You are not logged in.
David Attenborough finally talks climate change in prime time BBC slot
By Adam Vaughan
New Scientist
April 13, 2019
Global warming will enjoy a rare moment in TV’s spotlight when the BBC airs an hour-long film on the subject on 18 April, presented by David Attenborough (pictured above).
“Right now, we’re facing our gravest threat in thousands of years: climate change,” says Attenborough at the start of Climate Change – The facts.
The involvement of this influential star on BBC1, the corporation’s biggest channel, in a prime 9 pm slot has raised expectations that the film could significantly shift attitudes and spur action. Perhaps it could do for climate change what 2017’s Blue Planet II did for plastics.
But is the documentary too little, too late from the BBC on climate change? We have known about the severity of global warming for years. Shouldn’t a show in 2019 be about actions rather than facts?
The film is, however, an excellent primer on climate change, sprinting through the basics of the science, why we have failed to cut carbon emissions and how we might reduce future warming. It features a who’s who of climate academia, from Michael Mann, James Hansen and Naomi Oreskes in the US to UK figures including Peter Stott, Mark Maslin and Catherine Mitchell.
Somewhat oddly, there is no one from the world’s biggest emitter, China. Indian environmentalist Sunita Narain is there though. “If the poor are suffering today, then the rich will also suffer tomorrow,” she says.
Attenborough is a soothing balm, popping up as a voice of calm whenever you might be freaking out about the sheer scale of the problem.
As with previous climate documentaries, such as 2007’s The 11th Hour, it occasionally drags a little due to the reliance on talking heads and generic stock visuals. But there are some memorable scenes: bats killed by extreme heat in Australia and dashcam footage of a father and son speeding through a wildfire.
Solutions and actions
The best thing about the film is the time it gives over to solutions and action. A whistle-stop tour covers necessary changes in energy, diet and consumption, plus collective action such as Greta Thunberg’s school climate strikes and the global movement she spawned. Somehow, it avoids becoming a sermon.
“There’s a message for all of us in the voices of these young people,” says Attenborough of the strikers. “Every one of us has the power to make changes and to make them now.” You should be fired up by the time the credits roll.
How does the film fit into the BBC’s wider record on climate change coverage? Environmental campaigners have focused on failures by presenters on its high-profile shows, such as John Humphrys and Andrew Neil, to challenge climate change scepticism. But looked at across the whole of its output, the BBC has a strong track record of reporting on the science, economics and politics of global warming.
Climate Change – The facts is part of a renewed BBC drive to tell climate change stories and follows its decision to give them a higher profile, which started last September. Insiders say that push is spurred by the desire to stay relevant with younger audiences.
The danger is that the drive leads the BBC to cover stories that are unimportant or boring. But judging from Attenborough’s new film, that’s not a problem yet.
Offline
Like button can go here
It's just my opinion, but I think we passed the "tipping point" for catastrophic change around 5 decades ago. This is based on the 3-century-ish lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere, and that on shorter decade-like timescales, that is what methane gets oxidized to.
Assuming my opinion is correct, then we are beyond the point where emissions reductions can head off massive sea level rises, massive rainfall pattern shifts, weather and climate extremes, and loss of meltwater to feed river systems. This is true even if not one more kilogram of fossil fuel was ever burned again, something unlikely in the extreme.
It will take emissions reductions PLUS active removal of CO2 from the air, PLUS interruption of the sunlight received on Earth to reduce these effects. Not only are these things potential economy wreckers, but also whatever we do to reduce net insolation must be reversible, as we are likely to "get it wrong" at least once.
The economic impact would have been less had we started about 5 decades ago, when this issue first became publicized. The higher costs and impact now are what we get for delaying so long, and deservedly so.
GW
GW Johnson
McGregor, Texas
"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew, especially one dead from a bad management decision"
Offline
Like button can go here
The BBC refuses to allow ANY expression of AGW scepticism.
I am a bit concerned about the way you use "climate change" and "global warming" as though they are synonymous with human agency climate effects. Climate change and global warming are both naturally phenomena that have been occuring over billions of years either continuously or periodically. I don't think you'll find any climate scientist who denies climate change is occurring. It would be very odd if it had stopped changing all of a sudden and become fixed. But the Earth has definitely been warmer in the past.
And why is it thought that global warming will cause awful environmental damage? Plants love warmth, water and CO2. This is a great time for them, which is why biomass is increasing. Biomass means a bigger cake for all species, which is probably why polar bear numbers are increasing so much.
No, what causes environmental damage is human population growth, human habitation and especially human agriculture. David Attenborough wants the convenience of huge international airports with tarmac runways and monoculture grass so he can go around the world making documentaries and speaking at conferences (probably for large appearance fees). Each one deprives other species of natural habitat.
David Attenborough finally talks climate change in prime time BBC slot
By Adam Vaughan
New Scientist
April 13, 2019Global warming will enjoy a rare moment in TV’s spotlight when the BBC airs an hour-long film on the subject on 18 April, presented by David Attenborough (pictured above).
“Right now, we’re facing our gravest threat in thousands of years: climate change,” says Attenborough at the start of Climate Change – The facts.
The involvement of this influential star on BBC1, the corporation’s biggest channel, in a prime 9 pm slot has raised expectations that the film could significantly shift attitudes and spur action. Perhaps it could do for climate change what 2017’s Blue Planet II did for plastics.
But is the documentary too little, too late from the BBC on climate change? We have known about the severity of global warming for years. Shouldn’t a show in 2019 be about actions rather than facts?
The film is, however, an excellent primer on climate change, sprinting through the basics of the science, why we have failed to cut carbon emissions and how we might reduce future warming. It features a who’s who of climate academia, from Michael Mann, James Hansen and Naomi Oreskes in the US to UK figures including Peter Stott, Mark Maslin and Catherine Mitchell.
Somewhat oddly, there is no one from the world’s biggest emitter, China. Indian environmentalist Sunita Narain is there though. “If the poor are suffering today, then the rich will also suffer tomorrow,” she says.
Attenborough is a soothing balm, popping up as a voice of calm whenever you might be freaking out about the sheer scale of the problem.
As with previous climate documentaries, such as 2007’s The 11th Hour, it occasionally drags a little due to the reliance on talking heads and generic stock visuals. But there are some memorable scenes: bats killed by extreme heat in Australia and dashcam footage of a father and son speeding through a wildfire.
Solutions and actions
The best thing about the film is the time it gives over to solutions and action. A whistle-stop tour covers necessary changes in energy, diet and consumption, plus collective action such as Greta Thunberg’s school climate strikes and the global movement she spawned. Somehow, it avoids becoming a sermon.
“There’s a message for all of us in the voices of these young people,” says Attenborough of the strikers. “Every one of us has the power to make changes and to make them now.” You should be fired up by the time the credits roll.
How does the film fit into the BBC’s wider record on climate change coverage? Environmental campaigners have focused on failures by presenters on its high-profile shows, such as John Humphrys and Andrew Neil, to challenge climate change scepticism. But looked at across the whole of its output, the BBC has a strong track record of reporting on the science, economics and politics of global warming.
Climate Change – The facts is part of a renewed BBC drive to tell climate change stories and follows its decision to give them a higher profile, which started last September. Insiders say that push is spurred by the desire to stay relevant with younger audiences.
The danger is that the drive leads the BBC to cover stories that are unimportant or boring. But judging from Attenborough’s new film, that’s not a problem yet.
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
Like button can go here
I think the real issue for some is how we define "climate change" and "global warming" as the first can be hot or cold with indifference to size of what is a local disturbance but how large is local.
13 photos that show how humans have changed the world's forests in which these contribute in what I see as local.
I would not call this a local warming as its so huge NASA Sees El Nino Conditions Prevail in the Central Pacific Ocean
But how large is large enough to blur the line on the terms.
Offline
Like button can go here