An inconvenient truth: environmental perspective film vs digital

Status
Not open for further replies.
NickTrop said:
You're welcome not to like Al Gore, like I think Bush and Cheney are despicable incompetent #&$^%, but it's not "him" (Gore) that's pushing the science of global warming. It's irrefutable science at this point, and I appreciate any high-profile person helping to get the word out. That said, to say that digital cameras and "digital" in general is more eco-friendly than film. Dunno about that. Printer inks - and ink cartridges are not good things for the environment. Digital cameras, with their short life, ends up in landfills, like all other technology required to view digital images. Certainly film chemistry isn't environmentally friendly. Here's a good thread about ways to make black and white film chemistry a little greener:
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00ARLY
Click to expand...


"Irrefutable" and "science" are two words that seldom belong in the same sentence.

Add global politics and trillions of dollars to "science," and it refutes itself.
 
Roel said:
Well today I finally saw Al Gore's movie 'an inconvient truth'. Must say it really got to me. It's not that I will never ride a car on fossil fuel anymore, but it really made me think and I will have look at what I can do to change some of my habbits.

It made me wonder how environmetally unfriendly shooting on film is versus digital? It will not make me sell my Leica and Rolleiflex but I find it interesting to know. My guess would be that digital will be somewhat less unfriendly but I might be wrong. (If digital cameras will be replaced at the rate cell phones are ....)

What do you think?
Click to expand...

I think it is all due to those bad evil batteries.
 
NickTrop said:
It's irrefutable science at this point,
Click to expand...


Global Warming is NOT a science, 😱 and ........ Gore's documentary is not science! 😱

We live on an interesting rock in a big place for an instant in the scheme of things. :angel:

Should we "follow the money" to determine what "Global Warming" is really about? 😀

Regards.
 
Seems to me that the big money (petrochemical) is behind the "what global warming" view. IMO one couldn't have one's head stuck deeper in the sand, but this is like politics and religion - no sense discussing this any more.

Hi Bill!
 
There are irrefutable facts - carbon dioxide levels have climbed steadily since extensive regular measurements began several decades ago. And indirect measurements (tree rings and such) indicate that CO2 levels have climbed steadily since the dawn of the industrial revolution. What you conclude depends on your null hypothesis:

1. Prove to me that the increase in CO2 is harmful.

2. Prove to me that the increase in CO2 is benign.

Choice 2 is the prudent path. If you wait to prove that it is harmless, you delay action until it is too late to make a difference. I know - people claim it will hurt the economy if we reduce emissions. Those were the same folks who claimed that auto seat belts and air bags were too expensive when I was a child.
 
steamer said:
Forget about all this global warming pro and con nonsense, did anyone notice that Bill Mattock just posted here. Now that's momentous.
Click to expand...

Yup, I noticed, and, for a moment, had to check the date on the post to see if it was actually in "real time". Welcome back Bill.
 
RObert Budding said:
There are irrefutable facts - carbon dioxide levels have climbed steadily since extensive regular measurements began several decades ago. And indirect measurements (tree rings and such) indicate that CO2 levels have climbed steadily since the dawn of the industrial revolution. What you conclude depends on your null hypothesis:

1. Prove to me that the increase in CO2 is harmful.

2. Prove to me that the increase in CO2 is benign.

Choice 2 is the prudent path. If you wait to prove that it is harmless, you delay action until it is too late to make a difference. I know - people claim it will hurt the economy if we reduce emissions. Those were the same folks who claimed that auto seat belts and air bags were too expensive when I was a child.
Click to expand...

This is bigger than seat belts.

I remember the same arguments in the 70s when the new ice age was nearly on us.
Good thing we got that one turned around. Ooops! I guess we went too far.
Back and forth, back and forth.
 
But what about the environmental impact created by all the infrastructure required to support endless film vs. digital debates on the internet?

(I'm not a camera collector any more. I'm a recycler.)
 
Dang, Bill, glad to read (sort of) you again.




RObert Budding said:
There are irrefutable facts - carbon dioxide levels have climbed steadily since extensive regular measurements began several decades ago. And indirect measurements (tree rings and such) indicate that CO2 levels have climbed steadily since the dawn of the industrial revolution. What you conclude depends on your null hypothesis:

1. Prove to me that the increase in CO2 is harmful.

2. Prove to me that the increase in CO2 is benign.

Choice 2 is the prudent path. If you wait to prove that it is harmless, you delay action until it is too late to make a difference. I know - people claim it will hurt the economy if we reduce emissions. Those were the same folks who claimed that auto seat belts and air bags were too expensive when I was a child.
Click to expand...

True, CO2 levels seem to be climbing steadily. Unfortunately, the mean temperature of the world is not. Well, maybe it isn't all that unfortunate.
 
dazedgonebye said:
"Irrefutable" and "science" are two words that seldom belong in the same sentence.
Click to expand...
If you jump (without any parachutes, cables, gliders, anything) from the Empire State Building, it is gravity that will pull you down to the ground, and the longer you take to fall, the harder you will. Something silly like Newtonian physics, although "refutable" at the quantum level, very applicable in every day life.

That is some "irrefutable science" that you can take to the bank. 😛
 
aad said:
True, CO2 levels seem to be climbing steadily. Unfortunately, the mean temperature of the world is not. Well, maybe it isn't all that unfortunate.
Click to expand...
If you've ever taken anything remotely slightly more advanced than just basic Chemistry and Physics (from a competent educational system, which in some countries and societies that would be an oxymoron), you would know that that relationship can never be linear when you're dealing with a fluid where mixture at any given time or place can never be ascertained to be homogeneous (all CO2 levels will never be the same every corner of the world at the same time in a given instant).

But when you have an uninformed, uneducated society, even mythology of the creation of worlds will make it into their curriculae as a "complementary view of reality", so I guess you couldn't blame them for scoffing at in-your-face scientific evidence...

I want butter for my popcorn...
 
RObert Budding said:
What you conclude depends on your null hypothesis:

1. Prove to me that the increase in CO2 is harmful.

2. Prove to me that the increase in CO2 is benign.

Choice 2 is the prudent path. If you wait to prove that it is harmless, you delay action until it is too late to make a difference. I know - people claim it will hurt the economy if we reduce emissions. Those were the same folks who claimed that auto seat belts and air bags were too expensive when I was a child.
Click to expand...
lol -- The business "lobby" kicked and screamed bloody murder when there was talk of outlawing child labour in the U.S. (not to mention the incredibly inefficient 8-hour 5-day work week, as opposed to the 7-day 14+ hour workweeks) It would be detrimental and disastrous to the economy, you see...
 
Gabriel M.A. said:
If you've ever taken anything remotely slightly more advanced than just basic Chemistry and Physics (from a competent educational system, which in some countries and societies that would be an oxymoron), you would know that that relationship can never be linear when you're dealing with a fluid where mixture at any given time or place can never be ascertained to be homogeneous (all CO2 levels will never be the same every corner of the world at the same time in a given instant).

But when you have an uninformed, uneducated society, even mythology of the creation of worlds will make it into their curriculae as a "complementary view of reality", so I guess you couldn't blame them for scoffing at in-your-face scientific evidence...

I want butter for my popcorn...
Click to expand...

I see the dangers of higher education are not lost upon us.
 
Gabriel M.A. said:
If you jump (without any parachutes, cables, gliders, anything) from the Empire State Building, it is gravity that will pull you down to the ground, and the longer you take to fall, the harder you will. Something silly like Newtonian physics, although "refutable" at the quantum level, very applicable in every day life.

That is some "irrefutable science" that you can take to the bank. 😛
Click to expand...

Actually, I think I'd reach terminal velocity before hitting the ground.
Even so, if I heard that from a politician, I'd say there was a good chance that the gravity lobby had their hands in the mess.
 
dazedgonebye said:
This is bigger than seat belts.

I remember the same arguments in the 70s when the new ice age was nearly on us.
Good thing we got that one turned around. Ooops! I guess we went too far.
Back and forth, back and forth.
Click to expand...


Don't forget the killer bees, the millenium bug, the early conversion to DST this year......
 
I just watched the program on the sun (History Channel--third time I've seen it)...and we shouldn't worry about our impact on global climate change; as the sun cools (really it gets hotter) and expands we'll prolly be burned up and the earth resorbed into the outer corona in 4-5 billion years.

So now we've got that to figure out as well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom