of those who went to wildphotos, just wondering what everyone thought. i didn't know what to expect, having never been before.
it was a rolercoaster of emotions for me, one minute i was visualising throwing all my gear away thinking we are all banging our heads against a wall, and the next minute i was grasping the enthusiasm and drive of some of the speakers and planning my next trip with these things in mind.
some very entertaining, funny speakers, and excellent cameraderie from chris packam.
highlights for me were robert glenn ketchum, frans lanting, doug allan and paul nicklen. absolutely amazing to hear how ketchum is warring on the conservation front and what he is acheiving. frans lanting. genius.
also, it was interesting to see the portfolios of the winners etc of WPOTY. it's good to appreciate that the images seen in the exhibition are part of complete bodies of work, not just one off great images, and are a reflection of months and years of dedication to the work.
also a good place to have conservations with people. i heard several people mention in conversation that they were involved with researchers in the field that there will be ABSOLUTELY NO summer polar ice within 30 years. very scary.
what do others think?
mark
Posted by Peter Barritt on October 28, 2007 at 1:55 PM
similar Mark. I loved the photographs and there were superb speakers. I adore Frans Lanting's work so it was great to see him in the flesh. I was completely bowled over by The Hard Rain's Gonna Fall. Sort of reassuring that most prizewinners had been doing nothing but for the past 20-30 years.
The Global Warming angle I felt slightly browbeaten with at the end of 2 days. Personally I think global warming might be great for nature. Nature is suffering because there are too many human beings IMHO. I can't believe that no-one sees this as the primary problem. I've been banging on about this for 40 years.
I came away with a lot of stimulating ideas and a lot of useful contacts, particularly a software coach and a new agent. well worth the trip.
Peter
yes peter, browbeaten and depressed. i feel knocked out today. i was a global warming sceptic until this weekend.
but like you say, too many people is the problem and however much we make carbon controlling measures, we are a small blip on the big picture, and the many many developing nations do little or nothing to control industrial growth.
i feel it's good that this is on the agenda for everyone and that even if GW is a natural process and not human induced, many ecosystems will have benefited from our behaviour under this phenomenon.
oh meant to say hi too, i spotted your name badge but either you or i were engaged in conversation whenever i saw you.....
Posted by Paul Gibbs on October 29, 2007 at 3:20 AM
Hmm not wanting to side track the conversation, i didnt attend the event, but there are still many professional climatologists who are not 100% sure if we are causing it or if it is part of natural cycle which we may (or may not) be accelerating.
Posted by Andy Astbury on October 29, 2007 at 5:26 AM
I didn't attend - but I'm going to make a point of doing so next time.
Peter, I don;t think Polar Bears would quite agree with you on that score at the moment
On the topic of global warming (whatever it's cause) I remember seeing a doco a couple of years ago that mentioned something I've not heard since; if the polar ice continues to melt and pump fresh water into the arctic ocean the Gulf Stream would be pushed deeper and further south, resulting in a cooling and re-icing of the arctic region. It seemed to make perfect sense at the time.
Global warming IS a natural occurence - it has to be, otherwise our climate would be on a constant seasonal cycle but would change little overall - ice-ages come and go and like most things in nature, general climate swings back and forth like a slow pendulum.
But the keyword there was slow - this bout of GW is happening very rapidly; too rapidly if you ask me, for it to be purely a natural event - in the very distant future geologists will be able to find very little evidence of it, stratigraphicaly it'll be thinner than the KT boundary
We might be on a natural warming cycle, but if we are, then we are deffinately giving it one heck of a helping hand.
But when a female Polar Bear leaves her den in the spring, cub in tow, to find that an ice shelf she's always known is not there anymore then all I've got to say is - that's not natural
Posted by Peter Barritt on October 29, 2007 at 5:45 AM
Yes I'm not defending the idea that global warming isn't happening and will be bad news for polar bears, but the root cause of wholesale natural habitat destruction is unbridled human population growth. By obsessing about carbon prints we are in danger of missing the point IMHO.
Posted by Andy Astbury on October 29, 2007 at 2:22 PM
Couldn't agree more Peter, you are 100% correct in what you say.
And the demands of that population too - the powers that be wanted eco-friendly bio-fuel, and what do we get, more habitat destruction thru oil palm planting right up to zero headlands in uk farming because they all want the returns on rape and bloody sunflowers.
It'll only stop when someone has the brass whotsits to slam the brakes on - we should, as a species, know by now that we can't have our cake and eat it, afterall it was us that came up with the saying, so why can't we heed our own words??
Why - because it's all down to politics and money at the end of the day, and the perversity of that sub-world became truely apparent when carbon emmissions became a viable commodity on the international stock markets; yes I know folk would trade their own granny for a few quid but that is truely ridiculous, and in reality only serves to perpetuate the emissions problem - if emissions stopped over night companies would lose billions.
Welcome to the human race
Posted by Matt Doggett on October 29, 2007 at 6:17 PM
I could only attend the event on the Friday but found it extremely inspiring despite some of the negative sides to being a conservation photographer (pardon the pun). I looked out for you Mark as I wanted to talk more about u/w kit (close to affording it following my competition win) but unfortunately did not see you.
As a scientist myself it was also refreshing to hear so many non-scientists realising and acknowledging the problems we are facing today and trying to do something to educate people.
Those that constantly cast doubt on topics such as climate change are against the vast majority of the science community but only doing what science is all about - questioning other scientists and theories.
Fair enough, but things are changing faster than ever before; weather patterns, temperatures, CO2 emmisions, extinctions, habitat destruction etc. Those that put their heads in the sand are asking for trouble. Ecologists suggest something very sensible called "the precautionary principle", i.e. let's try and change our ways before it's too late. Maybe nothing would have happened but changing our ways can't hurt. The alternative is to do nothing and risk heading for catastrophic ecosystem change and/or failure. Unfortunately some politicians latch onto the precautionary principle regarding invasions of other countries but I shall not digress to that topic on this forum!!!
Posted by writepic on October 30, 2007 at 10:19 AM
ah matt, shame we didn't meet up, never mind, next year!!!
interesting points made on this topic so far. the overriding feeling that i've got is that we are too late to reverse polar ice trends....most government emission targets don't kick in until 2020, and some very convincing predictions are estimating no summer ice by 2027. no ice also means a dissapearance of many species that make it home, including those big white fluffy wildlife icons that help us keep the publics imagination on our side.
Discussion
9 replieshi all,
of those who went to wildphotos, just wondering what everyone thought. i didn't know what to expect, having never been before.
it was a rolercoaster of emotions for me, one minute i was visualising throwing all my gear away thinking we are all banging our heads against a wall, and the next minute i was grasping the enthusiasm and drive of some of the speakers and planning my next trip with these things in mind.
some very entertaining, funny speakers, and excellent cameraderie from chris packam.
highlights for me were robert glenn ketchum, frans lanting, doug allan and paul nicklen. absolutely amazing to hear how ketchum is warring on the conservation front and what he is acheiving. frans lanting. genius.
also, it was interesting to see the portfolios of the winners etc of WPOTY. it's good to appreciate that the images seen in the exhibition are part of complete bodies of work, not just one off great images, and are a reflection of months and years of dedication to the work.
also a good place to have conservations with people. i heard several people mention in conversation that they were involved with researchers in the field that there will be ABSOLUTELY NO summer polar ice within 30 years. very scary.
what do others think?
mark
The Global Warming angle I felt slightly browbeaten with at the end of 2 days. Personally I think global warming might be great for nature. Nature is suffering because there are too many human beings IMHO. I can't believe that no-one sees this as the primary problem. I've been banging on about this for 40 years.
I came away with a lot of stimulating ideas and a lot of useful contacts, particularly a software coach and a new agent. well worth the trip.
Peter
yes peter, browbeaten and depressed. i feel knocked out today. i was a global warming sceptic until this weekend.
but like you say, too many people is the problem and however much we make carbon controlling measures, we are a small blip on the big picture, and the many many developing nations do little or nothing to control industrial growth.
i feel it's good that this is on the agenda for everyone and that even if GW is a natural process and not human induced, many ecosystems will have benefited from our behaviour under this phenomenon.
mark
oh meant to say hi too, i spotted your name badge but either you or i were engaged in conversation whenever i saw you.....
Peter, I don;t think Polar Bears would quite agree with you on that score at the moment
On the topic of global warming (whatever it's cause) I remember seeing a doco a couple of years ago that mentioned something I've not heard since; if the polar ice continues to melt and pump fresh water into the arctic ocean the Gulf Stream would be pushed deeper and further south, resulting in a cooling and re-icing of the arctic region. It seemed to make perfect sense at the time.
Global warming IS a natural occurence - it has to be, otherwise our climate would be on a constant seasonal cycle but would change little overall - ice-ages come and go and like most things in nature, general climate swings back and forth like a slow pendulum.
But the keyword there was slow - this bout of GW is happening very rapidly; too rapidly if you ask me, for it to be purely a natural event - in the very distant future geologists will be able to find very little evidence of it, stratigraphicaly it'll be thinner than the KT boundary
We might be on a natural warming cycle, but if we are, then we are deffinately giving it one heck of a helping hand.
But when a female Polar Bear leaves her den in the spring, cub in tow, to find that an ice shelf she's always known is not there anymore then all I've got to say is - that's not natural
And the demands of that population too - the powers that be wanted eco-friendly bio-fuel, and what do we get, more habitat destruction thru oil palm planting right up to zero headlands in uk farming because they all want the returns on rape and bloody sunflowers.
It'll only stop when someone has the brass whotsits to slam the brakes on - we should, as a species, know by now that we can't have our cake and eat it, afterall it was us that came up with the saying, so why can't we heed our own words??
Why - because it's all down to politics and money at the end of the day, and the perversity of that sub-world became truely apparent when carbon emmissions became a viable commodity on the international stock markets; yes I know folk would trade their own granny for a few quid but that is truely ridiculous, and in reality only serves to perpetuate the emissions problem - if emissions stopped over night companies would lose billions.
Welcome to the human race
As a scientist myself it was also refreshing to hear so many non-scientists realising and acknowledging the problems we are facing today and trying to do something to educate people.
Those that constantly cast doubt on topics such as climate change are against the vast majority of the science community but only doing what science is all about - questioning other scientists and theories.
Fair enough, but things are changing faster than ever before; weather patterns, temperatures, CO2 emmisions, extinctions, habitat destruction etc. Those that put their heads in the sand are asking for trouble. Ecologists suggest something very sensible called "the precautionary principle", i.e. let's try and change our ways before it's too late. Maybe nothing would have happened but changing our ways can't hurt. The alternative is to do nothing and risk heading for catastrophic ecosystem change and/or failure. Unfortunately some politicians latch onto the precautionary principle regarding invasions of other countries but I shall not digress to that topic on this forum!!!
ah matt, shame we didn't meet up, never mind, next year!!!
interesting points made on this topic so far. the overriding feeling that i've got is that we are too late to reverse polar ice trends....most government emission targets don't kick in until 2020, and some very convincing predictions are estimating no summer ice by 2027. no ice also means a dissapearance of many species that make it home, including those big white fluffy wildlife icons that help us keep the publics imagination on our side.
lets hope this winter is bloody cold!!!
mark