Saturday, 3 April 2010
Sunday, 31 January 2010
Climate Change - Faith or Fiction?
Articles in Sunday Teleraph 31 Jan 2010
I have felt for many years that there was something particularly questionable around the certainty over the climate change ( or, global warming as it was previously labelled) theory, and also, particularly unnerving about the way in which the certainty about the science was portrayed. Without doubt the climate is a fantastically complex system with millions/billions of variables that interplay in a way that obey the laws of nature in a chaotic way. It has been the dream of man since the origins of intelligence that we have tried to make sense out of this chaos, and in prehistoric times we would have invented faceless gods with exotic names to account for the conditions, and have attributed their wrath to our deviant behaviour. As science progressed and we began to predict the rising of the sun, the changing of the moons phases, and the turning of the seasons, the faith based approach become more "scientific" and independently verifiable. We can predict the rising of the sun, the lunar eclipse - we know it is not a god blanking out the sun in anger,- the movement of the planets with such great accuracy that it is evident that we understand the science.
When it comes to climate science our scientific arrogance has got the better of us, and ironically we have regressed into a group mindset that convinces us that our modern deviant behaviour - our obsession with living - is bringing the wrath of the climate upon us. We all appear to be completely seduced by the absoluteness of the science perpetrated by the "scientists" ( the equivalent of the prehistoric high priests) preaching to us "believers" that if we do not take action now, and change our ways into a life of complete frugality then untold catastrophre will be brought on to us - and it is almost too late. The voices from the scientists, the politicians, the celebrities who all will have their own particular agenda ( none of them will be 100% altruistic) is bordering on "Trust me, Believe in me, I'm telling you of things for which you cannot contemplate". And in this context any non-believers are ridiculed, and undermined. So much of history repeating itself.
...and when we see that the scientists are flawed, the edifice begins to crumble...
So now is the time for common sense, right thinking, reasonable people to come to the fore and discuss the issues openly, without fear of ridicule, and for all of the "high priests" to be held to account.
The case begins to crumble:
Relevant article by Jemima Lewis - re: relying on scientists
I have felt for many years that there was something particularly questionable around the certainty over the climate change ( or, global warming as it was previously labelled) theory, and also, particularly unnerving about the way in which the certainty about the science was portrayed. Without doubt the climate is a fantastically complex system with millions/billions of variables that interplay in a way that obey the laws of nature in a chaotic way. It has been the dream of man since the origins of intelligence that we have tried to make sense out of this chaos, and in prehistoric times we would have invented faceless gods with exotic names to account for the conditions, and have attributed their wrath to our deviant behaviour. As science progressed and we began to predict the rising of the sun, the changing of the moons phases, and the turning of the seasons, the faith based approach become more "scientific" and independently verifiable. We can predict the rising of the sun, the lunar eclipse - we know it is not a god blanking out the sun in anger,- the movement of the planets with such great accuracy that it is evident that we understand the science.
When it comes to climate science our scientific arrogance has got the better of us, and ironically we have regressed into a group mindset that convinces us that our modern deviant behaviour - our obsession with living - is bringing the wrath of the climate upon us. We all appear to be completely seduced by the absoluteness of the science perpetrated by the "scientists" ( the equivalent of the prehistoric high priests) preaching to us "believers" that if we do not take action now, and change our ways into a life of complete frugality then untold catastrophre will be brought on to us - and it is almost too late. The voices from the scientists, the politicians, the celebrities who all will have their own particular agenda ( none of them will be 100% altruistic) is bordering on "Trust me, Believe in me, I'm telling you of things for which you cannot contemplate". And in this context any non-believers are ridiculed, and undermined. So much of history repeating itself.
...and when we see that the scientists are flawed, the edifice begins to crumble...
So now is the time for common sense, right thinking, reasonable people to come to the fore and discuss the issues openly, without fear of ridicule, and for all of the "high priests" to be held to account.
The case begins to crumble:
- evidence of potential manipulation of data in emails from the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit
- Retraction by the IPCC over claims over Himalayan glacier melting by 2035 - known to be flawed but still kept in the report.
- The so-called "hockey stick" chart produced by Michael Mann, and pedalled by Al Gore has been proven to be incorrect
- Many instances of proven errors in Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" - film that tells of impending doom.
- UK Met Office continuing failure to predict short term weather conditions
- Dr Pachauri - Head of IPCC, amongst many, who have links with organisations that benefit from promoting th Climate Change theory. Al Gore, has strong links with an organisation that profits from carbon offsetting arrangements.
- The IPCC, in their report accept that they do not understand the implications of atmospheric particulates and clouds.
...and the list will continue to grow. In the face of this, and more, we are still told to "Have Faith" - the end of the world is nigh!
Relevant article by Jemima Lewis - re: relying on scientists
Tuesday, 26 January 2010
"I'm a Photographer, not a.................."
In the UK at the moment there is a groundswell of reaction against new legislation and the way that it is being enacted and policed; at times it's considered to be over-vigilant on photographers. There are a number of anecdotal examples of regular members of the public who are innocently photographing buildings only to be approached by the police, on the premise that they may be a "terrorist" or someone with dubious intentions. After all why would you be taking that particular picture......? Which brings me to the broader philosophical question of the reasons, justifications and motivations for taking pictures.
I am a totally amateur photographer, and I don't sell my pictures and a perusal of my portfolio on my Flickr page will give an indication of the range of situations that I prefer to capture. I have been approached on a number of occasions as to what I am doing and why I am doing it, and when I confirm that no money is involved, and bearing in mind I do have a good quality camera ( Canon 50D) and an expensive lens ( Canon L series), then I am met with a range of emotions from consternation, through to suspicion.
So why do we take photo's - there are some simple reasons -snapping pictures on holiday, of the kids, family, social events etc, so armed with a "point and press" then the motivations are clear - simply capturing the moment with no complication. At the other end of the spectrum, a professional photographer who is being paid to take photographs of whatever description is also very clear, and quite often will come with a "Press Pass". This card becomes most important when trying to get access to restricted areas - the card signifies and explains one's raison d'etre. There is no question. It gives credibility and legitimacy, the purpose is understood.
In my case I do not fit into either of these camps. My preferred subject for photography is political events - marches, demonstrations which in a number of cases have involved violence between the group involved and the Police. So if I'm prepared to put myself in this position, why am I doing it? What is the ultimate aim? Why am I treated with suspicion? In some cases if I had a straighforward camera then I would be considered to be part of the general "snapping" public. - a nuisance perhaps, but at least I would be perceived not to have an agenda.
My camera equipment has worked in my favour on many occasions where the authorities assume that I am part of the Press, and therefore access is allowed, and for a short while the implied legitimacy is bestowed upon me. This can become something of a disadvantage when in some of the more difficult situations, where the crowd become rather camera shy - so suddenly the Press Photographer becomes a "force for evil" , the piercing "eye of the world" with a forensic memory for images. A weapon so powerful that it is to be feared and represents a threat against the criminal's freedom. ...and now the subject of potential violence both to man and equipment. Now in the eye of the perpetrator, the photographer has indeed become the terrorist - terrorising the criminal's right to proceed without being "seen".
....so when all is reflected upon, at least the guy being paid to be the "photographic terrorist" is recognised, and understood - for me, I'm neither one thing, nor the other, its almost more suspicious and insidious, an implied higher, devious cause, a hidden agenda that people can't quite work out, that casts one into a curious twilight world.
I am a totally amateur photographer, and I don't sell my pictures and a perusal of my portfolio on my Flickr page will give an indication of the range of situations that I prefer to capture. I have been approached on a number of occasions as to what I am doing and why I am doing it, and when I confirm that no money is involved, and bearing in mind I do have a good quality camera ( Canon 50D) and an expensive lens ( Canon L series), then I am met with a range of emotions from consternation, through to suspicion.
So why do we take photo's - there are some simple reasons -snapping pictures on holiday, of the kids, family, social events etc, so armed with a "point and press" then the motivations are clear - simply capturing the moment with no complication. At the other end of the spectrum, a professional photographer who is being paid to take photographs of whatever description is also very clear, and quite often will come with a "Press Pass". This card becomes most important when trying to get access to restricted areas - the card signifies and explains one's raison d'etre. There is no question. It gives credibility and legitimacy, the purpose is understood.
In my case I do not fit into either of these camps. My preferred subject for photography is political events - marches, demonstrations which in a number of cases have involved violence between the group involved and the Police. So if I'm prepared to put myself in this position, why am I doing it? What is the ultimate aim? Why am I treated with suspicion? In some cases if I had a straighforward camera then I would be considered to be part of the general "snapping" public. - a nuisance perhaps, but at least I would be perceived not to have an agenda.
My camera equipment has worked in my favour on many occasions where the authorities assume that I am part of the Press, and therefore access is allowed, and for a short while the implied legitimacy is bestowed upon me. This can become something of a disadvantage when in some of the more difficult situations, where the crowd become rather camera shy - so suddenly the Press Photographer becomes a "force for evil" , the piercing "eye of the world" with a forensic memory for images. A weapon so powerful that it is to be feared and represents a threat against the criminal's freedom. ...and now the subject of potential violence both to man and equipment. Now in the eye of the perpetrator, the photographer has indeed become the terrorist - terrorising the criminal's right to proceed without being "seen".
....so when all is reflected upon, at least the guy being paid to be the "photographic terrorist" is recognised, and understood - for me, I'm neither one thing, nor the other, its almost more suspicious and insidious, an implied higher, devious cause, a hidden agenda that people can't quite work out, that casts one into a curious twilight world.
Monday, 25 January 2010
English Defence League demonstration 23 Jan 2010
The Stoke demonstration had the opportunity to be riding off the back of the wave of general disgust over the proposed march through Wootton Bassett of Anjem Choudary's Islam4UK. A highly insensitive, but no doubt very calculated, publicity stunt which fuelled the latent concern within the population around Islamic Extremism ; this represents a fragile and difficult middle-ground between genuine concern over potential criminal activity and blatent racism. Undoubtedly for most right thinking people, including the Muslim community within the UK, the extremist behaviour would not be considered acceptable to the extent that it incites hatred and creates unnecessary differentation and segregation. Straying off this important path into unbridled and basic racism is the flaw in the position of the English Defence League.
There were over 700,000 people who signed up to the Facebook campaign against the Islam4UK march, which must be an unprecedented number of followers, especially gained in such a short period of time. Whilst the sentiment of this group is wholeheartedly to recognise the significance of Wootton Bassett as an icon of mournful respect for a fallen soldier, the direction of the disgust has chimes with the espoused philosophy of the EDL. I say espoused, in that the website tries to portray a legitimate angle - non-racist, against extremism and Sharia Law, full support of the army in Afghanistan - all very passable if expressed in an appropriate manner. This is where the EDL "theory" is not borne out in practice.
The demonstration in Stoke started like all the previous ones, that I have observed, in a Wetherspoons pub in the centre of town. I'm not sure of the connection between Wetherspoons and the EDL but it is a common link. By all accounts the violence and general unrest started well before the published start time. By 2pm when most of the EDL ( and the vast majority are white males anywhere between late-teens and early fifties) had had a few pints, they were spilling onto the main street and was very much good natured, and noisy. The EDL have typically been very antagonistic to photographers but early on, at least, none of this was evident.
There were a number of people there who were expressing a genuine, heart-felt view around immigration and the general deterioration of the ability of people to feel comfortable about expressing their Englishness and celebrating English culture. These were very much in the minority.
At about 2.30pm the crowd moved up from the pub to a small car park area, ostensibly for a series of speeches - this did not last very long before a big proportion of the EDL decided that they wanted to march - in the direction of the Town Hall where the UAF et al had congregated. This was the point at which the demonstration deteriorated into a conflict with the police who were trying to maintain law and order. I have read a number of posts about the antagonism of the police - this was not the case - the EDL could have conducted all of their business within the cordoned off area. The clear intention was to create trouble. In addition to the obligatory violence I witnessed on a number of occasions Asian people being verbally abused in a racist way. Again, this is not necessarily the majority but it was accepted as part of the banter of the group. One lad came up to me as I was taking photographs suggesting that I was going to portray them all as racists - I quipped that I was only going to show what I saw.
Later on as the violence escalated, people started getting hurt, bottles were hurled at the police (including the photographers) as well as coins, bricks, planks and any other loose object. It was then the turn of the police vans. The hooligan element finally began to take control and they were subsequently let loose on the rest of the city centre much to the dismay of the Saturday afternoon shoppers. At this stage, a number of them turned on some of the press - it is at this stage that the EDL become most camera shy. A sub-set of the EDL made there way through the centre into the outskirts to seek out the Asian community - without doubt, with only one thing on their mind.
Whilstever the EDL's simplistic philosophical stance is mixed up with underlying racism and supported by frustrated football hooligans, then each event will get progressively worse. Sadly there seems to be an endless supply of youths out for a fight, and an endless supply of people who naively believe that they are joining a legitimate demonstration and a worthy point of view - this is the same naivety that results in people voting for the BNP. There is a vain hope that the EDL's self-fuelled incompetence will be its own bad publicity and downfall...and hopefully well before the General Election such that the naive many do not get seduced by this thinly veiled racist politics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
