientist of nature), is one of the things which convinced me that climate change is happening and is currently mostly being caused by humans. He is one of my scientific sources of reliable information on that subject.

    I thus urge people to pay attention to what Attenborough says about climate change.

  • Vidqun

    Just because the Watchtower misquoted him, doesn't automatically make him reliable. David Attenborough works for the BBC, (an organization that used to fawn about Joe Biden!). He is part and parcel part of the system and paid by the system. Why would he say anything contradicting the narrative and jeopardizing his pension? I trust him as much as I trust Anthony Fauci and Bill Gates.

  • JoenB75

    Left wing climate racket and snare. we just need more nuclear power that is the way to go. Also support to the third world should primarily be given in the form of condoms

  • Disillusioned JW
    Disillusioned JW

    Vidqun, I agree with your statement of "Just because the Watchtower misquoted him, doesn't automatically make him reliable." It is for other reasons that I believe David Attenborough is reliable; I also believe that much of what the BBC says (including science shows produced and/or broadcast by them) are reliable. But, I mentioned that the WT mishandled a quote of Attenborough in order to tell people how I first learned of him (at least to the best of my recollection), and thus what led me to discover the sensible and informative things he says. I have discovered a large number of excellent scientific books and articles by researching the WT's quotes of scientists about evolution.

  • Disillusioned JW
    Disillusioned JW

    I sadly agree with what cantleave's says at , which says "Besty you did well, unfortunately people on here tend to go along with conspiracy and crackpot theories and ignore the enormous body of peer reviewed work".

  • LoveUniHateExams

    Ok, so what would a net Carbon zero future look like?

    Will we still be allowed to eat meat?

    Drive cars?

    Go abroad on holiday?

    Will Inuit people be allowed to wear polar bear fur?

    Will Sentinelese people still be allowed to hunt pigs and turtles? (they kill these animals by slitting their throat, you know.)

  • MeanMrMustard


    I browsed through those old threads you linked to - the same issues apply, and the same distinctions between the scientific and political need to be addressed.

  • joey jojo
    joey jojo


    "By the way, other planets of our solar system are also heating up, e.g. Jupiter. Might the problem not lie with the sun, earth's distance from the sun and the tilt of the earth?"

    @Vidqun,I looked this up because I noticed you have posted this before. There are a couple of problems with this idea. For one, the Sun has been radiating less heat over over the last 50 years.

    Any proof of heating on other bodies in the solar system is non-existant, it has only only been conjectured because of visual observations, not actual temperature measurements.

    Jupiter receives about 4% of the radiation the earth receives from the Sun because of its distance from the earth, it actually generates more heat internally than it receives from the Sun.

    As far as the angle of axis goes, why would it matter? All planets have elliptical orbits and therefore the distance they are from the Sun varies throughout their year. Not all planets have a nice 23.5 degree tilt like the earth. Uranus's angle of axis is 97 degrees.

    In the case of Neptune, its 'year' is 164 earth years, so any claims that its climate is changing, or getting hotter would have to be observed over a much longer period than a few years to get an accurate picture.

    In short, it sounds like the sort of claims people would make trying to normalise global warming right here on Earth.

  • Vidqun

    Hi there Joey. Perhaps less heat but more radiation. This you can see from the aurora borealis and australis. For every action there's a reaction. Scientists have established that the auroras of Jupiter are heating up because of solar wind. Well, if solar wind affects Jupiter, should it not affect earth in a similar way? Why do you think volcanic activity has increased. Because magma from below is being heated and expanding. Absolutely nothing to do with CO2 emissions but a lot to do with radiation from the sun.

    The angle does matter. That's why you have poles and desert. All to do with angle. And whether we freeze or fry will depend on our distance from the sun. Not topics generally discussed. Doesn't support the narrative.

    Based on preliminary analysis, the global average atmospheric carbon dioxide in 2020 was 412.5 parts per million (ppm for short). The levels of CO2 in the air and potential health problems are: 400 ppm: average outdoor air level. 400–1,000 ppm: typical level found in occupied spaces with good air exchange. 1,000–2,000 ppm: level associated with complaints of drowsiness and poor air. Long way to go to reach "poor air."


    So…none of you that believe Climate Change is caused by humans and that we are in imminent danger can answer LUHE’s question??

    What does a net zero Carbon world look like?? Do you have the stones to make the call?

    What are the exact methods of producing batteries that should power everything? How does that affect the environment? What about Solar Panels? Are those made from sustainable methods with zero carbon emissions? What about the immense, complex process of building a Nuclear power plant from the Concrete and Steel ( manufacturing those materials and HAULING them, the Carbon based humans it takes to design, manufacture and install them…) down to the rubber door mat when you walk in for the Grand Opening tour? Where does all that come from?


Share this