Climate craziness of the week – the last one, really!

The Telegraph goes full stupid with this headline. The craziness is that this photo essay has to be done every year, a point apparently lost on both the Telegraph and the photographer.

image

And one wonders, does she realize that before 2003, icebergs existed? It’s a thought of Titanic proportions.

Too bad nobody got photos in 1922.

Oh, and that famous Mawson expedition repeat, iced out. Oh, the ironing.

h/t to reader J Orendorff

About these ads

86 thoughts on “Climate craziness of the week – the last one, really!

  1. How ironic that “icebergs” actually reflect growing, not shrinking glacial systems. A receding glacier… well, simply recedes. Only a growing glacier calves off icebergs. Morons, all….

  2. Reminds me of a movie. What was it? Oh yeah, the Last Emperor. Maybe the Telegraph should be working for Hollywood. Then again, they do at least have Chris Booker and James Delingpole to add some balance. Or should I say, heap contempt?

  3. “Oh, the ironing.” lol

    I went to her site. There are some really nice pictures. I don’t get the whole “Last Iceberg” thing though. Seems like just a clever name for her series rather than anything real.

  4. Where are the drowning polar bears and starving penguins? Nice photographs that are ruined by moronic warbling from the photographer. The heat up and down at the poles must be unbearable with all of that red temperature GISS graphic melting everything.

  5. Thank goodness we have James Delingpole to strike back against the nonsense of climate change, renewable energy, the EU, the UN, the IPCC, the Government corruption etc.

  6. I for one applaud this peerless pioneer for recording these gentle giants before they are destroyed by .038% of the atmosphere.

    I also appreciate her letting us know that the massively humid arctic has been getting drier due to global warming, which is destroying the ice, while the increased moisture in Antarctica, due to global warming, is also destroying the ice. It makes perfect sense if you don’t think about it.

  7. To quote her directly.

    “A lot of people look at them and get sad thinking they will disappear forever one day,” said Camille. “I don’t think that is the case and I want people to appreciate what we have right now instead of thinking about anything that we are losing.”

    She says very clearly “I don’t think that is the case”. What are you complaining about?

  8. The Last Iceberg? Bwaa ha ha ha!

    Can anyone think of a dumber title? Actually, I guess someone has: The Last Snowfall. Though that was offered as a thesis rather than a title.

    Steeptown, I say it every day, Thank Goodness for James Delingpole.

  9. She is just a fount of wisdom and priceless one-liners:

    “Every iceberg I have photographed no longer exists,” explained Camille, “they have melted away…

  10. Maybe she means “the last iceberg I’ve photographed.”

    Sort of like how software engineers mention we fixed the last bug. We can’t prove there isn’t another bug (there likely is), but we can prove that’s the last bug we’ve fixed (until we find and fix the next bug).

  11. “The Last Iceberg”
    Perhaps she means the last iceberg you see if, during winter in the southern hemisphere, you go to Antarctica and travel north. After about 1 or 2 thousand miles, you will eventually come to “The Last Iceberg” and reach ice free waters.

  12. Camille Seaman doesn’t seem to know if her a– h— has been punched or bored from the inside or outside. What really gets me though is how in the world a newspaper such as The Telegraph can print junk like that. No wonder newsprint-producing mills are shutting down everyday – how wants to read stuff like that !!

  13. Beautiful photos. But I presume she can only get credibility and sponsorship for her (global warming inducing) flights by making the link to disappearing glaciers, and recording something for our grandchildren. Otherwise, she would be just another tourist, and that’s self-indulgent excess that will destroy the planet.

  14. Camille Seaman is completely clueless. Can she tie her shoes all by herself? What really gets me, though, is how in the world a newspaper such as The Telegraph will allow itself to print that junk. No wonder newsprint-producing mills are shutting down everyday – who wants to read stuff like that !!!

  15. Just so you know, I got the “Oh the ironing.” (What a catastrophe, yawn, now where did I put the ironing board?) The only memorable line on this whole page (and I am absolutely sure 97% of your readers missed it).

  16. Meanwhile down in the cold deep south of Antarctica a giant iceberg, the size of Luxemburg that would make the Titanic look like a microscopic dot, is preventing adventure tour vessels from reaching Commonwealth Bay to mark the centenary of Douglas Mawson’s first Australian-led expedition to the southern continent:

    http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-news/giant-iceberg-blocks-mawson-centenary-tours-20111222-1p69z.html

    Or so the story goes.

    Perhaps you can decipher the sea ice situation yourself here:

    http://www.bom.gov.au/tas/inside/amc/satindex.shtml

    No prizes for guessing what would be copping the blame if sea ice conditions were much better for the tour vessels than when Mawson arrived a 100 years ago.

  17. Camille says in a caption, “The Arctic is warmer, drier and has less ice, and the Antarctic is warmer and has more precipitation, which down there, becomes snow.” And snow becomes what, Camille? How does she go to the Arctic and Antarctic every year? Who pays? Why? Just think of the wasted fossil fuel carrying her toches (tukas) from pole to pole. Ironing indeed.

  18. @ Leon Brozyna says:
    December 22, 2011 at 10:25 am

    She is just a fount of wisdom and priceless one-liners:

    “Every iceberg I have photographed no longer exists,” explained Camille, “they have melted away…
    =================================================================

    Funny how that works. Every icecube I put in my whiskey also no longer exists. They have all melted away. ;)

  19. How DARE she emit so much CO2 In pursuit of this fraudulent propaganda tale??

    She should stay at home living on her vegetable garden while minimizing her “carbon footprint”

    Doesn’t she know the entire planet is in grave peril??’

  20. “the personality of each huge ice block. Above entitled ‘Overturned Iceberg [Giant Blue Snow Cone]‘in Qassiaruug Greenland”

    I’m betting that Mann just can’t wait to get his hands on Seaman’s upside down Snow Cone data!

  21. “overturned iceberg” …

    does anybody has any idea what Miss (Mrs.?) Seaman might want to say by that title ?

    tia ,,,

  22. “A lot of people look at them and get sad thinking they will disappear forever one day,” said Camille. “I don’t think that is the case (What? That they don’t get sad or the bergs won’t disappear?) and I want people to appreciate what we have right now instead of thinking about anything that we are losing.” (What? Losing icebergs? Yeah, right. Wonder how many ship Captains worry about that? Sure is something I think about everyday. /sarc)
    “…Otherwise you lose track of what we are trying to preserve. (What – exactly – is that, WE are trying to preserve?) My work is an historical document that captures the poles as they have been.” (Got news for you Camille – you’ve taken some really good pictures of icebergs. You haven’t “captured” the poles.)

    Camille is a great photographer. But nothing more than a “wanbee” hero of the environmental movement and just one more money grubber ripping off the poor saps that buy into the whole climate change caused by humans hoax, just the same as the guy that runs around photographing the receding glaciers around the world, including Mt. Hood. What a joke – on the masses of the world. As bad as anything anyone on “Wall Street” has ever done – or didn’t do.
    BH

  23. People who think ice has a personality generally don’t think humans have personalities.

    People who think ice is precious and fragile generally don’t think humans are precious and fragile.

    It’s a reliable pattern. Love ‘humanity’, hate humans. Love ‘the Planet’, hate the world.

  24. Beautiful pictures, but the captions the captions are so nauseating I want to puke.

    If she doesn’t believe that icebergs will disappear forever, then how exactly is this The Last Iceberg?

  25. David Suzuki is selling Elf-Sized Hockey Sticks

    Everyone knows how hard it is to adjust to life in a new town. Santa’s Elves will need to make new friends wherever they land, and the easiest way is to join the local shinny hockey game. That’s why Santa needs to stock up on elf-sized Hockey Sticks. Only 25% of the size, but 100% of the
    fun.

    http://wherewillsantalive.ca/?utm_source=AdaptiveMailer&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Holiday%20email%203&org=408&lvl=100&ite=120&lea=651020&ctr=0&par=1#cart%5Bhockeysticks%5D=1

    I bought one and had it delivered to Al Gore’s office. Ha Ha Ha.

  26. Meanwhile in the southern hemisphere, a tour icebreaker taking people to Mawson’s hut had to turn back 200kms short of its landfall because of sea ice.

  27. I’m afraid the Telegraph lost the plot some time ago. Yes, they have Christopher Booker on Sundays and James Delingpole on a blog, but the mainstream thrust of the paper is firmly CAGW. Didn’t Vaclav Havel speak out against this nonsense recently? You would not have known from the long and detailed obituary in the Barclay Brothers’ Beano. Not a mention.

  28. M.A.Vukcevic says:
    December 22, 2011 at 11:19 am
    “The UK ‘Climate Change’ minister just said on CH4 News that UK solar panel industry is ‘out of control’.”

    No doubt he will take full responsibility and none of the blame or punishment, the default position of all contemporary government bureaucrats including presidents.

  29. mike fowle says: December 22, 2011 at 12:13 pm

    I’m afraid the Telegraph lost the plot some time ago… Didn’t Vaclav Havel speak out against this nonsense recently? You would not have known from the long and detailed obituary…

    No please. It’s Vaclav Klaus, who is still alive and kicking.

    However – ALERT folks – Amazon UK has NO mention of Klaus’ book Blue Planet in Green Shackes – at least not in English though Amazon UK have it in German, Italian, Spanish, Czech, Polish, French and Dutch.

    WUWT?? Is Amazon UK also part of the Inquisitional Index, along with Grauniad, BBC etc?

  30. When The Telegraph has its “Last Headline” we will no longer have to put up with this kind of journalistic drivel & nonsense.

  31. @ Leon Brozyna says:
    December 22, 2011 at 10:25 am

    She is just a fount of wisdom and priceless one-liners:

    “Every iceberg I have photographed no longer exists,” explained Camille…

    Yep, I have that problem photographing clouds, too… :)

  32. “A lot of people look at them and get sad thinking they will disappear forever one day,” said Camille

    Very few people actually ever see a real iceberg. They’re not in a very populated part of the world. And a fair number that see them regularly probably would like them gone, since they are a major issue for sailors.

    The greenies have the world upside down entirely. Who cares if poley bears die out, really? Or there are less icebergs? What matters is the environment outside our doors. We need to all fight to preserve our local environments, and leave other people to fight for theirs.

    (BTW Camille, there is nothing intrinsically beautiful about a bit of ice floating in water. We are being conned into pretending that they are a majestic piece of the world, when they are just large lumps of ice floating in cold water. Despite what you think, they don’t “stand” for anything other than an inhospitable climate.)

  33. Theo Goodwin says:
    December 22, 2011 at 12:21 pm

    As well as yours Sir … take full responsibility and none of the blame or punishment, the default position of all contemporary government bureaucrats including presidents. Very well put as other posts by you here – So Thank You!
    BH

  34. • • Lucy Skywalker says:
    December 22, 2011 at 12:50 pm

    WUWT?? Is Amazon UK also part of the Inquisitional Index, along with Grauniad, BBC etc?

    Don’t know about Amazon UK (Amazon.com appears not to be) but I know most travel guide books are.

    Lonely Planet always have a segment about Climate Change and how air travel is “the fastest growing contributor to the problem” and that is why they support carbon offset programmes.

    Moon Handbooks go even further. Their handbook on Tahiti (Sixth Edition) has a long alarming section on climate change stating that:

    “the gravest danger facing the atolls of Oceania is the greenhouse effect… due to fossil fuels.”

    “A 1982 study demonstrated that sea levels had already risen 12 cms in the previous century and that over the next century air temperature may rise 5 deg C and sea levels could go up 95 cms by 2100.”

    “Increasing temperatures may already be contributing to the dramatic jump in the number of hurricanes in the South Pacific.”

    “ by 2080 the water temperature may have increased 5 deg C effective bleaching and killing all of the regions reefs.”

    “As storm waves wash across the low lying atolls eating away the precious land the entire populations of archipelagos such as Tuamotus and Northern Cooks may be forced to gradually evacuate long before they are actually flooded.”

    “Unfortunately those responsible for the problem, the industrialised countries led by the United States (and including Australia) have long resisted taking action to significantly cut greenhouse gases..”

    Etc, Etc.

    I emailed Moon Handbooksquestioning how they could make such outlandish statements in a travel book without providing more positive evidence. I received a curt reply telling me that this was the state of the overwhelming majority of scientific opinion.

    Wonder what the “overwhelming majority of scientific opinion” will be in 2050 and what
    Moon Handbooks will be saying and whether by then Amazon UK will still be on the “Inquisitional Index”.

  35. Lucy,
    I bought Blue Planet in Green Shackles by Vaclav Klaus twice from amazon.com in the US.
    The fact that it doesn’t appear in English on the British Amazon site is, indeed, telling something.

  36. Ice is NOT sustainable.

    Er,…well, if it melts just to refreeze, thats a pointless outcome.

    Either Melt and stay water, or don’t melt and stay frozen.

    If Earth insists on wasting gigatonnes of the Suns energy, in this silly planned obsolescence ICE industry, then Mankind will HAVE to fight back.

    Lets occupy the poles, and send a message to the Sun, its tyranny will not be tolerated.
    We’ll set up a really inclusive human megaphone method for communicating, and just to ensure we don’t add to this foolish melting, we’ll wrap ourselves in layers of Tinfoil and polar fleece.

    Take that main sequence Star, so called ‘SOL’, if that really is your real name.

  37. I think I will have an adult beverage on ice just to commiserate with our melting endangered icebergs…..hoist a glass to their fate.

    Some fitting words:

    Water to water, ice to vapor, may they dissolve in peace…to come again in another season far, far away as islands for birds, refuge for polar bears, water for deserts, RIP.

    *No magic hat required.

  38. @Harry Dale Huffman says: ( to the effect that 97% of WUWT readers don’t Get It.) I say:
    The sentient rate of the readers hereabout runs more nearly 97% than 3%. Likely Watts was doing a play on the word “irony”. Ya think?

  39. Another caption:

    Camille, who visits both poles every year.

    That pegged my BS meter as well. Been to the South Pole? Every year?

    Caption continues:

    The Arctic is warmer, drier and has less ice, and the Antarctic is warmer and has more precipitation, which down there, becomes snow.

    Antarctica has the driest place on Earth. Some places haven’t seen rain in over a million years.
    Antarctica is the coldest place on Earth. At almost 90°C below zero at Vostok. (you know; where they drill for ice cores.)

    Why is such nonsense published? Think of the children.

  40. I appreciate that my work has stirred so many of you to comment. I ask how many of you have seen what I have or been where I have? I welcome a dialogue with any of you to stop hiding behind your anonymity on the web and step forward and place a name and face with who you are, what your accomplishments and experiences have been before you try to criticize my efforts. It is so easy to hide behind your keyboard.
    The Last Iceberg is not ever intended to have been a literal title but more a statement. That things do end, that there is a finite quality to all things. I never tried to be anything but an artist. In my talks I never mention climate change or global warming. I simply speak of how amazing our planet is, how lucky we all are to have such a remarkable place, and that maybe… if you could step away from your electronic devices long enough you might actually appreciate this planet for all that it gives us.
    You can (and I am sure you will) say what ever you want about me and the work I have done. It will not stop me from doing what I love.
    As for the photoshop comments. Travel with me and see for yourself, the amazing colors that exist without any manipulation required.
    Sincerely, Camille

  41. Trying to preserve icebergs is like trying to preserve ice cubes in your (insert favourite tipple). If they hadn’t broken free from a glassier they would not exist and trying to keep them attached would be an interesting exercise in futility.

    James Bull

  42. mike fowle says:

    Didn’t Vaclav Havel speak out against this nonsense recently? You would not have known from the long and detailed obituary in the Barclay Brothers’ Beano. Not a mention.

    I know it’s hard, but get this: there are 2 (TWO!) Czech presidents named Vaclav. One is/was Havel, non-violence guru and ex-poet. Warmist. The other is Klaus, fire-breathing economist and CAGW excoriator. Still kicking, vociferously.

  43. noaaprogrammer says:
    December 22, 2011 at 10:37 am

    “That picture has been photoshopped. The iceberg is way too blue for the surrounding gray sky.”

    Perhaps not:

    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/blue-icebergs.shtml

    That said, it is very tempting for photographers to boost saturation for a more eye-catching image. So though a blue sky appears to be unnecessary to get a blue iceberg, it’s possible that the photo as published is more blue than the original capture.

  44. For all the negative attention that report is getting, if you actually flip through the photos and read the captions, the photographer actually mentions “I don’t think they’ll disappear, …”

    Beautiful photos, I’d love to go take a trip to the poles to watch those bergs calve off the ice sheet.

    - MDCCLXXVI

  45. Also, icebergs do indeed have a very blue color beneath the ice.

    I have witnessed this in the southern tip of Chile, South America. It is actually quite remarkable color. I spent hours watching a glacier (Glacier Gray) in overcast skies. Everything shades of gray and white under the overcast sky … Except the side of the glacier where the blue was quite radiant.

    We never know what is photoshopped anymore, but some glaciers do indeed have a strong blue radiance without the help of the sky above.

    -MDCCLXXVI

  46. There’s no such thing any more as a brilliant photographer, only brilliant cameras. It’s quite incredible what a modern camera can do – all you have to do to get brilliant images is understand your settings a bit, buy a set of super-lenses, and point the things on ‘repeat’. I’m a pro sports photographer btw.

    Camille’s work is not only adding to pollution at the poles, it’s encouraging tourism with all the attendant human and packaging wast that brings. She goes twice a year? Shame on her

  47. The photos are magnificent.

    I, for one, am glad that someone of her talent is down there photographing such majesty.

    It seems a little strange that so many in here will comment on something without doing any reading, simply assuming everyone is against us.

    I feel we do ourselves some disservice by such hasty responses.

  48. Camille, thank you for posting here. Perhaps you will stay and dialogue a bit. You stated…” I welcome a dialogue with any of you to stop hiding behind your anonymity on the web and step forward and place a name and face with who you are, what your accomplishments and experiences have been before you try to criticize my efforts. It is so easy to hide behind your keyboard.”

    Your reaction appear to me to be over defensive. Most posters here are very open about who they are etc. All have valid e-mail addresses as it is blog policy. Many have extensive travel experiences as well as very extensive educations. At any rate most here are not being critical of yu, but of how your work is being portrayed, starting with the title; “Explorer Camille Seaman visits the Arctic and Antarctica to photograph The Last Iceberg” This reminds them of the entire abuse of the polar bear issue, and the lies perpetuated on how “endangered” they are when most of the polar bear populations are growing. The entire issue of CAGW is a hot button, so when your work is used to promote an agenda that is destructive to billions of people on this beautiful planet, then people react. You see Camille, many here are convinced the CO2 is good for the biosphere. We claim (with thousands of experiments and hundreds of studies to back us up) that CO2 is responsible for every crop in the world currently growing 10% to 15% more then it otherwise would. We also think that the warming caused by CO2 is mostly beneficial, not catestrophic, and far less then the IPCC projects. Many here are deeply against the one world goverment plans promoted by the IPCC , the UN and other agenda 21 advocates.

    So even though you say you personally do not mention climate change (CAGW) in your talks, your work is being used to promote it here. For instance, “…Camille, 42, fears these unique, almost alien, natural features will soon become a thing of the past. “I have seen enormous physical changes at both the Arctic and the Antarctic,” said Camille, who visits both poles every year. “The Arctic is warmer, drier and has less ice, and the Antarctic is warmer and has more precipitation, which down there, becomes snow.” You need to realise that the Antarctic is not warmer, except the peninsula, and read of the deep flaws in the Steig study. The causes of loss ice in the artic are many, wind /ocean current being the primariy driver, and thewse are likely cyclical in nature, and very likely beneficial.

    This statement also indicates a conjecture of CAGW, “From icebergs that tower 150ft above the water and 800ft below, to icebergs the size of London suburbs, Camille’s photography is incredibly particular. “Every iceberg I have photographed no longer exists,” explained Camille, “they have melted away…”
    So yes Cammile, people here do not like natural beauty being used to promote bad science, and far worse social policy. But we are happy to discuss such issues with most anyone. Forgive the typos, in a rush this am and no time to proof or edit.

  49. “I have never seen the same two break off the same way or collapse into the water the same way.” (#4)
    Anyone capable of such solecisms should remain silent, as they remove all doubt.

  50. This woman is clearly in the pay of BIG ICE when you are alert to the Google Ads accompanying the article-

    Ice Makers & Ice Machines
    All Brands of Ice Makers for Sale rent, lease. Also ice maker repairs
    http://www.icemakers.com.au

    You’re not fooling us for a millisecond Camille baby.

  51. Aww – c’mon mods! I am now extremely curious as to the comments you’ve found necessary to be snipped by our Yahtzee* friend! LOL
    * – In our neck of the woods, yahtzee is a colloquial derogatory term for cheap stuff – often far eastern cr@p!!

    [Reply: He called other commentators "denialists". ~dbs, mod.]

  52. Camille Seaman says:
    December 22, 2011 at 11:03 pm

    Perhaps you don’t realise how much the AGW alarmist type scam and headline use has affected our world either? Seriously, there has been far too much BS on the subject and media propaganda – and, moreover, a large number of bandwagon jumpers. It would be nice to think that you may not be one of those, but sadly, skepticism runs deep, especially after all the BS we have had to wade through. FYI, a good majority of skeptics are former believers – but took the time to investigate, rather than simply to rely on media peddled ‘stories’ and ‘headlines’. The majority of skeptics look only at the science, not the belief……Hence, the skepticism you endure is not necessarily personal, just an almost automatic response to such things as a title ‘The Last Iceberg’ !
    Same can be said for the photoshopping – all the many false images produced have resulted in a natural skepticism of any image (think of adverts!)! Granted it’s not your fault, but thats the way it is! Please accept that people do not like those that cry wolf too often and it reflects (unfortunately) on genuine folk too! Your annoyance could also be directed at those who have created this situation, rather than ‘us’, who have simply been forced down the skeptical route…we are not nasty folk, just not very trusting!

  53. “As for the photoshop comments. Travel with me and see for yourself, the amazing colors that exist without any manipulation required.
    Sincerely, Camille”

    From her FAQ on her own website: I do very little to my images. In fact not much at all beyond Burning and Dodging (making areas darker or lighter). I sharpen and thats about it. I use NC film because it gives a true neutral color without over saturating the color; I sometimes de-saturate to be as true to what I felt I saw as possible.

    Burning, dodging and de-saturation is image manipulation. Before uttering an absolute you should check yourself to make sure it is correct.

  54. Deborah December 23, 2011 at 8:09 pm

    You may just want to read that statement once again, Deborah, adn think about what she says:

    Travel with me and see for yourself, the amazing colors that exist without any manipulation required.
    Sincerely, Camille

  55. Camille Seaman says:
    December 22, 2011 at 11:03 pm
    I appreciate that my work has stirred so many of you to comment. I ask how many of you have seen what I have or been where I have?

    Your obvious disdain for the sources of criticism is ill conceived. There are at the very least one or more of us who have seen and been to the Arctic and/or the Antarctic in addition to many other exotic locales around the Earth. I’m a former Air Force meteorologist who served in the Cold War era, when we conducted operations in the Arctic and Antarctic. Willis Eschenbach is an adventurer and sailor with experiences no less death defying than those of Steve McCurry or Paul Fusco. He can regale you with stories ranging from the Gulf of Alaska to New Guinea. Other contributors in this forum have their own remarkable life stories in odd places and tumultuous circumstances. So, any efforts you might make to trump this forum’s commentary upon a basis of greater experience is not going to work out very well at all.

    I welcome a dialogue with any of you to stop hiding behind your anonymity on the web and step forward and place a name and face with who you are, what your accomplishments and experiences have been before you try to criticize my efforts. It is so easy to hide behind your keyboard.

    You’ve taken the first step towards engaging in a dialogue by posting a comment in this forum. Unfortunately, in your very understandable desire and effort to protest some of the more egregiously inaccurate comments, you have contributed your own misconceptions to the debate, such as deprecating the anonymity and potential experience of the commentators and contributors. Some commentators need to post anonymously, because the proponents of the Climate Change political movement censor discriminate against, will not hire, and will fire anyone who disagrees with them. If you’ll spend some time in the forum, get to know the participants and their backgrounds, and use Sturgeon’s Law to sift the comments, you’ll likely discover these people have an extraordinary ability to contribute insights and research to science and the community. Far from hiding behind a keyboard, many of these people are on the frontlines of discovery and service to the community, with and without anonymity.

    Given the general background of your work, the titles you selected, and your artist statements, you have created an impression, accurate or inaccurate, that you are supportive or even a promoter of the “Climate Change” political movement. Consequently, the seasoned participants in this forum are going to tend to be doubtful until proven otherwise when you say “ I welcome a dialogue,” because so many prior supporters of the Climate Change political movement ultimately did not welcome such a dialogue at all. Instead, they simply propagandized and left the forum without being responsive to the debate. You’ll earn respect by being constructively responsive to criticism, and demonstrating respect towards the commentators, especially when they get something wrong and apologize.

    The Last Iceberg is not ever intended to have been a literal title but more a statement. That things do end, that there is a finite quality to all things. I never tried to be anything but an artist. In my talks I never mention climate change or global warming. I simply speak of how amazing our planet is, how lucky we all are to have such a remarkable place, and that maybe… if you could step away from your electronic devices long enough you might actually appreciate this planet for all that it gives us.

    For what it is worth or not, you may want to take heed and understand how your attempt to be “an artist” with your titles and commentary has communicated, unintentionally or not, a presumptuousness and false apprehension of what other people do and do not appreciate about “this planet.” You do not need to “mention climate change or global warming” to promote them with your commentaries about your work. The choices you make in phrasing can communicate an attitude.. The phrasing “if you could step away from your electronic devices long enough you might actually appreciate this planet” was especially offensive in the way it implies and/or assumes your critics do not and have not been away from electronic devices and keyboards “long enough you might actually appreciate this planet.” To set the record straight, you are talking at some people who were traveling around and appreciating the planet long before you were born. Many of these people appreciated the planet and its raw beauty when a telephone on a party line at the drug store in and American town with a two digit telephone number and a named exchange. Computers were just being invented and delivered in their first dozens, and their electronic circuits used vacuum tubes and plugboard programming. You have made some very fine images. It is very unfortunate that you did not let the images speak thousands of words for themselves and in their true context, rather than attempt to impose your own interpretation with text which some critics could be accurate in finding were inconsistent with reality.

    You can (and I am sure you will) say what ever you want about me and the work I have done. It will not stop me from doing what I love.

    Without taking a position for or against your participating in eco-tourism in the polar regions, don’t you think it is perhaps a bit over the top in hypocrisy at first glance for people who champion conservation of what are claimed to be a fragile ecology and melting sea ice vital to the survival of the planet’s biosphere to then use icebreakers to smash that sea ice on a regular basis for tourists who want to do what they love? You do know how polynya form and what their effect is upon seawater temperatures and formation of open waters in the sea ice? You have to admit the contradictions, apparent or real, inherent in the what you say invite comment, do they not?

    The critical commentators were not necessarily saying they wanted you to stop you from doing some very fine photography or exercising free speech. Neither do they want you and/or any promoters of the Climate Change political movement to censor their free speech, tax their property, forcibly indoctrinate their children in government schools, or otherwise stop them from doing the legitimate and reasonable things they love to do, including living and breathing free of a socialist Green genocide dwarfing Mao’s Cultural Revolution. If they happen to perceive or suspect that you use your fine photography to promote a political movement they suspect may be akin to genocides killing tens of millions of human beings, are you really going to fault them for their concerns, or allay their concerns? It comes down to what you as an artist wish to communicate and how well you communicate it.

    Take for example your artist’s statement about The Last Iceberg: “These images were made in both the Arctic regions of Svalbard, Greenland, and Antarctica.” Your statement is inaccurate, because your inclusion of Antarctica and an Arctic region is factually wrong. The Arctic is only a geographic region at the Earth’s northern axial pole, while the Antarctic is located at the Earth’s southern axial pole. The Arctic is so named because it is derived from the stellar constellations at the northern pole, Ursus Major and Ursus Minor. The etymology of Arctic comes from Ursus at the northern pole. By definition, the Antarctic is the exact opposite of the Arctic. Again, the photography is beautiful on its own merits. Don’t be surprised if and when your statements communicate something which is at odds with and detracts from the merits of the photography.

    As for the photoshop comments. Travel with me and see for yourself, the amazing colors that exist without any manipulation required.
    Sincerely, Camille

    Yes, the colors can be quite amazing by eyeball, film, or digital sensor. Nonetheless, the public has been hoodwinked so many times with a Photoshop edited polar bear on an ice floe, flooded housing, and so much more, you can’t blame them for at least being suspicious. I always thought it was incredible that Greenland actually appeared to be green at times, as we flew over the mountains and above the glaciers. You would get a high pressure air mass over the area, clearing the clouds away. The winds scoured snow from areas of the ice, and the sunshine shone back from from the ice with an aqua green color, making the continent truly a Greenland. Somehow, I was never able to get an opportunity to properly photograph it, being in an aircraft. It would still make an interesting picture.

    I like the contrast range you succeeded in capturing from the icebergs, as much as or more than the magnificent blues you captured. It would be interesting to see how much of that translated onto paper in my Epson 9800 and 7800 printers.

  56. markx says:
    December 23, 2011 at 3:44 am
    [....]
    It seems a little strange that so many in here will comment on something without doing any reading, simply assuming everyone is against us.
    [....]

    Don’t you think “everyone is against us” when everyone makes us pay income taxes? After all, don’t you realize almost no one paid income taxes before Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s Administration? You’re not paranoid when people really are out to get your money, and perhaps you (s).

  57. This guy’s similar, as a go-to guy for multimedia presentations in the “crusade against climate change.” I noticed him at a photography master class and he gave his website, so I visited and found stuff like this:

    http://timmatsui.photoshelter.com/gallery/Kivalina-AK-Native-Village-Sues-Oil-Companies-for-Climate-Change/G0000hifxiQYSVRg/

    So many otherwise fine people with creative minds and artistic vision are taken in by the NGO gravy train. The wonderful photographer and writer David Duchemin is another that comes to mind. What a waste!

  58. It’s good to see that most of the comments here refrain from attacking the photographer directly, instead pointing to the editorial slant of the coverage linked. As she pointed out, Seaman does not explicitly mention “global warming” or “climate change” on her site, although having been so conditioned by the constant bombardment of the media, government agencies and schools, the reader’s mind will likely drift in that direction and make related associations.

    Camille shoots a wide format Fuji, a Rolleiflex, and Leicas with Kodak film. I like her for that. Hope she will be able to match the colour curve of the new Portra films to the Portra NC stock she is used to working with. I hope Kodak film will remain available for decades to come.

  59. Pelicanman says:
    December 25, 2011 at 8:27 pm
    It’s good to see that most of the comments here refrain from attacking the photographer directly, instead pointing to the editorial slant of the coverage linked. As she pointed out, Seaman does not explicitly mention “global warming” or “climate change” on her site, although having been so conditioned by the constant bombardment of the media, government agencies and schools, the reader’s mind will likely drift in that direction and make related associations.

    The actual associations are more direct than you know.

    Camille shoots a wide format Fuji, a Rolleiflex, and Leicas with Kodak film. I like her for that. Hope she will be able to match the colour curve of the new Portra films to the Portra NC stock she is used to working with. I hope Kodak film will remain available for decades to come.

    Sadly, Kodak is fading away before our eyes. Shares of Kodak were trading on the stock market last year in the $4.00 range. This year Kodak shares are trading less than $1.00 and has gone down to less than half of a dollar. Kodak is now a pennystock, and financial analysts are concerned about the company’s continued survival and potential for bankruptcy in 2012. Other analysts dismiss the potential for bankruptcy and cite a multi-billion dollar portfolio of patents as the reason why Kodak should escape bankruptcy in 2012. Nonetheless, there are expressions of concern in the financial media for Kodak’s ability to remain listed on the stock exchanges. As camera stores and film processors close their doors and go out of business, Kodak continues to lose sales revenue from those former customers. Photographers still using large format, medium format, and 35mm format film are finding increasingly difficult to maintain relationships with local professional laboratories. The nearest camera store stocking large format and medium format film is now more than sixty miles away, and they have it only because they are among the largest camera stores catering to professionals.

    The large professional film scanners are the next threatened technology.

  60. It’s beginning to look like Camille’s “I welcome a dialogue” statement may have amounted to no more than a rhetorical flourish?

    It would have been interesting to discuss the influence a Blue Earth Alliance photographer has upon the current state of the science.

  61. D. Patterson says:
    December 26, 2011 at 3:33 am

    As a member of the I Shoot Film group on Flickr we discuss related issues all the time. The next domino to fall could likely be movie film, since theaters already use digital projectors and a whole crop of younger movie makers has never worked extensively with film. I rue the day film goes away, if not simply because the older cameras are still so wonderful. Electronically-controlled digital cameras with electronic brains are less “sustainable” than a solid, mechanical film camera.

    All that’s off topic, but it would sure be nice to have Camille turn that cameo into a real visit and discussion by returning.

  62. Pelicanman says:
    December 27, 2011 at 1:36 am

    As a member of the I Shoot Film group on Flickr we discuss related issues all the time. The next domino to fall could likely be movie film, since theaters already use digital projectors and a whole crop of younger movie makers has never worked extensively with film. I rue the day film goes away, if not simply because the older cameras are still so wonderful. Electronically-controlled digital cameras with electronic brains are less “sustainable” than a solid, mechanical film camera.

    All that’s off topic, but it would sure be nice to have Camille turn that cameo into a real visit and discussion by returning.

    I wouldn’t say it is entirely off topic, because of the impact the Climate Change political movement is having upon Photography and Cinematography. A lot of photographers doing their own darkroom work have been running into the controversies surrounding the disposal of their chemistries. In an EPA report in 1994, they were discussing their grand plans for central planning of the entire photofinishing industry, including amateurs. They duscussed how they really did not want to acknowledge the industry experts findings that the silver coming from the silver halide processes presented no harm to human health.

    United States Environmental Protection Agency; Policy, Planning, and Evaluation (2125). Sustainable Industry: Promoting Strategic Environmental Protection in the Industrial Sector. Phase 1 Report. Photoimaging Industry. EPA-230-R-94-007, jUNE 1994

    I agree about the electronic cameras being more problematic in some respects. The inability to invest in a comprehensive system of expensive lenses and expect to use them with the next generation of camera bodies is of special concern. I reinvested and reacquired a large number of the Minolta manual focus cameras because I’ve always loved using them (SR-T, XK, XE-7….) and because of the lens KIT I put together over the years from the 7.5mm fisheye to the 1600mm mirror telephoto. I haven’t had anywhere near enough opportunity to shoot my Graflex 4×5 the way I wanted. Now I have to worry whether or not the fillm availability will last longer than I and my photography will.

    I really enjoy my Knoica Minolta and Sony DSLR cameras for their wonderful color and contrast range, but they are more limited in handling and lens choices in some respects which annoy. In fact, the automated features just seem to get in the way at times. I was photographing a B-17 making passes over the runway, and I had to fight the lens focusing system which didn’t like the guy wires and a post in the field of view. I was also using a good old-fashioned manual focus 100-500mm zoom as well, and breathed a sigh of relief when I shifted to it and got the shots I wanted and was missing medling with the autofocus-manual focus features of the DSLRs.

    It gets irritating at times to see the youngsters playing with the Red One and taking the 4K cinematography and non-linear editing capabilities so much for granted. Naturally, they don’t want to hear about what we had to sacirifce just for opportunity to shoot a Bolex 16mm production or an Arriflex 35mm production. Now I have reels of original Hollywood motion picture and television camera film negatives, and none of the universities or other organizations will admit to having the facilities to inspect the film properly.

    Another aspect of the Climate Change poliitical movement’s impact upon Photography and Cinematography is their domination of the markets. When you look at the publications that are using Camille’s works, they are overwhelmingly dominated by publications touting their commitment to combating Climate Change, Global Warming, and so many other projects heartwarming to such political groups. You have to wonder how much of the current publications market would be open to a photographer with a reputaton as a Skeptic of the Climate Change political movement? There have already been major producers and distributors in Hollywood who have made statements to the effect they would never knowingly allow any of their projects to hire a Republican or conservative. They made it very clear it was a closed shop to anyone who didn’t meet their criteria for political loyalty. So, what publications are still receptive to photographers who don’t want their works used to promote the Climate Change and similar political agendas?

Comments are closed.