ITV's new prime-time shockerama, "Extinct" (Saturday 9th December, 7.30pm) was truly appalling. We were treated to an hour of dumbed-down seat-of-the-pants celebrity flummery, hosted by those two eminent scientific authorities Sir Trevor McDonald and Zoe Ball, in front of a happy-clappy studio audience who clearly didn't care whether they were watching "Deal or No Deal", "Come Dancing" or a programme about lancing boils, so long as they could whoop and cheer at every opportunity. The sound-track of plastic-rock-by-the-metre was all-pervasive as the almost inarticulate Anneke Rice flew in a helicopter ("Incredible!") over a snow-bound Arctic landscape ("Incredible!") in pursuit of several polar bears ("Incredible!") who were scared out of their wits until they were shot down with tranquilliser darts ("Incredible!") and had damn great radio collars put on them - all for their own good, of course. They might be "the largest carnivorous animals on the planet" (so where does that leave killer whales, then? They're bloody fish, are they?), weighing as much as 12 men, able to run at 25mph and allegedly capable of man-eating, but one actually found oneself feeling sorry for the poor buggers. You'd think they'd done enough to avoid being messed around by tree-huggers, wouldn't you, living at the very end of the earth in temperatures down to minus 40 degrees and surrounded by nothing but ice?
The format of the programme is simple. It's just like "Big Brother", "Celebrity Come Dancing" or "I'm a Celebrity, get me out of here!" but with animals. And celebrities.
Each week a celebrity has to champion an animal that's supposedly about to become extinct in a sort of balloon debate. The viewers can vote on which animal wins £1 million, which will probably be spent chasing it with helicopters. I expect they love it really. It's like a game to them.
For God's sake, just how low can we sink? What will it be next - "Celebrity Diseases"? Come on, viewers, phone up and vote for your favourite pestilence, and the celebrity who gets the least votes has his medication withdrawn and will probably die, although the panel of judges will all be desperately sorry and hug each other a lot (they won't hug the celebrity, of course, because he's contagious).
Anneke Rice was as annoying, naff and deeply unattractive as ever, and approached the vital issue of the survival of an iconic creature with a sense of reverence (well, she described it as "Absolutely incredible!" which is close, for someone with enough brain to fill a small spoon) and some deep scientific insights, such as "The pads", (picking up the supine bear's paw), "the pads have got a special grip on them. That's for gripping, obviously".
A thread of urgency ran through the whole show. "Time is running out", Trevor McDonald told us, "but it's not too late to make a difference". Zoe Ball added that we are "on the brink of losing some of our most iconic animals". The audience probably wondered what an "icon" was - it sounds a bit like one of those "Ibiza anthems", whatever they are. Anneke Rice chipped in with "The ice is disappearing fast, and the polar bears are going with it. No other species is more endangered". There was just time to wonder about a few other animals - there are only 1,600 Bengal tigers in the world, for instance, and there are supposed to be about 25,000 polar bears. Not quite so endangered, then.
But whichever animal does get the chop, there's no question whose fault it is, is there? "We all know the world is warming", said Anneke. "The human race is responsible".
So, for making a programme that's inexpressibly awful, totally pointless, and deeply insulting to viewers' intelligence, we are pleased to award to ITV, Trevor McDonald, Zoe Ball and Anneke Rice the joint title "Wankers of the Week".
But we haven't told you the main reason yet. The main reason is - they lied! The whole thing is a huge bloody lie! Polar bears are not in danger of extinction at all. There are loads of the evil, garbage-eating, fishy-smelling vicious brutes all over Canada, Alaska and the Arctic, and they're likely to be around for many years to come.
So, ITV, Sir Trevor, Zoe and Anneke, to your "Wanker of the Week" award we are delighted to append the title "Porkie of the Week", with ribbon and bar.
We did a quick troll round the internet, and here are a few quotations to show you what we mean ….
From The Scotsman, December 2006:
The world's polar bear population is on the increase despite global warming, which scientists had believed was pushing the animal towards extinction.
According to new research, the numbers of the giant predator have grown by between 15 and 25 per cent over the last decade. Some authorities on Arctic wildlife even claim that hunting, and not global warming, has been the real cause of the decrease in polar bear numbers in areas where the species is in decline.
A leading Canadian authority on polar bears, Mitch Taylor, said: "We're seeing an increase in bears that's really unprecedented, and in places where we're seeing a decrease in the population it's from hunting, not from climate change." Mr Taylor estimates that during the past decade, the Canadian polar bear population has increased by 25 per cent - from 12,000 to 15,000 bears. He even suggests that global warming could actually be good for the bears, and warns that the ever-increasing proximity of the animals to local communities could mean that a cull will be required sooner rather that later if bear numbers are to be kept under control.
In the northern territories, where temperatures have risen an average of four degrees since 1950, wildlife experts such as Mr Taylor say the bears have never been healthier or more plentiful.
The findings fly directly in the face of recent warnings from the scientific community on the demise of the species, with the Canadian World Wildlife Fund currently speculating that the last polar bear could vanish from the earth within 100 years.
The World Wildlife Fund, never slow to recognise the value of barefaced hysteria, state on their website: "By 2100, there may be no ice left in the Arctic in the summer" (not proven). "That means no polar bears" (doesn't follow). "Global warming" (shouldn't that be "alleged global warming"?) "- caused by fossil fuels" (no it ain't) "- is to blame" (go on, then, prove it!).
From CBC News, July 2005:
Monitoring populations is difficult because many of the world's estimated 20,000 to 25,000 polar bears live in inaccessible areas of the Arctic.
But Andrew Derocher, chair of the International Polar Bear Specialist Group, said the population of bears in the Davis Strait area seems to be doing well. "The harp seal population has increased a lot along the Newfoundland and Labrador coast," said Derocher, who is also a biology professor at the University of Alberta. "You've just got more fuel to get that population up in size."
From the website of Massachusetts Institute of Technology - a report on petroleum production in Alaska:
Over the past two decades the polar bear population has been steadily increasing, growing at more than 3% per year from 1967 to 1998, to reach an estimated number that could be as high as 2500 animals in 2001 (that's just in Alaska, obviously). In a study (Amstrup and Durner) conducted in 1995, 85% of documented deaths of adult female polar bears were a result of hunting and not of environmental changes or natural factors. Although polar bear population is nearing "historic heights" caution must be taken as "possible changes in human activities, including hunting and habitat alterations could precipitate further declines".
Toronto Star, November 2006:
Tim Flannery is one of Australia's best-known scientists and authors. That doesn't mean what he says is correct or accurate. That was clearly demonstrated when he recently ventured into the subject of climate change and polar bears. Climate change is threatening to drive polar bears into extinction within 25 years, according to Flannery. That is a startling conclusion and certainly is a surprising revelation to the polar bear researchers who work here and to the people who live here.
The evidence for climate change effects on polar bears described by Flannery is incorrect. He says polar bears typically gave birth to triplets, but now they usually have just one cub. That is wrong. All research and traditional knowledge shows that triplets, though they do occur, are very infrequent and are by no means typical. Polar bears generally have two cubs - sometimes three and sometimes one. He says the bears' weaning time has risen to 18 months from 12. That is wrong. The weaning period has not changed. Polar bears worldwide have a three-year reproduction cycle, except for one part of Hudson Bay for a period in the mid-1980s when the cycle was shorter.
One polar bear population (western Hudson Bay) has declined since the 1980s and the reproductive success of females in that area seems to have decreased. We are not certain why, but it appears that ecological conditions in the mid-1980s were exceptionally good.
Climate change is having an effect on the west Hudson population of polar bears, but really, there is no need to panic. Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear to be affected at present.
It is noteworthy that the neighbouring population of southern Hudson Bay does not appear to have declined, and another southern population (Davis Strait) may actually be over-abundant.
I understand that people who do not live in the north generally have difficulty grasping the concept of too many polar bears in an area. People who live here have a pretty good grasp of what that is like to have too many polar bears around.
This complexity is why so many people find the truth less entertaining than a good story. It is entirely appropriate to be concerned about climate change, but it is just silly to predict the demise of polar bears in 25 years based on media-assisted hysteria.
Guy Crittenden, Canadian blogger and environmental campaigner, May 2006:
Readers should take a look at Margaret Wente's column in the Globe & Mail (May 4) in which she questions (you could say "demolishes") the story about "drowning polar bears" and the idea that they're in danger of going extinct. While it's true that in some places where ice is melting bears have been adversely affected, in most areas their numbers have increased. The populations are actually thriving, in large part because of hunting legislation. Canada is home to two-thirds of the 22,000 to 24,000 polar bears in the wild, and in 11 of 13 distinct subpopulations, the numbers are stable or increasing. Over hundreds of thousands of years, the bears have survived warmer and colder conditions than those of today.
From BBC News, May 2001:
Research in the American Arctic has revealed that the polar bear and bowhead whale populations are booming after decades of decline, and part of the reason for that may be global warming. Although the long-term predictions suggest many Arctic species could be jeopardised by any continued rise in temperatures, scientists think that at the moment some animal populations may be benefiting from a slightly warmer climate.
The polar bear population on Alaska's coast has doubled since the '70s, thanks largely to a hunting ban. Researchers say they have never seen such big and healthy animals. That may be because at the other end of the food chain, plankton are thriving in warmer waters.
A team of researchers has also been monitoring the local polar bears from a helicopter. They tranquillise, weigh and tag the animals. George Durner, from the Alaska Biological Science Center, says he has never seen the bears look in such good shape. "The lengthening of the ice-free period may actually increase the amount of sunlight entering the ocean, triggering greater plant growth, plankton growth. This is the foundation of the food chain out there," he said. "Fish eat the plankton. Seals eat the fish, and polar bears feed on the seals."
Mind you, all that isn't good enough for the doom-mongers at the Independent. In September 2006 they wrote The disappearance of the sea ice in summer months is forcing hungry polar bear populations to spend longer on land, giving a false impression that numbers are increasing as they encroach on human settlements in search of food. Well, wouldn't you know? Those damn scientists can't count.
For an interesting and well-expressed discussion forum about environmental topics, including polar bears, see here.
either on this site or on the World Wide Web.
This site created and maintained by PlainSite