An inconvenient truth: environmental perspective film vs digital

[FrankS]

"...the first and only operating Hyperbaric Biosphere which is used to simulate atmospheric and climate conditions for research purposes."

Of what use is studying the pressure of an atmosphere other than the normally/naturally occurring atmospheric pressure? More voodoo/quasi science IMO.

I mean, if one is looking for suspect/influenced science, one has to look no farther than "scientists" with "creationist studies" credentials! Come on, get real!

This strongly reminds me of the supression of science by the Catholic church in medieval times because it didn't fit the ideology.

 

[NickTrop]

Carl Edward Baugh (born October 21, 1936) is an American young earth creationist. He and several others are known for claiming to have discovered human and dinosaur footprints together in rocks near the Paluxy River in Texas. Baugh's "research" has put him at odds with other young earth creationists. His claims are rejected by the scientific community as pseudoscience.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Baugh

 

[jtzordon]

Theory is nothing more than an assumption. If it was verified it would no longer be theory...it would be a proven fact...

A theory in scientific terms is more than an assumption. A theory, scientifically speaking, has been tested and held true many times over without exception. This does not mean it is true; it does mean that it is more than an assumption and is a reasonably accurate description on reality. The phrase, "It's a good idea in theory..." has no place in science; if the theory isn't accurate in reality, then it's not a theory.

 

[peterc]

LOL... When did this country lose its mind?

Humanity lost its mind when it discovered religion. Belief in a higher being conveniently shifts responsibility from the guilty.

Peter

 

[Nick R.]

Theory is nothing more than an assumption. If it was verified it would no longer be theory...it would be a proven fact... . ..

This is lawyer talk. Calling gravity a theory or a fact doesn't change its affect on us. Calling evolution a theory doesn't make it less of a fact. There isn't a one-to-one mapping of English to science. Words don't exactly interpret the true sense of science or its methods. Creationist lawyers use this semantic flaw to try and poke holes in the theory of evolution. Just as politicians use the same flaws to argue both sides of the global warming issue.

 

[Creagerj]

There is no denying that film which uses silver has some environmental impact. But with proper handling i.e. not dumping fixer down the sink, that can be minimized. Also don't be so sure that digital is clean. Micro chip fabs use some pretty harmful chemicals to wash the silicon wafers.

 

[Al Patterson]

"Intelligent Design" = science, should be taught in science class...

"Climate Change" = junk science(tm), and the vastly overwhelming consensus among legitimate scientists that it is real, potentially catastrophic, and caused by humans should be ignored on account of we no likey Al Gore who made a movie about it. Besides, "Rush Limbaugh" sez it ain't true. Heard it on AM radio, station 10,202 on the static-y station right after that guy who always speaks in tongues before begging for donations.

LOL... When did this country lose its mind?

I grant you that some folks might fall into this sceme, but I for one think BOTH "Intelligent Design" and "Global Warming" are junk science. "Climate Change" is not equal to "Global Warming", but I assume you knew that and were just spewing more agitprop.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Not quiet true.. Terminal velocity depending on several factors is reached after several seconds of free fall

If you know about "terminal velocity", you know that the statements you're making aren't absolute either. It all depends on how you're falling.

Funny how you keep on arguing on "details". I thought your arguments were all about black and white. If you want the meaty details, we could get into them.

We'd have a slide presentation, a la Al Gore... now, how many people would rather drink from a dog's bowl than actually think and be open to the possibility that somebody who thinks differently than you could be "right"? :angel:

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Who is Rush Limbaugh?? A scientist?

ROFL -- I see the celebrity status hasn't hopped the pond.

It's a sociopath celebrity that attacks and rants against anything that he doesn't agree with, all for ratings. Radio talk is, after all, a business. The casualty is intelligent political debate.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

I believe that it is a natural cyclical process. That's what I was taught in various science classes over the years. I'm sure man is contributing to it, but the ice age ended without our intervention, and we'll likely see another ice age at some point.

Human life is a natural process, too. If somebody shoots and kills somebody, it'd be a pretty ridiculous defense to say "he was going to die someday, inevitably; all I did was contribute to it!" I'm sure some have tried hoping that the judge was a moron.

Or to say that the water cycle is a natural process, so it's ok to pollute it all you want, because it's going to be cleaned sometime, somehow, with or without our intervention...

These kindergarten arguments seem to be working with many in the so-called "global warming debate".

 

[micromontenegro]

So...you're saying...Santa and the Tooth Fairy... ?

Hey, hold it there. You can deny Santa all you want, but the Tooth Fairy is real... I saw her last week. She is a Pug bitch, fast as hell.
Edit: No, I did not catch her on film. I said she was FAST

 

[colyn]

If you know about "terminal velocity", you know that the statements you're making aren't absolute either. It all depends on how you're falling.

You missed the part where I said "depending on several factors".

Yes I agree it depends on how you are falling afterall skydivers have been known to reach speeds of 150+mph but I would not want to be falling at that speed when I pull the ring.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Theory is nothing more than an assumption. If it was verified it would no longer be theory...it would be a proven fact...

Incorrect. "Gravity" (as a concept) itself is a theory; it is verifiable, but it is not proven fact as far as its exact nature is concerned. It is one of the real mysteries of science, because you can verify that it exists, yet you can't say exactly what it is.

It is all mathematically verifiable. Its manifestation is verifiable. Yet, no "snapshot" of it exists, something so paradoxical for a force which manifests on and with all matter and its mass. It still remains one of the most complex riddles in the scientific world.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Hey, hold it there. You can deny Santa all you want, but the Tooth Fairy is real... I saw her last week. She is a Pug bitch, fast as hell.
Edit: No, I did not catch her on film. I said she was FAST

No!!! Santa is real. He's been trying to be funny the past few years, but he's real. I know he is. He is!

I say he is, and that is final. Ever since the Earth was made 5000 years ago, he's been as reliable as ever!

 

[colyn]

Calling evolution a theory doesn't make it less of a fact.

Last I heard evolution is a theory..

Creationist lawyers use this semantic flaw to try and poke holes in the theory of evolution. Just as politicians use the same flaws to argue both sides of the global warming issue.

As do evolutionists when trying to prove creationism is a myth.

If you believe in evolution then evolution is right for you. If on the other hand you believe in creationism then creationism is right for you.

Therefore neither is right nor is either wrong..

 

[sepiareverb]

If we really wish to be environmentally conscientious, there are far more things we can do of greater significance than to discuss and debate film vs. digital....

You're right- like turning off our computers and taking a walk! Less electricity used, less health care supplies down the road.

 

[visiondr]

If you believe in evolution then evolution is right for you. If on the other hand you believe in creationism then creationism is right for you.

Therefore neither is right nor is either wrong..

Hmmm, Isn't that a bit like saying "if you believe in gravity, then gravity is right for you."? C'mon, really. Scientific debate has nothing to do with belief or faith anymore than whether or not I believe or have faith that chocolate chip cookies exist.

 

[Al Patterson]

Human life is a natural process, too. If somebody shoots and kills somebody, it'd be a pretty ridiculous defense to say "he was going to die someday, inevitably; all I did was contribute to it!" I'm sure some have tried hoping that the judge was a moron.

Or to say that the water cycle is a natural process, so it's ok to pollute it all you want, because it's going to be cleaned sometime, somehow, with or without our intervention...

These kindergarten arguments seem to be working with many in the so-called "global warming debate".

You miss the point. While my relatively simple reply gets derided as "kindergarten argument" there are still plenty of scientists in fields as diverse as solar science, astronomy, paleantology among others who disagree with the general view. I wish I had the time to look for more, but here is a link to an interesting series I found a while back.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=c8019202-b14c-4cd8-9192-782d5b5d8b3d

And to say that just because I believe climate behaves in a cyclical fashion I would be fine with murder or pollution? I said nothing of the sort. Do not put words in my mouth. I find it arrogant and offensive.

 

[Silva Lining]

Carl Edward Baugh (born October 21, 1936) is an American young earth creationist. He and several others are known for claiming to have discovered human and dinosaur footprints together in rocks near the Paluxy River in Texas.

Mystery solved

 

[Davor]

You miss the point. While my relatively simple reply gets derided as "kindergarten argument" there are still plenty of scientists in fields as diverse as solar science, astronomy, paleantology among others who disagree with the general view. I wish I had the time to look for more, but here is a link to an interesting series I found a while back.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=c8019202-b14c-4cd8-9192-782d5b5d8b3d

And to say that just because I believe climate behaves in a cyclical fashion I would be fine with murder or pollution? I said nothing of the sort. Do not put words in my mouth. I find it arrogant and offensive.

The trouble isn't exactly what you belive, as the fact that you belive it despite overwhealming evidence pointing to the opposite. It's a bit like saying that rain falls upwards, when mosty people can see and have agreed thay's not the case.

I have listened to more lectures about global warming by the leading scientists in the field, then I can count. And as far as I'm (and the rest of scientific community for that matter, if you leave out quasi-science) concerned global warming is not a theory -- it's a fact.