Nigel Lawson Challenges David Attenborough's 'Sensationalist' Frozen Planet

Attenborough Lawson

The Huffington Post UK   First Posted: 30/11/11 14:31 GMT Updated: 30/11/11 16:03 GMT

The final episode of the hit BBC nature documentary Frozen Planet is causing controversy over its depiction of climate change.

Lord Nigel Lawson has challenged Sir David Attenborough's claims, saying that "when it comes to global warming he seems to prefer sensation to objectivity".

Attenborough says in the programme that by 2020, the Arctic could be ice-free and that polar bears are dying as a result of the melting snow.

But Lord Lawson, writing in the Radio Times, said that ice cover at the other end of the world, in Antarctica, is actually broadening and that certain populations of polar bears are seeing a rise.

He added that evaporation from the melting ice would counter global warming by providing more cloud cover.

However, many experts have rallied to support the programme.

The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) found that the majority of polar bear populations are in decline as they struggle to hunt for food where there is less sea ice.

Dr Ian Willis, a Cambridge University senior researcher, said that total sea ice in Antarctica had indeed increased slightly but that the total sea ice in the Northern hemisphere had declined overall.

He told the Telegraph that if change on this scale continues, it could be catastophic:
"If the Arctic sea ice continues to disappear it will drive up the temperature of the planet more quickly and the melting ice could drive up sea levels by one metre - enough to threaten millions of people by the end of the century."

Dr Mark Brandon, Polar Oceanographer at the Open University, is a consultant on the programme, He stood by the claims, saying that "it is a brave and honest portrayal of what is going on right now".

The episode previously caused controversy when the BBC was criticised for allowing countries to opt out of buying it, as a result a few foreign networks have decided against showing it at all.

The final episode will be broadcast on BBC One on 7 December.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST UK

The final episode of the hit BBC nature documentary Frozen Planet is causing controversy over its depiction of climate change. Lord Nigel Lawson has challenged Sir David Attenborough's claims, say...
The final episode of the hit BBC nature documentary Frozen Planet is causing controversy over its depiction of climate change. Lord Nigel Lawson has challenged Sir David Attenborough's claims, say...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 88
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
10:50 PM on 12/07/2011
i found the last episode of frozen planet very interesting, "it said the arctic ice has never melted at this rate since records began"!I seem to have read that in the 1400's the Vikings had farms on greenland what were they growing polar bears? the remains are still evident apparently, and no mention in the history books of london being flooded to 1/2 a metre Mr Attenborough
photo
drbob601
Soylent Green is People
02:13 AM on 12/06/2011
Was the arctic warmer in the 1930's than it is today? Do a google search and you'll find dozens of websites discussing the question...but no real consensus. It gets even worse when it comes to the broader questions: Is climate change real? Is it caused by human activity? Good luck finding your answer on the internet...

Personally, I'll take this side of the argument:

http://mediamatters.org/research/200508080007

http://www.skepticalscience.com/arctic-was-warmer-in-1940.htm
07:01 PM on 12/07/2011
drbo601. Please look at the SPPI website and you will find the truth.
09:44 PM on 12/04/2011
Did you know that you could use any one of Attenborough's episodes to refute his unsupportable claims in the final episode of the Frozen Planet?
photo
StephenBP
What's he building in there?
08:42 PM on 12/03/2011
Lord Lawson would do well to read the NASA report from March of 2011 which showed increasing loss of ice mass in Antarctica.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ReedYoung
global mean temperature, obviously INCREASING
09:01 PM on 12/05/2011
Of course, "broadening," as the article paraphrases Lawson's statement, is not necessarily inconsistent with loss of mass. But it does indicate that he knows that Antarctica is losing ice mass (volume), and chooses the misleading two-dimensional measure (area, "broadening") to make a deceitful statement which is not quite untrue, but does lead anybody who trusts him to make the untrue inference that volume (mass) is also increasing; it is not.  The area covered by sea ice around Antarctica is broadening as ice melts from the continent, so the increase in extent is just one step toward Antarctica's ice cover melting away entirely, predicted sometime around the end of this century or early in the next one, IIRC.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Blackorpheus
the decisive blows are always struck left-handed
07:13 PM on 12/03/2011
Lawson is lying.
This comment has been removed.
07:35 AM on 12/02/2011
I read Nigel Lawson's response to Attenborough. Lawson is in no position whatsoever to lecture anyone on what constitutes objectivity. He is entirely selective in his choice of evidence. Ignoring anything that supports the mainstream climate science and using any anecdote or apparent inconsistency to reject or ignore that mainstream. He complains about BBC balance but they have given him plenty of air time in recent weeks. Fortunately this has given him plenty of rope with which to hang himself on his ridiculous arguments.
07:42 AM on 12/02/2011
Lawson also notes that increased evaporation at the North pole increases cloud cover. Maybe. If true, does not this satisfy the description "climate change"?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richard2
07:50 PM on 12/01/2011
The story of the WWF, Fenton Communications, and East Anglia, together trying to scare the world about sea levels flooding major cities, in 1999, with a press release, is now at wuwt

"Cities including New York and Tokyo may face flooding; large swathes of Latin America will suffer from drought and Australia’s Great Barrier Reef may be destroyed unless more is done to stop global warming, the World Wildlife Fund for Nature warned Tuesday."

On what evidence is the WWF an objective, credible source of scientific knowledge?
07:22 PM on 12/01/2011
Funny, Polar bears survied the relative ice free Arctic in the 1930s.

But heck, why bother using any level of scientific fact when pushing scary stories.
photo
banana republican
Next in line for crumbs from the King's Table
02:19 AM on 12/02/2011
Not only that, polar bears don't eat ice so their food source is not affected by that. Actually, their food source has increased since more and more global warming researchers enter their territory to do their work. They're not only tasty, their high in protein as well.
04:50 AM on 12/02/2011
Now THAT's FUNNY.

F&F.
01:42 PM on 12/02/2011
"[R]elative ice free Arctic in the 1930s" ?

Is there any scientific fact for that at all ?
03:18 PM on 12/01/2011
Climate change is real but what does it have to do with CO2?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lbsaltzman
Permaculture and Sustainability
04:42 AM on 12/02/2011
CO2 form the burning of fossil fuels is the major forcing factor in the current warming trends we are experiencing.
07:41 AM on 12/02/2011
I suggest you read up on the issue: http://www.ipcc.ch/ http://climate.nasa.gov/ or here http://royalsociety.org/policy/publications/2010/climate-change-summary-science/

Data on arctic ice is here: http://nsidc.org/

Basically, CO2 is a greenhouse gas that absorbs infra-red radiation from the earth's surface that would otherwise escape into space. This raises its kinetic energy (ie temperature). Man's activities have increased its atmospheric concentration by 40% in 150 years (and increasing at a rate of about 2% a year). The laws of physics mandate that this must increase temperatures. The rest is detail (eg how far and how fast will it rise).
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richard2
03:45 AM on 12/03/2011
Sir,

96% of the CO2 released into the atmosphere each year comes from natural sources. Man produces 4%. You have assumed that the amount of natural CO2 released each year is a constant, such that man's 4% is very significant.

However, what if the amount of natural CO2 varies from year to year, such that the change in natural CO2 swamps the change in CO2 output by man?
10:51 AM on 12/01/2011
Lawson is scientifically illiterate. The reason why parts of the Southern icesheet are expanding is that a) melting water is lubricating the Antarctic glaciers, making them move faster and b) parts of the Antarctic are effectively desert - it's so cold there that it cannot snow, so if it starts snowing then it's getting warmer, not colder!
09:06 AM on 12/01/2011
Yet again there is far too much focus on effects, and not enough on the root cause of the problem. David Attenborough is right. Polar ice melt is having an impact on polar bear numbers. However, these are effects, the root cause of which is unchecked human population growth. When the politicians and other talking heads speak of "human activity" as being central to the issue, what they're actually saying is the proliferation of the human species (i.e. making babies for the sake of making babies) is the problem. However, none of them - including Lawson - has the gumption to say so outright. Look around: we humans are already a plague on the planet, and if we don't get a grip soon, we will surely run the risk of going the same way as the dinosaurs.
This comment has been removed.
This comment has been removed.
12:32 AM on 12/01/2011
vincentdavis@ntlworld.com