Seven Worlds, One Planet – Natural History Education or Climate Change Propaganda? (Introduction and Part I)

(Note: this is a rather long blog so is broken up into several parts which are published separately).

In my blog of November 1^st, 2019 (Lord of the Flies …) I mentioned a film made (with the help of professionals) by an eminent British scientist, a Fellow of the Royal Society. It is without doubt a propaganda film in which so called facts are presented in a distorted way along with false claims to create a beguiling picture that communicates the ideology and beliefs of the film makers. The film is propaganda for scientific thinking known as eugenics. I suppose the science of eugenics was once, as they say, settled, so clearly not up for debate! But as it turned out it needed to be debated because eugenics was part of the scientific basis for National Socialism. Science makes it easier to turn people – human beings – into piles of ash. Remember that!

The film is also an example that demonstrates that the belief that scientists are the epitome of objectivity is naught but extremely naïve. The truth is that scientists are no different from anyone else and will distort, invent, lie, create myths, make subjective comments, contradict themselves, be inconsistent, jump to conclusions, make up explanations on the spot, etc. just as much as anyone else. The gospel according to Richard Dawkins exemplifies the point.

It is highly appropriate to mention this man, the high-priest of materialistic scientific atheism, which denies the existence of purpose, the influence of the future on the present – teleology. And yet in contradictory style the man finds himself reverting to teleology, when he explains that genes are selfish! The crowning achievement of the madness that is materialistic science is human induced global climate change – a science that treats nature as a machine, and which denies the existence of purpose. Now you pay the price! But more about these matters in future blogs, for it should be self-evident that a science, technology, engineering and mathematics that is part of the problem must change if we are to have a sustainable future. Sadly it is not self-evident. Probably it is, as they say, settled, so not up for debate! Thus do I write …

I would like to say that not all scientific research is fraudulent. I felt a need to say this, just so you do not start jumping to conclusions. To say that is not fraudulent though, is not to say that it is competently undertaken, and that the results should be believed just because scientists say this or that, and because, as they say, the science is settled. I would also like to mention that, what those promoting science, often as a salvation belief system (yet another one!), will not tell you is that science is based on assumptions. Change the assumptions, change the outcomes. Heresy perhaps?

Some assumptions are taken for granted and unquestioned, others are hidden. Exploring and revealing them is a way of understanding the limitations of scientific knowledge and the use of that knowledge, especially when science attempts to make predictions, which could in fact be no more than a modern version of prophesy. Exploring assumptions also helps to understand issues like biases and beliefs and why these exist. Followers of the messianic Swedish Child should proceed no further. Just believe what the scientists say. It is of course a recipe for a dystopian world. The evidence of history proves the point, for the rule of science and reason has been and gone, leaving millions dead, and creating suffering far beyond anything seen in the past in the so-called pre-scientific age, where people lives were, some would like us to believe, governed of superstition. But so-called superstitious people never turned the planet into a resource to be exploited regardless of the consequences, with an accompanying jumping around in celebratory glee! Someone should tell the scientists this – if they dare! Perhaps the scientists' beliefs are too, as they say, settled, to tell them anything anymore?

Now I am going to address another film, also made (with the assistance of professionals) by (another) Fellow of the Royal Society. It seems that learning from history is not part of the education of people who become Fellows of the Royal Society!

At the time of writing this blog, the BBC were running a series of natural history programmes, narrated by an eminent natural history broadcaster who I have always respected. Seven Worlds, One Planet, is the name of the series, which examines in each episode, life on one of the earth’s seven continents. The first episode dealt with the continent called Antarctica. I was unable to watch the programme when it was first transmitted, so I used the BBC’s iPlayer to watch at a later date, which was fortunate, for I was able to rewind and to view one particular part of the programme several times and to also create a transcript. What follows is that transcript (bear in mind that it is the narration of a film sequence):

“The wild life in these waters faces an uncertain future. The Southern Ocean is warming. 90% of the world’s ice lies in Antarctica and, in some parts, the rate at which it is melting is doubling every decade. Sea levels are rising. But there is a more immediate threat. The warming of the coldest region on Earth is having a profound effect on global weather patterns. And this change in the climate is already being felt right here.

“This Grey-headed Albatross chick is four weeks old. So far it has been sheltered from the gales by its parents, who take turns to collect food for it out at sea. It is the only chick they will have in two years.

“The delicate touching of beaks strengthens their bond. But these tender moments cannot last forever. As a chick grows, so does its appetite. So one parent has to leave to find food before the other returns. Parting is a big step and they take time over it. For the first time in its life this chick is alone.

“The Antarctic is the windiest continent, and in recent years, climate change has brought storms that are more frequent and even more powerful. Winds now regularly reach 70mph. But the albatross chicks must try to stay on their nests.

“Surviving the storms in one thing … but now off the nest in these freezing temperatures, this chick has just hours to live. The brutal conditions have taken their toll. Some chicks have already succumbed to exposure. The bond is so strong, it can be hard for a father to let go.

“The albatross population here has almost halved in the last 15 years. These albatrosses are facing extinction. They simply cannot keep pace with the changes affecting their world.

“More parents are returning to the colony. Something is not right. The nest should not be empty. The chick is actually right below its parent, but because it is not on the nest, the parent doesn’t help it. Strangely perhaps these albatrosses do not recognise their chicks by sight, sound or smell. They identify them by finding them on the nest. So these violent storms have created a problem that the albatrosses are not equipped to solve. If it is to survive, the chick will have to get back on the nest by itself.

“The chick has made it. The bond is re-established immediately and its parent, once again provides the warmth that the chick so desperately needs. It’s safe … for now.”

And then the programme moves on, but this is not the end, for I found another piece of film on the BBC web site, with the title Web exclusive: The grey-headed albatross faces extinction. The sub-text tells more, it is about a cameraman who has seen the decline of the Grey-headed Albatross first hand. The cameraman is the one (it seems) that filmed the scenes that were narrated by the Fellow of the Royal Society. This is the transcript:

“Grey-headed Albatrosses are one of the world’s most endangered sea birds. We have travelled to Bird Island near to South Georgia to film them for Seven Worlds, One Planet. I’ve been to Bird Island twice before. I came here about 22 years ago, and there is a catastrophic change happening in their lives.

“Albatrosses are the ultimate wind bird. They are built with these massively long wings for dealing with strong wings and that’s how they travel so far across the open ocean, how they go and find food, and how they bring food back to their chicks. It’s part of their lives. The other thing that is part of their lives is that it’s wet here so their solution to that is to build these elevated nests – platforms for their chicks – so that the chicks can stay dry. It’s like a display stand.

“The problem is now it’s becoming so windy as the climate is changing that the chicks are actually getting blown off the nest. Once they’ve fallen off the nest some can’t get back on and those chicks are doomed. So there is a bird that lives by the wind that’s now suffering as the wind is getting too strong for them. They’ll all disappear and over time I suppose people will forget that they were ever here. Just remember that they were things called albatrosses, but no one will see them anymore. Their legacy will be this grassy hillside and not much else.”

And what would I find if I were to fact check this story? This:

First, I want you to understand that I am not seeking to say that climate change is a lie, as some people are saying (it is interesting that I need to make this point clear!). My interest has been, for many years, the study of knowledge creation. As part of that study I have examined many issues. One of the matters I have addressed is the collection of evidence about the inclination of people and organisations (mostly from the world of STEM and also the arts), some of whom speak with the voice of authority (by virtue of their standing in society), to make false truth claims. What exactly this means needs explaining in more detail, but for the moment I will limit my explanation to this: they say things that are often quite easily shown to be wrong. In particular I have noted that those from the world of research are increasingly, it seems, demonstrating a lack of integrity. Politicians are aware of this, but are confronted by denial from the research establishment – it is only a few bad apples type of explanation. This is not the case, but the issues are more complex than just plain fabrication and falsification, which do in fact seem to be rare events. I suppose more about the research integrity issue in future blogs.

Second, I was very careful and selective about the sources of information that I used. In particular I relied on information taken from papers published in scientific journals, with an emphasis on more rent publications (primarily in the range 2006 to 2019). I also consulted documents available on reputable web sites, these being: The British Antarctic Survey; The International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources; The Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels; and The Government of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. In other words I trusted that information available was not false. This one might say is an assumption of trust. A possible exception to this rule will arise later – which I will flag at the appropriate time.

Out of necessity I had to look at the BBC’s web site, but I do not regard this in the same way as the previously mentioned web sites. Specifically the BBC is a broadcasting/media organisation, and, not therefore necessarily a source of reliable information!

Finally, this is a rather long blog, so I have organised the content so that it does not need to be read in full. There are three parts:

Part I includes my observations on the transcripts, followed by a summary of the findings of my readings of the scientific literature about Grey-headed Albatrosses as well as Albatrosses more generally. This is then followed by some observations about the film in the light of these findings.

Part II is a more detailed account of the literature. Here I have extracted many of the key points that are relevant to the matter considered, which I then used to create my summary of findings. Part II is published separately.

Part III is a list of the scientific literature consulted. Part III is also published separately.

Part I

My analysis of the transcripts follows:

You will notice that the narration of the film sequence in the TV programme does not state where the Grey-headed Albatrosses are being filmed – it is just described as “here”. In fact there is no mention at all of the location at any point. Neither does the film on the web site actually state where the TV programme film was shot, because all that is said is – “We have travelled to Bird Island near to South Georgia to film them for Seven Worlds, One Planet.” This only says that the film crew visited Bird Island to do some filming, not that what is seen in the TV programme was actually filmed on Bird Island. There is information in Part II which explains where Bird Island and South Georgia are located, and some of the climatic and geographical features.

I checked the BBC’s media web site where there is information for journalists about Seven Worlds, One Planet. Here I discovered that filming was undertaken at two locations: Bird Island and South Georgia. It seems that the filming was undertaken in 2017. This suggests that the decision to give the Grey-headed Albatross a certain spin (as they say in journalism), was taken around 2016, which also suggests that I should be able to find in the  research literature, 2016 and earlier, the scientific results that support the spin given to this story.

The reason why I have sought information about filming locations will become apparent at the end of Part I, where there is a little surprise for you!

You may also have noted the statement about Antarctic being the windiest continent: “The Antarctic is the windiest continent, and in recent years, climate change has brought storms that are more frequent and even more powerful. Winds now regularly reach 70mph.” So does that mean that winds on the Antarctic continent regularly reach 70mph or winds on Bird Island (and South Georgia)?

I ask now that you consider what claim is implied by the transcripts: what do the texts of the transcripts and the associated film sequences (if you are able to find them on the BBC web site) mean? In other words what is your interpretant? I will state here what I believe: these films seek to imply that the decline in the number of Grey-headed Albatross at Bird Island – the reason why they are an endangered species – is because of climate change. I say this because no other causes for the decline are mentioned, only one – that being climate change, in particular increasing strong and frequent winds which are killing albatross chicks. Do you have a different interpretant?

And now to summarise of my findings which I will do in part by addressing the claims made in the films:

The Grey-headed Albatross is classified by The International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) as an Endangered species – it appears on their so-called Red List of Threatened Species. Many other species of albatross are also threatened. The Grey-headed Albatross is not however one of the most endangered seabirds as the cameraman claims. The latest assessment of Grey-headed Albatross by IUCN is dated August 2018, the year following the filming expedition to Bird Island. They (the IUCN) estimate that there are at least 250,000 mature individuals, with the population declining. This should be compared with the assessment for the Triston Albatross. Of these, IUCN estimate, there are between 3400 and 4800 mature individuals, with the population still in decline. For this reason Triston Albatrosses are categorised as Critically Endangered.

What is the reason for the significant decline in the number of Grey-headed Albatrosses at South Georgia? One of the key reasons is industrial-scale long-line fishing. It seems that thousands of Albatrosses (of many different species) are drowned each year when they attempt to scavenge the bait on these lines. Although mediation measures have been developed and are proven to be effective, and are in fact mandatory in the maritime zone around South Georgia, Albatrosses fly long distances into international waters, where they encounter deep-sea fishing activities, for example long-line fishing for tuna species. In these international waters it appears that the proven mitigation measures are either not used or not used effectively.

Interestingly, the BBC web site for Seven Worlds, One Planet also includes a short film clip of a researcher from the British Antarctic Survey research station on Bird Island. It’s called Web exclusive: The fisherman's good luck omen. Why wandering albatross are in decline? I suggest you watch this as it verifies what I have just told you and what the research literature also says.

The British Antarctic Survey literature mentions that the populations of albatrosses that are declining most rapidly are those breeding on the UK Overseas Territories in the South Atlantic. On the sub-Antarctic island of South Georgia, they say that the three species of albatrosses that they monitor are declining at between 2% and 4% a year.

Why are albatross populations so vulnerable? This is because they are one of the longest lived species of bird, with some surviving for more than 60 years. They take many years to reach sexual maturity, not breeding until they are around 10 years old. Although most breed annually, nine species – including the Grey-headed Albatross – lay only one egg every two years, and it takes the best part of a year for a young albatross to leave the nest. Because chick production is so slow, even small increases in death rates among adults will cause populations to decline.

The IUCN’s 2018 threat assessment of Grey-headed Albatross lists two threats. The first is industrial fishing, as mentioned above, which is regarded as have an impact described as “rapid decline in populations”. The second is climate change, but the issue here is not storms and bad weather, which are in any case normal circumstances in South Georgia. One paper that I consulted specifically mentioned that Bird Island is almost permanently under cloud cover, with high precipitation and frequent moderate or strong winds.

So what about chicks being blown out of their nests? There is no mention of this in the scientific literature that I examined, although it should be self-evident that this might happen in such stormy environment like Bird Island, under some circumstances. I did find evidence that westerly winds in the Southern Indian Ocean are shifting southwards and wind speeds are increasing as a result of a shift in the Southern Annular Mode Index to a sustained positive phase. In the Indian Ocean this is most notable at latitude 50 degrees south, which also corresponds to the latitude at which South Georgia is located in the South Atlantic. However, analysis of these wind shifts shows that the west to east component of the wind has changed little, and that it is the north to south component that shows the biggest shift. This, it is believed, has actually helped Wandering Albatrosses that breed on Crozet Island, because they are able to fly faster during foraging trips, with more foraging done south of the island (away from long-line fisheries), which has led to shorter durations away from the nest, which in turn has had a positive impact on breeding success.

This leads me to consideration of what are termed brood guarding, chick mortality, and breeding success. Not all Grey-headed Albatrosses breeding efforts lead to a fledged chick. Many factors intervene to prevent this: predation, condition of the adult birds, weather, adult quality (i.e. past breeding success), availability of food, disease. It is also the case that chick survival is dependent upon the condition of the chick.

A chick's ability to thermoregulate and to fend off predation increases with age, as does its appetite. There comes a point therefore when chicks no longer need the parents to provide heat, and parents have no choice but to leave chicks alone in order to forage for food.

Some research has shown that chick mortality in Grey-headed Albatrosses is high just after the end of brood guarding, and this mortality is strongly dependent on calendar date and chick condition, but is largely independent of the duration of brood guarding itself. The research has also shown that there is a marked seasonal decline in the duration of brood guarding, and that parents’ decisions concerning the regulation of brooding seem to be largely independent of chick age and also of their own [adult] body condition.

Research into Black-browed Albatrosses involving comparisons between two study sites, one being in the Falklands which has a more favourable climate than at the second site which was Bird Island, have shown that bad weather can be a problem for albatross chicks with limited thermoregulatory abilities, something confirmed by the fact, observed at both sites, that there were young unattended Black-browed Albatrosses apparently dying of cold during spells of inclement weather.

This research examined something the researchers called the cold-protection hypothesis. This includes a prediction that brood guarding should be longer in environments with harsher climatic conditions, which in fact was not observed. It also includes a prediction that adults should respond to short term variations in weather by prolonging brooding during spells of bad weather, and that adults should be more prone to terminate brooding under favourable (warm and dry) conditions. What was observed was that short-term weather fluctuations (measured by the wind chill index) had a demonstrable effect on the decision by the parent not to terminate brooding. It was noted that virtually no chicks were left on days with heavy rain. However, it is clear that adult birds, being pelagic seabirds, once engaged in a foraging trip, cannot quickly resume brooding behaviour as a response to possible deterioration of the weather.

I did not find any specific scientific evidence that higher wind speed is increasing chick mortality rates at Bird Island, or even if it were, that this is having a major influence causing rapid population decline. What I did discover is that breeding success is the result of complex interactions among multiple factors. And from experience I know that in such situations, simplistic statements about the negative effects on one particular issue (wind speeds) should be treated with scepticism, as it could also produce beneficial effects. It depends on the specifics and may also shift with time, especially if, as expected, the westerly winds continue to shift southwards.

I look forward to seeing the published scientific results on this issue. Or is it the case that people should only listen to the scientists when it suits them because sometimes the science is an inconvenient truth to those who make propaganda?

Now for that surprise that I mentioned which I will call Walrus-gate! Walrus-gate is another example of what appears to be a climate change propaganda film, rather than an educational natural history film.  The natural history programme in question this time is called Our Planet, commissioned by Netflix. In Our Planet we once again encounter the distinguished presenter, the Fellow of the Royal Society, implying that Pacific Walrus are climbing cliffs and falling to their deaths because of climate change.

This programme, it is claimed, misled viewers into believing that scenes shot at two different locations, were actually shot at the same place, and that the Walruses climbing the cliffs are doing so to get away from the overcrowded beech that is the first location. The narrative also forgot to mention the presence of Polar Bears.

It seems that the shots have been re-edited for Seven Worlds, One Planet series – the episode that deals with Asia. Only this time it is made clear that the locations are separated by 250 miles. Yet it is hardly an accurate narrative. At the first location there are claimed to be 100,000 Pacific Walrus, “… almost the entire world population …” That’s an extraordinary claim to make given that the world population is unknown. Specifically the IUCN classifies the population of this species as Data Deficient.

If you look at the film shots at the second location, where there are now admitted to be Polar Bears, you can see too that the there is plenty of room on the beech, but the Walruses are corralled in the space below the cliffs or are being forced up the gentle slope to the left of these cliffs. Why? What is preventing them from using the space that is out of shot in the first part of the film, but which is evident in other shots? In fact, in the final shot it is possible to see the beech that is available, but which is not used. It is also evident that there is a barrier of some sort across the beech. Is this the film crew or are these Polar Bears? You might also notice that the claim that the falling Walrus starts a stampede is evidently not the case. That part of the film, of the stampede looks like it is made at a different location.

You might also discover that Walrus Haulouts (as they are called) are not a new phenomenon, and there are records dating back to the 1850s of these events, which can be quite large. They occur across the whole range of this animal, on the Russian Artic Ocean coast (where the films were shot), as well as the Russian Pacific coast, and across in Alaska too, on the northern and southern coasts.

One of the criticisms of the Our Planet programme was that the behaviour of the Walruses was being influenced by Polar Bears and also by the film crew and their use of a drone for filming.

There is video commenting on Our Planet available on YouTube and also an explanation from someone pointing out the issues: Netflix,Attenborough and cliff-falling walruses: the making of a false climate icon. Here I flag my promised warning about the exception to my rule of only using information that should be accurate. This film clip would appear to be sponsored by the Global Warming Policy Foundation. I am unsure about the standing of the organisation. They are a think-tank and claim to be independent. They also say that they embrace the full range of perspectives on the issue of human-induced climate change. They also are concerned about the use of computer models to make long-term predictions (that concerns me too).

The claims made in the above mentioned YouTube video clearly need to be fact checked – something for another blog. I have the relevant literature, and will examine it in due course. Here though is a little taster: In 2017 the US Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service said that listing the Pacific Walrus as an endangered or threatened species under the [Endangered Species] Act is not warranted at this time. They also noted that the species possess degrees of resiliency, representation, and redundancy that have allowed it to cope with the changing environments of the last decade. The IUCN also noted eleven threats, one being human disturbance. It also noted that the species is easily panicked into stampedes.

My purpose in revealing the existence of this video is to show that doubts have been expressed previously about the accuracy of natural history programmes that address climate change. In particular I noted that it is evident that the film shots used in Our Planet have been re-edited with a different (more accurate, but still misleading) narrative, thereby confirming the presence of Polar Bears, which are speculated to be there in the YouTube video! In the video there are also clips from Our Planet, including a cameraman expressing his beliefs. Justified true beliefs or just what the cameraman believes? A saying comes to mind: Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive!

What to say by way of conclusion? This: the camera never lies, just the people who use the camera to make propaganda films. What these people are (sadly) doing is providing evidence that they are being lied to about climate change. Moreover, propaganda is not as effective as it is believed to be, especially in a pluralistic society where free-speech allows people to speak out against what these film makers are doing. In the case of the BBC that also might be activities undertaken at public expense!

What is needed is education, not propaganda! Propaganda is counter-productive. It is also unhelpful to those who seek to conserve albatrosses, to have members of the public misled into believing that climate change is responsible for the decline in Grey-headed Albatrosses. What they need, is to be educated about the impact of industrial-scale fishing and not subject to indoctrination and propaganda. We can all help to ensure the survival of albatrosses by making sure that sound policies are implemented and by only buying tuna that is caught sustainably, i.e. in a way that is not harmful to sea-birds.

I think you should understand that the behaviour I have identified, and the assumptions underlying these propaganda films, is dangerous, just as dangerous as Huxley’s behaviour was in the 1930s.

For the good of science, and by that I mean science undertaken rigorously by competent researchers and not misrepresented by those with an agenda, it is time to speak out.

It is also time to understand that scientists are not special people, and that those who dwell in the House of Salomon are increasingly showing signs of being corrupt, incompetent or ignorant, and the worship of such people as a priesthood who are beyond engaging in such behaviour is the same order of magnitude misjudgement that artists, scientists, engineers, and intellectuals displayed in the 1930s when they enthusiastically embraced the new world orders of scientifically based National Socialism and scientific Communism, depending upon their right of left leaning tendencies, which are of course highly subjective.

We need to make fundamental changes to science. The idea that nature should be viewed as having no purpose is out dated and dangerous. I hope that people now will start to understand that it is a materialistic science that views humans (who are part of nature) and the nature that surrounds them, as machines without purpose (along with engineering and the technology that results from this belief), that is in reality, partly responsible for our current woes. We have already seen how science was used (in Nazi Germany) to justify turning people into ash, and also to justify (in the Soviet Union) the oppression and murder undertaken by the Communists. We can now see just what science has done to our Planet.

And it is time to understand that criticism of science is not an attack on science as some would have you believe, but a call to make fundamental changes.