international wildlife film festival

Climate Chaos: A Sea Change in the Film Industry?

By Seonaid B. Campbell, 5-23-07

The climate is changing. Not only is Earth’s atmosphere transforming, but the atmosphere among television broadcasters like the BBC, Animal Planet, and PBS is changing too. Slowly they are admitting the necessity of producing conservation films.

At this years International Wildlife Film Festival (IWFF), the topic of an environment in crisis dominated talk between filmmakers. Ten years ago, Festival delegates may have openly discussed their deep concern for nature, but the climate within the wildlife and science film industry was inhospitable to broadcasting stories with a conservation message. The tide has turned. This year, the IWFF celebrated its 30th year by choosing a BBC film about global warming, entitled Climate Chaos, as the best of festival winner. “I think the judges were sending a message,” said Climate Chaos producer Nicholas Brown.

	New West sat down with Nicholas Brown, the producer of Climate Chaos, during the 2007 International Wildlife Film Festival in Missoula. Click here to listen in.

In what became a weeklong clarion call to filmmakers to address the global environmental crisis, writer Eugene Linden gave a keynote speech at the Festival’s Tarkio Retreat. Linden spoke eloquently about his 35-year career as a journalist for TIME Magazine, and as author of eight books on climate change, animal intelligence, and economics.

The theme of Linden’s career has been the relationship between humans and animals. It’s a relationship that requires vigilance. “You really can’t save a species once,” Linden said in reference to his 1994 TIME Magazine cover story on the endangered Bengal tiger and the continuing need for media coverage of the animal’s plight. “You write about a species for one reason in the 70’s and then it’s in jeopardy for a whole different reason in the 90’s,” Linden reflected. “The first time it’s hunting, then it’s habitat destruction, and now it’s climate change.”

	Nicholas Brown

As a journalist, Linden believes that in recent years climate change skeptics have taken advantage of the media’s misplaced sense of fairness and balance. They have given too much credit to a misinformed minority. “Scientist are pushing back,” he says. “They are going public to disavow climate change naysayers.”

One such outspoken scientist is renowned ecologist and conservationist Dr. George Schaller. Schaller attended the eight-day Festival and was honored with a lifetime achievement award. He found himself constantly engaged in conversation with filmmakers, many of whom were also scientists.

For 55 years Dr. Schaller has championed imperiled species such as the mountain gorilla and snow leopard. He’s currently at work in Afghanistan and Pakistan in an attempt to save the endangered Marco Polo sheep. Schaller has witnessed first-hand the effects of global warming on the planet. In the 1950’s he helped Mardy and Olaus Murie protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Yet, within his lifetime, Schaller has observed the melt of permafrost, glaciers in retreat, and disruption of ancient caribou migration by oil and gas development. Even more threatening, he noted, is a government unwilling to keep it’s conservation promise.

	Dr. George Schaller

“We as conservationists have largely failed,” Schaller said during his awards ceremony speech, then added provocatively, “The media has failed.” In a presentation that included both digital projection and a slide show, Schaller sharply criticized scientist and the media for their failure to adequately communicate conservation messages to the public. “There can be no neutral films,” he said adamantly. He went on to deride the Bush administration’s “war on this land” as an “orgy of environmental vandalism.”

Filmmakers in the audience agreed with Schaller, but will they take action?

If the International Wildlife Film Festival is any example of the wildlife film industry at large, the tide has, indeed, turned. In response to now acknowledged facts such as rising global sea levels, commissioning channels like the BBC and PBS, who were once wary of environmental stories, are now programming films like Climate Chaos more frequently. But it is still a battle to get these films made.

In Climate Chaos we witness extraordinary events like the Amazon rainforest on fire, hurricane Katrina, and polar bears starving on melting Arctic ice. Film, unlike any other medium, can illustrate the gravity of scientific fact. Perhaps one climate change may beget another and the media will play a more positive role in educating the public about the issues facing our planet. In part I of the series, narrator David Attenborough says, “Now, we ourselves have become a force of nature. We are changing the climate. And what happens next really is up to us.”

New West sat down with Nicholas Brown, the producer of Climate Chaos, during the 2007 International Wildlife Film Festival in Missoula. Click here to listen in. [End of article]

Well I'm about to freeze, I'm afraid my garden is going to be killed by the very low temps, and still we hear about global warming!

Seonaid Campbell's story on Climate Chaos, the film and the fact, illustrate the challenge to filmakers and the public. I hope the film makers pick up the gauntlet thrown down by Linden and Schaller. They can show on film with great depth and feeling what mere words often fail to convey.
Thanks for covering the IWFF.

Praise be, to Seonaid for this terrific story. It's heartening to see the artists of the world contributing in meaningful ways to the collective dialogue about climate change (FYI, Marion, we know that changes in weather patterns and intensifications of existing patterns are assuredly the harbingers of larger systemic change--perhaps consider this phenomenon as change rather than warming--some places are forecast to become wetter, for instance, while others drier. And, we need only look at this past winter's snowpack to see change, regardless of yesterday's storm).

Thanks for covering this story, this event, this movement--it's great to see the important stuff getting the visibility it deserves.

Yep, Dean, I understand the "climate change", I'm old enough to remember when we called them seasons, and what we have now spring. Can you imagine such naivety?

After more than 50 years of pouring who knows how many billions of dollars and countless man hours into trying to predict the weather, we still can't accurately predict it more than about 12 hours out. Yet, somehow, scientists are absolutely positive about global climate change. The arrogance is staggering.

Of course, there are plenty of scientists who have serious and legitimate questions, but most of them are now smart enough to keep their mouths shut.

FYI, I've worked in Academia my entire career and I have an intimate knowledge of what makes research, aka science, go (in case you're living under a rock, it's $$$).

Jim, your ignorance about climate science is staggering. There is a tremendous difference between weather (Is it going to rain tomorrow afternoon?) and climate (Will precipitation, on average, be lower or higher in a given region during the next century?).

Of course climate modeling isn't perfect. But the models all get tested against the past using historic inputs. Their predictions are becoming more refined all the time, and the better models all suggest warming in the near future. Some of them disagree in the details--that's not surprising, some parameters are difficult to precisely measure.

Weather, of course, is even harder to predict because we're trying to do it with higher resolution. Look at western Montana, where I live. We've got all these mountains and gaps between them to deflect or funnel in wind and storms. How can we know for sure where that rain is going to fall? It could get pushed anywhere.

Climate forecasts aren't trying to be localized, simply because they can't. There isn't enough computational power to do that, and nailing other uncertainties takes higher precedence.

I realise that people who are suggesting that climate change is a myth are just engaging in humorous sarcasm, but unfortunately there are still those among us who, being less mentally endowed, will actually believe that the climate is not changing as rapidly as it is, and will think that these comments are serious. We do them a disservice by using humour in this instance because if they do not have the ability to understand climate change or sarcasm they may believe this scepticism to be a true opinion to be valued. It could result in their not learning how to prepare and even result in their deaths. I doubt that there are seriously any people with reasoning capabilities left with any doubts about climate change, so silly statements like “it’s colder where I live” as if that refutes global warming, would be pretty dumb if not for being couched in humour. Would it not be better to start to dialogue on how individuals can prepare for climate change?

Perhaps these film makers would be so kind as to include this infromation from Russia. http://www.russia-ic.com/news/show/4043/

>>>>>>>
Sun’s Luminosity Fluctuations Discovered 28.05.2007

Russian scientists from Main astronomy observatory, located in Pulkovo near Saint Petersburg, have discovered bicentennial cyclic changes in Sun’s luminosity, which they consider to have essential effect on Earth’s climatic changes.

Researchers have no doubt that for the last two thousand years there exists a direct relationship between bicentennial cyclic fluctuations of Sun’s luminosity and global changes in Earth’s climate. Studies of 11-year and bicentennial cyclic variations of Sun’s luminosity showed 11-year cycle having almost no effect on Earth’s climate change due to World Ocean’s thermal inertia.

However, bicentennial luminosity variations of our Sun affect not only Earth’s climate, but are responsible for simultaneous climate warming on Mars and other planets. The pattern discovered allows making forecasts about possible global cooling in the middle of the current century, cause by the natural drop in solar radiation intensity.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Stuart, it is an old and childish ploy to try to shut up those who disagree with you by trying to pretend that the other side have to be less intelligent than you. That shoudl keep them shut up huh?
There is not only disagreement whether the temps of right now are really different than a previous time, and if they are that anyone is going to stop changes. I hope you had a chance to read the information put out by Micheal Griffin head of NASA today about this very thing. I suspect his credentials would be sufficient to allow him to at least speak.
This global warming thing has been a very interesting thing, I can't remember a time when discussion on an issue was not allowed, and anyone who did was immediately accused of being stupid, uninformed, or worse. The issue is never brought out in the open and discussed, that is simply not to be allowed. Stuarts comment is intended to do just that, stop all discussion.
Please remember that the ability to measure temperature on a worldwide scope is very, very recent, and I would suggest it is changing every day. I really do not think you or anyone is able to accurately determine the weather, climate or anything else for all eternity based on a few years.
One thing never taken into consideration by those who consider what they say to be a clsoed book is a natural event. I, of course am aware such a thing can happen because of my close proximity to Yellowstone NP, which is a huge caldera. I suspect that might have a tiny impact on the weather that you seem to think only mankind can control. But I won't be around to say told you so if it does blow during my lifetime.

I'm sorry Marion but I would expect the head of NASA to know as much about the weather as the president of Ford knows about changing a tire. Probably nothing in either case. There are those in NASA who do think we have a problem.
It's not that any one of the events that are taking place now could not be natural. Actually they are all natural. After all the climate is a natural thing. We too are natural and we influence our suroundings just as the birds and grasshoppers and locusts do. No argument on the idea that climate is natural and that climate events are natural. The thing that has me and a 'few' others concerned is the speed with which some changes are taking place.
It seems that the natural changes are accelerating. Even if we humans are actually not responsible we are still going to have to try to survive these changes and most of us won't. I sincerely hope that we are at fault because if we are then we have some chance of , not fixing, but at least reducing it. If we are not respoimsible of if we are too late to try then we and most other species on the planet are doomed. You are right, I do have good reasoning skills but I suspect you do too. Much of what we think seems to depend on input. I admit I do spend a lot of time researching what is being said and by who. I just recieved a response yesterday to a very sharply worded email to the USGS because they ask on their pages "Are Earthquakes More Frequent?" Well are they? They are the one's who are supposed to know. According to my web page charts derived from the USGS data they are becoming more frequent or intense but if the USGS data is faulty as they suggest then the charts are rubbish. The response to my email ducked the question.

Just happened to see this after commenting on NASA leader. Very dificult to weed out the reliable data.
Earth's Climate Approaching 'Tipping Point', According To NASA </releases/2007/05/070531073748.htm> (May 31, 2007) -- NASA and Columbia University Earth Institute research finds that human-made greenhouse gases have brought the Earth's climate close to critical tipping points, with potentially dangerous consequences ...

Stuart, everything that supposedly points to climate change is actually ancdotal. There are no records from even 100 years ago that can actually be compared to all of the computerized data of today. Let's face it the information that is fed in is the information that comes out. I remember that everyone expected the fallout from the A bomb to destroy the world too, but it survived to produce more dictators, and more technology and the means to feed more people.
We are talking about trying to make changes to industry that can well cause widespread starvation of humans. The desire to control everything, including nature is totally out of control, and is going to cause a lot of harm to lots of folks. I believe in taking care of our resources, but also in using them. Only allowing technology to develop are we going to fidn things to supplement the natural resources we have.
I saw an example of how science can be skewed last year. I saw some folks putting up a little fence in a meadow near Norris geyser basin in Yellowsotne. Being nosy, I asked them what they were fencing, the said they were doing a study on the effects of elk urine and bison urine on the grass/ground. My next question was how did they get the urine, well guess what they don't chase the animals around with a bottle, they make up the urine out of chemicals in a lab. Yep custom designed urine! I'd almost bet that when the study is done it will show a benefit from buffalo (the in animal right now), and a detriment from the elk, making it a good thing that the elk numbers are down significantly.