PetaPixel

Portraits of Scared Scientists Seek to Drive Home the Critical State of Climate Change

climateheader

Photographer Nick Bowers, Art Director Celine Faledam and Copy Writer Rachel Guest have teamed up to bring attention to the issue of climate change in a completely novel and frankly terrifying way with their portrait/interview project Scared Scientists.

The title, in a way, says it all. Rather than bombarding you with obscure facts and figures or showing you photographs of receding glaciers, they focus on the scientists themselves.

Bowers takes moody, dark, black-and-white portraits of the scientists and those portraits are then put up on the Scares Scientists website alongside a short interview with each of these climate experts — an interview headlined by their credentials and their greatest climate change fear.

Tim Flannery; Fear: Disruption of Global Civilization

Tim Flannery; Fear: Disruption of Global Civilization

For Bowers — and, in fact, for some of the scientists interviewed and photographed — the project has always been about his children. More specifically, his daughter:

“I was inspired by my 3-year-old daughter and the future that she will inherit,” he told us over email. “I
constantly hear the word “wealth” and the importance of passing this on. I’m inspired to pass on a better, more sustainable future.”

As for the photographs, his goal was to show them as individuals separate from the scientific realm they so often speak for and represent. “I wanted to portray the humanity and vulnerability of the scientists,” he explains.

Judging by the photographs below, we’d say he achieved his goal:

Will Steffen; Fear: Loss of Control of the Climate System

Will Steffen; Fear: Loss of Control of the Climate System

Lesley Hughes; Fear: Species Extinction

Lesley Hughes; Fear: Species Extinction

Sarah Perkins; Fear: Increase in Extreme Weather Events

Sarah Perkins; Fear: Increase in Extreme Weather Events

Matthew England; Fear: Climate Induced Global Conflict

Matthew England; Fear: Climate Induced Global Conflict

Shauna Murray; Fear: Reaching the Four Degrees of Warming

Shauna Murray; Fear: Reaching the Four Degrees of Warming

Peter Macreadie; Fear: Global Catastrophe

Peter Macreadie; Fear: Global Catastrophe

Penelope Ajani; Fear: Unknown Repercussions of Climate Change

Penelope Ajani; Fear: Unknown Repercussions of Climate Change

To learn more about Scared Scientists, read each of the interviews, or find out how you can take action to help avoid the troubling future these individuals fear, head over to the project’s website by clicking here.

(via Lost at E Minor)


Image credits: Photographs by Nick Bowers and used with permission


 
  • JohnGa1t

    But it does appear to have stopped the warming. None since 1998 (or 1995 if you remove El Niño)

  • JohnH

    If you think science is “politics”, go elsewhere. Seriously, just f**k off. Please die, too, if you can manage it.

  • Jim. D.

    Ooooh! Scary B&W pictures don’t alter the fact that they are all in it for the money.

  • Skeptic

    This is the funniest thing I’ve read in ages.

  • Skeptic

    Ad hom stereotyping. If anyone is anti-science it’s the alarmists as can so easily be demonstrated. Let’s have a full on no holds barred debate about Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming shall we?

  • Skeptic

    Show me the facts

  • Skeptic

    and yet here we are with over 17 years of warming hiatus

  • Skeptic

    Read ‘TIME’ from 1972

  • Skeptic

    How do you account for the divergence between the proxy and actual data and how do you justify Mann’s methodology? Please go into detail

  • Skeptic

    Tell me more about this ‘universal acceptance’?

  • Skeptic

    You’re projecting

  • Skeptic

    It’s 98% now is it? And where are you basing that claim from?

  • Skeptic

    I doubt any of these people are doing real science

  • Skeptic

    Elaine you do realise that All those books you suggest to read have been thoroughly debunked. I bet you haven’t read that though have you. I bet you haven’t read anything apart from ‘Approved Reading materials of the Politburo’ – You are too close minded to realise that everything you are saying applies to you and not those you target.

  • Patricia Shannon

    1. It is a fact of physics, discovered more than 100 years ago, that certain gases in our atmosphere, principally CO2, have the greenhouse effect, allowing infrared waves to pass thru. When these waves hit matter on the earth, they are transformed to heat. The greenhouse gases block much of the heat from escaping. Like the glass on a greenhouse or a greenhouse. If we didn’t have any greenhouse gases, the earth would be frozen. Notice that the moon is the same distance from the sun, and is very cold.
    2. It is a measurable fact that human activity, esp. burning of fossil fuels has caused a large increase in the amount of these gases.
    3. It is a fact that the average global temperatures have been increasing for decades. If they were not, that would be surprising and would need to be explained. I am 68, and I have personally observed that the southeast U.S. has been warming. Very low temps, like 3-4 F, that used to happen every 3-4 years now occur so rarely that young people have never experienced them.
    4. The frequency of extreme weather events has been increasing, as predicted by computer models of the physics.
    5. The amount of moisture in the air has increased, as expected from warming oceans and air, resulting in both increasing droughts and increasing severe flooding when the air comes in contact with cooler air.

  • Patricia Shannon

    Time is not a science publication.

  • Patricia Shannon

    The warming has not stopped. The rate of increase of warming of the atmosphere slowed. We are in the phase of several climate cycles that are normally associated with cooling temps, but it has continued to warm. And the oceans have continued to warm, causing sea levels to continue to rise.

  • Patricia Shannon

    Some fossil fuel companies pay people to post climate change denialist comments in places like this.

  • Wayne Bruce

    Mmmmm, so you know enough about climate science to understand concepts of proxy data and Mann’s methodology yet you haven’t heard of the 98% consensus? Sorry, now I am convinced you are being paid to lie on here.

  • Skeptic

    You fail on both points. The so called 98% consensus has been thoroughly debunked. And I can guarantee you 100% that I’m not paid by anyone to speak the truth. Shall we talk about climate sensitivity?

  • Skeptic

    So? They were quoting scientists. Or isn’t that allowed by the thought police?

  • Skeptic

    1. Carbon Dioxide is essential to life and is currently at dangerously low levels. It’s at 400 parts per MILLION. And yet you want to ascribe to it the properties of a blanket. I pump 1200 parts per million into my greenhouse and warm it – yet it still doesn’t retain the heat over night
    2. They’ve gone from 350 parts per million to 400 parts per MILLION.
    3. It is not a fact that average global temperatures for decades. I suggest you learn how to read a graph. I suggest you also learn about UHI and station adjustments. Anecdotes are not science
    4. OMG! you could not be more wrong – show me one link to back this up. And speaking of the so-called models, not one of them was able to predict the hiatus in warming over the last 17 years. The models ARE EPIC FAILURES. You would know this if you did any legitimate research
    5. And yet the biosphere is 11% greener than it was 20 years ago – all thanks to the wonder gas Carbon Dioxide.
    6. Your ignorance is astounding

  • Skeptic

    Wrong Again. There has been no statistically significant warming for 17 years. Why do you keep lying?

  • Skeptic

    You’ve drowned in the kool aid vat

  • Wayne Bruce

    Hey Fake Skeptic, did you read the links I posted about the myth that a majority of scientists didn’t accept the global cooling theory in the 70′s? No? How about the one that talks about the 97/98% consensus? You didn’t read that either? I’m shocked SHOCKED! A global warming denier who has never read any of the science. How do I know this about you Skeptic? Because you guys are scared to read science. In other words, you ARE ignorant Morons. Prove me wrong, how many books have you read on the subject of global warming? (I have read in the neighborhood of 500 books worth on it, and taken a class from a leading climate scientist. But not you, right? You fake.

  • Wayne Bruce

    Just like almost all climate change deniers, you haven’t read any of the science? Right, fake skeptic?

  • Skeptic

    I have read ALL OF THE SCIENCE. you obviously haven’t. Let’s start with something simple shall like climate sensitivity. Why don’t the models match the observations. As you’re such an expert I’m sure this question will be a doddle.

  • Skeptic

    I’ve never been paid by anyone and have no links to any fossil fuel companies. I’m just an educated scientist.

  • Skeptic

    I would use my real name – except for the simple fact that there are alarmists out there who will try to have me fired from my job. I know this for a fact because it happened before. They are not willing to enter into a rational scientific debate – they rely on ad hom smears, name calling, demonization and everything but actual science. Why don’t you try visiting a sceptical site like wattsupwiththat and enter into a debate with us?

  • Elaine Kurpiel

    Skeptic, it truly is a sad state of affairs when one cannot post their opinion publicly without fear of repercussions.
    I will not go to WUWT web site because it is not a skeptical site; it is a denial site. I just feel it is wasting time to try to talk with someone who has already decided climate change is not real. Sorry.

  • Skeptic

    No one has said anything about climate change not being real. If you actually went to WUWT and read the articles and discussions you would see that you have preconceived notions that are entirely false. Skeptics don’t deny climate change – we simply don’t think it’s of much worry – and the main bone of contention is Climate Sensitivity. By admitting your unwillingness to see the other side you have only proven you have a closed mind. I’ve read both sides in detail – which is of course the right thing to do if you are an independent thinker. So as I said – If you can explain to me why you think climate sensitivity is above 2 degrees then I’m all ears. As a skeptic I say that it’s probably around 1.2 degrees – So how on earth that makes me ‘in denial’ I don’t know. It seems you are willing to believe what other people say about us without even findingout the truth.

  • Wayne Bruce

    You’re using Anthony (The Meterologist) Watts as a source, Fake skeptic? Bwwwwaaaaaaaaa! Oh, and you read ALL THE SCIENCE? LOL. C’mon now, Watts doesn’t count. Which reports, papers, scientific organizations, e.t.c. have you read? Hmmmmm? I think you just read RIGHT WING MORONS who talk about the science, but not any of the science, right Fake Skeptic? Tell me specifically what you’ve read, and if you can convince me that you’ve read actual science, then I’ll get into specific debates with you. Okay? (Moron)

  • Skeptic

    Why hasn’t the world gotten any hotter for the last 17 years?

  • Skeptic

    So? They’re quoting scientists

  • Skeptic

    Why is it that all alarmists think that all skeptics are in the pay of someone? It’s a very disingenuous way to start a conversation.I can assure you I amnotin the pay of anyone when it comes to climate science. I have three degrees (fromactual real universities) How many do you have Wayne?

  • Skeptic

    I’ve read all of the IPCC Reports from end to end – as well as all of the climategate emails amongst other things. I have two copies of ‘Global Envirnoments through the Quaternary – Exploring Environmental Change’ by D.E Anderson, AS Goudie and AG Parker, published by Oxford University Press on my Table. I have read more hard science than you can ever imagine. I am also published in a peer-reviewed journal. But go ahead and just call me names without dealing with anything of substance. If you want to talk about FACE, ERBE, Climate Sensitivity, BOM Adjustments, UHI, The Tropical Hotspot, ENSO or other oscillations or even my favourite subject Antarctic Ice cover then by all means please do so. Remain civil and I will.

  • Wayne Bruce

    Okay, I’ll have a civil discourse on topics related to global warming. Your chosen topic seems to be climate sensitivity. You think the models got it wrong, is that correct? Go ahead make your case in detail, then I’ll respond.