An inconvenient truth: environmental perspective film vs digital

Status
Not open for further replies.
x-ray said:
The earth has never stopped changing from the moment it was formed.
Click to expand...

Agreed..

Something I've been wondering about though...take a look at a world map and note the Eastern side of South America and the Western side of Africa...
 
colyn said:
pedro.m.reis said:
(What the M.S. stands for?)
Click to expand...
Master of Science
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what the field of his M.S. is, but he got it from the Institute of Creation Research and is AFAIK currently employed at an institution called Creation Evidence Museum. I don't intend to dwell further on creationism (that's another quagmire of a topic), but it would be easier to assess his qualification as a climatologist if he was actually institutionally linked to actual climatological research.

colyn said:
Conversely, such an increase may be beneficial since most plants grow better with higher CO2 concentrations--which may explain the extensive biomass of fossilized vegetation and the massive coal seams of the rock record deposited by the Genesis Flood!
Click to expand...
[...]

colyn said:
pedro.m.reis said:
You keep talking about people i dont know nor i can find on-line Who is David V. Bassett, M.S.?
Click to expand...
He's a scientist who know more about the subject than any of us..
Click to expand...
I'm not sure if the text you quoted above (where the Genesis Flood is mentioned) is from him, but if it is, I personally have a hard time taking him seriously as a climatological expert - partly because in spite of being a good Catholic, I have personal doubts whether creationism is a particularly productive platform for doing science at all, but more so because many creationists tend to reject the foundation of a significant portion of the long-term data we have for making climatological conclusions, while at the same time arguing with an agenda about the purpose-driven, designed nature of natural processes. I haven't read much of his work, but at least if he's a Young Earth creationist, I don't think I will find his viewpoint easy to subscribe to.

Philipp
 
xtello said:
Hi.

Unfortunately, consensus ist not the basis of the scientific thinking. Scientific method and proper research is.
Click to expand...
Proper research is peer-reviewed research. You will not find much peer-reviewed climate research which does not suggest that human activity is a significant contributor to climate change, so this is an example of a consensus emerging as a result of the application of scientific method. Contrary to your assertion, this is not that uncommon in science and neither is it necessarily a bad thing (there's a pretty broad consensus in physics that E=MC2 holds true, as just one example, and modern physics would not be quite the thing it is without such a consensus). This is not to deny that a minority of climate scientists hold a different view, but it is to put the debate into an appropriate context.

As I said above, the best thing to do is read the science rather than theorise about the motives of the scientists, or of Al Gore for that matter. I suspect most people are alarmingly uninformed about the science.

Edit: an introduction to peer-review, in case anyone's interested:

http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/29/

Ian
 
Last edited:
rxmd said:
it would be easier to assess his qualification as a climatologist if he was actually institutionally linked to actual climatological research.
Click to expand...

In other words funded by a government and told by that government what to report. :mad: :mad: :mad:

rxmd said:
I have personal doubts whether creationism is a particularly productive platform for doing science at all

Philipp
Click to expand...

We can argue science v creationism all day long (which I won't do) and get nowhere. But....I do know one thing for sure..science for the most part is nothing more than theory..and theory is not factual evidence....but then you can argue that creationism is nothing more than myth..

So you see we get nowhere.. :bang: :bang:

I think it's time to drop this discussion and get back to cameras and film or digital if you shoot digital rf..which is what I am going to do...
 
Hi xtello,
xtello said:
Unfortunately, consensus ist not the basis of the scientific thinking. Scientific method and proper research is. [...]
There's consensus in art, humanities, politics, democracy... but there's no science in them.
Click to expand...
I would tend to agree with you, except for the humanities; at least some of us are making quite an effort to do their work in a scientific manner :) It's actually more difficult than it is in the natural sciences, partly for the quite natural lack of a unified framework for formulating hypotheses and testing them; one element of consensus is already the logical consequence of formulating your research questions in natural language.

Incidentally, there have been strong arguments made for consensus-driven reasoning in the natural sciences as well; a classic example is Thomas Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions", which argues that science usually operates within conceptual frameworks until the framework reaches certain limits, at which point a paradigm shift towards something radically new occurs, and (at least according to Kuhn) the choice for a paradigms isn't usually made based on complete evidence - in fact, often with a new paradigm you have to show that it also fulfils the predictions made by the older model. Another element of consensus is e.g. the choice of fundamental axioms in mathematics; it is possible, for example, to do math while discounting the axiomatic nature of the law of the excluded middle, but most mathematicians today tend to choose not to.

Philipp
 
Hi Colyn,

colyn said:
rxmd said:
it would be easier to assess his qualification as a climatologist if he was actually institutionally linked to actual climatological research.
Click to expand...
In other words funded by a government and told by that government what to report.
Click to expand...
That's actually not at all what I said. I don't care much about where his money comes from; I'm interested in what he's doing. For all I can see, he and his institution aren't engaged in climatological research, so as an authority on climate he's not much more credible than anyone else with an M.S. to his name.

As far as your main argument is concerned; I can speak only from my own experience that I am a scientist, I am government-funded, I am doing potentially politically sensitive research, and I am not told what to report. Maybe I am just lucky. On the other hand, at least in the USA the present government has a very strong stance on climate, while at the same time many researchers advocating human causes of global warming come from the US, so it must be possible at least to some extent to say something else than what their government wants them to say

Philipp
 
iml said:
I suspect most people are alarmingly uninformed about the science.

Ian
Click to expand...

I fully agree with that.

As a matter of fact, we have to recognize that since some time on, human been is becoming a bizarre detractor of him or herself.

There's some kind of "Frankenstein syndrome", in which modern people is satanizing everything that comes out of a lab (or industry).

Stem cell research, cloning, biotechnologically enhanced seeds or animals; every thing seems to be wrong, demoniac or at least politically incorrect.

There are plenty of clutures around the world who are turning back to alternate medicine, just because there's a lot of pseudo-scientific crap being published all around. And there's nothing wrong with alternate medicine, the problem comes when someone decides to abandon "regular" medical treatments just because they read junk science.

At the end of the day, may be the best way to cut carbon polution would be nuclear energy (calculated in long-term benefit); but NUCLEAR sounds evil and for many people is synonim of weapons and destruction.

Regards.
 
Bryce said:
…
On a realistic note, why don't we discuss ways to minimize impact without throwing the film down the drain with the developer?
Here's how I currently deal with my chemistry- and I have both a wet darkroom and film to develop.
Developers- allowed to oxidize for a week, then mixed with stop in an effort to neutralize, then dumped in the drain.
Fixer- recycled via at a local one hour joint.
Toner (selenium)- goes to HazMat pickup after enough is gathered.
Wash aid- just goes down the drain.
I'm looking into buying or making a low flow archival print washer to ease washing and reduce water usage.
Anyone have suggestions to reduce pollution and consumption more?
Click to expand...

Thank you Bryce for actually contributing useful information.

To me it does not matter if global warming is real or not…although I’m placing all my money on it is real, been wrong in the past tho…what matters is how we can live a cleaner and less destructive lifestyle than that which we are currently pursuing.
So, my suggestions / opinions…
I’m trying to ditch the really toxic darkroom chemicals, like selenium, may even invest in safer chemicals: http://silvergrain.org/wiki/Nontoxic_darkroom_chemicals
Recycle and dispose of everything properly…(this is the big one)
Buy film that comes in least amount of packaging possible (freestyle bulk rolled film seems like a good way to go…)
Educate myself on the film & development process so I can make more intelligent decisions in the future.
Be content with what I have (equipment wise, stop looking for that magic piece of equipment that makes me HCB), make every shoot count, and learn how to print in an efficient manner (thereby reducing the amount of waste by the end product)


Jason
 
colyn said:
But....I do know one thing for sure..science for the most part is nothing more than theory..and theory is not factual evidence....but then you can argue that creationism is nothing more than myth..
Click to expand...
Science is *all* about theory, in fact. But theory as in a "system describing something, and giving you predictive power on that something", not a "conjecture made on a spot" as many people seem to understand it. Scientific theory should be verifiable, otherwise it is not scientific.

Gravity is an example of scientific theory. For instance, knowing height of a tower, you can predict how long it will take a stone dropped from top to hit the ground. That's predictive power. You can also actually go and throw down the actual stone, time the freefall and compare to the figures projected by the equation. That's verifiablility/falsifiablilty.

You can also say that it's Santa who makes the stuff fall on the Earth, but one huge problem is that such a conjecture lack predictive power and is useless. Another is that it ain't verifiable, so you don't really know if it is in actuality a Tooth Fairy who does that. You can also call all that a theory, but it is not a scientific theory.

Similarly science doesn't acknowledge or deny creationism, because it can't be verified. It is outside of it's realm.
 
FrankS said:
Once we get global warming all sorted out, we can debate creationism. ;)
Click to expand...

Which version? The one where God created us, or the Roswell Greys? Or how about panspermia?

Anyone want to share a bottle of MacAllan?
 
varjag said:
Scientific theory should be verifiable, otherwise it is not scientific.
Click to expand...

Theory is nothing more than an assumption. If it was verified it would no longer be theory...it would be a proven fact...
 
Facts can only support a theory and give it greater creedance. They can only prove the theory in that instance.
 
Considering the life cycle of digital cameras these days, and what kind of heavy metals actually go in producing high tech wizardry; I don't feel particullary bad about shooting film.
 
"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?
 
rxmd said:
Hi Colyn,
For all I can see, he and his institution aren't engaged in climatological research, so as an authority on climate he's not much more credible than anyone else with an M.S. to his name.

Philipp
Click to expand...

I first met David about 2 years ago. To set the record straight he is an expert in climatological research. He along with Carl Baugh built the first and only operating Hyperbaric Biosphere which is used to simulate atmospheric and climate conditions for research purposes. They are currently building a second larger one and hope to have it operational later this summer. This new one will also contain live animals and plants so they can study the effects of climatological changes on plants and animals.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom