1. the scientific study of sight and the behaviour of light, or the properties of transmission and deflection of other forms of radiation.
When Saint Laurent goes marching in . . .
2. North American (typically in a political context) the way in which an event or course of action is perceived by the public.
Ben Zimmer writing for The New York Times Magazine March 4, 2010 looks at the emergence of this term as used to refer to the way events and actions, especially in politics, are perceived by the public.
How did optics achieve buzzword status in American politics? In his final On Language column last September, William Safire noted the trend: “ ‘Optics’ is hot, rivaling content.” When politicians fret about the public perception of a decision more than the substance of the decision itself, we’re living in a world of optics. Of course, elected officials have worried about outward appearances since time immemorial, but optics puts a new spin on things, giving a scientific-sounding gloss to P.R. and image-making.
Though the metaphorical expansion of optics into the political arena feels novel, it has actually been brewing for a few decades. On May 31, 1978, The Wall Street Journal quoted Jimmy Carter’s special counselor on inflation, Robert Strauss, as saying that business leaders who went along with Carter’s anti-inflation measures might be invited to the White House as a token of appreciation. “It would be a nice optical step,” Strauss said. The Journal was not impressed by the idea: the following day, an editorial rebuffed Strauss’s overtures with the line “Optics will not cure inflation.”
Over the course of the 1980s, optics gained a foothold in political discussions — not in the United States but in Canada. An April 7, 1983, Toronto Globe and Mail article headlined “Optics Is Name of Game” explained: “They say in Larry Grossman’s health ministry, it’s all a matter of optics. This has nothing to do with the eyes, but it has everything to do with the way the public sees things.” In 1986, The Globe and Mail reported that “Industry minister Hugh O’Neil showed up to get the premier’s ‘guidance’ on how to handle the political ‘optics’ of a series of massive layoffs at Algoma Steel.” And in Greg Weston’s book “Reign of Error,” about John Turner’s brief stint as prime minister in 1984, Senator Keith Davey of Canada is quoted as declining an offer to run Turner’s campaign with the excuse, “the optics would be all wrong.”
Even now, optics in the sense of political appearances is far more prevalent in Canada than stateside. I asked Stefan Dollinger, a lexicographer at the University of British Columbia who is leading a revision of the Dictionary of Canadianisms on Historical Principles, why this might be. Dollinger pointed out that bilingual Canadians would be familiar with a similar French term, optique. In standard French, optique can refer to the science of optics or it can mean “perspective, point of view.” Beyond those core meanings, optique has been extended to visual appearances in general (much like the German equivalent Optik). Canadian-French usage adds a more politically focused angle, which seems to have been imported across the bilingual divide.
Q. What is functional about the "optics" of Naomi Seibt?
Q. What is significant about the way she appears and how she communicates?
"This is the speech that I gave at CPAC this year. I was invited as a representative for the Heartland Institute. Footage of the discussion panel and the Q and A will follow! Thank you for all the encouragement, CPAC was an amazing experience!"
So, Naomi Seibt says, in a text accompanying this video on her YouTube channel.
There are issues discussed here in this post that are clearly relating to media strategies and racial and gender based perceptions, that shape wider social attitudes to the relationship between the existence of capitalism as a stumbling block to change and the climate change emergency.
It feels like a minefield.
One of the methods used for navigating any and all the territories relevant to the Re:LODE Radio project, including this ideological minefield, is to find out more about where people, ideas, words and images come from.
Where does Naomi Seibt comes from? She comes from the city of Münster in Germany. Her arrival in the global media information environment occured with the publication of this article by Desmond Butler and Juliet Eilperin in the Washington Post (Feb. 24, 2020). The article seemingly answers most of the questions it would be sensible to ask. The article also makes clear that the context is that Naomi Seibt is being co-opted by a conservative think tank in the US to take on, and undermine, the global phenomenon that is Greta Thunberg.
Desmond Butler and Juliet Eilperin write (Feb. 24, 2020):
For climate skeptics, it’s hard to compete with the youthful appeal of global phenomenon Greta Thunberg. But one U.S. think tank hopes it’s found an answer: the anti-Greta.
Naomi Seibt is a 19-year-old German who, like Greta, is blond, eloquent and European. But Naomi denounces “climate alarmism,” calls climate consciousness “a despicably anti-human ideology,” and has even deployed Greta’s now famous “How dare you?” line to take on the mainstream German media.
“She’s a fantastic voice for free markets and for climate realism,” said James Taylor, director of the Arthur B. Robinson Center for Climate and Environmental Policy at the Heartland Institute, an influential libertarian think tank in suburban Chicago that has the ear of the Trump administration.
In December, Heartland headlined Naomi at its forum at the UN climate conference in Madrid, where Taylor described her as “the star” of the show. Last month, Heartland hired Naomi as the young face of its campaign to question the scientific consensus that human activity is causing dangerous global warming.
“Naomi Seibt vs. Greta Thunberg: whom should we trust?” asked Heartland in a digital video. Later this week, Naomi is set to make her American debut at the Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC, a high-profile annual gathering just outside Washington of right-leaning activists.
We do not live in the best of all possible worlds. If different decisions had been taken, the world would have been a different place. Given this, we need to ask whether the decisions that the rich and the powerful take are based on sound reasoning and robust evidence. Only when we do that can we demand right actions from corporations, governments and international organizations. Without our active economic citizenship, we will always be the victims of people who have greater ability to make decisions, who tell us that things happen because they have to and therefore that there is nothing we can do to alter them, however unpleasant and unjust they may appear. (p. xvii)
And the first "Thing" he tells the reader is:Thing 1. There is no such thing as a free market
What they tell you
Markets need to be free. When the government interferes to dictate what market participants can or cannot do, resources cannot flow to their most efficient use. If people cannot do the things they find most profitable, they lose the incentive to invest and innovate. Thus, if the government puts a cap on house rents, landlords lose the incentive to maintain their properties or build new ones. Or, if the government restricts the kinds of financial products that can be sold, two contracting parties that may both have benefited from innovative transactions that fulfil their idiosyncratic needs cannot reap the potential gains of free contract. People must be left 'free to choose', as the title of free-market visionary Milton Friedman's famous book goes.
What they don't tell you
The free market doesn't exist. Every market has some rules and boundaries that restrict freedom of choice. A market looks free only because we so unconditionally accept its underlying restrictions that we fail to see them. How 'free' a market is cannot be objectively defined. It is a political definition. The usual claim by free-market economists that they are trying to defend the market from politically motivated interference by the government is false. Government is always involved and those free-marketeers are as politically motivated as anyone. Overcoming the myth that there is such a thing as an objectively defined 'free market' is the first step towards understanding capitalism.
"the insane and deeply troubling world in which we live."
Karl Marx conducted a study of political economy and capitalism in his day that will overshadow the neoliberal pundits found working for being paid by the Heartland Institute.
David Harvey is a Distinguished Professor of Anthropology & Geography at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York (CUNY), the Director of Research, Center for Place, Culture and Politics, and the author of numerous books. He has been teaching Karl Marx's Capital for over 40 years.
David Harvey's work, A Brief History of Neoliberalism (2005), provides an historical examination of the theory and divergent practices of neoliberalism since the mid-1970s. This work conceptualises the neoliberalised global political economy as a system that benefits few at the expense of many, and which has resulted in the (re)creation of class distinction through what Harvey calls "accumulation by dispossession".
Q. Is the Heartland Institute right wing?
Wikipedia says the Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian public policy think tank founded in 1984 and based in Arlington Heights, Illinois. The Institute conducts work on issues including education reform, government spending, taxation, healthcare, tobacco policy, global warming, hydraulic fracturing, information technology, and free-market environmentalism.
In the 1990s, the Heartland Institute worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris to attempt to discredit the health risks of secondhand smoke and to lobby against smoking bans.
Since the 2000s, the Heartland Institute has been a leading promoter of climate change denial. It rejects the scientific consensus on climate change, and says that policies to fight it would be damaging to the economy.
According to the Institute, it advocates free market policies. The policy orientation of Heartland has been described as conservative, libertarian, and right wing.
The Institute promotes climate change denial, advocates for smoker's rights, for the privatization of public resources including school privatization, for school vouchers, for lower taxes and against subsidies and tax credits for individual businesses, and against an expanded federal role in health care, among other issues.
In addition to lobbying activities, Heartland hosts an internet application called "Policybot" which serves as a clearinghouse for research from other conservative organizations such as The Heritage Foundation, the American Legislative Exchange Council, and the Cato Institute.
Q. How is the Heartland Institute funded?
The Institute no longer discloses its funding sources, stating that it had ended its practice of donor transparency after experiencing the organized harassment of its donors.
According
to the organization's audited financial statements for 2014 and 2015
approximately 27% and 19% of revenues, respectively, came from a single
unidentified donor.
The Mercer Family Foundation, which is run by Rebekah Mercer, a financial donor to Donald Trump and the daughter of the hedge fund mogul Robert Mercer, has previously been one of Heartland’s biggest contributors, with records showing a total of $7.5m in donations since the group’s founding.
According to its brochures, Heartland receives money from approximately 5,000 individuals and organizations, and no single corporate entity donates more than 5% of the operating budget, although the figure for individual donors can be much higher, with a single anonymous donor providing $4.6 million in 2008, and $979,000 in 2011, accounting for 20% of Heartland's overall budget, according to reports of a leaked fundraising plan. Heartland states that it does not accept government funds and does not conduct contract research for special-interest groups.
Oil and gas companies have contributed to the Institute, including $736,500 from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2005. Greenpeace reported that Heartland received almost $800,000 from ExxonMobil.
In 2008, ExxonMobil said that it would stop funding to groups skeptical of climate change, including Heartland. Joseph Bast, president of the Institute, argued that ExxonMobil was simply distancing itself from Heartland out of concern for its public image.
ExxonMobil has its own problem with "optics", let alone being closely associated with Heartland.
On February 25, 2013 Marcia G. Yerman writing for Moms Clean Air Force chases up the story behind this spoof ad called Exxon Hates Your Children.
The groups behind the ad are OilChange International, The Other 98%, and Environmental Action.
I was able to speak to the leaders of each to discuss the genesis of
the ad, and the successful efforts made by ExxonMobil to have it pulled
from what would have been a coveted time slot.
David Turnbull, Campaigns Director at OilChange International, walked me through the original goals for the Public Service Announcement. Launched at the end of 2012, the ad was designed to “target
the subsidies for fossil fuels [oil, coal, and natural gas], which all
emit carbon dioxide when they are burned—thereby adding to global
warming.”Turnbull told me, “We wanted to raise the noise about what these companies are doing.” The ad was previewed by their lawyers, who “vetted it for all legalities,”
confirming that it was acceptable to air. It was rolled out in the New
York City, Washington, D.C., and Denver markets on MSNBC, to what they
gauged as a “target sympathetic audience.” Turnbull also mentioned that it was a direct pushback to the sponsored placements of the American Petroleum Institute. The next step was to go for a venue that Turnbull called “the belly of the beast.”
That was FoxNews in Houston, Texas. It was a time slot where there
would be plenty of eyeballs—the two hour lead in and two hour follow up
to the State of the Union address on February 12. Turnbull related,“It was all set to air.” Then during the
late afternoon hours, Comcast, the cable provider, got an e-mail from
ExxonMobil. It was a cease and desist letter from their legal team
claiming that the ad was “defamatory.” They were up against what Turnbull called the use of ExxonMobil’s money and political clout to “throw its weight around.” He said categorically, “It’s about the future of our children. Our government is giving money to companies that are harming the environment.” I mentioned the constant drum beat for the argument that potential
jobs were at stake, especially with the Keystone XL Pipeline debate
heating up. Turnbull replied, “Renewable energy equals jobs. The idea that we have to ruin our children’s future to create jobs is ludicrous.”
Meanwhile ExxonMobil continues to engage in greenwashing . . .
The Independent reported that Heartland's receipt of donations from Exxon and Philip Morris indicates a "direct link...between anti-global warming sceptics funded by the oil industry and the opponents of the scientific evidence showing that passive smoking can damage people's health." The Institute opposes legislation on passive smoking as infringing on personal liberty and the rights of owners of bars and other establishments.
As of 2006, the Walton Family Foundation had contributed approximately $300,000 to Heartland. The Institute published an op-ed in the Louisville Courier-Journal defending Wal-Mart against criticism over its treatment of workers.
The Walton Family Foundation donations were not disclosed in the op-ed, and the editor of the Courier-Journal stated that he was unaware of the connection and would probably not have published the op-ed had he known of it. The St. Petersburg Times described the Institute as "particularly energetic defending Wal-Mart." Heartland has stated that its authors were not "paid to defend Wal-Mart" and did not receive funding from the corporation; it did not disclose the approximately $300,000 received from the Walton Family Foundation.
In 2010, MediaTransparency said that Heartland received funding from politically conservative foundations such as the Castle Rock Foundation, the Sarah Scaife Foundation, the John M. Olin Foundation, and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation. Between 2002 and 2010, Donors Trust, a nonprofit donor-advised fund, granted $13.5 million to the Institute. In 2011, the Institute received $25,000 from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation. The Charles Koch Foundation states that the contribution was "$25,000 to the Heartland Institute in 2011 for research in healthcare, not climate change, and this was the first and only donation the Foundation made to the institute in more than a decade".
. . . US thinktank launches poster campaign comparing Unabomber and Osama Bin Laden to those concerned about global warming
On Thursday May 3, 2012, Heartland launched an advertising campaign in the Chicago area, and put up digital billboards along the Eisenhower Expressway in Maywood, Illinois, featuring a photo of Ted Kaczynski, the "Unabomber" whose mail bombs killed three people and injured 23 others, asking the question, "I still believe in global warming, do you?" They withdrew the billboards a day later. The Institute planned for the campaign to feature murderer Charles Manson, communist leader Fidel Castro and perhaps Osama bin Laden, asking the same question. The Institute justified the billboards saying "the most prominent advocates of global warming aren't scientists. They are murderers, tyrants, and madmen."
What were the "optics" as a result of this campaign?
In 2012, a large number of sponsors withdrew funding due to the controversy over their billboard campaign.
The negative effects of these "optics" was compounded by the so-called 2012 documents incident.
The Institute lost an estimated $825,000, or one third of planned corporate fundraising for the year.
Suzanne Goldenberg, the US environment correspondent for the Guardian covered this story (Wed 15 Feb 2012) on the Heartland leaked papers.
DeSmogBlog, which broke the story, said it had received the confidential documents from an "insider" at the Heartland Institute, which is based in Chicago. The blog monitors industry efforts to discredit climate science.
An Update on the DESMOG story says:
Apparently even the Koch brothers think the Heartland Institute's climate denial program is too toxic to fund. On Wednesday, Koch confirmed that it did not cut a check for the $200K mentioned in the strategy memo after all. A statement released on KochFacts.com and the charleskochfoundationfacts.org states that “…the Charles Koch Foundation provided $25,000 to the Heartland Institute in 2011 for research in healthcare, not climate change, and this was the first and only donation the Foundation made to the institute in more than a decade. The Foundation has made no further commitments of funding to Heartland.”
So, Naomi Seibt was invited as a representative for the Heartland Institute at the CPAC Conference.
Naomi Seibt's involvement at the CPAC Conference was covered by Rozina Sabur in Washington (1 March 2020) for the Sunday Telegraph under the headline:
With her slight frame, long blonde hair and converse trainers, German teenager Naomi Seibt might not seem the most obvious candidate to front the growing climate scepticism movement. But holding court at America’s largest gathering for grassroots Republicans, expounding her controversial views on global warming, she exudes an air of self-belief that belies her 19 years.
As Greta Thunberg brought her climate awareness campaign to the UK last week - speaking at a rally of some 25,000 striking school children in Bristol - on the other side of the Atlantic, Seibt, dubbed the “anti-Greta”, was propelled onto the world’s stage in Washington, making an appearance at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) and firmly positioning herself as the new darling of right-wing climate sceptics.
Thunberg, now the general of a worldwide teen army, was named Time magazine’s ‘person of the year’ after berating world leaders for their inaction at a United Nations summit last year. A video of the Swedish 17-year-old glaring at Donald Trump went viral. Seibt, meanwhile, uses her YouTube channel to challenge what she calls the climate change “alarmism” espoused by Thunberg, and joined speakers including President Trump and Vice President Mike Pence in addressing the conference this week.
When we meet at CPAC, it’s clear there is no love lost between Seibt and Thunberg, nor does the German teen crave the same level of fame Thunberg had garnered. In fact, she says, Greta’s cult-like status is problematic. “I think it’s wrong we let people like Greta Thunberg - who is a young girl, who has no scientific or economic experience - or politicians or celebrities like Leonardo DiCaprio, talk about a scientific topic,” she says.
Couldn’t the same criticism be levelled against her?
“I don’t want people to follow me unconditionally, as many do with Greta,” she says. “My message is: start thinking instead.”
As it happens, it was the school strikes popularised by Thunberg which first sparked her interest in climate change. Seibt says she spent months researching the issue after watching the youth protests become a weekly fixture in her hometown of Münster, in western Germany. Eventually, she came to the conclusion that “C02 emissions do not have this terrible impact on the climate”.
She started her YouTube channel last May, and since then her videos warning against climate change “alarmism” have received around 200,000 views. Her argument is that any policies need to be rooted in science, not emotion. She says buzzwords like climate “crisis” spread panic without “really addressing the issue”.
It was this online success that led the Heartland Institute, a US think tank that rejects scientific consensus on climate change, to recruit Seibt as the face of its campaigns.
When Thunberg was first propelled into the public eye, critics across the world questioned who was pulling the strings, assuming there must be a team of adult puppeteers behind her. This turned out to be unfounded - by all accounts Thunberg is a law unto herself - but Seibt’s activism is backed up by a free market think tank based in Chicago. The organisation has funded her trip to Washington, where she headlined the CPAC event called “defeating the climate delusion” on Friday.
Naomi Seibt's argument is that any policies need to be rooted in science, not emotion. But the Heartland Institute only peddles lies and distorts the facts to suit a particular set of ideological interests.
Naomi Seibt's story is told to the Sunday Telegraph readers in a way that validates her critical position by presenting the matter as if she was on one side of an argument. But she does not, in fact hold a critical position. She expresses a thought, which is that after researching the issue for some months "she came to the conclusion that “C02 emissions do not have this terrible impact on the climate”.
But this conclusion is false, so the idea of an "argument' is a performance, a bit of political theatre, and only undertaken for the benefit of those who have an interest in wrecking the attempts to create an alternative Green New Deal. There are no two sides in a scientific debate about whether the impact of emissions of carbon dioxide constitute an environmental emergency or not, except in fantasy and denial.
The problem is that there can be no honest argument unless it is founded on a shared authoritative scientific and evidential basis. It is irresponsible to pretend that the science regarding global heating is a subject for debate.
It is NOT a matter of debate!
Although Greta Thunberg is not a scientist, as yet anyway, the science she refers to supports her position that there is a need for all nations and governments, as well as all industrial interests across the planet, to act urgently.
Greta Thunberg's position is based on the science not on emotion. Greta Thunberg's "emotion", her "alarmism", arises out of frustration at a situation where those who have the power to act to save humanity do not.
However, as we shall see, our information environment is particularly vulnerable to the interests of capitalism, along with the communications and technology business sphere, a place where politics and public discourse are inextricably embroiled, and resulting in a public becoming distracted from distraction by distraction.
This webpage on The Global Warming Policy Forum website re-presents the Sunday Telegraph story as originally published. The story fits well with the kind of narrative that the GWPF seeks to promote.
When the GWPF's website was launched in November 2009, a graph used in the logo graphic on each page of the website of '21st Century global mean temperatures' showed a slow decline over the selected period from 2001 to 2008.
Hannah Devlin of The Times found an error for 2003 and noted that if the period from 2000 to 2009 had been chosen, then a rise in temperature would have been shown rather than a fall. Bob Ward, policy and communications director of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics since 2008, said that the graph was contrary to the true measurements, and that by leaving out the temperature trend during the 20th century, the graph obscured the fact that 8 of the 10 hottest years on record have occurred this century.
The GWPF blamed a "small error by our graphic designer" for the mistake which would now be changed, but said that starting the graph earlier would be equally arbitrary.
The narrative that suits GWPF is one that continues to emphasize the validity and existence of a counter argument. The trouble is that this counter argument relies on "alternative facts", facts that don't exist. So, finding someone able to stand as an 'Anti-Greta', someone plausible and seemingly articulate standing for "the other side", provides an opportunity for the creation of a distraction. The image itself becomes highly functional as a distraction.
We are told that Naomi Seibt was "a gifted student", that;
. . . she was fast-tracked through high school, graduating when she was just 16. She went on to start an economics degree at the University of Mannheim, but dropped out after one semester because she felt she had already done enough reading on the subject.
She plans to return to her studies one day, but for now has more international events planned as part of her work with the Heartland Institute. The think tank has close ties to the Trump administration, and its senior fellows include Dr William Happer, who was part of the White House National Security Council until last year.
Seibt doesn’t like being labelled as Right-wing, insisting she’s “independent of any party affiliation”. Instead she describes herself as a libertarian, but names Stefan Molyneux, a Far-Right Canadian YouTuber among her heroes. I ask if she hopes to meet Trump, who also spoke at CPAC yesterday . “I would absolutely love to meet him one day, if that’s possible somehow, I’ll definitely do it”.
Once back home in Germany, she plans to make more YouTube videos on climate scepticism to appeal to her own generation. “There are so many shows and YouTubers doing videos about the mainstream climate change views,” she says. “I would like to do the same for the other side.”
Seibt agrees that human activity is a factor in global warming, but believes that impact has been overstated. She rejects the notion that she’s a climate change denier, saying critics use the label as “a way to shut down people on the other side”. She even goes as far as to suggest that many of those promoting fears over climate change are in fact using it as a way to “control our lives”.
The Global Warming Policy Foundation is not a science based organisation developing policies to mitigate the effects of global heating. It is quite the opposite. According to Wikipedia The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) is a lobby group in the United Kingdom whose stated aims are to challenge "extremely damaging and harmful policies" envisaged by governments to mitigate anthropogenic global warming. The GWPF as well as some of its prominent members have been characterized as promoting climate change denial.
In 2014, when the Charity Commission ruled that the GWPF had breached rules on impartiality, a non-charitable organisation called the "Global Warming Policy Forum" was created as a wholly owned subsidiary, to do lobbying that a charity could not. The GWPF website carries an array of articles "sceptical" of scientific findings of anthropogenic global warming and its impacts.
The foundation was established in November 2009, a week after the start of the Climatic Research Unit email controversy, with its headquarters in a room of the Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining at 1 Carlton House Terrace, London, and subsequently moved to 55 Tufton Street, London SW1P 3QL. Its director is Benny Peiser, an expert on the social and economic aspects of physical exercise, and it is chaired by Terence Mordaunt, co-owner of the cargo handling business Bristol Port Company.
It was previously chaired by the former Chancellor of the Exchequer Nigel Lawson. GWPF states that it is "deeply concerned about the costs and other implications of many of the policies currently being advocated" to address climate change and that it aims to "bring reason, integrity and balance to a debate that has become seriously unbalanced, irrationally alarmist, and all too often depressingly intolerant".
So, as an 'Anti-Greta', Naomi Seibt becomes a personification of these qualities of reason, integrity and balance. The opposite of the seriously unbalanced, irrationally alarmist, and depressingly intolerant Greta!
Stephanie Kirchgaessner and Emily Holden in Washington report on this (Fri 28 Feb 2020):
An examination of the young activist’s YouTube videos and interviews has revealed that Seibt has shown support for an alt-right activist.
In a YouTube discussion last year that was highlighted in a report by the German broadcaster ZDF, Seibt discussed an attack on a synagogue in Halle that killed two people who were outside the temple, and said Jews were considered to be “at the top” of groups who were seen as being oppressed. “Ordinary Germans”, she said, were “at the bottom”. Muslims, she added, were somewhere in between. Sign up to the Green Light email to get the planet's most important stories Read more
The remarks were part of a video discussion that appears to have been deleted. They were seen by some experts as saying that Germans had less pity for “ordinary German” victims of crime than for Jews and Muslims. A portion of the discussion was included in a report by ZDF and is still available online.
Seibt did not respond to a request for comment from the Guardian, although her mother argued she is not a supporter of the far right.
At the conservative event, Seibt was asked twice about this article. She called it “ridiculous how the media cherrypicks things that I said” and said she is not an antisemite.
“In fact, I was commenting that I think it’s wrong to comment on different races and to view them differently,” Seibt said. “We should just all be regarded as the same. That is what I was actually saying, that is how I perceived the public view on different races or different religions.”
“It is clear that she is articulating – no matter how inarticulately – age-old tropes of Jewish power and white grievance: the idea that Jews are a privileged class and that white people are oppressed by them,” said Imran Ahmed, the chief executive of the Center for Countering Digital Hate, who studied the remarks.
When Seibt was challenged by German reporters about whether the remarks could be seen as antisemitic, Seibt replied: “If someone perceives [my remarks] as meaning something different, well, then of course I cannot influence this perception.”
In another YouTube interview describing her embrace of “views that were outside the mainstream”, Seibt referred to the Canadian alt-right internet activist Stefan Molyneux as an “inspiration”.
Molyneux has been described as an “alleged cult leader who amplifies scientific racism, eugenics and white supremacism” by the Southern Poverty Law Center, which monitors extremism and white supremacy.
Molyneux said in a statement to the Guardian: “I have always opposed the idea of racial superiority/inferiority.”
In 2019, Molyneaux said: “I’ve always been skeptical of the ideas of white nationalism, of identitarianism, and white identity. However, I am an empiricist, and I could not help but notice that I could have peaceful, free, easy, civilized and safe discussions in what is, essentially, an all-white country.”
Seibt defended that comment, saying it was out of context.
“He is not devaluing other races, not at all, he’s just describing his experience in western countries, and I agree with that … it’s not that we are better in any way in western countries, and that’s not the point that Molyneaux is trying to make – it’s just that we still have freedom of speech in these countries, and we’re very happy that’s the case.”
This 'Anti-Greta' story appeared in the Guardian print edition Saturday 29 February opposite another story:
Steven Morris reporting for the Guardian (Fri 28 Feb 2020):
Tens of thousands of people, many of them children skipping school, braved heavy rain to join a climate strike headed by Greta Thunberg in Bristol city centre.
The vast crowd fell silent as the 17-year-old activist told them governments were acting like children and so it fell to young people to be “the adults in the room”.
Police said there were more than 15,000 people at the Bristol Youth Strike 4 Climate event, while Thunberg estimated the figure as at least 30,000.
As Thunberg spoke, onlookers clambered on to bus shelters and up trees and hung out of windows to catch a glimpse.
Criticising governments and the media, she said: “Once again they sweep their mess under the rug for us – young people, their children – to clean up for them. We must continue and we have to be patient. Remember that the changes required will not happen overnight.”
Thunberg arrived in Bristol by train and was driven to the climate strike in a red Nissan Leaf electric car.
Wearing a yellow raincoat and woolly hat – a look copied by some of her devotees – she took to the stage to chants of “Greta, Greta” from schoolchildren and teenagers.
She told them: “We will not be silenced because we are the change, and change is coming whether you like it or not. This emergency is being completely ignored by the politicians, the media and those in power.”
“Basically, nothing is being done to halt this crisis despite all the beautiful words and promises from our elected officials. So what did you do during this crucial time? I will not be silenced when the world is on fire.”
Yellow raincoat, woolly hat, inspirational words of defiance . . .
Kert Davies, the founder of the Climate Investigations Center, which investigates climate denying groups, said Heartland was promoting a counter-narrative to the environmentalists but would ultimately fail.
“They are trying to ride Greta’s wave, but there is no way this person is going to win hearts and minds the way Greta has,” Davies said. “They are trying to blunt the impact of Greta.”
The "optics" adopted, or co-opted, by Heartland conform to an aesthetic that is troubling in itself.
The first sentence of the Sunday Telegraph story on Naomi Seibt says it all, focusing first, and above all, on her visual appearance:
"With her slight frame, long blonde hair and converse trainers, German teenager Naomi Seibt might not seem the most obvious candidate to front the growing climate scepticism movement."
However, it is precisely these visual qualities that have made Naomi Seibt the obvious candidate. The aesthetic that has been co-opted is an aesthetic that has emerged on social media platforms. Naomi Seibt is first, and foremost, a social media phenomenon, and her visual appeal connects directly to this aesthetic.
What is Naomi Seibt's "look"?
Social media platforms have encouraged the sharing of "selfies", images that present the "self" to a private sphere, and a public sphere. How a person "looks" is important, to the "self", as a private individual, and to the created image, as a public persona. The terms "persona", and "personality" have their origin in classic Roman and Greek masks used in theatrical performances.
A persona (plural personae or personas), in the word's everyday usage, is a social role or a character played by an actor. The word is derived from Latin, where it originally referred to a theatrical mask. The Latin word probably derived from the Etruscan word "phersu", with the same meaning, and that from the Greek πρόσωπον (prosōpon).
Its meaning in the latter Roman period changed to indicate a "character" of a theatrical performance or court of law, when it became apparent that different individuals could assume the same role and that legal attributes such as rights, powers, and duties followed the role.
The same individuals as actors could play different roles, each with its own legal attributes, sometimes even in the same court appearance.
According to other sources, which also admit that the origin of the term is not completely clear, persona could be related to the Latin verb per-sonare, literally: sounding through, with an obvious link to the above-mentioned theatrical mask, which often incorporated a small megaphone.
In the context of the social web, users create virtual persona which are also termed internet or online identities. Personae in fan fiction and stories written through the medium of the internet are often utilised by authors as a means of subtle or blatantly obvious self-insertion.
Sandro Botticelli's painting of the Adoration of the Magi
has an inserted self-portrait at the far right: the position in the
corner and the gaze out to the viewer are very typical of such
self-portraitsture
Self-insertion is a literary device in which a fictional character, who represents the real author of a work of fiction, appears as an idealized character within that fiction, either overtly or in disguise.
Now it seems “Frozen” character Elsa, princess of Arendelle, who possesses cryokinetic powers, with which she is able to produce ice, frost, and snow at will, has found her look-alike – in real human being. Meet 18-year-old Anna Faith Carlson, who became an Instagram sensation by posting a photo of herself standing next to an Elsa cut-out.
It all started when she went for the “Frozen” movie at Altamonte Mall in Altamonte Springs. Encouraged by her mom, sister and best friend, took the “photo” in front of the cut-out of Queen Elsa. Interestingly, Carlson has been performing since she was in second-grade, but only after people caught on to her resemblance to Elsa that she now dresses up as the “Frozen” princess.
This is Mary-Belle Kirschner (born 23 October 1999), better known by her online alias Belle Delphine, an English internet personality.
She is most notable for her glamour and cosplay modeling on Instagram. Her posts on the platform are often influenced by popular Internet memes and trends, and feature a risqué aesthetic that has garnered media attention. Media outlets have described Kirschner as a cross between an Internet troll and a performance artist, as well as an e-girl.
In 2018, Kirschner began to regularly upload pictures of her modeling and cosplaying. Her Instagram modeling had a distinct, self-proclaimed "weird elf kitty girl" aesthetic, and she used accessories such as pink wigs, thigh-high stockings, and cat ears.
In September 2018, she uploaded a second YouTube video featuring her giving a tour of her pastel pink room, while wearing fake braces and thigh-high stockings. Rolling Stone noted that her aesthetic in this second video is more in-line with that of the one she later adopted during her rise to prominence on Instagram; the publication described that aesthetic as "alien Disney princess porn star."
Once she adopted this new online aesthetic, her Instagram account surged from 850,000 followers in November 2018 to 4.2 million in July 2019. Her content also began to notably and frequently include ahegao facial expressions, which are exaggerated, eyes-rolled-back expressions.
And Naomi Seidt has created her own platform in this digital public realm.
When Seibt was sixteen, her poem "Sometimes I keep silent" on nationalism, was published on David Berger's "anti-Islamisation" blog Philosophia Perennis, as part of an AfD competition.
Since May 2019, Seibt has typically recorded YouTube videos using her mobile phone on topics ranging from "migration to feminism to climate change". In them, she called herself a "climate realist". On 4 November 2019, the Süddeutsche Zeitung, one of Germany's largest daily newspapers, described her appearance at the end of the European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE)'s annual "International Climate and Energy Conference" held in Munich on 2 November, saying, "They have their own Greta. A climate change denier Greta." In her speech, Seibt said that before she started questioning a lot of things, like feminism and cultural socialism, she too was a "climate alarmist".
On 3 December 2019 Seibt spoke as an invited guest at the Madrid "Climate Reality Forum", a forum organized to rebut the United Nations' climate change warnings, while Greta Thunberg spoke at the 2019 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP25) several miles away. In 2019, Germany's AfD had embraced climate change denial as part of their political campaign in Europe, and were therefore, also aligned with EIKE. She was the only woman invited to speak at an event that is "traditionally dominated by older men".
Seibt has previously spoken at The Heartland Institute, and at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Maryland, Seibt spoke to about a hundred conservatives. Seibt dismissed allegations that she is a "puppet of the right wing or the climate deniers or the Heartland Institute either."
Nevertheless, Seibt has aligned herself as a paid conservative blogger that is being promoted as 'Anti-Greta', in response to Greta Thunberg, and aligning herself with the Alternative for Germany (AfD).
“Rainbow of Diversity ? We already have it.” These are folk costumes of various Southern German regions.
Elfie . . .
Naomi Seibt's image has been further propogated by The Heartland Institute comparing her to Greta in promotional anti-climate change campaigns.
A 2020 joint investigation by Correctiv and Frontal21 revealed that the Heartland Institute's James Taylor considered Seibt to be the star of their "media strategy for the masses", in their "fight against climate protection measures" which "needs a better image"—to "move away from old white men and instead showcase a younger generation."
They love her . . .
. . . she looks good, sounds good, and she is a young woman. And, she is blonde and WHITE!
Optics . . .
. . . black climate activist edited out by AP photographer.
When it comes to "optics", this does not look good, but it reveals something about the media, and the discourse being represented, that is both troubling and offensive.
Eurocentrism . . .
Last January at the World Economic Forum in Davos a photo was taken by an AP photographer that was later cropped to exclude Ugandan climate activist Vanessa Nakate.
Kenya Evelyn reported for the Guardian on this story (Sat 25 Jan 2020):
Ugandan climate activist Vanessa Nakate has called out racism in media after she was cropped out of a photo featuring prominent climate activists including Greta Thunberg, Loukina Tille, Luisa Neubauer and Isabelle Axelsson.
Nakate made the comment in a video which has since gone viral, adding that she now understood “the definition of the word racism” for the first time in her life.
The group had given a news conference in Davos on Friday when Nakate was then cropped out of a published version by the Associated Press, a US news agency. She questioned the removal on Twitter.
“Why did you remove me from the photo? I was part of the group”, she tweeted in response. Other agencies, including Reuters, misidentified Nakate as Zambian activist Natasha Mwansa. Reuters’ currently available version of the photograph identifies the other four activists in the picture but not Nakate.
David Ake, the AP’s director of photography, told Buzzfeed UK that, under tight deadline, the photographer “cropped it purely on composition grounds”.
“He thought the building in the background was distracting”
In the viral video, Nakate elaborated on what she considers the erasure of black and brown voices in conversations surrounding climate change, pointing out that people who look like her are most vulnerable to rising global temperatures.
“We don’t deserve this. Africa is the least emitter of carbons, but we are the most affected by the climate crisis,” she said. “You erasing our voices won’t change anything. You erasing our stories won’t change anything.”
Supporters and fellow climate activists came to her defence, sparking a dialogue on racism within environmentalist spaces and the need for better focus on climate justice.
“It’s disgraceful that not only is Africa ignored, it’s also deliberately removed from the picture,” Theo Cullen-Mouze, a 17-year-old Irish climate activist.
“Africa has contributed the least, but will suffer the most from climate breakdown. The least we can do is give Africans a voice,” he added.
The AP has since replaced the cropped photo with its original, claiming “no ill intent”. The caption for the new image, however, does not reference the switch or explain the previous cropping.
How about cropping the top of the photo instead?
The cropping of this photo can be explained in the context of ideology, and both unconscious and conscious bias!
The explanation here includes what Samir Amin called Eurocentrism. The notion of "eurocentrism", as an explanatory tool, a term introduced by Samir Amin in his book Eurocentrism (1988), is referred to in the Re:LODE project, the Re:LODECargo of Questions project and at this point in this Re:LODERadio project.
The image used for this link to the Eurocentrism article, and its subarticles, is a photo of young female citizens of Colombia, in South America, a country crossed by the LODE Zone Line. and that connects to ideas that were contained in the Information Wrap for the LODE Cargo for Santa Fe de Antioquia.
As regards the matter of Optics in 2020 "THE YEAR OF TRUTH", Samir Amin's approach and method in his book Eurocentrism, is all about how power looks, its ideology and the crucial difference when it comes to the transparency and opacity of power, particularly as it applies to the historical emergence of capitalism as system.
Paying tribute . . .
This image has NOT been cropped . . .
This painting represents a crucial change in visual communication, straddling the rupture that took place between two eras of European power and ideology. Otherwise known as "the renaissance"! The Wikipedia article on The Tribute Money by Masaccio says:
The Tribute Money is a fresco by the Italian Early Renaissance painter Masaccio, located in the Brancacci Chapel of the basilica of Santa Maria del Carmine, Florence. Painted in the 1420s, it is widely considered among Masaccio's best work, and a vital part of the development of renaissance art.
The painting is part of a cycle on the life of Saint Peter, and describes a scene from the Gospel of Matthew, in which Jesus directs Peter to find a coin in the mouth of a fish in order to pay the temple tax. Its importance relates to its revolutionary use of perspective and chiaroscuro.
The building is NOT a distraction . . .
Rather than providing a distraction, the building prominently represented on the right hand side of the composition, is integral to the way a revolutionary artistic method for depicting a pictorial space is achieved, using the newly invented geometry of visual perspective.
The drawn-in lines in red show how the angles in single-point perspective, so clearly evident in the depiction of the architecture, converge on the head of Christ. And it is the head of Christ, at the centre of the story, and the perspective construction, where we will find the so-called vanishing point.
Even though the painting suggests a single space and a single moment, the narrative structure includes three separate moments in the story.
The paying of tribute is a visual act - the economic phenomenon is rendered transparent!
It is the transparency of the economic phenomenon that is evident in the paying of tribute.
And, it is this transparency, this visibility, that Samir Amin points to in his Introduction to Eurocentrism.
Samir Amin begins his Introduction to Eurocentrism thus:
Capitalism has produced a decisive break in world history, whose reach extends beyond the simple, albeit prodigious, progress of productive forces it has achieved. Indeed, capitalism has overturned the structure of relationships among the different aspects of social life (economic organization, political order, the content and function of ideologies) and has refashioned them on qualitatively new foundations.
In all earlier social systems, the economic phenomenon is transparent. By this i mean that the destination of that which is produced is immediately visible: The major part of production is directly consumed by the producers themselves. moreover, the surplus levied by the ruling classes assumes the form of rents and various fees, often in kind or in labor: in short, the form of a tribute, whose deduction does not escape the immediate perception of those who shoulder its burden. Market exchange and wage labor are, of course, not entirely absent, but they remain limited in their range and marginal in their social and economic scope. Under these conditions, the economic phenomenon remains too simple - that is to say, too immediately apprehensible - to give rise to a "science of economics" elucidating its mysteries. Science becomes necessary to explain an area of reality only when laws that are not directly visible operate behind the immediately apparent facts: that is, only when this area has become opaque due to the laws which govern its movement.
St. Peter removing a coin from the mouth of a fish.
"a tribute, whose deduction does not escape the immediate perception of those who shoulder its burden"
Christ's miracle is to extract the payment in the form of a coin taken from the mouth of a fish, thereby removing the burden of production from himself and his followers.
The reproduction of precapitalist social systems rest upon the stability of power (which is the basic concept defining the domain of the political) and of an ideology that endows it with legitimacy. In other words, politico-ideological authority (the "superstructure") is dominant at this point. The mystery that must be elucidated in order to understand the genesis, reproduction, and evolution of these societies and of the contradictions within which they operate is to be found in the area of the politico-ideological, not in the realm of the economic. in other words, what we need here is a genuine theory of culture, capable of accounting for the functioning of social power.
Capitalism inverts the order of the relationship between the realm of the economic and the politico-ideological superstructure. the newly developed economic life is no longer transparent, due to the generalization of the market: Not only does the near totality of the social product take the form od goods whose final destination escapes the control of the producer, but the labor force itself, in its predominant wage-earning form, becomes commodified. For this reason, the levy on the surplus takes the form of profits, profits which are always aleatory (they only materialize under certain conditions in the manufacturing of the product), while the exploitation of labor is obscured by the legal equivalence which defines the buying and selling of the wage-labor force. Henceforth, economic laws operate in the reproduction of the system as hidden objective forces. this mystified economic authority, now dominant, constitutes a domain which hereafter invites scientific analysis. And the content as well as the social function of power and ideology acquire, in this reproduction, new characteristics which are qualitatively different from those by which social power was defined in earlier societies. Any theory of culture must take into consideration this new, inverted relation under capitalism of the economic and the politico-ideological.
"Henceforth, economic laws operate in the reproduction of the system as hidden objective forces."
On the recent publication of the English translation of Thomas Piketty's "weighty tome" Capital and Ideology, Paul Mason writing for the Guardian says:
To bring a book into the world with 1,065 pages, there has to be a good reason. Thomas Piketty’s reason is that without a detailed account of the ideologies that have sustained inequality in the past, we cannot understand its present form, or how to overcome it.
So Capital and Ideology takes us on a historical grand tour of the hypocrisy of elites, ranging from the punishments meted out to slaves in Mesopotamia to the cruelty of the Belle Époque, which, as French economist Piketty points out, was belle only for a small number of white men.
But the main focus of the book is the present, which is marked by extreme and rising inequality, alongside the breakdown of traditional, class-based politics. The social coalition that drove redistribution in the mid-20th century has disappeared. If we don’t do something radical to reduce inequality, Piketty argues, “xenophobic populism could well triumph at the ballot box and initiate changes that will destroy the global, hypercapitalist digital economy”.
Piketty’s 2014 book Capital in the 21st Century showed how inequality is baked into our current economic model. In a free-market economy, he argues, inequality inevitably rises faster than growth. And as the incomes of the rich become reliant more on asset wealth than salaries, the old forms of redistribution, based on income tax and corporation tax, cease to work.
In this book, Piketty outlines his solution: a “participatory socialism” in which capitalism is gradually abolished via a progressive income tax and a tax on inherited wealth, which are used to finance both a basic income and a “capital endowment” for every citizen.
In a single table, Piketty demonstrates that, in the abstract, it would be possible to finance a radically egalitarian economy if both income tax and inheritance tax for the rich were set around 60-70%. The outcome would be to “make ownership of capital temporary”. Meanwhile, by legislating to enforce power-sharing within firms, between workers and bosses, you could achieve the “true social ownership of capital”.
The problem, of course, is the resistance of the current elites: the phalanx of Super Pacs in the US, the Brahmin-like permanence of the European centrists, the extreme concentration of power alongside wealth, the evisceration of democracy, the culture of secrecy around the taxes paid by rich people and corporations.
It’s a resistance bolstered by the ideology of what he calls “hypercapitalism”: our willingness to believe billionaires have earned their money, that their philanthropy offsets their greed, that most of the poor are “undeserving”, and that any tinkering with the present distribution of wealth will lead to economic collapse.
In September 2019 on the original publication of this work in France Larry Elliott for the Guardian (Mon 9 Sep 2019) writes under the subheading:
Among the proposals in the book are that employees should have 50% of the seats on company boards; that the voting power of even the largest shareholders should be capped at 10%; much higher taxes on property, rising to 90% for the largest estates; a lump sum capital allocation of €120,000 (just over £107,000) to everyone when they reach 25; and an individualised carbon tax calculated by a personalised card that would track each person’s contribution to global heating.
In an interview with the French weekly news magazine L’Obs, Piketty made no apologies for the impact his ideas would have on the stock market. He said: “[Yes], it will also affect the price of real estate that is crazy in Paris, and it will allow new social groups to become owners and shareholders.” Thomas Piketty's Capital: everything you need to know about the surprise bestseller Read more
Capital in the 21st Century, with its references to Jane Austen, proved to be one of the few books on economics to appeal to a mass market. It drew comparisons with John Maynard Keynes’s 1936 book, the General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money as its reputation spread during the period of weak growth that followed the financial crisis of a decade ago.
But Piketty’s work has so far proved far more popular with readers than it has with governments. The General Theory was the template for the full-employment policies pursued by most western governments in the decades after the second world war, whereas Piketty’s call for a global wealth tax to counter inequality has not been heeded.
Optics and global invisible forces
Capitalism and the coronavirus are invisible to the naked eye.
The optics of global capitalism and the invisible virus pandemic . . .
The visible effect of the Coronovirus epidemic is communicated to national populations in numbers. As numbers rise so do anxieties among people across the world, as these numbers reflect real consequences of a global epidemic.
So too with the economic impacts that are communicated in value terms, and again connected to numbers, but these numbers are abstractions, the result of risk assessments and "business confidence".
This report by Richard Partington for the Guardian (Fri 28 Feb 2020) provides a snapshot of the impact of the virus across global economic sectors under this headline and subheading:
More than $5tn wiped off global stocks with travel, retail and manufacturing all hit
The rapid spread of the coronavirus has triggered the biggest plunge in global stock markets since the financial crisis, amid rising fears over the impact on the world economy of the deadly disease and the efforts to contain it.
An increasing number of countries and companies are imposing tough measures to limit the spread of the Covid-19 disease, with mounting costs for company profits and growth.
The outbreak has led to the fastest reversal for the stock market since 1933 during the Great Depression. Wall Street has slumped from record-breaking highs to the lowest point since 2016, with more than $5tn (£3.9tn) wiped off the value of global markets over the past week alone.
This is NOT business as usual . . .
The science behind the numbers, if it is a real science, will always involve debate and discussion around any and all differences identified. Politicians and governments are depending on science based modelling in this unfolding scenario. They are required to act on the basis of this knowledge, as they are visible and accountable for the health and welfare of the people they represent.
However, when it come to climate science, matters of discussion and debate lead to a very different type of scenario.
St. Michael, like Saints Roche Sebastian and Anthony, was a plague saint
Plague saints offered hope and healing before, during, and after times of plague. A specific style of painting, the plague votive, was considered a talisman for warding off plague. It portrayed a particular saint as an intercessor between God and the person or persons who commissioned the painting – usually a town, government, lay confraternity, or religious order to atone for the "collective guilt" of the community.
These plague votives worked as a psychological defense against disease in which people attempted to manipulate their situation through requesting the intercession of a saint against the arrows of plague. Rather than a society depressed and resigned to repeated epidemics, these votives represent people taking positive steps to regain control over their environment. Paintings of St. Roch represent the confidence in which renaissance worshipers sought to access supernatural aid in overcoming the ravages of plague.
The very abundance of means by which people invoked the aid of the celestial court is essential in understanding Renaissance responses to the disease. Rather than depression or resignation, people "possessed a confidence that put even an apocalyptic disaster of the magnitude of the Black Death into perspective of God's secure and benevolent plan for humankind."
The
plague votives functioned both to request intercessory aid from plague
saints and to provide catharsis for a population that had just witnessed
the profound bodily destruction of the plague.
By showing plague saints such as St. Roch and St. Sebastian, votives influenced the distribution of God's mercy by invoking the memory of the human suffering experienced by Christ during the Passion. In the art of St. Roch after 1477 the saint displayed the wounds of his martyrdom without evidence of pain or suffering. Roch actively lifted his clothing to display the plague bubo in his thigh. This display of his plague bubo showed that "he welcomed his disease as a divinely sent opportunity to imitate the sufferings of Christ… [his] patient endurance [of the physical suffering of plague was] a form of martyrdom."
Roch's status as a pilgrim who suffered plague is paramount in his iconography. "The sight of Roch scarred by the plague yet alive and healthy must have been an emotionally-charged image of a promised cure. Here was literal proof that one could survive the plague, a saint who had triumphed over the disease in his own flesh."
Michael,
like St. Roch, Sebastian and Anthony, was a plague saint and his image would have
been visible to patients through the openings of the pierced screen as
they lay in their beds. He is portrayed with iconographic elements
associated with the Last Judgement, and, dressed in a red cope with
woven golden fabrics over a shining white alb, is by far the most
colourful figure in the lower panels, "hypnotically attracting the
viewer's glance" according to Lane. He is surrounded by four cherubs
playing trumpets to call the dead to their final destination. Michael's
role in the Last Judgement is emphasised through van der Weyden's use of
colour: Michael's gleaming white alb contrasts with the cherubs' red
vestments, set against a blue sky directly below heaven's golden clouds.
The Archangel Michael, as the embodiment and conduit of divine justice, is positioned directly below Christ, the only figure to reach both Heaven and Earth.
He holds a set of scales to weigh souls.Unusually for Christian art, the damned outweigh the blessed; the scales have only one soul in each pan, yet the left pan tips below the right.
Michael's unusual prominence in a "Last Judgement" for the period, emphasises the work's function in a hospice and its preoccupation with the liturgy of death. He is stepping forward, about to move out of the canvas, and he looks directly at the observer, giving the illusion of judging not only the souls in the painting but also the viewer.
The notion of balance itself presents a problem in this ideological battleground.
The notion of maintaining a "balance" of views in broadcasting media and the internet is a gift to the climate change denial machine.
For example, Scott Morrison, the Australian Prime Minister was criticized following taking a family holiday in Hawaii while bushfires raged across areas of the country. His period of leave had not been formally announced, and the Prime Minister's Office refused to confirm the location or dates of leave, citing security concerns.
On his return he conceded that he caused "great anxiety in Australia" by taking a family holiday in Hawaii as bushfires burned across Australia, saying with the benefit of hindsight he would have made a different decision.
ABC News political reporter Stephanie Dalzell (22 Dec 2019) news reported that:
Mr Morrison on Sunday said while he had followed the usual protocol surrounding private leave, changes would be implemented for the next trip.
"There have been lessons learned this week and they will be imported and included next time," he said. PM rules out change in climate policies
During the press conference, Mr Morrison also declared the Government would not change its climate change policies, rejecting calls for a more ambitious response as fires raged through Australia.
The Government has been under pressure to develop a stronger emissions reduction target, beyond the promised 26 per cent cut by 2030.
There was a continuation of this criticism, particularly in light of statements downplaying the impact of climate change like this:
"I have always acknowledged the connection between these weather events and these broader fire events and the impacts globally of climate change. It's one of many factors as I have said,"
This is the same Chris Smith, who, according to the Wikipedia article, in the late 1990s, while working on A Current Affair on the Nine Network Television Network,attended an office farewell party. It was alleged Smith exposed himself to a number of female employees. Two of them reported the incident, demanding an apology. Reportedly it was laughed off by program management who backed Smith. The two women complained to Nine Network management before action against Smith was investigated. Smith was dismissed two weeks later. Both women left A Current Affair amid talk of sizeable payouts and non-disclosure agreements.
This is the same Chris Smith who in 2009 was suspended indefinitely from his role at the Macquarie Radio Network, following an incident at a 2GB party where he exposed himself to several women at the party, attempted to kiss a female colleague and indecently assaulted Network 10 journalist and meteorologist Magdalena Roze, after drinking for "an extended period of time".
This is the same Chris Smith who had admitted to misusing anti depressant medication, drinking heavily and who claimed to have no recollection of the events.
This is the same Chris Smith who in December 2009 was reinstated and his contract extended, despite a number of female staff voicing concerns surrounding his ongoing conduct.
Smith later denied the assaults on air when questioned by a listener, asking the listener;
"where did you make these facts from?"
As the reference material for this post was being assembled for publication Chris Smith broadcast an interview with Naomi Seibt for Sky News Australia. The YouTube upload is titled:
'Greta Thunberg never talks about the science': Anti-Greta sensation Naomi Seibt
Chris Smith omitted to ask Naomi Seibt"where did you make these facts from?"
One of the usual suspects in the climate change denial machine is Nigel Lawson, one time Chancellor of the Exchequer in Margaret Thatcher's UK government and a founder member of The Global Warming Policy Foundation. The GWPF, as we have already seen, is not a science based organisation developing policies to mitigate the effects of global heating. It is part of the climate change denial machine and, on occasion, allowed by authoritative media platforms to peddle untruths and false claims regarding scientific evidence as it relates to global heating.
Mark Sweney reporting for the Guardian (Mon 9 Apr 2018) on the ruling by Ofcom, the broadcasting watchdog, that BBC Radio 4 broke accuracy rules by failing to sufficiently challenge the climate change denier Nigel Lawson’s controversial claims in an interview:
Lord Lawson appeared on a Radio 4 programme last summer denying the concept of climate change, which prompted complaints from the Green party and the prominent scientists Brian Cox and Jim Al-Khalili, who said it was “irresponsible and highly misleading” to imply there was still a debate around the science supporting it.
The Today programme featured five interviews on climate change prompted by the release of the film An Inconvenient Sequel, the former US vice-president Al Gore’s follow-up to 2006’s An Inconvenient Truth. Each interview was conducted by the presenter Justin Webb.
Lawson, a former chancellor of the exchequer in Margaret Thatcher’s government, made claims including that “all the experts say there hasn’t been” an increase in extreme weather events. He said the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change “concedes” this, and that, according to official figures, “during this past 10 years … average world temperature has slightly declined”.
Ofcom received two complaints that the interview broke the UK broadcasting rule 5.1, which states that “news, in whatever form, must be reported with due accuracy and presented with due impartiality”.
“Neither statement was correct, or sufficiently challenged during the interview or subsequently during the programme,” said the Ofcom ruling.
The BBC said it had publicly acknowledged that “some of Lord Lawson’s statements went beyond the intended scope of the interview and he was allowed to make inaccurate assertions which should have been challenged”.
Ofcom was not impressed that a previous appearance on the Today programme in 2014 by Lawson, who founded the Global Warming Policy Foundation, resulted in an internal BBC investigation and ruling that found the same failure to properly challenge his views.
“We found that statements made about the science of climate change were not challenged sufficiently during this interview, which meant the programme was not duly accurate,” said a spokeswoman for Ofcom. “We’ve told the BBC we are concerned that this was the second incident of this nature, and on the same programme.”
The BBC attempted to minimise the fallout of Webb’s failure to address the inaccurate comments at the time, by airing a follow-up item the next morning that “examined some of the more contentious claims made by Gore and Lord Lawson”.
The BBC also published a news story online that “highlighted criticisms of the interview with Lord Lawson and identified the inaccuracy of certain aspects of his contribution”.
Ofcom said these actions saved the BBC from a second breach of the broadcasting rules. Rule 5.2 states that “significant mistakes in news should normally be acknowledged and corrected on air quickly … corrections should be appropriately scheduled”.
The BBC also included contributions from several complainants and a statement from the Today programme in Radio 4’s Feedback slot 10 days after the original interview.
The BBC decided against pitting Lawson against a scientist who could have challenged his views during the interview. The corporation said this was deliberate, because it had done so in 2014 and the tactic had backfired, legitimising Lawson “by giving listeners the impression of parity between their views”.
The decision not to have an expert on hand to challenge Lawson meant listeners were “not given the full facts” about his stance on climate change, and meant Webb should have been prepared to step in and correct him, Ofcom said.
“The editorial team could have reasonably anticipated there was a risk that Lord Lawson might raise these arguments,” said Ofcom. “The BBC should have planned for that eventuality and the presenter should have been prepared to provide challenge and context to Lord Lawson’s views as appropriate.
“The BBC’s failure to do this led to significant inaccuracies being broadcast. Critically, these inaccuracies were allowed to stand without challenge or clarification during that broadcast.”
'in the name of balance'
Shame on you.
There is no evidential basis for the spurious arguments proposed by various actors in the climate change denial machine. As part and parcel of the deniers campaign to vilify Greta Thunberg, the challenge to the science is crucial to the creation of doubts and distrust amongst a wider public. There is a constituency that, for various reasons, is susceptible to the appeal of fake arguments, so that authoritative scientific findings can be dismissed without thinking, and reality denied. Is this psychology pathological, or is it an all too human trait?
Our House Is on Fire Scenes of a Family and a Planet in Crisis
Greta Thunberg is a passionate, inspiring and highly intelligent activist. Her story, or the story so far, is told in a recent publication, Our House Is on Fire by Greta Thunberg, Svante Thunberg, Malena Ernman, and Beata Ernman, and is reviewed today by David Mitchell whose novels include Cloud Atlas.
The middle quarters of the book stay in touch with the up-and-down progress of Greta’s family, but focus on the climate crisis and its effects on politics, feminism, economics, ecology, psychology and sociology. Don’t be put off by these “–ologies”: the book is a highly readable sequence of shortish “scenes” written in the direct language Greta uses in her speeches. The life-vest of humour inflates more often than you’d expect, and the text is studded with subversive, persuasive maxims: “Carbon offsetting is like paying poor people to diet for us”; “The truth is just another of those things that can be bought with money”; “When you’re used to privilege, equality feels like oppression”. I wrote down several pages of quotations for this review until it got ridiculous: I was copying out half the book.
While many readers will be familiar with much of the science and the contradictions of “all you can eat” consumerism, the book also explores the less obvious circuitry that connects apparently disparate things. One impactful passage links our “winners take all” culture with the explosion of mental illness suffered by the “losers” (as defined by the winners) who are disproportionately female, neuro-diverse and/or socially maladroit – people not unlike Greta Thunberg. Autistic people, as Greta noted in her 2018 Ted Talk, tend not to be good liars, either to others or to themselves. Greta’s initial depression was triggered by her lack of the neurotypical talent to compartmentalise fact A “We know we are destroying our planet with orgiastic overconsumption” (my words) safely away from fact B “We carry on regardless.” This talent lets us neurotypicals function as inconvenient truths pile up but it also prevents us from making the systemic changes needed to avert ecological collapse. Famously, Greta has described her Asperger’s as a “superpower” and the point is well-made. Single-mindedness and immunity to flattery and abuse are crucial qualities for activism. (Writing as the dad of an autistic young man, I view Greta Thunberg as a default autism advocate as well as a climate activist.) In some quarters, however, this way of thinking is a red flag to a bull. “Greta provokes,” observes her mother. “In certain cases to such an extent that normally respectful people lose their composure. Not only does she say that everything has to change, she has autism too. And she has the gall to brag about it. That’s not how things are supposed to work.”
To engage with the climate crisis is to engage with climate crisis denial. A revolution in how we live is needed, and no revolution can succeed without broad support: otherwise, it’s a doomed putsch. Our House Is on Fire makes this engagement with acuity drawn from a deep well of hard-won experience. “Our future ecological state has been reduced to a political game where it’s word against word, and the most popular wins. And guess which climate and sustainability story sells the best? The one that demands changes or the one that says we can continue shopping and flying for all eternity?”
Piety – these days rebranded as virtue signalling – is notable in the book by its absence: “They say that climate change deniers are idiots. But everyone is a climate change denier. Every single one of us.” The trolls of Greta Thunberg (whose prestigious ranks include Presidents Trump, Bolsonaro and Putin) are considered with an emotional intelligence that is rarely, if ever, reciprocated. The message that business as usual is the enemy is not a welcome one for those of us conducting business as usual. Far comfier to dismiss the messenger as a mentally ill brat, or the stooge of eco-fascist lizard people hellbent on establishing their own World State, than to admit culpability in ecocide. Far easier to dismiss the science as biased, as false, as “not settled”. The problem is that with every swath of Australia or California burned, every never-before flooded city flooded, every hurricane of record-breaking destruction, and every Florida‑sized ice-shelf splitting off from Antarctica, the same message gets affirmed: that business as usual will roast us, drown us or starve us.
As has already been observed in this post, although Greta Thunberg is not a scientist she is informed, to a high degree, regarding the agreed current scientific understanding of the environmental impact of billions of tons of carbon dioxide emissions as a cause in the phenomenon called "global heating".
Against the background of the efforts of the climate change denial machine set out in this post it is important to foreground the significant scale of consensus amongst scientists across the globe on the matter of global heating.
On 05 November 2019 a statement was published in the journal BioScience on the 40th anniversary of the first world climate conference, which was held in Geneva in 1979. The statement was a collaboration of dozens of scientists and endorsed by further 11,000 from 153 nations. The scientists say the urgent changes needed include ending population growth, leaving fossil fuels in the ground, halting forest destruction and slashing meat eating.
Damian Carrington Environment editor of the Gurdian covered this story (Tue 5 Nov 2019) under the headline and subheading:
Statement sets out ‘vital signs’ as indicators of magnitude of the climate emergency
Damian Carrington reports:
The world’s people face “untold suffering due to the climate crisis” unless there are major transformations to global society, according to a stark warning from more than 11,000 scientists.
“We declare clearly and unequivocally that planet Earth is facing a climate emergency,” it states. “To secure a sustainable future, we must change how we live. [This] entails major transformations in the ways our global society functions and interacts with natural ecosystems.”
There is no time to lose, the scientists say: “The climate crisis has arrived and is accelerating faster than most scientists expected. It is more severe than anticipated, threatening natural ecosystems and the fate of humanity.”
The statement is published in the journal BioScience on the 40th anniversary of the first world climate conference, which was held in Geneva in 1979. The statement was a collaboration of dozens of scientists and endorsed by further 11,000 from 153 nations. The scientists say the urgent changes needed include ending population growth, leaving fossil fuels in the ground, halting forest destruction and slashing meat eating.
Prof William Ripple, of Oregon State University and the lead author of the statement, said he was driven to initiate it by the increase in extreme weather he was seeing. A key aim of the warning is to set out a full range of “vital sign” indicators of the causes and effects of climate breakdown, rather than only carbon emissions and surface temperature rise.
“A broader set of indicators should be monitored, including human population growth, meat consumption, tree-cover loss, energy consumption, fossil-fuel subsidies and annual economic losses to extreme weather events,” said co-author Thomas Newsome, of the University of Sydney.
Other “profoundly troubling signs from human activities” selected by the scientists include booming air passenger numbers and world GDP growth. “The climate crisis is closely linked to excessive consumption of the wealthy lifestyle,” they said.
As a result of these human activities, there are “especially disturbing” trends of increasing land and ocean temperatures, rising sea levels and extreme weather events, the scientists said: “Despite 40 years of global climate negotiations, with few exceptions, we have have largely failed to address this predicament. Especially worrisome are potential irreversible climate tipping points. These climate chain reactions could cause significant disruptions to ecosystems, society, and economies, potentially making large areas of Earth uninhabitable.”
“We urge widespread use of the vital signs [to] allow policymakers and the public to understand the magnitude of the crisis, realign priorities and track progress,” the scientists said.
“You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to look at the graphs and know things are going wrong,” said Newsome. “But it is not too late.” The scientists identify some encouraging signs, including decreasing global birth rates, increasing solar and wind power and fossil fuel divestment. Rates of forest destruction in the Amazon had also been falling until a recent increase under new president Jair Bolsonaro.
They set out a series of urgently needed actions:
Use energy far more efficiently and apply strong carbon taxes to cut fossil fuel use
Stabilise global population – currently growing by 200,000 people a day – using ethical approaches such as longer education for girls
End the destruction of nature and restore forests and mangroves to absorb CO2
Eat mostly plants and less meat, and reduce food waste
Shift economic goals away from GDP growth
“The good news is that such transformative change, with social and economic justice for all, promises far greater human well-being than does business as usual,” the scientists said. The recent surge of concern was encouraging, they added, from the global school strikes to lawsuits against polluters and some nations and businesses starting to respond.
A warning of the dangers of pollution and a looming mass extinction of wildlife on Earth, also led by Ripple, was published in 2017. It was supported by more than 15,000 scientists and read out in parliaments from Canada to Israel. It came 25 years after the original “World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity” in 1992, which said: “A great change in our stewardship of the Earth and the life on it is required, if vast human misery is to be avoided.”
Ripple said scientists have a moral obligation to issue warnings of catastrophic threats: “It is more important than ever that we speak out, based on evidence. It is time to go beyond just research and publishing, and to go directly to the citizens and policymakers.”
Jennifer Rankin, in Brussels (Tue 3 Mar 2020) writes:
A dozen countries have called for an EU climate target for 2030 to be drawn up “as soon as possible”, if the bloc is to galvanise the rest of the world before vital UN talks in Glasgow later this year.
In a letter to the EU’s top official on climate action, Frans Timmermans, the dozen EU member states say “the EU can lead by example and contribute to creating the international momentum needed for all parties to scale up their ambition” by adopting a 2030 EU greenhouse gas emissions reduction target “as soon as possible and by June 2020 at the latest”.
This year’s UN talks in Glasgow are crucial, as the world is far adrift of goals set at the landmark 2015 Paris conference, including the aspiration to limit global heating to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels. Even half a degree higher will significantly increase the risks of drought, floods, extreme heat and poverty for millions of people.
The letter piles pressure on Timmermans, who is due to unveil the EU’s long-awaited climate law on Wednesday. A leaked draft of the law shows Timmermans’ plans to propose an EU-wide 2030 target by September. The target would probably be an emissions reduction of 50-55% compared with 1990 levels, which green activists say is not enough to guarantee meeting the EU’s goal of net-zero emissions by 2050.
EU officials think a couple of months’ difference in proposing the target makes little difference, but would allow them to bring onboard more reluctant countries, including Poland, which has not yet signed up to the EU-wide goal of net zero emissions by mid-century.
The climate and environment ministers argue timing is crucial, as they want the EU to have a 2030 target, before an EU-China summit in September and well ahead of Glasgow climate talks in November. “No other major economy is prepared to take the lead to ensure an ambitious implementation of the Paris agreement,” they write.
Wendel Trio, the director of the Climate Action Network Europe, said: “By proposing a 2030 target increase only in September, the commission will give member states no time to reach an agreement by Cop26 in November, the international deadline by which all countries must commit to new, ambitious climate pledges for 2030. The EU needs to have its own house in order, and quickly to push other countries to make substantial contributions well before the deadline.”
The letter, organised by Denmark, was also signed by France, Italy, Spain and the Netherlands. Only two signatories – Slovenia and Latvia – are central and eastern countries that joined the EU after 2004. Germany is conspicuous by its absence.
The EU climate law is the centrepiece of the European Green Deal, which aims to transform Europe’s economy to confront the climate emergency. The law could set Brussels on a collision course with populist governments in Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, which have been the slowest moving on the climate emergency. Putting the 2050 net zero target into law means Poland could be outvoted if it continued to refuse to sign up.
Under the law, Brussels would also be able to take a government lagging behind on its climate target to the European court of justice, which can issue daily fines for failure to uphold EU law.
Poland, which generates 80% of its electricity from coal, is seeking EU funds to help wean its economy from fossil fuels. The European commission has proposed a €100m (£87m) “just transition” fund to help countries with coal mining jobs adjust to a green economy, but Warsaw has yet to come onboard.
Climate activists have accused the commission of lacking ambition, as the climate law gives scant detail on how the EU will meet the 2050 net zero target, either by phasing out fossil fuel subsidies, reforming the EU’s common agricultural policy or regulating industry.
“With no 2030 climate target and no measures to end subsidies for fossil fuels, industrial farming and other destructive industries, the commission has left a big hole in what’s meant to be the flagship of the European Green Deal,” said Sebastian Mang, a climate and energy policy adviser at Greenpeace.
The Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg is likely to give her verdict on the EU climate plans when she meets MEPs on Wednesday. She will also lead a “European strike” in Brussels on Friday with Belgian campaigners.
But they were just "pretending" . . .
Swedish teen activist Greta Thunberg has rebuked the EU's plan for tackling climate change, telling MEPs it amounts to "surrender".
Ms Thunberg spoke in Brussels on Wednesday as the EU unveiled a proposed law for reducing carbon emissions.
If passed, the law would make it a legal requirement for the EU to be carbon neutral by 2050.
EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen hailed the law as the "heart of the European Green Deal".
But 17-year-old Ms Thunberg dismissed the law as "empty words", accusing the EU of "pretending" to be a leader on climate change.
EU aims to be 'climate neutral' by 2050
EU leaders back 2050 carbon target without Poland
"When your house is on fire, you don't wait a few more years to start putting it out. And yet this is what the Commission is proposing today," Thunberg told the European Parliament's environment committee.
She said the law, which would give the EU Commission more powers to set tougher carbon reduction goals, did not go far enough.
. . . so, "in the end" they "bottled it"!
In cockney rhyming slang, "bottle" means "arse" (bottle and glass). Originally, you would "lose your bottle", that is, be so scared, as to lose control of your bowel function and "shit your pants". This has been shortened down to just "bottle it".
No comments:
Post a Comment