In the end, the BBC declined to broadcast the last episode of Sir David Attenborough’s Wild Isles tale of ecological disaster and breakdown, tucking it away under an ‘extras’ slot on the iPlayer streaming service. Possibly the broadcaster shied away from the numerous unsourced, dubious claims, along with the promotion of organic farming practices that would quickly lead to shortages of food, followed by widespread economic and societal dislocation and ultimately death. Or it may have stepped back from promoting a bird-watching group, Flock Together, that determines membership based on skin colour and plays into the increasingly popular ‘the countryside is racist’ woke trope.
At the BBC, Attenborough is allowed to present unsourced claims as gospel truth, seemingly without the requirement placed on regular BBC environment journalists to temper claims using words like ‘could’, and phrases such as ‘scientists say’. But an increasingly long history of far-fetched claims means that anything Attenborough says these days needs detailed sourcing and treating with a great deal of care.
Of course, there are laudable environmental issues raised by this series, which was co-produced by the WWF (World Wildlife Fund) in collaboration with the RSPB (Royal Society for the Protection of Birds). Sea-dredging for shell fish, unsustainable fishing, unnecessary use of pesticides and soil conservation are all significant ecological concerns. But Attenborough and his campaigning colleagues are aiming much higher. Tight restrictions on food production and rewilding on a global scale, along with the promotion of the collectivist Net Zero political agenda, no less. However, some ecological concerns are more equal than others. Few worries are raised by green political activists about the millions of bats and birds killed every year by wind turbines. Nobody is talking about the alarming recent increase in beached whales off the U.S. North Atlantic coast, at a time when widespread offshore wind farm sonar surveying is taking place.
Within two minutes of the start of the last Wild Isles episode, Attenborough stated that, “one quarter of all our species of mammals are at risk of extinction”. The extinction claim appears to come from work produced in 2020 by a group of British conservationists led by the Mammal Society for Natural England. Attenborough’s claim more or less repeats the heading on the press release. The actual extinction figure refers to 11 of 47 mammals native to Britain. But, elsewhere, the Mammal Society note that there are around 90 species of mammals living in Great Britain. The extinction claim highlighted on the BBC programme seems to refer only to animals classified as ‘native’, or “our” as Attenborough puts it. If one takes in the late arrivals, a distinction that seems somewhat disingenuous anyway, the percentage figure drops by over a half.
How reliable is the claim that even 11 species are facing extinction? Few details about methodology in the original survey seem to be available. A link to a PDF of the original paper produces type too small to read. In the press release, there is a note of “population estimates” and “quantitative analysis” undertaken by computer models.
Attenborough also repeated his improbable claim from the first episode that 60% of British flying insects had disappeared in just 20 years. The Daily Sceptic investigated this claim on March 19th, making the point that such a loss would have led to obvious signs such as lack of pollination and an accumulation of detritus, some of it rather unpleasant. The story seems to have emanated from ‘citizen scientists’ counting bugs trapped on car number plates. I noted that it could be argued that roads regularly swept by increasing numbers of cars provided the least reliable information on countrywide insect abundance. The story was followed up a few days later by Ross Clark in the Spectator. He raised similar concerns, calling the claim “extremely dubious” and adding that its methodology “raises multiple red flags which should be obvious to anyone with the most basic grasp of science”.
A basic grasp of arithmetic might be useful in another Attenborough claim that one third of birds are at risk of extinction. This claim appears to have been taken from one of the programme’s collaborators, the RSPB. It states that almost 30% of British bird species are seriously threatened with extinction. But closer inspection of the paper that produced the findings shows that only 245 species were assessed. Elsewhere, the RSPB states there are 405 species of birds to be found in the U.K.. Do the sums and the extinction percentage figure again falls by around a half.
Possibly some bird species are currently struggling – it happens in nature – but overall the birds seem to be holding their own. In pre-publicity for Wild Isles it was claimed that 38 million birds had vanished from British skies in the last 50 years. This number came from a 2020 RSPB report, but missing was the information that the latest figure was similar to the total in 2012. In fact the RSPB noted that in terms of total breeding bird numbers, “the period of relative stability that began in the 1990s is continuing”.
Halfway through his green agitprop, Attenborough suddenly highlighted the activities of Flock Together, a bird watching group from Hackney for “people of colour”. The programme airs complaints that access to wild spaces “is far from equal” and people of colour were “more likely to face prejudice in the countryside”. This idea that the countryside is somehow racist is becoming increasingly fashionable in woke circles, with the Leverhulme Trust about to send in ‘hate crime experts’ to investigate ‘rural racism’. In last week’s Spectator, Douglas Murray skewered the notion that Britain does not sufficiently resemble a country “you, your parents or grandparents” left. Murray noted that if his grandparents had left for Jamaica, he might still find the place dominated by Jamaicans.
In his time, Attenborough has been a brilliant natural history presenter. But his recent years have been tarnished by a willingness to read out Thunberg-style claims of ecological disaster prepared by politically inspired eco-warriors with an obvious collectivist and increasingly woke political agenda.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic‘s Environment Editor.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Attenborough has long made it plain that he hates human beings and most especially melanin deficient old UK male human beings, with a passion that would once have earned him a comfy padded cell.
In my case the hatred is proudly reciprocated. I hope to dance on the old barsteward’s grave.
Disagree with the silly old sod by all means – I do too; but for crying out loud don’t follow the hysterical Left into the ‘dancing on graves’ sort of language.
Thanks for taking one for the team Chris, I for one would rather have my testicles whipped with a stinging nettle than watch anything the BBC churns out.
Priceless!!!
I’ll have to remember that one.
Up here in Australia, my feelings exactly regarding our ABC.
I love Australia, I used to work for a company in Perth, they sent me to Melbourne, Brisbane, Dampier, Broome and the like.
I was absolutely horrified to see the Australian government and the police’s reaction to covid. That was not the Oz I nearly moved to.
It was, and still is a shock to see one’s fellow Australians cheering on the police and politicians’ egregious behaviour. I naively expected a little resistance.
I must say though that Sky News Australia seems so much better than the crap churned out by Sky News UK. Although that is based on the limited amount of SKY Australia’s output I’ve seen
You mean you don’t enjoy the testicles/nettle thing? Tsk – get a life!
Dave’s mum Mary Attenborough (nee Clegg) was a founding member of the Marriage Guidance Council. Interesting connections here with various eugenicists, Tavistock etc.
Oh yes. The first funder of the Marriage Guidance Council / aka Relate was the British Eugenics Society.
Not liking people all that much may be the tip of the stubbornly non-melting iceberg. (Are we perhaps the insects on Dave’s number plate?)
It all goes back a long way, don’t it?
I don’t have a TV licence so will be spared all of this unless I go round someones house and find they’re watching it.
It’s “must watch” TV in any cemetery
Elon Musk just destroyed a BBC interviewer in this Twitter spaces conversation (I know due to YouTube the word “destroyed” is overused, but in this case it’s true).
Quite amusing;
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1645989936284442624?s=61&t=AY3dxo4CPswl6wmndLEhaw
I’ve noticed more small birds of various hues in my (rural = racist) garden since the neighbours’ cats have got older & slower, and the jackdaw housing estate across the road is triple the size of last year. Yet more of those curious variables computer models & Attethunberg conveniently ignore.
It’s about time this barsteward struck out on his own and scouted a new route for destination depopulation.
A sort of modern day North West Passage.
“Of course, there are laudable environmental issues raised by this series, which was co-produced by the WWF (World Wildlife Fund) in collaboration with the RSPB (Royal Society for the Protection of Birds). Sea-dredging for shell fish, unsustainable fishing, unnecessary use of pesticides and soil conservation are all significant ecological concerns.”
Are they? To whom? Based on what evidence? Speaking of “…unsourced claims as gospel truth…”
What exactly is ‘unsustainable’ fishing, or for that matter ‘sustainable’ fishing? Is the use of pesticides necessary to maintain Human food supplies, “unnecessary’ because it kills insects?
Wind turbines cannot provide sustainable electricity supply, require massive use of unnecessary pesticides and herbicides to clear and keep clear the area around them, kill hundreds of thousands of insects, kill thousands of birds and bats, are injurious to Human health.
I am struggling to identify what Attenborough has done wrong. He doesn’t quote sources but it is a popular TV programme not an academic paper. I can’t think of any TV documentary on any channel which gives its sources. Anyhow, Chris seems to have had no problem finding likely sources.
We then get some irrelevant discussion about what denominator those sources used when counting “our” species. For example, the RSPB report was based on 245 species that were selected because they were “naturally occurring species with self-sustaining populations”. The 405 species figure included every bird there was any chance of spotting in the UK “including some rare overseas visitors”. There is no reason why these excluded species should not have just as a large proportion of species on the red list as the included species. So to simply say that including them “would reduce the extinction percentage by half” is just wrong. The argument for mammals is no more persuasive. The RSPB report mentioned 11 out of 47 “mammals native to Britain”. Chris wants to extend the definition of “native” to 90 mammals. That may or may not be justified ( I can’t see the list of 90 mammals anywhere but there is a list of 107 mammals which includes 30 cetaceans including vagrants – as there are no sea mammals on the red list I strongly suspect the list of native mammals meant list of terrestrial land mammals ). Again – there is no reason to suppose the excluded mammals are less vulnerable – so you can’t simply substitute one denominator for another and claim the percentage is lower.
Next up is the repeated debate about extinction of numbers of flying insects. I pointed out elsewhere that the evidence is not confined to the car number plate survey. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0185809.
Then there is the headline in the pre-publicity material “that 38 million birds had vanished from British skies in the last 50 years”. We have no idea to what extent Attenborough was involved with this. (Chris’s complaint is that it does not mention that the latest figure was similar to the total in 2012. However, a little more reading of the same report reveals that while the overall number of birds may be fairly stable recently there were more and more species in decline. The headline is over simple but so is the response.)
Enough for one comment I think!
For example, the RSPB report was based on 245 species that were selected because they were “naturally occurring species with self-sustaining populations”. The 405 species figure included every bird there was any chance of spotting in the UK “including some rare overseas visitors”.
From the wording, it’s clear that the majority of the 160 omitted species are not rare overseas visitors. This means there are three groups of bird species involved here:
1) 245 species the RSPB wanted to include in the report.
2) A group of species which are rare overseas visitors and hence, should
be excluded. This group is of a size X known to the RSPB and X is smaller than 160.
3) A group of native species the RSPB didn’t want to include in the report for an unstated reason. It’s size Y is < 160 but Y > X.
This suggests that the RSPB is cherry-picking data in order to generate the intended kind of report and that the reference to some rare overseas vistors is a blind to distract from that.
The RSPB describes how it selected which species to include in some detail. It is a bit complicated so I won’t repeat it here but it is all in the report. There’s no hint of cherry picking. There’s no avoiding it- Chris’s reasoning is wrong.
The RSPB describes how it selected which species to include in some detail.
Ie, with a real lot of words. As usual. That’s always a red flag. The claim in the article is just When a different selection of species is being used, specifically, one including the about 40% of bird species the RSPB omitted, the picture changes. But some of these are rare overseas visitors! is not a valid argument against this different selection. And the original claim isn’t what it appears to be, either. It’s The RSPB believes that almost 30% of 245 native bird species might become exinct in the not-too-distant future. And that’s the same as The RSPB is certain that more than 70% of these species won’t become extinct anytime soon. But that’s obviously not the kind of headline these people want to generate.
Although the detail is complicated the essence of their selection is
As in previous BoCC reviews (see Eaton et al. 2015), we considered only naturally occurring species with self-sustaining populations,
The main point is not that the excluded 40% includes rare overseas visitors – although that is interesting. The point is that the excluded 40% (i.e. species that do not have self-sustaining populations) are just as likely to be threatened with extinction as the 60% that were surveyed. Chris’s maths only works if you assume that none of them are threatened with extinction. An assumption for which he provides no evidence whatsoever.
The RSPB believes that almost 30% of 245 native bird species might become exinct in the not-too-distant future. And that’s the same as The RSPB is certain that more than 70% of these species won’t become extinct anytime soon.
I am not sure the two statements are logically the same (it would be necessary to define them a bit more precisely to be sure) but anyhow I don’t find the headline: more than 70% of these species won’t become extinct anytime soon very comforting. It is a bit like being told you have a 70% chance of surviving the operation as opposed to a 30% chance of dying – not much to choose really!
The point is that the excluded 40% […] are just as likely to be threatened with extinction as the 60% that were surveyed.
That’s unknown.
And therefore, absent any other knowledge, just as likely to be threatened.
To put it another way – there is no reason to suppose they are less likely to be threatened and no reason to suppose they are more likely to be threatened. What is seems very unlikely is that none of them are threatened which is what would be necessary for Chris’s maths to be true.
There could be selection bias. Choose only those birds or mammals that are at risk and therefore the numbers are inflated.
Also there is no evidence that the species at risk of extinction is any different from what it was 50 or 100 or 1000 years ago.
Perhaps things are actually gettting better.
By now, everyone should know how this racism argument works: First, the relative quantity of people with property X is determined by dividing a guesstimate of the number of people with this property who are living in the country by another guesstimate for the total number of people living here (both numbers are really unknown) to arrive at a guesstimate quotient A. Then, the same is done for some identifiable subgroup of the total population which yields another guesstimate quotient B. Then, A and B are compared. The three possible scenarios are
1) A > B. That’s the desired outcome: The identifiable subgroup is said to be structurally or institutionally anti-Xist.
2) A = B. Nothing to be seen here, let’s try again with another identfiable subgroup.
3) A < B. Also a good outcome: The identifiable subgroup is structurally or institutionally oppressed by the structurally or institutionally anti-Xist general population.
Taking this into account, the English countryside is structurally racist because immigrants tend to flock to the cities as there are more opportunities for work there (and more other immigrants which makes for nicer socialising among like-minded people).
This is the familiar form of circular reasoning crusaders of the woke alway employ:
Premise P1: Guesstimate quotient differences are caused by anti-Xism.
Premise P2: Guesstimate quotient differs in the intended way for group Y.
Conclusion C1: Group Y is urally or onally ant-Xist because of P1 & P2.
And now for the other half:
Premise P1′ (same as conclusion C1): Group Y is known to be urally or onally anti-Xist.
Premise P2′: Guesstimate quotient differs for group Y
Conclusion C1′: Therefore, guesstimate quotient difference is proof of anti-Xisim because of P1′ and P2′ (sames as premise P1).
Depending on what’s to be demonstrated, either the first or the second half of this will be presented.
The best thing about Attenborough is his age. He hasn’t got long ……
I said to someone earlier in this thread: Don’t use the “He’ll be dead soon/Dance on his grave” line; it’s undignified and vicious. Argue against the things he says, not against his mortality – you gain nothing doing so and you look like a bully.
Attenborough would quite happily see the eradication of billions of humans from this planet yet a few of us happily awaiting his demise are bullies?
Your understanding of humanity’s dire predicament is what I would consider to be rather shallow.
Scattenborough and Resident Biden have the same scriptwriter.
Ole Joe held the ladder 🪜 as Neil Armstrong descended onto the lunar surface to become the 2nd man on the moon. Not a joke folks 🙈
People superglue their hands to things as a direct result of what they see on the BBC. The promoters of “Climate Emergency” and “Only 12 years left to save the planet” etc are misinforming, brainwashing and manipulating the easily led. —-SKY do the same ofcourse but we are not forced to pay for Kay Burley and the “Climate Show”.
Attenborough has lost all credibility with most sensible people due to his distorted claims about wildlife and climate that can easily be proven to be untrue. If only he could research more and spread lies less, he could return to being a worthwhile contributor to climate science, but as it is, as soon as I see his name involved in a TV programme I won’t watch it. I really am getting very tired of his inaccurate scare stories. I think it’s time to put him “out to pasture”. It’s a shame as there was a time many years ago that his output had value, but not any more.
I assumed that in the past when Attenborough was filming on location that he was in control of what was said because he studied zoology and he kept out of politics. I assume now that he is just a mouthpiece for those producing the programmes. We need to know the real actors behind this propaganda.
Some extremist claims are rarely fact-checked by most of the media if you have ‘woke progressive’ ideology.