Has David Attenborough Become A Propaganda Mouthpiece Promoting Climate Fear?

atmos_bullhornGuest essay by Jim Steele, Director emeritus Sierra Nevada Field Campus, San Francisco State University.

David Attenborough was my favorite wildlife cinematographer and each year I fed my students numerous clips to make biology and ecology come alive. Researching the plight of the polar bears, I began to worry that “my hero” had decided to use his spectacular wildlife videos to promote catastrophic climate change.

The first example that raised my suspicions was his portrayal of polar bears feeding on walruses, with a narration suggesting it was a new behavior desperately driven by climate change. But for us ecologists who know better: shame on you David Attenborough. He ignored documented wildlife history, and cherry-picked a dramatic scene to promote climate fear.

First view this older BBC video pitting polar bears against walrus. Notice how many bears are converging on the walrus herd and that they are coming from the land. Then view Attenborough’s “new and improved video” that puts a very misleading slant on polar bears and walruses.

If you want to read historical facts about walruses and polar bears, I suggest reading Francis H. Fay’s 1982 “Ecology And Biology Of The Pacific Walrus, Odobenus rosmarus, Divergens Illiger.” In the 1950s Fay was concerned that the walrus was headed for extinction due to overhunting for ivory and blubber, so Fay set out to document everything there was to know about walruses.

In his tome, Fay published early 1900 observations by Russian researchers who admired the polar bears’ varied and clever tactics for hunting walrus.

“The walruses on Peschan Island are frequently bothered by bears, which creep up to them under cover of uneven terrain and of driftwood, of which there usually is an abundance along the shore. Sometimes the bears dig pits in the sand or make a pile in front of themselves, in order to hide from the walruses. We saw a bear in a pit dug in the driftwood within 50 m of the herd, where it watched for a long time. Suddenly, it leaped from its concealment and plunged along the flat terrain toward the walruses. The animals, upon seeing the running bear, rushed into the water, and when the bear reached those on shore, only a few large males remained, and these gradually pivoted into the water, threatening with roars and swinging tusks. The bear in his misfortune was unable to decide whether or not to enter the water and only brandished his paws helplessly and growled in discontent. Not infrequently, in the confusion, the adult walruses crush some young; possibly, at the time of the attack, the bears hope to profit from such accidentally crushed or abandoned young.”

Anyone familiar with the scientific literature knows polar bears have been hunting walruses since recorded history, and most certainly before that time. More recently researchers reporting to the Polar Bear Specialist Group meeting, speculated that hunting walruses on land was likely to be a behavior that has allowed bears to survive the lack of sea ice that was far more common through out the Holocene Optimum.

For example Wrangel Island is both home of one of the largest known polar bear denning areas in the Arctic, as well as the location of several traditional walrus land haul-outs each summer. Because walruses often get trampled at these haul-outs, bears eagerly supplement their diet by feeding on the trodden carcasses. In addition polar bears will wait at these haul outs anticipating the summer wave of walrus herds that typically come ashore, and then dine on weak or young walruses. Seasoned bears know to avoid a healthy bull.

In 2007 the 2nd greatest decrease in Arctic sea ice was observed in the waters surrounding Wrangel Island. That summer researchers observed the greatest number of polar bears on the island. However contrary to the less ice­­-means-starving-bear theory, there were no signs of increased nutritional stress. Quite the opposite.

Anticipating the seasonal haul-out of walruses, the bears concentrated along the beaches where they were easily observed by researchers who determined that less than 5% of the Wrangel Island bears were designated skinny or very skinny. That compared very favorably to the 7 to 15% of skinny bears observed in previous years with heavier ice. Furthermore researcher determined that not only did 29% of all bears look “normal”, the remaining 66% were fat or very fat. Those polar bear experts wrote, “Under certain circumstances, such as were observed on Wrangel Island in 2007 (Ovsyanikov and Menyushina 2008, Ovsyanikov et al., 2008), resources available in coastal ecosystems may be so abundant that polar bears are able to feed on them more successfully than while hunting on the sea ice.

With that scientific background, view Attenborough’s rendition and ask yourself if he is objectively narrating the video. He ignores the bears and walruses’ natural history to suggest polar bears have only recently attacked walruses out of desperation. Attenborough suggests the lone bear had been desperately swimming for days, trying to reach the island. However without a radio-collar on the bear, one must wonder if Attenborough is using creative license. And why is Attenborough “serendipitously “ set up in this location to film this event??? Is it a traditional walrus hunting spot, and not the rare event his video suggests?

Researchers have documented instances of younger bears who have not mastered hunting walrus that resulted in injury, but it a matter of a younger bears evolving experience. Attenborough marries an uncommon hunting failure to climate change. Playing sad music, he suggests that bears only attack walruses as an unnatural last resort, suggesting that in essence it is a climate change driven act that is suicidal and doomed to increase.

To my increasing dismay, my former wildlife hero seems to be plunging more deeply into climate propaganda. Attenborough has a new series on Discovery called Africa but it might as well be called “Let’s Push Climate Fear“.

Take for instance his video segment shown below on Green Turtles. He accurately tells us that unlike humans who determine gender via the X and Y chromosomes, Green Turtles (as well as several other reptiles) determine the next generation’s gender based on the temperature of the developing eggs. Researchers realized this when trying to save endangered sea turtles from depredation and dug up their eggs to “safely” incubate them. Fearing that buried eggs at the bottom of the pile had not benefitted equally from the sun’s warmth, the eggs were laid out evenly on trays so all could incubate at the same temperature. The result was uni-sex baby turtles.

However turtles have been around since the dinosaurs and their temperature-gender system has been completely successful throughout monumental periods of climate change, massive extinctions, and epochs with far warmer temperatures than today. Attenborough should tell his audience that microclimates a far more critical to their success as well as informing the public that temperatures drop off dramatically with depth in the sand. Nonetheless he warns that due to global warming, female turtles will soon have great difficulty finding a male. Shameful propaganda Sir David!

Video: http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/africa/videos/sea-turtles-face-climate-change.htm


 

Literature cited

Fay, F. (1982) Ecology and Biology of Odobenus rosmarus the Pacific Walrus, divergens. US. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, North American Fauna, No. 74.

Ovsyanikov N.G., and Menyushina I.E. (2008) Specifics of Polar Bears Surviving an Ice Free Season on Wrangel Island in 2007. Marine Mammals of the Holarctic. Odessa, pp. 407-412.

Segments of this essay are adapted from Jim Steele’s Landscapes & Cycles: An Environmentalist’s Journey to Climate Skepticism

4.5 2 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

124 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Peter Miller
May 29, 2014 3:56 pm

Unfortunately, the concept of ‘sell by’ date applies here,
In the case of the once great Attenborough, it was probably around 3-4 years ago.
The BBC Establishment probably made it a condition of future funding that the had to include at least 60 seconds of drivel on ‘climate change’ in each and every episode of his nature programs.

Chad Wozniak
May 29, 2014 4:07 pm

I noticed an alarmist tone in Attenborough at least 30 years ago. Not surprising he’s gone off the deep end.

D.I.
May 29, 2014 4:08 pm

In broadcasting Voice first,appearance second,Intelligence??– Well don’t worry,we have a script.

ConfusedPhoton
May 29, 2014 4:10 pm

No he has always been one.
Remember the Frozen Planet.
He has been a believer for decades! Fits in to the BBC meme

harkin
May 29, 2014 4:22 pm

Sad that a guy who makes such great wildlife documentaries would be just as proficient at agitprop.

Billy Liar
May 29, 2014 4:25 pm

He can probably afford to retire but like all luvvies he doesn’t know his own sell-by date.

Robin Hewitt
May 29, 2014 4:26 pm

The BBC usually saves the Global Warming disaster bit for the last few minutes. I used to think this was because the programme maker had to include it to get his funding but didn’t want to put you off watching it and lose his ratings. I now wonder if it is so the programme can be easily truncated and rebroadcast after the CAGW bubble has burst without making them look foolish.

Greg
May 29, 2014 4:36 pm

Yes, I was brought up on Attenborough and as a teenager, loved his documentaries.
However, this alarmism crap from him is not new. Last time I saw something from him I was so disgusted I turned off after a few minutes.
It’s a real shames, he did some great work at one time. Whether he’s dumb enough to believe at the CO2 propaganda or he just knows which side his bread is buttered, is another question.

Scott
May 29, 2014 4:49 pm

Carl Sagan is in the same boat, his cosmos series is full of the same drivel.

May 29, 2014 5:02 pm

Very good call-out Jim. I doubt that Attenborough will read this, which is a pity, but many others will. An earlier commenter noted that he and Suzuki were peas in the same pod.

May 29, 2014 5:35 pm

N.B.: Animals, including humans, come in two sexes, not two “genders”. French nouns come in genders. OT, but largely the same liars who perpetrate the global warming – climate change mislabelling also push this other dishonesty in another context. (In brief, just as “climate change” is dishonestly defined to be other than a change in climate, similarly “gender” isn’t which sex organs you possess or which chromosomes you have, it is defined to be how you were socialised in infancy to perform a male or female role. So, just as misleading statements about “climate change” tell a lie without actually telling one, so comparable lies are told about the male and female “genders” which would be howlingly untrue about the male and female sexes.) Both “climate change” and “gender” are tools of deceit.

James (Aus.)
May 29, 2014 5:42 pm

Rabbitburrow has been at it for some time; his ear is bent by the same old suspects who “inform” the likes of Charlie “Headless Chickens” Windsor and numerous other scientifically illiterate celebrities.
Unfortunately, Rabbitburrow has a wider audience of starry-eyed believers.

Greg
May 29, 2014 5:56 pm

Follow the money
Just like researchers film makers put forward proposals that will get funding
Attenborough is a narrator, the people who write the scripts for him write those scripts in the way that they do because that is what will get them the money to make the film.
If you have two scripts- one that follows the line and one that doesn’t, which one gets the funding?

pat
May 29, 2014 5:58 pm

Attenborough does for the BBC what so many of the MSM do daily:
29 May: NYT: Paul Krugman: Cutting Back on Carbon
Although we don’t know the details yet, anti-environmental groups are already predicting vast costs and economic doom. Don’t believe them. Everything we know suggests that we can achieve large reductions in greenhouse gas emissions at little cost to the economy…
The Pentagon has warned that global warming and its consequences pose a significant threat to national security. (Republicans in the House responded with a legislative amendment that would forbid the military from even thinking about the issue.) Currently, we’re spending $600 billion a year on defense. Is it really extravagant to spend another 8 percent of that budget to reduce a serious threat?…
Third, the U.S. economy is still depressed — and in a depressed economy many of the supposed costs of compliance with energy regulations aren’t costs at all…
Saving the planet would be remarkably cheap.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/30/opinion/krugman-cutting-back-on-carbon.html?_r=0

ralfellis
May 29, 2014 5:59 pm

Is Attenborough a climate alarmist? Yes. Moreover, he is a brown-noser who kept his job, while his more honest colleague lost his. Brown-nosers often climb the greasy pole of advancement, quicker than honest people.
The colleague was, of course, David Bellamy, who mentioned he did not believe in Global Warming, and disappeared overnight. Where did he go to? Some people were afraid the Russians had packed him off to the gulags. Alas, it was just the BBCs propaganda maintainment department at work, clensing the corporation of heretics….
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2266188/David-Bellamy-The-BBC-froze-I-dont-believe-global-warming.html
R

pat
May 29, 2014 6:00 pm

time to lighten up! add this to the Common Core Curriculum:
29 May: HuffPo: The Power of Poop: Using Humor to Inspire Kids About Climate Change
by Denis Thomopoulos, Cartoonist, Hippo Works
Here’s a comic I drew about Suzanne, a bird and fortune teller, talking about global warming on a hot day…
When cartoon characters talk about their problems, kids hear them – and discover that they can do something to help. I like to think of this as eco-tainment, part of the eco-lution process…
It’s my big hope that kids will love my new half-hour cartoon musical, The Power of Poop (and other ways to save the world!). For all its poop jokes, the cartoon gives a science-based lesson on the powerful effect on climate change of methane and carbon dioxide. The music, the humor, and the jungle animals keep the fun going. Along the adventure, kids learn what they can do to make a difference…
Henry, pictured below, is a kid who really loves The Power of Poop. After seeing the premiere, he was inspired to throw a climate change bake sale to save carbon-absorbing jungle (which is still disappearing at an alarming rate despite Henry’s efforts). Henry and his family have raised $280 so far — and they’re just getting started! …
***NASA, as concerned about climate change as any federal agency, has hosted several screenings of the cartoon at their Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, CA…
Here’s an eco-taining clip that explains how the power of poop effects climate change. Enjoy with your friends and family and let’s preserve our incredible world for today’s kids – and tomorrow’s too!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/denis-thomopoulos/kids-climate-change-and-t_b_5406666.html

deebodk
May 29, 2014 6:00 pm

Robin Hewitt says:
May 29, 2014 at 4:26 pm
“The BBC usually saves the Global Warming disaster bit for the last few minutes. I used to think this was because the programme maker had to include it to get his funding but didn’t want to put you off watching it and lose his ratings. I now wonder if it is so the programme can be easily truncated and rebroadcast after the CAGW bubble has burst without making them look foolish.”
Reminds me of the Nova episode “Earth From Space” (watch here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/earth-from-space.html ) where they show in detail how satellites have revealed the various machinations of the dynamic systems that drive climates on Earth. They cover all these natural processes for like 95% of the show then proceed to throw in human-induced climate change at the very end, proclaiming that it’s somehow responsible for what’s going on right now. They have the gall to do this when the natural processes they’ve just detailed explain changes in the Earth’s climate past and present. It’s enough to make any rational person’s head spin. It’s like it’s an absolute requirement to include human-induced climate change/global warming in these types of programs, even if it’s an afterthought and contradicts everything else in the show.
‘Tis a sad state of affairs.

Neil (aus)
May 29, 2014 6:07 pm

After reading all the comments, I for one am glad I have never watched one of his programs! Which makes me ask, was he any good? and if you cannot believe him now, why would you believe anything he had to say in the past, once a proven non truth teller, then everything they have had to say in the past must be questioned.

nc
May 29, 2014 6:34 pm

In Canada we have the CBC, home of David Suzuki, our version of the BBC, There is what used to be great science program called Quirks and Quarks hosted by Bob McDonald on CBC. He pushes CAGW any chance he gets using no science just blind faith.
I used to listen, but no more.

James Ard
May 29, 2014 6:53 pm

Neil (aus) says:
May 29, 2014 at 6:07 pm
Neil, he was good. If you are into watching a guy climb, crawl or crabwalk his way up close to an occupied bird’s nest or animal den week after week after week.

pjkkerr
May 29, 2014 6:57 pm

Attenborough lost me when in his plant series from Cue Gardens he listed the needs of plants as water, sunlight, minerals from the soil… and somehow forgot to mention CO2.

May 29, 2014 7:15 pm

nc says:
May 29, 2014 at 6:34 pm
In Canada we have the CBC, home of David Suzuki, our version of the BBC, There is what used to be great science program called Quirks and Quarks hosted by Bob McDonald on CBC. He pushes CAGW any chance he gets using no science just blind faith.
I used to listen, but no more.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Me three. Pity.
But like the BEEB, the whole of CBC is infected with this disease.
Not only in Canada, eh? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAtDXOnmqiM

pat
May 29, 2014 7:29 pm

in Canada, u have:
29 May: CTV: Alexander Panetta: Climate change ‘Super Bowl’ expected over
new energy regulations
The United States is just days away from a clash over climate change being
compared to the Super Bowl, a high-stakes contest destined to draw in
attentive viewers from around the world…
“We see this as the pivotal battle on climate change,” said David Goldston
of the Natural Resources Defence Council, one of the big environmental
groups the White House consulted during the drafting process.
“This is really the turning-point battle for epochal change.”…
Peter Altman, also speaking at an NRDC media briefing this week, called it
the Super Bowl of climate politics.
Unlike the big football game, however, this one will be played out on a
variety of fields.
One is the court system…
The issue will also play out in the voting booth, starting with this fall’s
congressional elections. Democrats fear they could lose both chambers in
Congress, and face attacks about a job-killing “war on coal.”
A pair of newly released polls, however, might steel some left-leaning
spines: About two-thirds of respondents, including those in key electoral
swing states in one survey, told pollsters for Yale University and the
NRDC-commissioned Harstad Strategic Research that they favoured action —
even if it increased energy prices…
http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/climate-change-super-bowl-expected-over-new-energy-regulations-1.1844564

pat
May 29, 2014 7:31 pm

LOL:
VIDEO: 29 May: WaPo: Philip Bump: Every number you need for the upcoming
political fight over climate change
97 percent of peer-reviewed papers link global warming to carbon dioxide and
other greenhouse gas emissions, as NASA points out…
FIRST COMMENT by TFCFM: There are two GLARINGLY omitted numbers that I see
off the top of my head:
1) How many more $ Americans will pay as a result of the new EPA regs.
2) How much the new EPA regs will impact climate change.
Aren’t those two numbers KIND OF important?
COMMENT by jmiles1749: When you lead with the dubious 97% number, the rest
of the “what you need to know” post suffers. Sigh.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/05/29/the-upcoming-political-fight-over-climate-change-by-the-numbers/
28 May: WaPo: Greg Sargent: The coming political explosion over climate
change
In a speech last night, embattled Senator Kay Hagan blasted GOP challenger
Thom Tillis over his climate denialism, arguing that North Carolina “needs a
Senator who believes climate change exists.” Hagan added: “Unlike my
opponent who flatly denied the existence of climate change, I know the EPA’s
ability to responsibly regulate greenhouse gas emissions is key to
protecting our environment for future generations.”
However, Hagan has also called on the EPA to delay the introduction of
pending new rules on carbon emissions from existing coal-fired power plants,
something Tillis has tried to turn into an issue.
The two moves aren’t necessarily contradictory – Hagan says we need a longer
public comment period for those who will be impacted, not that there shouldn’t
be any new rules – but they do underscore that embattled Senate Dems may
find themselves in a tricky political position when Obama rolls out the new
rules next week…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/05/28/the-coming-political-explosion-over-climate-change/

pat
May 29, 2014 7:32 pm

a final laugh:
29 May: Boston Globe: John L. Allen Jr: Markey meets pope to make common
cause on environment
Massachusetts Senator Edward Markey met Pope Francis Wednesday as part of a
delegation of politicians from around the world hoping to enlist the pope’s
help in framing the fight against climate change as a “moral imperative.”
“The pope has the potential to elevate this issue to a whole new level of
importance,” Markey said. “I think we’re just at the beginning of his
influence.”
Markey spoke to the Globe in Rome on Thursday before his return to
Washington.
“Francis has the moral authority to galvanize a political will to act,”
Markey said, “which will help legislators in countries around the world to
pass the necessary legislation.”…
Markey said he used his minute of face time with Francis to tell him that
“the planet is running a fever, and there are no emergency rooms. We have to
engage in preventive care to avoid the worst and most catastrophic impacts
of global warming.”
Markey said the pope nodded and thanked him, but did not otherwise
comment…
The Vatican confirmed in January that Pope Francis is preparing an
encyclical letter on the environment, considered the most developed form of
papal teaching. Markey said the legislators were asked by Turkson to
contribute recommendations for that encyclical, and he focused on what he
described as the disproportionately negative impact of global warming on the
poor and on the working class.
Assuming it appears, this will be the first encyclical issued by a pope
entirely devoted to the environment…
***Markey has long been an outspoken advocate of environmental protection,
even suggesting in 2010 that those who deny climate change should be exiled
to a massive iceberg to “start their own country.”…
http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/world/2014/05/29/markey-meets-pope-make-common-cause-environment/aka61pB1Tgm1jTHrVxX4vN/story.html