Science and Natural History discussion

The BBC series Frozen Planet has drawn much attention to anthropogenic climate change in recent months. There were concerns about the episode On Thin Ice (an episode that tackled climate change head on) being axed to sell the series in the U.S.A. and the former chancellor Nigel Lawson, a prominent climate sceptic, opining that Sir David Attenborough was "alarmist" with his climate views in the series. A claim vehemently denied by Sir Attenborough.

Now there seems to be a discussion about the presence of anthropogenic climate change making an appearance in wildlife documentaries at all. Some feel the focus should be exclusively on the animals themselves but others feel in is equally important for viewers to see more of the threats that wildlife and ecosystems are facing due to anthropogenic climate change.

What's your opinion?

I think it's absolutely important to showcase the threats that wildlife and ecosystems are facing because that obviously has a huge effect on their survival. If a show is talking about animals, I would think that their survival as a species is an important bit of information to include.

Unless you are talking about something like a Disney film, such as the one I recently watched, Oceans, I think this is important to any kind of documentary, especially coming from sources such as BBC or National Geographic, etc. And even Oceans had a bit at the end about the impact of humans on declining animal populations and, I think, mentioned climate change.

I feel that just because people in the US (where I'm from!) want to stick their heads in the sand, doesn't mean you can ignore the problem and brush it under the rug.

Preeti, I mainly agree, but I have to object to this bit: "Unless you are talking about something like a Disney film..." Sure, it's a stretch to expect such things from Disney, but I'm not sure that's what you were responding to. Is it about the specific company's style, or the intended audience?

To the latter I'll say that children are especially in need of the full picture, and of early understanding of their species' role on earth. A child is a person: a small, absorbent, easily manipulable, but clever one. Again and again I see those marketing to and educating children without consideration of the adults they are rapidly becoming under their influence.

Though, even those targeted at adults and by sources like NatGeo, are incredibly dumbed down. I rarely watch them because they end up with two commentary tracks: the narrator and my grumpy retorts.

To the general topic, it seems obvious; documentaries should give as full account of their subjects' situation as they can within the given format. I wouldn't put it as a hard rule, but if the piece includes anything about habitat, migration, reproduction, or diet, anthropogenic changes likely play a role that to exclude would be dishonest.

On a related note, I was intrigued (but not particularly shocked) to hear that few docs are funded if they do not possess a certain documentary film structure, including some sort of main character with a crisis, often voice-overs... entertainment first, information second, I guess.

Lindsay, thanks for the reply! After reading your response, I definitely agree that children do need to hear the full picture - and I certainly didn't mean to imply that they aren't smart. I guess I was thinking about Disney as a company who tries to depict everything from a rosy point of view when it comes to kids.

I can see how you would look at documentaries targeted towards adults as dumbed down. As a layman, someone whose knowledge only comes from reading books and articles about science vs. any training in school, I do enjoy these docs. However, there are definitely times when, if the subject is something I know more about, I realize that information is either stretched or not quite accurate, or what have you.

It's interesting what you say about documentaries not being funded unless they have a certain structure. Did you read that somewhere and would you happen to have a link? I would love to read about it.

Preeti wrote: "As a layman, someone whose knowledge only comes from reading books and articles about science vs. any training in school, I do enjoy these docs. However, there are definitely times when, if the subject is something I know more about, I realize that information is either stretched or not quite accurate, or what have you."

I think this difference in experience you describe is the key to why I get so frustrated with them. To make the audience feel like they're learning is the main goal; beyond that, the depth of the learning itself doesn't matter too much. To be fair, that's largely the medium's fault, but I still think it's worth comparing to other works made for the layperson. (And, for the record, science is only a hobby for me.) For example, one of this month's reads, The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory. Not for every channel flipper, but for anyone willing to invest a bit of brainpower, he makes these big physical theories accessible without stripping away all their complexity. Though obviously a fair amount of simplification is required, it is limited to what is necessary, and the scientific integrity is maintained.

I suppose it does keep coming down to this time-based, entertainment-driven medium. A television channel can only broadcast one thing at a time, for a specific length of time, to a diverse audience that may pop in at any time. It's risky to ask them for any real mental investment (though I think it can be done much more often than it is attempted) let alone blame them and their culture for environmental catastrophe and count on their viewership next week. This series modification to make Frozen Planet more palatable to US consumers is quite reminiscent of the "rosy" Disney portrayals for kids, in fact.

I don't think all this applies to every documentary, of course. I've enjoyed many, and honestly haven't kept track of who produced the most rant-worthy ones.

Regarding documentary film structure, I'd love to read about it too! It was mentioned in passing by a professor of a photographic theory course with a background in film studies, whom I will now ask for sources!

I don't think you can talk about wildlife without talking about the environment they reside in, their life requirements, and their interactions with other species. Thus, you pretty much have to mention climate change unless you are studiously avoiding the elephant in the room.

K.A.
Well said, I agree completely

I was going to add my two cents, but it looks like K.A. pretty much said what I had to say. Cheers.

Yep, K.A. summed up my view too.

Way to kill a discussion, huh?

Nah, plenty of things related to talk about, e.g. why they don't...

A wild dissenter appears!

I disagree that climate change 'has' to be mentioned. In many circumstances it certainly should be included (as in the series which forms the basis of this discussion) but it I would not consider it an essentially ubiquituous component of wildlife documentaries. Consider one-off programmes such as those which are made for the BBC Natural World series. These programmes often focus on one aspect of a species' ecology or similar and as such do not implicitly draw discussions of climate change into the mix.

A fair point. I guess I'm more used to watching multi-episode nature docs. Attenborough's The Blue Planet and such. In that case, I think it would be remiss to leave it out. I tend to forget that the one-offs exist. At around 58 minutes, there's barely enough time to talk about the subject at hand, let alone how climate change effects it.

It's an interesting debate. Attenborough didn't begin to raise the issue in his documentaries until Blue Planet, and didn't make it a major theme until Frozen Planet, when it was very much the accepted view.

It's very clear that climate change, anthropogenic or not, is relevent to the theme of nature in the polar regions and quite an important part of looking at the wildlife of these areas and their survival into the future.

Emma wrote: "The BBC series Frozen Planet has drawn much attention to anthropogenic climate change in recent months. There were concerns about the episode On Thin Ice (an episode that tackled climate change hea..."

If it's a topic that affects the animals that nature programmes are concerned with, then it's a topic that may preclude our understanding and future conservation of them if left untold, so it clearly deserves to be relayed.

I don't mind and most certainly welcome climate discussion in natural history based programming, drawing awareness. But, the climate change rhetoric is getting a bit bloated. As a threat, it sits distantly down the list of all things negative facing wildlife. Not that species and ecosystems won't be affected, they most certainly will. But, two points. 1) How about featuring more present and relevant conservation issues (i.e., roadways, land loss, poor land management, invasive timbering practices, the coal industry, invasive mining, real threatening invasive species, etc.) and 2) showcasing the rewards of such wide spread conservation efforts. People need to hear the awards and benefits of conservation before they'll be willing to accept the issues. The rhetoric of climate change turns off many to the vast real issues that conservation is facing. Climate change has made overall conservation, in the public's eye, a polarizing issue. It has downgraded the realness of local and national land conservation.

It's tricky. You don't want to preach but if you see the evidence all around you, not just of climate change but also of habitat destruction, its unethical (yes, in TV we do have some ethics) to ignore it. The art is to insert it into the film as part of the animal's story. But it is true that some TV networks only want to sell a cosy view of wildlife in which humans have no influence over what is being shown. I think that's foolish and short-sighted.

Unfortunately, Nigel Lawson is a scientific illiterate (and was a disastrous Chancellor of the Exchequer) given a soapbox to sound off from by journalists who are, at best, also scientifically illiterate, but more probably just deeply cynical and only looking to pander to their readers' prejudices.

The evidence, especially in the Arctic, is overwhelming. Science is not based on absolutes but consensus and that's what politicians like Lawson and the polluting industries seek to use to exploit and confuse. They demand equal air time for their ill-informed cherry-picking of what little science supports their prejudices.

Nathan, the incontrovertible fact is that the destruction of habitat is happening faster in the Arctic than anyone expected. Attenborough cares deeply about conservation and addressed that issue on those terms. It would be irresponsible for the series to ignore the grim future facing the Arctic ecosystem. I think it did a fantastic job.

You mention rhetoric. I am not sure there is any rhetoric to climate change. Just an unwillingness amongst many people to take responsibility and face up the challenge. Ostriches don't stick their heads in the sand, we do.

BBC series State of the Planet (David Attenborough), addresses the man-made problems faced by the natural world. His most recent series have an environmental message, often at the very end of the last episode.

The BBC's nature documentaries, even those without the great man, usually include a mention of man-made climate change.

Martin wrote: "It's tricky. You don't want to preach but if you see the evidence all around you, not just of climate change but also of habitat destruction, its unethical (yes, in TV we do have some ethics) to i..."

Thank you, well stated.

Guys, I think everyone understands perfectly well that climate change is the number one problem in the modern food industry, especially in agriculture, do you agree with me? Yes, this is influenced by a lot of different factors, this is stated in the article https://beekeepclub.com/impact-of-cli... which I really liked. I want to ask you to start protecting our planet, because only starting with yourself can you change something. Anything that can cause climate disturbance can affect the agro-industry both domestically and internationally.