Royal Institution lecture hall by Abi Daker
So, pharmacy discount we all know there’s been a bit of a hoo-hah following the disclosure of some important emails that reveal that the data featured as key facts in the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report on climate change may not be 100% correct. You do know about this, search right? It’s been front page of the Guardian for a while… and perhaps more importantly it’s given all those climate change deniers out there a huge amount of grist for their petty little mill. And that really is bad news.
I haven’t been following the ins and outs of this fandango in massive detail but when my parents invited me along to this hastily convened Royal Institution lecture I leapt at the chance to perch on their infamous red velvet tiered seating amongst the great and the good (read: a mix of moneyed old fogeys with too much time on their hands and geeky young science types who would rather engage in debate than go to the pub on a Friday night).
Portraits by Amelia Gregory
We were introduced to the panel by James Randerson, prostate environment editor at the Guardian and wearer of silly striped tie. You’ve gotta love that look. It was mere moments, I tell you, before the heckling started… James put the slightly ambiguous question “Has global warming increased the toll of natural disasters?” to the panelists, which immediately prompted yelps for clarification from indignant men all around me. “Over what period of time, and what kind of cost?” asked one. (Certain men seem to get very difficult the older they get, have you noticed?) James looked sufficiently rattled – “Can we at least agree that there is man made global warming?” he asked, pleaded. “NO!” came the emphatic answer from a man with wild hair and an even wilder look in his eye, sitting just to my right. Uh oh, I was in the close company of a denialist – this should be fun! “Gosh, I didn’t think this would be so hard!” chuckled James nervously.
And then we were racing straight into the presentations, starting with leading climate scientist Robert Muir-Wood, who talked two to the dozen as he raced through slides. Since 2001 there has been huge hype over “disaster costs” with the media being “whipped into a frenzy”, and predictions of up to 500% more floods, mudslides, hailstorms, droughts, ice storms and wildfires being reported as possibilities of the near future. It’s worth noting that Muir-Wood has close links with the insurance industry, who would clearly benefit from increased premiums if the cost of disasters were expected to increase. In 2003 the French experienced “la canicule” – a summer of such intense heat (the hottest in 500 years) that thousands died. But then there was a “death deficit” in the following year. Was this because the vulnerable were looked after better or they’d all died already? Muir-Wood used this as an example of how hard it is to read and understand data without looking at the bigger picture. Another example he used is the major investments made in infrastructures over recent years; for instance Japan has thrown “huge amounts of concrete at flood defences” since 1959, when Typhoon Vera, the strongest Japanese storm in recorded history, hit its shores. Consequently the storm would have had a dramatically lower cost if it had happened today. These outlying factors make it very hard to accurately predict or assess statistics. He concluded that there is only a trend for elevated costs (of disasters) if you look at graphs since the 1970s.
Bob Ward, who works for LSE, then took centre stage to defend the IPCC. “As always there is a caveat,” he explained; “is any one event an effect of climate change? It’s so hard to match the attribution, which makes it difficult to map trends.” Behind him a slide detailed how climate change might decrease the chance of frost at night, which prompted some loud chuckles from the denialists in the audience, who as ever, seem confused by the difference between climate and weather. Bob clarified that we must look at the numbers of people affected and we can clearly see that insurance losses have risen since the 1950s which means many more people have been displaced or injured by natural events. A funny little graph proved the point that floods, droughts, storms and earthquakes have become the biggies in terms of human cost. However, there is as yet, insufficient evidence of a firm link with climate change. Naturally, the biggest losses have happened where the greatest number of people and properties have been involved.
A version of the “funny little graph” A.K.A. Extreme Weather Events & Natural Disasters, by Abi Daker (disclaimer: this may not be accurate)
And then it was time for the spanner in the works to take to the stand. Roger Pielke is a specialist in analysing how science intersects with decision making from the University of Colorado. “Uncertainty. Get used to it,” he announced. His conclusions came first and seemed to echo those of Ward’s. “Societal factors alone are responsible for increased losses,” he postulated, but emphasised that he advocates decarbonising the economy anyway because 1.5 billion people don’t have access to fossil fuels and need to find alternative energy supplies. “This could also deal with the thorny, messy climate change problem.” He then talked us clearly through his immaculate presentation, showing us that according to Excel there is no upward trend for disaster losses between 1900-2001. Yup, his graph appeared to be flatlining alright. And then we came to it: Pielke’s unequivocal evidence that despite the views of experts the IPCC saw fit to publish misleading data in its 2007 report, even alluding to his own agreement to use a problematic graph, which had not been given. “If the data doesn’t support the claim, don’t publish it!” This evinced yet more excited snorts from the denialist next to me, and when I glanced over at Bob Ward he was shifting uncomfortably in his seat. Oooooh, the graphs had been drawn and it was time for blood – sorry I mean questions – from the audience.
A lump appeared, bumping along the velvet curtains behind the stage, beating a hasty but unsubtle retreat out of the auditorium and momentarily distracting Randerson. “Are we in disagreement over the vulnerability of planet, or the process of science?” asked someone. Because actually the reason everyone had come to this lecture was to find out how the process of the IPCC could have fallen apart so dramatically. Apart from the denialists of course, and one in particular. “I am from Weather Action,” said the loudly snorting man next to me. “We are long range forecasters, and our evidence shows that CO2 does not drive climate, which has all been made up by carbon traders and fraudulent people.” In fact, according to Piers Corbyn, all extreme events are caused by the sun. All of them folks. Nothing to do with us spunking vast quantities of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. You know, I just don’t get how some humans can be so entirely arrogant, to think that our activities will never affect our fragile planet. I wonder how history will look back on people like Corbyn, who wanted to know if the IPCC could now be scrapped so we can “prepare for ‘real’ disasters?” Pielke categorically declined to engage in a debate “that can be held elsewhere” – i.e. whether climate change is happening (yawn). Muir-Wood reminded Piers that he prophezised chaotic wind storms four years ago. “We’re 85% right!” heckled Corbyn. Ward went further still. “There’s no end to my disagreement with Piers,” he said. “I don’t know where to start.” I got the impression that he’s met Corbyn before. After the debate I took a rubbishy designed printout from Corbyn (Why are spurious campaigning bodies so good at bad graphic design? It’s endemic. Please debate.) My favourite box out reads: CRUSADE AGAINST THE SCIENCE DENIERS! Print out this newssheet and show it to a Global Warmer you know and ask them: “Is all this from solar flares, to the ionosphere, the stratosphere, Scotland, China & the Timor Sea caused by driving cars?” Yup, you’re winning me over with that argument alright. (If you know what he’s on about can you let me know please? Ta.)
A disaster by Abi Daker. Which may or may not be attributable to climate change.
Muir-Wood then made a most pertinent point for a social media addict like myself, which was that the data for climate change is not static, and this is the major stumbling block of a one-off report such as that produced in 2007 by the IPCC. New data is being discovered or disproved all the time and the way in which such information is shared on a global level must become more fluid otherwise reports too quickly become outdated. Of course the internet provides the perfect forum for such an idea, and the organisation of a scientific advisory body such as the IPCC must reflect this.
Someone then raised a query about the amount of money the IPCC receives to do its work, which led to the clarification that the IPCC is run along similar lines to any academic body, with scientists contributing their time and knowledge because they think it’s worthwhile and not for financial gain. And herein lies one of the biggest problems. Whilst folks like IPCC chair Rajendra Pachauri must find work elsewhere (for Indian mining conglomerate TATA, which stands to make large sums from “climate doom scenarios”) there will by necessity be a conflict of interests. Our worthy panelists appeared to be in universal agreement that the IPCC needs to be reformed. “But it needs to cost more to do a good job,” said Muir-Wood. “The problem is that everything is done on the cheap,” agreed Pielke. Perhaps if some proper cash was spent on collecting and refining climate change data there would be less need to use “grey data” and there would be fewer mishaps of the kind that is now rocking the scientific community. It seems obvious that a lack of resources has led to corner cutting, and as Pielke pointed out there needs to be clear boundaries between producing data and giving political advice. If more money is spent on the IPCC then there will automatically be more accountability, and more trust.
By the end of this whirlwind journey into the minds of climate scientists Ward, Pielke and Muir-Wood, the protagonists seemed to be in agreement that since the 1970s there have definitely been increases in the cost of natural disasters. But a final show of hands from the audience showed that not many people (far less than at the start of the lecture) believed that global warming has increased the toll of natural disasters. I myself was part of the “don’t knows” because although I suspect it to be so, the correlation has clearly never been shown. This final moment highlighted just how much damage the revelations of the past few months have incurred; wherein people have looked at the brouhaha in the media and concluded that all scientists are liars who will happily bend the truth to suit their own means. And yes, it seems some have indeed cobbled together dodgy information, and in doing so have massively set back the most important movement of our lifetimes – 25% of the population now believes that climate change is not a serious issue, which is devastating news when we have so much work to do. If data cannot be proved then it clearly shouldn’t be used. What were those scientists thinking?
But, remember this – as Bob Ward surmised (and I’m paraphrasing here, obviously he didn’t say the t-word and all other poor language is entirely my own). “Are you willing to take the risk that climate change is all a load of old twaddle? No, we don’t know how much it will affect us or when, but affect us it will. If we do nothing we risk suffering the most serious consequences, and they ain’t pretty my friends.” Yes, human beings (even scientists) are fallible. The IPCC has made mistakes. Hopefully some important lessons have been learnt about how data is collected and presented, and what it might cost to do a good job. But we mustn’t let a tiny set-back stop us from striving for a different world, one where the battle against climate change encompasses so much more than just the environment. It’s about making the world a better place for all, and that means massive changes in how humans live.
All photographs courtesy of Andrew Wightman
Andrew is a 32-year-old accomplished illustrator who currently lives in Bude in Cornwall. After having taken a year off to restore/rebuild a derelict house, erectile he is back in business. Andrew meets up with art editor Valerie Pezeron and reflects on his successful career and the state of the illustration industry.
Valerie Pezeron: Hi Andrew, how has it been getting back to the daily grind of illustration business?
Andrew Wightman: I’ve been sending emails and got interviews…but no money yet!
VP: There is a recession at the moment and many illustrators are struggling. How has it been for you?
AW: Well, I took a year off to build a house…not from stones from the ground. An old man had lived in there and it was really in a horrendous state. It was a full-on project. I was trying to make some money on the house but it’s probably not going to happen now so I’ll see! So this is I getting back into it now, I didn’t want to just have a hammer in my hand all day long.
VP: So you’ve moved to Bude? Did you do some illustrations while in Cornwall?
AW: I didn’t know any body there before I moved! It’s good in the summer but not so good in the winter. You pay a price. I have done some new work, took the commissions that came to me but did not look for new work until now. I do think I need to spend more time doing promotion even though I can almost get by not knocking on too many doors. I’ve always wanted an agent, I think it would be a good idea but they say “Not quite right for us at the moment, thank you”. I think if you don’t have an agent and you are making money, you feel good about it because you don’t have to give them money. I have horror stories of people who have agents who got them no work at all. But all they’ve got they have to put through the agent so they have lost money. Overall though I would say I am in favour of them as they can get you work from somewhere you’ve never heard of; I’ve got friends who do work for agencies and they’re designing for this littler known Scandinavian bathroom company.
VP: What do you think of online portfolios?
AW: It’s strange how people don’t seem to meet each other anymore. When I fist left college in 2002, you would very much make calls, knock on doors and physically show your portfolio. Some of the paid ones like The Book seem to me like a con: $700 or something and no guarantee of work…
VP: Did the work you created for Amelia lead to anything?
AW: Yes. I’ve done two things for Amelia’s magazine. I got jobs doing covers for the Guardian because of that and a spread for a book publisher. Sometimes doing work for free opens doors if done selectively at the beginning of one’s career. If you are too proud to do work for free at that stage, it won’t help you. If you have a genuine artistic temperament, you should do something anyway. Even when you reach a certain level of success, you might still want to do stuff for nothing, especially if the paid work is painting something not that fun. And then you might have some outlet for it.
VP: Where did you grow up?
AW: I grew up in Scotland, in Fife. I’ve lived in a few places. I came from the top and gradually made my way to the bottom. I‘ve gotten as far away from my parents as I can! (Laughter) Where next? California? I’m going west, more sunshine!
VP: So you graduated from the Royal College of Art in 2002. And before that?
AW: I went to Liverpool Art School.
VP: Why become an illustrator?
AW: When I was young, I liked drawing.
VP: Were you one of those cool kids at the back drawing on the textbooks?
AW: Yeah, pretty much. I finished my books quite soon because all the back pages were full. I drew war and punk rockers when I was seven but I was confused, I called them Mods; I drew them with big Mohicans. I now quite like drawing old men with loads of wrinkles on them. I drew airplanes and I still do.
VP: What do you like to draw most?
AW: I like to draw buildings from above, from aeroplane viewpoints. I like to draw people as well. Now that I am in the countryside, I am about to sit down on the field and draw some hills just to see what happens. I went to the Van Gogh show yesterday and some of the landscape drawings were inspiring. There are certain things I don’t draw at all. I used to be really into fine art, the masters, but I have grown out of that.
VP: Did you always consider that you would go into art?
AW: Not really. I didn’t really know you could. Because I maybe thought you could do architecture. When I was 10, I said I’m going to be an architect. When you are at high school, you do work experience and I went to the architect office. I thought this is ok but I wasn’t that excited. I did a lot of science at school; I didn’t really do art at the end.
VP: Art education is important, isn’t it?
AW: I do think maybe you could afford to spend more time on it. When you do maths at A’ Levels, it’s so specialised! Surely we’ve done enough of adding the numbers! I’ve been worried about the arts budget being cut down in schools. I used to work for a company that did educational software; kind of like interactive computer games and we were really doing fun things for schools for all the different subjects. This is all being cut down apparently and it will be worse with the conservatives.
VP: Do you think you would have benefited from those games when at school?
AW: Not really. I don’t mind looking at really boring textbooks. My work is quite detailed and it is a reflection of the fact that I like science and facts and figures, numbers and details.
VP: Tell us about your drawing process.
AW: I just sit down and start drawing something and I’m off. I won’t think about too much and just draw a bus and then something will happen, the bus will be in context. It’s important to not sometimes think, “oh, I can’t think of anything to do, so I won’t do anything.” I use pencils, scan into Photoshop and colour digitally. I hate Illustrator.
VP: Your work would fit animation perfectly.
AW: I used to do animation. When I was at college in Liverpool, I did animation for all of my third year. I always like doing things that aren’t always stories so much but I could think of details of stuff. I would do interactive things so it was presenting a lot of information.
VP: Do you feel you fit in with a certain trend of quirky and humorous illustration/animation?
AW: I don’t, no. If I go to the degree show at the RCA, I am always a bit surprised by how many people don’t just do illustration? The animation department is quite traditional still. One of my school year mates, Rob Latimer was in that department. That department was full of little people doing great things and I kind of liked that. It always seems lately people presenting boring information in a graphical format. But that’s not interesting. Or people who have a good graphic design portfolio and then they go to the RCA and then they decide they want to become a film –maker. Of course things are not very accomplished; you graduate with a Masters Degree and you’ve done bad filmmaking. That’s a bit strange. There is not as much straight illustration coming out of there but…
VP: So content is very important to you.
AW: Yes! I did not even realise that until I got to the RCA. I would concentrate on style and textures in my paintings and then the tutors would ask me what are these for? And then I realised I should do something with them. I used the paintings like backgrounds. I spent hours on them; I like having an intense amount of details that you see for just a few seconds as if it was an animation and it gives it a sense of weight. And it is something I remembered from doing animation. You can improve an image a lot by spending five more extra minutes on it. That’s been the case with my new website.
VP: So what else did you get from the RCA?
AW: Oh, I really liked the RCA. It’s very hard to separate it from the fact that I had just moved to London to go there. It was really a honeymoon period. Everybody in your class was really into it and the standard is pretty high. With hindsight, I think one would benefit from going there after having worked a little bit so you wouldn’t take it for granted so much. I did some times: I would sit down and go “this is fantastic”. There were a lot of opportunities from outside companies to do something for free. It was a good way to do real work, to have some practice. Art school business in general is a great way to make a living; I’d love to do some teaching. I’m going to Liverpool in a couple of weeks to do a lecture with a friend of mine on our careers.
Favourite movie: Ghostbusters
Favourite TV: Nothing too intelligent
Music: Rolling Stones. I like to work in my shed in silence.
Radio: Radio 4 or clever people’s conversations. I don’t like plays on the radio.
Written by Valerie Pezeron on Wednesday February 10th, 2010 7:01 pm
Categories ,Amelia’s Magazine, ,Andrew Wightman, ,animation, ,Cornwall, ,editorial, ,Fine Art, ,Ghostbusters, ,illustration, ,illustrator, ,interview, ,painting, ,publishing, ,Radio 4, ,rca, ,Rolling Stones, ,Royal College of Art, ,The Guardian, ,van gogh