Guest 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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Spike Milligan – Attenborough’s Life On Earth starts at 8m 22s.
============
working copy. well worth the look.
We have been told endlessly that animals are moving north and south to escape the heat. Can’t the green turtle (Chelonia mydas) swim to cooler climes if it gets hot, hot, hot? There were hippos in the Thames during the Eiemian and cod swam further north during the 1920s to 1930s Arctic Warm Period. The Green turtle range is just past South Africa and north past Scotland.
National Geographic says :
“Green sea turtles are reptiles whose ancestors evolved on land and took to the sea to live about 150 million years ago. They are one of the few species so ancient that they watched the dinosaurs evolve and become extinct.”
http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/animals/reptiles/green-turtle/
Multiple inter-glacials covered here. Why the heck is Attenborough talking such sh!te? He should know better.
Green turtle range shows plenty of possibilities in in South America, Africa, Arabian Peninsula, India, Australia, China, New Zealand.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Green_turtle_nesting_sites.svg
Cod during the previous Arctic Warm Period.
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es990740b
Further to my las post you can see that green turtles survived the Yucatan Peninsula impact event and other catastrophic events and crazy climate changes lasting thousands of years. Ice ages too.
Even his pals at the BBC started asking questions about David Attenborough’s claims.
I once met him at the Royal Geographical Society. He was a lonely figure and could not hold an ordinary conversation.
david says:
May 30, 2014 at 9:49 am
?Really?? Ignoring his documentary voice, he always seems fairly ‘normal’ in interviews I’ve seen on TV (e.g. Parkinson and the like) but he is definitely getting on a bit nowadays and perhaps getting less mentally and verbally ‘able’.
I do think he is often just a BBC mouthpiece though – he certainly doesn’t seem to ever himself question the script/lines he is told to present, especially when he is ‘linking’ stuff to AGW in his docs.
“Become”, He’s been doing it for years.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/climateexperiment/
This is why I don’t watch any of the BBC’s programmes on the natural world anymore. I’m heartily sick of the ‘climate change’ nonsense being peddled ad nauseum.
Jim Steele, excellent article, this is a very valuable contribution to WUWT, thank you very much. I just bought your book Landscapes & Cycles, it looks like a good read and I am looking forward to it. As for David A. his remarks began to detract from my enjoyment of the filming quality, so I turned off the sound. That fixed it. Of course I am aware that photography always contains a certain amount of fakery too as your example proves, but I was always very impressed by the accomplishments of the filming.
Carbon500, you should play the game that my wife and I partake in:
Try and guess how many minutes into a BBC ‘nature’ programme that some twat with absolutely no intelligence will say either “climate change” or “warming”. Some programmes have gone for almost three quarters of an hour! But they always get there eventually. Amusing – watching twats.
I must agree with the headline premise.sadly the bbc are to blame in promulgating the distortion of information against the basis of facts
Lovelock, Ehrlich, Attenborough and Crispin Tickell are members of Population Matters, which used to be known as Optimal Population Trust.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_Matters
They have suggested to dole out carbon credits to individuals who do not procreate.
” …under which individuals can offset their carbon emissions by funding family planning services in the developing world”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxfam#Confrontation_with_Population_Matters
ralfellis said @ur momisugly May 29, 2014 at 5:59 pm
Tasmania. And he’s doing rather well:
http://www.brw.com.au/p/business/towards_sales_steps_tasmanian_formula_CgiG8kZ1CBbGmn4AqmhcSI
You can not be a scientist and a spokesman at the same time?
David Bellamy: gone but not forgotten, and sorely missed. There are various reasons why I refuse Attenborough’s films, his endorsement of Climate Change madness being one of them. And these people have the effrontery to think themselves on the side of science. What will the reputation of science be when this nonsense finally falls in to the dustbin of history? what will the backlash be like? A new age of totally mystical irrationalism? God forbid!
Yes he is indeed a huge disappointment. I always loved the great documentaries with spectacular views of our wonderful planet and it’s various inhabitants. His hypnotic voice, I always thought could make the most mundane things sound interesting.
But alas, it seems that he has sold his soul with the hope of extending his relevance with the BBC. What a shame!
Eamon.
David Attenborough – a lifetime of work to create a reputation – a moment to destroy it.
Neil Oliver – never made the reputation in the first place
DaveR
David Bellamy Society
The adult sad but equally mistaken version of the childish Bill Nye, the wrong way science guy.
Mr Attenborough is an exceptionally well-connected journalist and presenter who has in fact for many years now been promoting highly questionable assertions about the supposed catastrophic overheating of planet Earth.
Most of his reputation and a goodly portion of his income stems from the now provenly biased BBC.
Both he and Mr Oliver benefit considerably from the promotion of the hypothesis.
Britain is suffused with supposedly august Good People like Attenborough, whose reputations are built up by the organisations for whom they work, thereby benefiting each on the grounds that “one hand washes the other”.
He was always a good presenter, but let us not forget that that is all he is, a presenter. The only reason he is worth talking about is the power of the BBC and its global reach. Each of them only appears to be able to present the “argument from authority” and even that authority is spurious.
http://polarbearscience.com/2014/05/30/iucn-polar-bear-specialist-group-says-its-global-population-estimate-was-a-qualified-guess/
Sir David, As these blogs demonstrate, you.ve lost a lot of support by mixing your wildlife programmes with support for the mis guided few who are able to dominate the media with all the false facts on global warming. You are at retiring age now, so why don,t you recover your lost credibility by making a statement that you now believe that there are no grounds for believing in the GW mantra. You have little to worry about when the BBC do a Bellamy on you. More important for you is that you will regain your credibility on the world stage, and you will enjoy the rest of your retirement with a clear conscience, you will also be given a loud voice amongst the few sceptic publications, which will earn you an income through being able to express your true beliefs, and , more importantly, you will retire a very happy man.
As pointed out by Ben Pile, people like Attenborough refused to review, much less critically examine, the Ehrlich/Holdren claptrap. This means they are left repeating their deceptive narrative of human caused planetary doom dressed up as science. Reality is not enough for the Attenboroughs of the world. Like some sort of young earth creationists, they think there was a pristine sin free balance in the world until the last few years when sinful man showed up and wrecked the entire universe.
The idea that walruses were not seen as huge scoot along meals by polar bears over the hundreds of thousands of years they have existed in roughly the same geo-regions is preposterous on its face. To blame polar bears eating nice tasty walrus steaks on CO2 is delusional, if not deliberately deceptive.
‘The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley’ – I like the sound of your game when watching BBC nature programmes, I think it’ll make them much more enjoyable!
It sounds like ‘bulls**t bingo’ which I hear gets played at management meetings by those in the audience.