Sir David Attenborough OM CH CVO CBE FRS FLS FZS FSA FRSGS
What are all those post-nominal letters and what do they mean? Well, for starters I can tell you that they’re not qualifications, they’re honours that’ve been awarded to him. He’s a very decorated fellow, some say the most travelled man in the world, held in high esteem by Britishers as their very own living icon.
Bravo, I won’t argue wih any of that because I have respect for anyone who is diligent and successful. As for his qualifications, which are mysteriously absent from the letters following his name….
He has a Bachelor of Arts degree in Natural Sciences, majoring in Geology and Zoology at Cambridge. That’s it.
In the early 60s he started a post-graduate degree in Social Anthropology at London Uni but left to return to the BBC (no-one really knows how far he got with it but I think it was a year or two). He has amassed some 32 Honorary Degrees, all without attending universities or anything, bestowed on him from various institutions for his extraordinary work in TV, mostly documentaries (as if we didn’t all know already!).
So how does he get to lecture us all on Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming? Like Arnie Schwarzenegger and Leonardo de Caprio, prominent actors who get plenty of air time on climate change because they’re celebrities, apparently you don’t need a university degree in Climatology if you’re famous.
None of the following celebrities are qualified in the science of Climatology:
Al Gore has a BA in Law. Brian Cox is an Astrophysicist. Tim Flannery – Paleontology. David Suzuki – Zoology, Genetics. Name a famous Climate Change Activist and you’ll be hard-pressed to find a single Climatologist amongst them. Yep, you’ll find some glaciologists, environmentalists, atmospheric physicists (close), biologists, journalists, more politicians, geographers and zoologists and even more celebrities. (Not that having a University Degree means everything – there are plenty of highly qualified idiots out there, ha ha!) What does all this mean?
The religion of Climate Change is a political movement. Most commercially owned mainstream media is owned by the capitalist Left, and we have gotten so used to it that we think that the news we watch is Centrist and unbiased. Whether we realise it or not, much of what we accept as normal owes its roots to the Hippie Era of free sex, drugs and dropping out, the agenda of Marxist Culturalism designed to tear down the fabric of Western Society by destroying Judeo-Christian values.
Sound like a load of gobbledygook?
Conspiracy Theory #45: Marxist Culturalism invented the concept of politcal correctness. Some really good things came out of it. Speaking of which, for druggies, society became more tolerant of those who were ‘out of it’. It put an end to racial segregation, apartheid, etc and although it made discrimination illegal it hasn’t eradicated racism and probably never will (it could be a survival gene). It promoted Feminism and made great strides in achieving Equal Pay etc, but will never truly eradicate sexism whether it be mysogeny or misandry (womanhaters/manhaters). As far as homosexuality etc goes, although their input into human survival is a disputed area, hardly anyone wants to see the Sexual Freedom campaign continue unbridled, lest it degrades into orgiastic rape, bestiality, paedophilia, necrophilia and other sexual perversions. Am I allowed to say that, perversions? No, that would be politically incorrect. Perhaps the right term is “expression” or “adventure”. Whatever. I still think it’s depraved. But that’s just my opinion.
Ok, rant over, back on topic. I could barely stand to watch his docos for more that maybe a quarter of an hour, partly because of his stuffy accent but mainly because of his Darwinian commentary. Starting out as an Atheist, he later admitted to getting closer to admitting that there COULD be ‘intelligent design’ and therefore some God behind it – but remains an Agnostic and sticks to the theory of evolution even though it lacks proof and remains a theory.
As a believer in the person known as the Supreme Being, God, the Almighty etc naturally I am a Creationist (those Lefties love labelling, don’t they!) and find it quite absurd, the idea that chemicals mixed together and life spontaneously arose; let alone that the Universe similarly arose from nothing with the Big Bang. To me, these are attempts by atheistic scientists to ‘explain away’ something that only God can do; and substitute an “accident”, a “freak of nature”(when there was none to begin with?) or some “unknown factor”. Yep, they got the last part right, the unknown factor is Bruce Almighty. Whoops, sorry, I meant God.
Anyway…. this last evangelical tirade of his is the last straw for me. I have lost all admiration for him. To me, he is another Darwin, a Hawking, another Plato (who said the Earth was the centre of the universe, not the Sun). I think Sir David now looks like a doddering old man, a gibbering fool, a feeble shill, paid off by the UN’s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change). These celebrities are recruited as puppets to promote the Climate Religion cause. And his sermon was straight out of the Big Book. It used the same guilt trips and threats of punishment that Biblebashers employ. If you’ve read this far you probably agree with me. If so (or if not) please leave a comment and let me know by giving me your feedback either way.
ॐ हरे कृष्ण ॐ
(I imagine most if not all of you are now thinking “well who the fuck are you Sam? You didn’t go to uni, you failed school and are not an academic. Well, in my defence… If I had initials after my name, say, Sam Treloar WTF, IDK, LOL, FFS, ROFLMAO – would that be more impressive or convincing? Post-nominal letters can be deceptive. We place far too much emphasis on “experts”. When I read the work of an intellectual writing on a topic, I scrutinise their style of delivery, vocabulary, grammar, and especially parsing of sentence structure in order to ascertain if the left and right brain activity is balanced and how integrated the two halves’ thinking is. One can often tell poorly-thought out illogical rants by the disconnected phrasing or the non-stop continuous raving.)
(and… You should never have to re-read a sentence unless a particularly complex principle is being explained. If so, you can take it for granted that the writer’s imagination is working overtime and their left brain (the critical part) has shut down. In contrast, one can tell when the author’s right brain is dormant if the same points or words are being used repetitively (or over and over, repeatedly, continuously, too often; you get my point) showing a lack of creativity, losing the reader’s interest. A way to tell an overactive right brain is the overuse of flowery language, unnecessarily descriptive ramble and extraneous cogitation like I am illustrating now.)
[Author’s note: I do so many edits and extensive proofreading of my work that I lose count. Methinks both sides of my brain have a mind of their own ha ha]