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.
Positive discrimination is double speak.
If you discriminate “positively” towards say a black person, you are discriminating “negatively” against a white or Asian or other person.
When black people, Jews, Asians and other peoples were discriminates against, it wasn’t called “positive” discrimination towards whites. It was called discrimination, or more bluntly racism.
“Positive discrimination” is just a way of sanitising a new form of racism.
The justification used in the US is “because slavery”. It’s almost certain the US Supreme Court will rule race-based admissions policies in colleges are unconstitutional. They’ve had them for ages – at least 30 years I think, when an earlier court judgement commented that they would probably not be needed beyond a 30 year window. They still exist – in fact they have probably increased. The “Asians” (mainly Indians and Chinese, Koreans I think) are coming off very badly, being pushed out by lower-scoring blacks in college admissions, so they have brought this case. The question is, at what point will the need to “right the wrongs of the past” disappear? The answer is of course it never will because this is nothing to do with righting the wrongs of the past (except in the minds of gullible, do-gooding middle class lefty whites) – it’s a war where only equality (or superiority) of outcome will satisfy the people attacking our civilisation. A war we will almost certainly lose.
Indeed. In the USA we call it “affirmative action”, among other euphemisms. I do understand the sentiment originally behind it, of course, but the problem is that there is no off-switch, and it ends up being like The Sorcerer’s Apprentice. Pretty soon you jump the shark, and don’t realize you have overcorrected until it’s too late. And it can also backfire on the very same people it is supposed to help.
“ And it can also backfire on the very same people it is supposed to help.”
Indeed, and I suspect there are those who use this as a divide and rule tactic, who are not actually interested in helping anyone except themselves and their cronies.
So how do we know when the shark has been jumped, albeit only in hindsight? Well, as soon as the language switches from “equality” to “equity”, it becomes quite obvious indeed.
And when they use the word “equality” they mean equality of outcome, because they claim anything less is evidence of racism or some other kind of “unjust” discrimination.
Indeed, that is what they mean.
Agree with the sentiments here, and what I think is the real tragedy of all this “discrimination” (positive or otherwise – what’s the diff) is what does it say to those who achieved their success without any of the assistance? More over, will any and all of those who are now by default under the banner of potentially benefitting from positive discrimination, wonder.. did I succeed through merit or some mysterious leg up? We’re lessoning the achievements of so many whom have already succeeded and will succeed through hard work and skill (not because your skin happens to be a certain shade). I despise this agenda, even with the best of intentions, discrimination will / is causing more problems than it’s [supposedly] solving – shock horror. I thought we’d learnt the lessons, but apparently not.
Indeed. I’m not eligible to be a “recipient” of this “help” but if I was I think I would find it patronising in the extreme.
Indeed, it is patronizing in the extreme.
If the following generations of black people feel so badly dealt with as result of their forbears slavery, they are now free to return to Africa or the country of their historical origin, but this does not seem to be happening in any great numbers. Surely this demonstrates that the harm that took place hundreds of years ago, has now been forgiven and forgotten and all races should learn to live together without predjudice and people should accept the laws and customs of the place that they choose to live in.
Totally accurate Stewart!. ” Equality Act” is a contradiction in terms, if you chose one candidate over the other for any other reason except being competent to do the job, you are being racist, sexist, ableist,ageist..etc!
If all applicants are competent of doing the job, put their names in a hat and draw out the successful person in front of them all!
That’s called fair.
And a mini statement from our Prof Fenton re ‘Bridgengate’. Comments underneath sum up the general consensus on here I’d say;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lV_C9xkTT-w&ab_channel=NormanFenton
True story- a colleague was invited to a diversity event (excuse to reinforce their wokeness) run by the organisation for which we work. She was turned away when she arrived. The reason….she was white. Can’t make this sh’&t up.
Diversity only when it is convenient for the wokesters.
At the next GE almost all white voters will vote for anti-white parties..
Indeed. All the mainstream parties are anti-white.
A couple of quotes from Thomas Sowell seem apt:
“When people get used to preferential treatment, equal treatment seems like discrimination.”
“If you believe in equal rights, then what do “women’s rights,” “gay rights,” etc., mean? Either they are redundant or they are violations of the principle of equal rights for all.”
Indeed, the terms “civil rights” and “human rights” generally cover enough ground. Beware of anyone who reflexively objects to using those terms for not being specific enough, because reasons. Sometimes specificity makes sense, of course, but usually it is quite redundant (if not altogether inegalitarian).
I can recommend ‘The Diversity Delusion’ by Heather MacDonald.
This Act is the most despicable, racist and shameful piece of legislation to have been enacted by the UK. It is 100% anti MLK and is closer to Apartheid Era S Africa than a civilised and fair democracy. ‘Grouping’ human beings by the shade of their skin is ignorant beyond belief. In practice, it is terribly unbalanced and unfair against white people. Take the NHS for example, compared to the ‘fair’ (i.e. representative of the split of UK population), so called white people are woefully under-represented. To redress this, can you imagine the NHS conducting a ‘whites only need apply’ recruitment campaign? That would be just as wrong. Treat people as humans first and foremost – repeal this crazy law immediately and, as a country, follow the MLK way of thinking.
You know which is the most “undiverse” group of people and yet you never hear about any policies to make it more diverse?
Billionaires.
Is it legal for international management consultants to instruct their in house recruiters not to shortlist any men – regardless of qualifications? This is what they are doing.
What is equal about prioritising one group over another? that is the very opposite of equality, more topsy turvy upside down from our Government. Why isn’t competency the decider on who is best for a job?
This Government and HR departments throughout the country are racist, they are racist against white people, against men and against those who are fully able bodied and hetrosexual. In other words a white male who has no disabiliy and has a partner of the opposite sex, is, regardless of qualification and suitability for a job, is the last candidate that a company would choose. This is discrimination, racism and sexism. This discrimination is actively promoted and supported by the Government and civil servants. Think if the same “equality” discrimination was applied to the afore mentioned groups there would be an outcry and human rights cases flying left, right and centre. Why then is it ok to select a particular group for active discrimination and get away with it?
This is once again about division because divided people will fight each other, whilst those who create the divison accrue more power and control over us. They the Government and the civil servants are the enemy, not the person who is a different race, sexual persuasion, gender, or other characteristics this Government is trying to create disharmony in.
The white ‘go along to get along’ professional and managerial classes can hardly complain if they are discriminated against from here on in
I’ve interviewed and recruited staff countless times. I’ve never seen an instance where two candidates were 100% identical. Even if they have the exact same qualifications, with the exact same grades, from the exact same institutions, and have the exact same prior experience, and have the exact same score on a practical test. At that point, they are judged on engagement with the interview process, knowledge of the company they’re seeking employment at etc. Pretending candidates can ever be 100% equal is just an excuse to allow leftist racial discrimination and equality to be used.
What is descibed here is racial prejudice and supported by legislation. This in any logical situation should be eliminated by the race relations act. It is no wonder in some major cities the native indigenous population is becoming the discriminated against minority. I have nothing against black or Asian people or any other race or group but employers should be free to appoint their choice of the person most suitable to do a good job without considering their race.