An Inconvenient Truth

[John Pytlak RIP]

Actually, each of these issues are not as big issues as they would have been precisely because people took action to lessen the harmful impact. In 1985, IBM pumped 10 million pounds of freon and trichloroethane into the atmosphere from their circuit board cleaners. By 1995 IBM used neither of these compounds and had instituted elaborate chemical reclamation devices to capture the board cleaning solvents they did use. So making a stink about pollution sometimes makes a difference.

 

Kodak did its part in reducing the use of ozone depleting substances too:

 

http://www.epa.gov/Ozone/awards/03winners.html

 

Eastman Kodak Company

Country: USA

For: Innovation in PTR Film Cleaners and Elimination of CFCs Worldwide

 

Kodak promoted the use of Particle Transfer Roller (PTR) film cleaners as an alternative to off-line use of 1,1,1-trichloroethane for cleaning motion film. PTR technology uses a specially molded soft polyurethane roller that captures dirt and dust through contact adhesion without the use of solvents. Kodak encourages PTR use by conducting technical presentations and distributing product literature and has donated the technology to the public domain for use by customers and competitors. Kodak also implemented an aggressive stewardship program to eliminate ODSs from its industrial refrigeration operations, which are among the largest in the world. A key feature of the program is the intensive retrofit and replacement of existing refrigeration equipment. With PTR and its efforts to reduce emissions from refrigeration equipment, Kodak has eliminated over one million pounds of ODSs from its worldwide operations

 

I led the project that developed PTR film cleaning for motion pictures, now used by most film labs and telecine facilities around the world.

[Andy_Alderslade]

I find this whole creationsim vs evolution issue dumb-founding, i've met people who are happy for the two to co-exist, some were Church of England Vicars and Catholic Priests and one Catholic Monk. You can have Christians who believe in Evolution (like David) and Doctors/Scientists who are Christians.

 

I wonder if people who deny Evolution go around wearing ear plugs because it doesn't take much for say a sports theoripist or a local doctor to start explaining things in relation to evolution.

 

A few weeks after a bike accident I had back in Febuary, I went to my local Doctor asking about the shape of a bone that was clearly struting out my shoulder after the swelling and bruising had died down, he quite calmly said not to worry as the Collar Bone (the bone which had been broken) is actually quite a reduntant bone, left over from when humane beings used to walk on all fours, and it was perfectly acceptable for it to heal mis-aligned. About 5 months latter I had regained much but not all of my strength and the one lifting motion I was incapable off was a sit-up or even an extremly light bench press - exercises most similar to the weight distribution of walking on all fours.

 

Latter just before an operation (in the end the hospital felt the shoulder needed surgery) a doctor explained why I was likely to feel sick from the anethetic and explained it by, guess what - evolution.

 

Evolution is staring us in the face, denying its existence must require a tremendous determination of thought.

 

Is such a determination dangerous? Its certainly is with denying the existence of say the Holocaust or the possible dangers of global warming.

Edited July 27, 2006 by Andy_Alderslade

[Matt Pacini]

"...he quite calmly said not to worry as the Collar Bone (the bone which had been broken) is actually quite a reduntant bone, left over from when humane beings used to walk on all fours, ..."

 

Perhaps.

But I should remind you, that there was a time in very recent history, when a doctor would also quite calmly tell you that the appendix, and several other glands are useless holdovers.

Now they know differently.

 

Point; what a doctor says today, doesn't "prove" evolution, because medical science evolves as well.

It doesn't prove anything, and I'm not on either side of the "evolution-vs-creationism" argument.

I'm just pointing out a logical fallacy here.

It's the all too common "some smart guy said it, so it's true" fallacy.

Lots of smart people say a lot of wrong things.

Always have, always will.

 

MP

 

That's EXACTLY what makes it science and not religion; it can be updated, corrected and even discarded completely as new evidence comes in, new experiments are created, better theories are dreamed up. That's the beauty of it -- you make it sound like a flaw.

 

 

I agree 100%, and I'm not criticising science. It is, as it should be. Contantly evolving with new discoveries.

What I'm criticising, is that it has become for many, the "new religion", and the average person keeps stating some of these "facts" as if they are absolute, truth-of-the-universe, eternally and forever written in stone, when they are not.

Scientific views on global warming (and everything else) will change, perhaps even up to, and including, that we're not causing it (as i believe).

(Of course, they won't "prove" we're not causing it, but when the data fails to continue to support the present theory, it will just fade away, to be replaced with some other doomsday scenario.)

 

All this talk about "truth" and "non-debateable fact" is religious talk, not scientific talk.

I don't believe that any credible scientists talk like this. For one thing, they are so often disproven, that to say your theories are non-debateable, means you're likely to end up with your foot in your mouth someday.

Basically, many people's politics is a religion to them, and they use science to "prove" their religion, just exactly the same way religious extremists do.

I find this ironic, since most of these same people vehemently HATE religious people for doing the same thing.

I saw Janeane Garofalo interviewed a while back, and the interviewer asked her about her political views on a particular subject, and she kept insisting they weren't her views, they weren't political (sound familiar?), they weren't opinions, but that they were ABSOLUTE TRUTH AND FACT and were not up for interpretation.

 

This folks, is religion.

 

MP

Edited July 27, 2006 by Matt Pacini

[Andy_Alderslade]

Point; what a doctor says today, doesn't "prove" evolution, because medical science evolves as well.

It doesn't prove anything, and I'm not on either side of the "evolution-vs-creationism" argument.

I'm just pointing out a logical fallacy here.

It's the all too common "some smart guy said it, so it's true" fallacy.

Lots of smart people say a lot of wrong things.

Always have, always will.

 

I didn't expect the example to prove evolution, and I very much agree with you to believe and completly follow the advice of doctors or 'clever people' blindly can be detremental (infact when a doctor says 'not to worry' when your shoulder is all wonky its very hard to trust a doctor at all)

 

But I was simply outlining that it was one of many life experiences (this time mixing current medical knowledge with physical experience) suggesting and hinting at the existence of evolution. And that as we all fall sick, incure injuries, witness examples present in nature and build up a memory store of those experiences it is very difficult deny evolution, without deliberiate concious denial.

[David Mullen ASC]

Just look at a Pug or Chihuahua and remind yourself that these dogs were bred from wolves through hundreds of years of selective breeding. That's just what primitive man could do, and then imagine what nature can do given millions of years, and it's not such a hard leap to believe that things change and alter given enough time and external forces like climate change and cosmic radiation.

 

If there's any basic law of the universe that we should be able to agree on, it's that things change over time. Even our own sun will eventually use up its atomic fuel and die.

[Alessandro Machi]

The way things are going I may be joining their ranks. On the plus side, it could lead to good deals on used gear.

 

The "end of the world" is not really an accurate statement, the world will do quite nicely without the human race. Even hydrogen bombs will simply scab the surface of the planet for a while and then all will be well again, some may argue even better than before.

 

The "end of our world as we know it" is probably more appropriate, although the "end of electricity" is what I'm most concerned about.

[Matt Pacini]

Things like disease and natural disasters are far more deadly than the planet warming up a few degrees over hundreds of years.

I read an interview in a science journal with a virologist, and he said they have a saying:

"The 19th century was followed by the 20th century, which will be followed by the 19th century".

 

I think in 100-200 years, mankind will be cooking over fires, using whale oil for lighting, and using horses for transportation again.

Basically, picture the entire planet living like the Amish... but with better sex.

 

MP

[Max Jacoby]

Matt

 

You should check out 'The Long Emergency' by James Howard Kunstler, I have a feeling that book is right up your alley.

[Robert Hughes]

Just look at a Pug or Chihuahua and remind yourself that these dogs were bred from wolves through hundreds of years of selective breeding. That's just what primitive man could do, and then imagine what nature can do given millions of years, and it's not such a hard leap to believe that things change and alter given enough time and external forces like climate change and cosmic radiation.

Remember that sports commentator who got fired for saying that basketball players were the product of generations of selective breeding? How else do you explain basketball players are taller than their team owners? Manager-fest Destiny?

[Raffinator]

I saw Janeane Garofalo interviewed a while back, and the interviewer asked her about her political views on a particular subject, and she kept insisting they weren't her views, they weren't political (sound familiar?), they weren't opinions, but that they were ABSOLUTE TRUTH AND FACT and were not up for interpretation.

 

This folks, is religion.

 

MP

 

Matt, I definitely agree with you on this. That's what scares me -- when people can't accept debate or the intelligent questioning of any issue, regardless of whether their take on that issue is right or just. Ideology is sometimes just an escape from thought.

[Robert Hughes]

Matt, I definitely agree with you on this. That's what scares me -- when people can't accept debate or the intelligent questioning of any issue, regardless of whether their take on that issue is right or just. Ideology is sometimes just an escape from thought.

I've never heard her or this interview, but she's a comedian, right? Sounds like Ms. Garofalo successfully pulled your leg and you didn't even catch the joke. Edited July 31, 2006 by Robert Hughes

[Alessandro Machi]

I find this ironic, since most of these same people vehemently HATE religious people for doing the same thing.

I saw Janeane Garofalo interviewed a while back, and the interviewer asked her about her political views on a particular subject, and she kept insisting they weren't her views, they weren't political (sound familiar?), they weren't opinions, but that they were ABSOLUTE TRUTH AND FACT and were not up for interpretation.

 

This folks, is religion.

 

MP

 

Well I read Matt Pacini on Cinematography.com say.....

 

This is called situation ethics, and in my opinion it's what's behind the incredible lack of basic morals these days.

This has been the standard practice in education and our culture for the last 20 years or so, and it's obviously resulted in a catastrophe of moral decay.

 

Any time you hear someone say something like "well, TECHNICALLY it's wrong, however..." you know that situation ethics is at work. It's not wrong if I don't want it to be wrong, or it's wrong in some other instance, but not in this one.

Like "sure, it's wrong to hit women, but she was dissin' me, so it's OK" That sort of thing.

 

Saying that X percent of the audience isn't paying because they're downloading, DOES NOT RESULT in lost money for the studio is just absurdity.

 

It's pretty simple to figure out if it's stealing: If there is a price on it, and you don't pay that price, you're stealing. The other way to know, is if the owner of it says it's stealing, then it's stealing.

It's not complicated at all.

 

MP

 

That sounds like a pretty religious conviction as well.

 

 

It's pretty simple to figure out if it's stealing: If there is a price on it, and you don't pay that price, you're stealing. The other way to know, is if the owner of it says it's stealing, then it's stealing.

It's not complicated at all.

MP

 

When the New Orleans flood happened, the broadcasters made a big deal about "looters" even though what was being "looted" was the only food available, and would have otherwise perished.

 

by Matts criteria, they were "stealing". Meanwhile, it's been alleged and pretty much confirmed that Condoleeza Rice was in New York shopping for shoes in a posh New York store while people were on their rooftops hoping to survive. But since she probably paid for her purchase, I guess she wasn't looting anyone by being oblivious to the plight of her fellow Americans, even though her job is to protect all American Citizens from disasters, manmade or otherwise.

[David Mullen ASC]

Not all facts are opinions -- sometimes they actually are facts.

 

And there is also the issue of probability versus possibility. Almost anything is possible, but not necessarily probable. Sure it's possible that super intelligent aliens planted the first life on the planet, but there are more probable theories ahead of that one.

[Arni Heimir]

When the New Orleans flood happened, the broadcasters made a big deal about "looters" even though what was being "looted" was the only food available, and would have otherwise perished.

 

When I was watching the news coverage of the Katrina aftermath, I felt as if I was watching something from a third world country.

[John Pytlak RIP]

Meanwhile, it's been alleged and pretty much confirmed that Condoleeza Rice was in New York shopping for shoes in a posh New York store while people were on their rooftops hoping to survive. But since she probably paid for her purchase, I guess she wasn't looting anyone by being oblivious to the plight of her fellow Americans, even though her job is to protect all American Citizens from disasters, manmade or otherwise.

 

Condi's job responsibilities do not include protecting "all American Citizens from disasters, manmade or otherwise".

 

However, I do hope that she finally realizes that her job is to help bring peace to troubled regions of the world through diplomacy.

[Hal Smith]

When I was watching the news coverage of the Katrina aftermath, I felt as if I was watching something from a third world country.

Unfortunately you were.

 

A nation that exports raw materials and imports finished goods is generally considered "third world". Am I the only person in the USA to have figured out that manufacturing is how you produce wealth? Taking raw materials and turning them into finished goods produces added value. Finance and service economies just move money around, increasingly in the US from the poor to the rich. And a giant defense economy means you take tax monies and produce products that no-one can eat, drive, plow a field with, etc.

 

While of a pretty liberal persuasion personally, I find it somewhat ironic that the United States of America, the bastion of democracy(?), now imports billions and billions of dollars per year of consumer products from a Communist country. And at the same time wags its finger at poor Fidel's Cuba. And at Venezuela - where we get a lot of our oil from.

 

If I was of the documentarian persuasion, I'd do a film on the above. If you're interested, let's talk. "Roger and Me" was absolutely tame compared to the film that needs to be made.

 

Hal Smith

Edmond, OK

 

PS: I'll accept no flames from anyone who can't say they're a veteran, myself of the U.S. Navy carrier fleet. I was a Navy Electronics Technician when a kid. I consider the Honor of having placed oneself in harm's way for the service of one's country to be a prerequisite for criticizing same country. That's one thing the Israeli's have right - if you're a citizen, you're automatically a vet (unless something's very wrong with you physically, etc.)

[Tom Bays]

Condi is on the job :)

[timHealy]

PS: I'll accept no flames from anyone who can't say they're a veteran, myself of the U.S. Navy carrier fleet. I was a Navy Electronics Technician when a kid. I consider the Honor of having placed oneself in harm's way for the service of one's country to be a prerequisite for criticizing same country. That's one thing the Israeli's have right - if you're a citizen, you're automatically a vet (unless something's very wrong with you physically, etc.)

 

I'm sorry Hal but I'll have to disagree with you on this one. While serving in the armed forces should be and is an honorable path, it should not be and is not a prerequiste to commenting on the state of affairs of our country.

 

If it was, then perhaps the Bush team would have had a little more respect for John McCain in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004. even though I did not serve in the miltary, it annoyed me greatly that John Kerry was attacked for his service and that no one seemed to realize he was a bright, articulate young man from a wealthy family and probably could have dodged serving but HE CHOOSE TO GO to Vietnam instead while Bush barely showed up in the National Guard and Cheney and Wolfowitz got deferment after deferment. I think Cheney got 5 during the war years.

 

And McCain was embarrassed during South Carolina primary when after he adopted a child from I believe from South East Asia, and the Bush team spread rumors that he had a love child with a black hooker (like race isn't an issue in South Carolina...yeah right) and that his wife was a drug addict after she had taken control of her habit and was reformed. I believe she was an alcoholic, but correct me if I am forgetting the details. And this was a man whose father was considered a great military man in the Navy and McCain "served" in a Viet Cong POW camp for something like 5 years after being shot down! I wonder how much partying and drinking Bush did during those 5 years?

 

And about the Isreali thing. I am not Isreali nor jewish, but some Isreali's don't join the military for a number of reasons including the orthodox.

 

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refusal_to_se...sraeli_military

 

Best

 

Tim

Edited August 1, 2006 by heel_e

[Andy_Alderslade]

However, I do hope that she finally realizes that her job is to help bring peace to troubled regions of the world through diplomacy.

 

Nicely put.

[Alessandro Machi]

Condi's job responsibilities do not include protecting "all American Citizens from disasters, manmade or otherwise".

 

However, I do hope that she finally realizes that her job is to help bring peace to troubled regions of the world through diplomacy.

 

If it had been terroriists that had bombed the levees, she would have been all over it. Offers of help came in from other countries, fielding the offers IS within her job description, yet she was in New York vacationing.

 

Another morally bankrupt official among the party that lays claim to God as their spiritual advisor.

 

 

 

 

Condi is on the job :)

 

Wow, that was a pretty quick, and not very well thought out jab at me, don't you think.

[Alessandro Machi]

I'm sorry Hal but I'll have to disagree with you on this one. While serving in the armed forces should be and is an honorable path, it should not be and is not a prerequiste to commenting on the state of affairs of our country.

 

If it was, then perhaps the Bush team would have had a little more respect for John McCain in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004. even though I did not serve in the miltary, it annoyed me greatly that John Kerry was attacked for his service and that no one seemed to realize he was a bright, articulate young man from a wealthy family and probably could have dodged serving but HE CHOOSE TO GO to Vietnam instead while Bush barely showed up in the National Guard and Cheney and Wolfowitz got deferment after deferment. I think Cheney got 5 during the war years.

 

And McCain was embarrassed during South Carolina primary when after he adopted a child from I believe from South East Asia, and the Bush team spread rumors that he had a love child with a black hooker (like race isn't an issue in South Carolina...yeah right) and that his wife was a drug addict after she had taken control of her habit and was reformed. I believe she was an alcoholic, but correct me if I am forgetting the details. And this was a man whose father was considered a great military man in the Navy and McCain "served" in a Viet Cong POW camp for something like 5 years after being shot down! I wonder how much partying and drinking Bush did during those 5 years?

 

And about the Isreali thing. I am not Isreali nor jewish, but some Isreali's don't join the military for a number of reasons including the orthodox.

 

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refusal_to_se...sraeli_military

 

Best

 

Tim

 

 

Don't you find it odd that John Kerry didn't fight back from the innuendo's that were being laid at his feet.

A guy who actually was in Viet Nam and who had bullets fly by him from the enemy and he has to back down while George Bush remained unscathed?

 

Suspicious, isn't it?

[John Pytlak RIP]

Some people fight clean. Some people "hit below the belt". That's what good referees (voters) are supposed to catch.

[Alessandro Machi]

Some people fight clean. Some people "hit below the belt". That's what good referees (voters) are supposed to catch.

 

 

I shot an interview with a Viet Nam Vet a few months before the Viet Nam Controversy hit the presidential race and he spoke of his anger at Kerry, it was the first I had heard of such a sentiment and I knew Kerry was headed for controversy, especially because he used his Viet Nam experiences to curry favor in the first few primaries, so the whole anti Kerry Viet Nam movement probably was a grass roots effort.

 

Perhaps Kerry didn't feel comfortable attacking George Bushes record since the attack on him was a grass roots effort not necessarily initiated by the Bush camp.

[Leo Anthony Vale]

If it had been terroriists that had bombed the levees, she would have been all over it.

 

But because it was a "natural" disaster, she goes on vacation shopping for shoes? Another morally bankrupt official among the party that lays claim to God as their spiritual advisor.

 

Wow, that was a pretty quick, and not very well thought out jab at me, don't you think.

 

---Condi is the Secretary of State.

 

The State Department is the 'foreign office' not the 'home office'.

Foreign affairs rather than domestic affairs.

 

The duties of the Secretary of State from U.S. Department of State site:

 

Serves as the President?s principal adviser on U.S. foreign policy;

Conducts negotiations relating to U.S. foreign affairs;

Grants and issues passports to American citizens and exequaturs to foreign consuls in the United States;

Advises the President on the appointment of U.S. ambassadors, ministers, consuls, and other diplomatic representatives;

Advises the President regarding the acceptance, recall, and dismissal of the representatives of foreign governments;

Personally participates in or directs U.S. representatives to international conferences, organizations, and agencies;

Negotiates, interprets, and terminates treaties and agreements;

Ensures the protection of the U.S. Government to American citizens, property, and interests in foreign countries;

Supervises the administration of U.S. immigration laws abroad;

Provides information to American citizens regarding the political, economic, social, cultural, and humanitarian conditions in foreign countries;

Informs the Congress and American citizens on the conduct of U.S. foreign relations;

Promotes beneficial economic intercourse between the United States and other countries;

Administers the Department of State;

Supervises the Foreign Service of the United States.

 

In addition, the Secretary of State retains domestic responsibilities that Congress entrusted to the State Department in 1789. These include the custody of the Great Seal of the United States, the preparation of certain presidential proclamations, the publication of treaties and international acts as well as the official record of the foreign relations of the United States, and the custody of certain original treaties and international agreements. The Secretary also serves as the channel of communication between the Federal Government and the States on the extradition of fugitives to or from foreign countries.

 

http://www.state.gov/secretary/96.htm

 

New Orleans is not her beat. Something more like Brahms or Shostakovich.

 

Perhaps if New Orleans had ceded from the Union prior ti Katrina...

 

Sometimes it takes a few jabs to knock some sense into someone.

 

 

---LV

[Tom Bays]

global warming is real

 

It is also real on mars