*Seven Worlds, One Planet*

That is the new David Attenborough BBC nature show, available on streaming or buy the discs from the UK.  Believe it or not it has better footage than the earlier BBC nature shows, while remaining inside the basic template of what such shows attempt to accomplish.  Here is a very good Guardian review.  Here is a somewhat snotty NYT review, bemoaning Attenborough’s tone of “polite optimism.”  Strongly recommended.

Comments

Imagine just how scathing the NYT would have been if Attenborough was enthusiastically optimistic.

Or possibly they watched the wrong program? Climate Change - The Facts does not seem to be marked by a tone of polite optimism, after all - "We have to realise that this is not playing games," Sir David said.

"This is not just having a nice little debate, arguments and then coming away with a compromise.

"This is an urgent problem that has to be solved and, what's more, we know how to do it - that's the paradoxical thing, that we're refusing to take steps that we know have to be taken."

I don't think it's possible for an historian like Attenborough to understand what is happening with climate change.

In other news, BBC has teamed up with Greenpeace Unearthed for a special investigation. Now that will be some solid investigative journalism.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

The three points of the triangle (the show, the Guardian response, the NYT) rather neatly encapsulate the human-on-earth dynamic:

"It's a beautiful world."

"It would be sad if anything happened to it."

"Yeah, but don't we all know that already?"

Ah well, maybe someday the jellyfish will evolve to make documentaries, and in turn show empathic gravitas for dead species.

"Need the warning," they will burble.

"Heed"

Stupid autocorrect.

Respond

Add Comment

What is needed is an honest look at the implications of Malthusian logic when applied to ecology. There are too many people.

There are a lot of people, which makes it something you have to work with. But, luckily enough or rationally enough, global birthrates continue to fall.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

It's unbelievable that Tyler still has time to watch TV

Respond

Add Comment

I loved the recent one on Australia.

Respond

Add Comment

"But if you can set aside the growing sense of fiddling with the remote control while Rome and every single other point on the globe burns, "

Ouch that comment hurts my brain. She might as well be a flat Earther for as much as she understands climate change. The Earth isn't "burning". We are looking at a worst case change in average temperature from 58 degrees to 67 degrees by the year 2100. The most likely scenario indicated by the IPCC is a change to 62 degrees by the year 2100.

All that assumes that renewable power doesn't become the cheapest economic source in the mean time, which it almost certainly will be. Presuming we don't have technological breakthroughs that provide an even better source in the mean time, of course.

Respond

Add Comment

Wonder what you would make of this from Attenborough - "The 93-year-old British naturalist made the direct link between the ongoing bushfires and climate change during an interview with the BBC published on Thursday.

“As I speak, south-east Australia is on fire. Why? Because the temperatures of the Earth are increasing,” he said.

“We have been putting things off year after year. We’ve been raising targets, saying ‘oh well, if we do it in the next 20 years …’ the moment of crisis has come.”

More than 10.7m hectares of land have burnt so far in the Australian bushfires, including 80% of the Blue Mountains, and 50% of the Gondwana world heritage rainforests." Link

1. They have had fires every year forever.
2. This years' beat out 1859 for the worst.
3. Major cause for the size is that amount of tinder that's not being maintained. Just like California, they won't allow the fires, but let the dead wood (or brush) pile up. Either allow the smaller fires, or do proper maintenance.

Respond

Add Comment

"and every single other point on the globe burns,"

I think Australian wild fires don't indicate that "every single other point on the globe burns". I think the statement is ridiculous hyperbole and furthermore that it's impossible to talk intelligently about global warming when 1 side wants to deny it's happening and the other side wants to pretend it's the apocalypse. Both sides are denying the actual science.

A special IPCC report on extreme weather states that in some regions there is medium confidence (66% likelihood) that wildfires have increased somewhat in frequency but not in others but does not include Australia apart from saying after 2050 there is a 15% to 70% chance that the wildfire season will be longer.

A more recent study on wildfires (Abatzoglou, et. al.) published in 2018 states again there are regions were wildfires have increased somewhat due to climate change in 22% of burnable land area, including Western North America but not Australia.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Some extraordinarily awful things are certain to happen before the end of this year.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/aug/30/jamiewilson

Respond

Add Comment

I hope you are not referring to the all but certain reelection of Donald J. Trump.

I have left this message at least twice before and it has not shown up. It is certainly an ironic message, but it is not as offensive as many messages left here on this website day after day.

Delete it again and you have lost a reader and a commenter.

Too bad. I used to have a good opinion of you.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment