Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
I'm with you. The only thing that bothers me is that I do not drive a Hybrid and still like Starbucks
Reg the original question, the other side is always greener
Green is a hoax, a conspiracy between blue and yellow. Green does not exist, only our perception of it.
Now, where's that bong? :angel:
georgef
Well-known
If you want to call me a global warming denier, so be it.
I have spent many, many hundreds hours on this subject, from both scientific and political viewpoints. I'm not just dismissing it out of hand. (My education background is scientific, in fact.).
acceptance is the second symptom
georgef
Well-known
think B&W he he
acceptance is the second symptom
Know of any 12 step programs for those afflicted?
Rehab?
Or, indeed, how about that bong.
georgef
Well-known
yes the bong.....speaking of which...excuse me ...
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
i'm using diafine to develop my film.
I mixed up 2 litres and a half from both solutions more than a year ago.
I am just starting to use the second bottle (i.e. i only produced half a litre developer waste so far).
I am also reusing my fixer at least 10 times.
I don't wash the film under constant running water.
And i ride a bike everyday - don't even have a car.
Yes, i do fly occasionally, actually quite often,lately, for my work...
I mixed up 2 litres and a half from both solutions more than a year ago.
I am just starting to use the second bottle (i.e. i only produced half a litre developer waste so far).
I am also reusing my fixer at least 10 times.
I don't wash the film under constant running water.
And i ride a bike everyday - don't even have a car.
Yes, i do fly occasionally, actually quite often,lately, for my work...
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
now think about how much waste we all produced while reading and answering this thread, LOL.
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
If you want to call me a global warming denier, so be it.
I have spent many, many hundreds hours on this subject, from both scientific and political viewpoints. I'm not just dismissing it out of hand. (My education background is scientific, in fact.)
Regarding science vs. politics, just look at who created and runs the IPCC, and who attends its meetings. It's government officials, not scientists. Google it, the information is there.
Here is an interesting book I ordered from Amazon.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/09...mp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0980076315
I think the day will come where Al Gore and his followers will be considered as the intellectual equals to the Flat Earth Society.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
It's NOT "Gore's theory".
It's much more serious than that.
He is just a well known political figure who made it more popular through his movie.
And earned some $ by that.
A very good politician, thus.
But the theory (neither the idea nor the details) is NOT coming from him.
It's much more serious than that.
He is just a well known political figure who made it more popular through his movie.
And earned some $ by that.
A very good politician, thus.
But the theory (neither the idea nor the details) is NOT coming from him.
And the key word here is 'theory.'
There's no science that can guarantee and prove that what any of the global warming scaremongers claim is happening because of man.
There's no science that can guarantee and prove that what any of the global warming scaremongers claim is happening because of man.
Matthew Allen
Well-known
Science never 'proves' anything but rather provides the best possible explanation based on the testing of hypotheses. Hypotheses which are borne out by experimentation and which stand up to scrutiny may then reach the status of 'scientific theories'.
Do you think those involved in climate research want (rapid man-made) global warming to be a reality? We're all in the same boat with this one.
Matthew
Last edited:
Mike R
Newbie
Theory
Theory
The theory is a recent theory not embraced by all scientists at all. It is mostly political. Is it true? Maybe, but not backed by most of the scientists at the university I work in. The earth has been warming since the ice age. Just be glad that we aren't going that direction. What is undeniable is that we can do better by intelligently using the resources we have and that those pushing global warming have been doing a very good job of marketing their beliefs and theories. It is almost a religion to them at this point.
As for the original question--the way I use film would most certainly be greener than the way of the digital world. I too reuse chemicals, use bulk film, and continue to use outdated cameras. I even bought a manual film RF that was worth about $50. I paid $40 for it and $150 for a CLA so that it would work like new. My old 1.3 mp digital got tossed once I got a newer version. I tried to sell it, but nobody wanted it. For me, film rules in the long run.
Theory
The theory is a recent theory not embraced by all scientists at all. It is mostly political. Is it true? Maybe, but not backed by most of the scientists at the university I work in. The earth has been warming since the ice age. Just be glad that we aren't going that direction. What is undeniable is that we can do better by intelligently using the resources we have and that those pushing global warming have been doing a very good job of marketing their beliefs and theories. It is almost a religion to them at this point.
As for the original question--the way I use film would most certainly be greener than the way of the digital world. I too reuse chemicals, use bulk film, and continue to use outdated cameras. I even bought a manual film RF that was worth about $50. I paid $40 for it and $150 for a CLA so that it would work like new. My old 1.3 mp digital got tossed once I got a newer version. I tried to sell it, but nobody wanted it. For me, film rules in the long run.
Hmm. Science never proves anything? Wow...and all along I was thinking that a proof was actually a proof, and a hypothesis was a hypothesis.
In this case, the best possible explanation is that there is no science behind this, just politics.
In this case, the best possible explanation is that there is no science behind this, just politics.
tritiated
Well-known
How do you prove the theory that it isn't 'happening because of man'? How can you possibly say that there is no science behind it? Are you saying the entire scientific community has collectively massaged data for the politician's benefit?? Nowthat's a theory.
Well for one thing, the climate has always been changing, well before the industrial age began, well before the evil carbon footprints started increasing in size. It was as warm hundreds of years ago as it is now.
For all the global warming denier deniers, nothing is stopping you from acting on your beliefs. It's time to destroy all your possessions that use energy, from incandescent light bulbs to computers to SUVs. (No, you can't sell them, that would just transfer footprints.) Time to log off the net, say adios to the most prosperous world since time began.
Sorry, I don't wish to go back in time, and bring prosperity down to the level of the third world. No thank you.
If we want to change the world, we should instead focus on helping people improve their lives and standard of living.
For all the global warming denier deniers, nothing is stopping you from acting on your beliefs. It's time to destroy all your possessions that use energy, from incandescent light bulbs to computers to SUVs. (No, you can't sell them, that would just transfer footprints.) Time to log off the net, say adios to the most prosperous world since time began.
Sorry, I don't wish to go back in time, and bring prosperity down to the level of the third world. No thank you.
If we want to change the world, we should instead focus on helping people improve their lives and standard of living.
Matthew Allen
Well-known
Even if you completely reject global warming as a valid theory, don't you think there are other good reasons to limit your consumption of energy? The less we use, the longer the oil reserves will last and the less competition there will be for those resources.
Leaving aside carbon dioxide emissions, it is surely still desirable is it not to minimise pollution since this has very real effects on the quality of our lives and the stability of our environment?
I for one would be in favour of increasing our use of nuclear energy since this offers a practical alternative to fossil fuels that will keep us going for long enough (hopefully) that we can develop even cleaner ways to generate energy. Unfortunately this does not appear to be a popular option.
Matthew
Leaving aside carbon dioxide emissions, it is surely still desirable is it not to minimise pollution since this has very real effects on the quality of our lives and the stability of our environment?
I for one would be in favour of increasing our use of nuclear energy since this offers a practical alternative to fossil fuels that will keep us going for long enough (hopefully) that we can develop even cleaner ways to generate energy. Unfortunately this does not appear to be a popular option.
Matthew
benlees
Well-known
I'm 100% with you on nuclear, but I also believe there is plenty of oil, and that there is no energy crisis. That's like saying we have an atom shortage.
If a given country limits their consumption, they limit their growth. And that just allows other countries to grow at the expense of the first, and doesn't change pollution levels...except they are higher, as third world countries have less ability and resources to devote to pollution reduction.
If a given country limits their consumption, they limit their growth. And that just allows other countries to grow at the expense of the first, and doesn't change pollution levels...except they are higher, as third world countries have less ability and resources to devote to pollution reduction.
Cool, you can start by giving me your Porsche.
Aah, redistribution...an old concept that also doesn't work.