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
TomRude
May 29, 2014 7:48 pm

Great post! Thank you Jim Steele.

Colorado Wellington
May 29, 2014 8:00 pm

Leni Riefenstahl was also a talented filmmaker. She was loved and respected by her countrymen and as an actress, dancer and photographer she had an artistic scope broader than Sir David. He comes a distinct second in such comparison.

Ghandi
May 29, 2014 8:28 pm

Sad but true about David Attenborough going off the deep end. About 25 years ago, I also liked to watch David Suzuki before he became a leader of the Thermageddonites. Do they really believe that crap?

Neil (aus)
Reply to  Ghandi
May 29, 2014 8:46 pm

Hi Ghandi,
No they absolutely do not believe, what they believe in is the publicity, money, travel, prestige, glory they get out of it.
If they truly believed what they say, they would not live in huge houses (by the sea no less in the case of the gorical), they would not have 7 or 8 kids like Suzuki does, even though he tells everyone to stop breeding (can you say hypocrite much), they would not fly all over the world, when they can just as easily use video conferencing (think of all the co2 they could save if they did this, seeing as co2 is so bad and evil), they would drive electric cars (even though a recent environment minister said that he does not drive one himself, but wants them mandated for the peasants).
As a really wise man once said, by their fruits you shall know them. And looking at their fruits, they are foul, corrupted and poisoned to the core.
But what they do believe in whole heartedly is control over others, they will sit up in their smoke belching towers while the rest of us are forced to live in dung huts with no clean water, no sewage, no lighting, heating or health care, bowing down to the new demi gods of molech (gaia) and their high priests (gorical, suzuki, big govt).
But apart from that, they are really harmless you know and just want what’s best for everyone.

SteveS
May 29, 2014 9:05 pm

Jim, my thoughts exactly. Used to have great respect for the guy, but now I can’t stand to see him. Such a mess this whole “climate science” thing is becoming. I’ve never seen such a body of work where even the common layman can see through the BS.

ossqss
May 29, 2014 9:07 pm

It saddens me to see this type of thing in the end…….
What is his age again?

ffohnad
May 29, 2014 9:10 pm

Just another sell out. I have no sympathy for these types… They should bear the judgement of the misery and deaths they have caused

May 29, 2014 9:17 pm

The BBC and Attenborough were exposed for shooting polar bar footage in a German Zoo and representing it as a natural stalk and camera shoot.

Chip
May 29, 2014 9:19 pm

Same with the new Cosmos series, which I had really looked forward to.
The moment they started talking about climate and catastrophe I turned the channel.

DaveW
May 29, 2014 9:57 pm

Hi Jim,
Thanks for another well-written, thoughtful and, above all, biologically accurate essay. I wish Anthony Watts would shanghai you into moderating the posts on CAGW malarky about species and ecosystems. It would save me a lot of teeth grinding.
Have you seen Daniel Botkin’s submission to the HCSST? Interesting and maybe another domino falling.
http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/HHRG-113-SY-WState-DBotkin-20140529.pdf
As for Attenborough, I wouldn’t be too hard on him. He’s always been good at exploiting scientists, naturalists and nature photographers and, while I usually enjoyed his productions, I often found him rather pompous and rather a parody of the worst major professor – all you work am mine.
He’s an old duffer, surrounded by other old duffers who probably do their best to suck up to Charles and his like. Too bad the BBC hasn’t the licence or ingenuity to produce a new Monty Python. There is a lot of fruits ripe for the picking.

Hasbeen
May 29, 2014 10:06 pm

Of course it is fair to say Attenborough is really only a pretend greenie, probably for the money, & driven by a huge ego.
I started losing interest when one show had him in frame in 11 segments produced in 9 different widely distributed countries around the world. A number of these segments he was in frame for less than 60 seconds, then gave us a lecture about our carbon footprint.
It was totally unnecessary for him to appear in these segments, & I started wondering how much jet fuel had been burnt just to give us his mug shot in each.
It is a pity we find so many icons have feet of clay, & are really nothing but carpetbaggers.

CrossBorder
May 29, 2014 10:46 pm

Wayne Delbeke says:
May 29, 2014 at 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
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Me four! Quirks and Quarks is on at noon on Saturdays on CBC Radio here in the BC southern interior. I used to enjoy it, but Bob McDonald does the CAGW thing at least once per program. I invariably turn the radio off as soon as he starts that garbage.

Rhys Jaggar
May 29, 2014 11:04 pm

I guess the point is that he now has a reputation and therefore, if you are a programme maker/commissioner, you look for people with previous to make the case you wish to be made.
Would you commission Attenborough to do a skeptical piece or are there others who would be higher up the list??
I suspect there is an element of economic reality in this, although I have little doubt Attenborough is a ‘true believer’ in himself…….

nzrobin
May 29, 2014 11:09 pm

The tail end of rgbatduke’s comment above, in regards the lacking awareness of content buried deep within AR5, piqued my interest and suggest that bit might be worth a post of its own.
“… and they will never, ever read the lines in Chapter 9 that basically say “there is no foundation in the theory of statistics for any of our assertions of results or degree of confidence in our assertions of results, anywhere else in this Assessment Report where results conditional on the correctness of the climate models are presented or discussed”.”

thingadonta
May 29, 2014 11:10 pm

Attenborough has said that the reason he was converted to alarmist global warming, was the IPCC graph that showed that without human activities, temperatures since 1950 would have fallen, whilst with c02 etc the temperature matches observations. Of course, the graph has been curve fitted to fit the IPCC models.
Pity he isn’t much if a sceptical scientist, he was fooled by just another hockeystick type fudge.

tango
May 29, 2014 11:26 pm

I stopped looking at his wildlife documentary years ago because of him crapping on about global warming and brain washing our children

Bertram Felden
May 29, 2014 11:51 pm

Of late the BBC, or Guardian Broadcasting Corporation, has felt the need to get a global warming propaganda piece into almost every show: so called comedy shows are the worst, but it is is particularly irritating in the middle of dramas, I just stop watching anything of theirs at the fist mention of the subject.
There was a reasonable low brow science programme called Bang Goes the Theory, aimed at a family audience, which in one edition actually tried to explain how incredibly safe nuclear power was compared to other energy sources. By the next series they had started banging on about global warming like all the other output does. We stopped watching at that point.

Sensorman
May 30, 2014 12:24 am

I underwent the same transition from regarding Attenborough with great respect, to finding him almost appalling (while still making great film) – have you heard his views on global population and the need to reduce it? There are simply too many of us on the planet. Why is it, when I hear this, I actually hear “there are simply too many of YOU…”

MangoChutney
May 30, 2014 12:28 am

Attenborough used to be my hero too. I loved his early work, which started my interest in animals and the environment many, many years ago.
As a member of the Club of Rome, he supports depopulation, which appears to me to be simply racism dressed up as saving the world. Why else would their depopulation plans need most depopulation in non-white countries?
Attenborough no longer deserves any accolades

May 30, 2014 12:31 am

Neil Oliver has now gone the same way – a couple of days ago on a prorgamme about the coast in Australia he pushed the “climate change and warming” alarmism several times.
A pity.

Grimwig
May 30, 2014 12:42 am

IMHO most/all wildlife documentaries are fraudulent to a greater or lesser extent. And how we love the famous “Attenborough whisper” now also espoused by other presenters of nature documentaries and how we snigger as we realise that the animals would be hardly likely to hear in any case as the voices are often dubbed on hours,days or weeks after scenes are shot.
Has anyone seen a BBC nature programme or documentary in the last few years, or listened to the dreadful BBC4 Today programme, without hearing some reference to CAGW.
And yes, DA is past his “best by” date.

Stephen Richards
May 30, 2014 12:51 am

Attenborough turned to the dark side many years ago. It was at the time that the BBC dumped Bellamy. Alledgedly, Bellamy said that Attenborough refused to decry the AGW scam in order to keep his BBC, job-for-life, travel credit card.
You can’t blame him, attenborough that is. It was and is a cracking job. Go where you like, film what you want, adored by the plonker prince and greenpiss.

Perceptol
May 30, 2014 12:55 am

Let’s face it: the people who make documentaries special are the photographers. You can still enjoy them by turning down the sound but black out the screen and then you realise what Rottenborough brings to the party. Rottenborough just sits in a nice, warm studio doing a voice-over. Now and again the producers tell him to get on a plane so he can be filmed on location for a few minutes. I’ve never bought into the hype surrounding him. His brother, Dickie, is a far greater creative talent although, being a luvvie, he’s probably a liberal progressive nut job as well. Still, he’s a loyal guy who has done an awful lot of work for charity so we can forgive him the odd indiscretion.

Twobob
May 30, 2014 1:28 am

Attenborough that old school boy.
Ever the opportunist pay packet to obtain.
Takes pride to over heat.

somersetsteve
May 30, 2014 1:30 am

You have to be ‘on message’ to get a gig with the BBC Natural History Unit…Attenborough has been a lost cause for decades…I saw 5 mins of one of his Docs last evening blaming the failure of the South African sardine run one year on rising sea temps…our fault of course. He never looked back once he decided the melting snows of Kilimanjaro were due to man made warming…..he was right in part..man made de-forestation seems to be the issue.

May 30, 2014 1:35 am

As a sometime wildlife biologist, I have long admired Attenborough’s work. For most of his time, he was sceptical of global warming claims. Something changed a few years ago. The problem does lie in those who brief him – for example, that glaciers along the Greenland coast are retreating – where he stood waving his arms, whilst just across the bay, Viking graves were being exposed by the retreating ice and permafrost. He would have been kept away from or ignorant of that fact by the missionary programme makers at the BBC, because of course, it muddies the message!
We can’t blame the man that much – he is not a scientist, and must perforce take advice from people he can trust. He cares about the planet’s wildlife – and hence, once convinced by such advice, we can’t blame him for the zealous exposition.