walter23 wrote:
Are you a qualified climate scientist? An ecologist? Do you have years of training in those extraordinarily complicated disciplines? Do you have the humility to accept this fact, or do you have the tenacity and intelligence to do something about it and develop a cogent argument against the published work and real data (not the stuff you see on TV)?
One major problem is that people, spurred on by irresponsible politicians, religious leaders, and partisanship, have become ridiculously arrogant. They don't value or trust expertise. But their skepticism is often very blind; many of them value and trust charismatic politicians, or those with the biggest advertising budgets. If some loudmouth says "ahhh, that's such a bunch of BULLSH!T" with an angry enough face, and on a pervasive enough TV channel, everybody flocks behind him.
I see no hope for our society if we can't each take on a little bit of personal humility and accept that we don't know a lot about things other people might have expertise in. I'm not going to question the physicists and engineers who design delivery systems to put communications satellites into orbit; I know nothing about robotics or digital signal processing; and I'm also not going to try to pick apart the arguments of climatologists who've spent years studying our natural systems. This doesn't mean we should be blindly obedient to authority; but if we're going to be skeptical, we have to be *truly* skeptical, and that means being skeptical of the skeptics as well. And if this is the point where you say "LOTS OF SCIENTISTS DON'T BELIEVE IN <whatever>", please answer: who, what did they study, how did they come to their conclusions, and what contradictory data is also out there. If you don't know that answer right off the bat you need to learn more before you start making assertions. ...Show more →
Now that is an interesting response......by reading it I conclude the following:
You are a qualified climatologist or ecologist,
You have years of training,
Because you stridently believe that one must be 'qualified' and 'trained' (for years) to engage in critical thinking, and you obviously believe your views on the matter are to be accepted without thinking by anyone who does not meet your litmus test.
Either that or you're an unthinking believer in the tripe you read in the press, ready to attack anyone in an evangilical frenzy who challenges your dogma.
zeus87 wrote:
Extreme Technological advancement is far beyond any kind of "natural" or "re-occuring" state. We have introduced and produced technology that has surpassed mans mind in terms of outcome on our planet. We can't even identify effects of nutrtion on our own greedy, self centered bodys without contradicting ourselves in 6 months, and you think there is a balance between man vs nature? Hah.. The science should be focused on individual aspects rather than the planet as a whole, we must pick and choose our battles...the war is lost without global catastrophe. Enough is enough with all the hype, pick what is needed and leave the rest. You can't fix everything at this point, hell...I watched the destruction of two threatned species by auto collision this week. But still focused on CO2 levels? Ignorance has been an excuse for far too long. Live it, love it, and deal with it...Guilt is unmeasurable....Show more →
It's got to be rough living with such a high degree of self-loathing. I'm feelin for ya, dude. (Not sympathy though.....more pity)
archer wrote:
At the risk of this being a totally hijacked thread... The issue (as I see it) is that we ARE having an impact. I really recommend watching Extreme Ice, or looking at James Balog's Extreme Ice Survey project. The vast majority of scientists world wide DO believe that we are experiencing a major climate change. It is true, the planet has experienced temperature changes over and over throughout our planets lifetime. But scientists & climatologists agree that this has been greatly accelerated ever since the industrial revolution. Many predict that the high alpine glaciers (such as those in the Himalayas) will be completely melted away within the next 50-100 years. They do not hold enough water to raise ocean levels to a catastrophic level, but they are THE source of freshwater for a HUGE population of people (mainly in India, China, and East Asia). What will happen when fresh water supplies run dry in these countries - all of which have extensive nuclear arsenals? Yes, it may be overly dramatic. Or it may be our future. It may be sensational, but if there is even a chance for this to be true - isn't it worth it for us to take a stand and give something back to our planet (after all that we've taken from it) other than elevated CO2 levels, toxic waste, and ignorance of the huge impact we have on this planet that we call home. I'd be happy to learn that a million years from now, humans didn't have a negative impact on the planet earth - by that sounds pretty sensational too....Show more →
The vast majority of scientists in the world are focused on two things: Getting a name for themselves, and getting grant money. (beats the crap out of gainful employment).
As such, they very much engage in herd mentality, and form their opinions based upon the affirmative head-nodding of thier peers and the bestowers of grants. Since the bestowers of grants happen to be resoundingly anti business and private enterprise (not surprising, since their idea of 'survival of the fittest' is to handicap the fittest) the independent critical thought needed is elimiated for a liberal political world view and the 'madness of crowds' becomes the concensus of science these days. And pity the poor scientist, academician or journalist who goes against the tide.
Now, there are exceptions to any generality, but the existence of an exception does not disprove the generality. There just aren't enough scientists with integrity these days---- and journalism? What a joke.
I am not a pro but I play one on TV. Just kidding. I started planning trips to shot for pleasure about a year ago. I was truly amazed at the number of birds/wildlife I started to see once I began to plan, look , and really listen.
I am convinced that good planning is the key to getting the great shots. Yes, there is a degree of luck involved but you can drastically increase the likelihood of taking that great lucky shot by being at the right place at the right time.
Johnny Bravo wrote:
I'm just dreading they day that stop doing that article and go with a 'Global Warming/Animal Gay Marriage' combo issue. That'll be it for me, and I fear it's coming.
look at NG's website, I'm pretty sure I read an article on there about a shot taken at stone henge. I believe it said something along the lines of the Photog scouting out the location for months, and researching the weather and cloud patterns, etc, so that he was able to go on one night and get the exact shot he wanted.
archer wrote:
Also, as a counterpoint to the usual shooting styles of Nat. Geo photographers who shoot around 40,000 images per story on average. In November of 1997, National Geographic published a photo essay shot by renowned photographer Jim Brandenburg. It was the most photographs ever published in a single story in the history of the magazine. 90 images total. Pretty cool. But what's better is how many shots it took to get the 90 images. He shot less than 3 rolls of film. It was 1 shot a day for 90 days. No retakes, no bracketed shots, no mistakes. It was a self project that became a major Nat. Geo story and an award winning book....Show more →
interesting. i'm curious to search for some of the images and story.
walter23 wrote:
Are you a qualified climate scientist? An ecologist? Do you have years of training in those extraordinarily complicated disciplines? Do you have the humility to accept this fact, or do you have the tenacity and intelligence to do something about it and develop a cogent argument against the published work and real data (not the stuff you see on TV)?
One major problem is that people, spurred on by irresponsible politicians, religious leaders, and partisanship, have become ridiculously arrogant. They don't value or trust expertise. But their skepticism is often very blind; many of them value and trust charismatic politicians, or those with the biggest advertising budgets. If some loudmouth says "ahhh, that's such a bunch of BULLSH!T" with an angry enough face, and on a pervasive enough TV channel, everybody flocks behind him. ...Show more →
A NG photographer shoots an average of 300 rolls of 36 for the front page article. I can't reference this fact but I heard it in a video in college couple years ago.
Johnny Bravo wrote:
They are questionable theories, in many cases, not 'undeniable realities'. I've spent a tremendous amount of time in the field, and I've seen changes--but the sky is not falling, and half of what passes for 'science' these days is little more than sensational hype. Sad, but true. (I've seen more changes in the lowering of the standards in science and journalism than environmental degradation of late--now that is an undeniable reality)
What "science" are you referring to? Are you speaking of academic journals?
I agree that it is important to practice and use sound science to the best of our abilities. I certainly don't want to see it unnecessarily watered down.
Some "undeniable realities" include the declining bird populations we're seeing almost across the board here in North America - I think that our BBS data for the past 60 years is quite good. Certainly good enough to see strong declining trends.
Another undeniable reality is that as we extract more resources and use more land for our own purposes less is available for other organisms to exploit. From this I think that it isn't hard to see how loss in biodiversity accompanies our own expansion. No?
I don't necessarily stand by everything that NG says - which is why I posted a little follow up thing saying so. However, I don't think that they are in the pocket of anyone. Who? Environmental lobbyists? Conservationist groups? There just isn't the funding on their side for such things to happen.
Sure, at the end of the day they do need to sell magazines, however as a few people have noted here, they don't like the style of reporting that NG is currently engaged in. So, is it necessarily a ploy to sell more magazines? If it is neither of these things, then what is it...? Poor reporting? Maybe, but, in my mind, it is inconceivable to deny most if not all of our impacts on the earth.
Johnny Bravo wrote:
The vast majority of scientists in the world are focused on two things: Getting a name for themselves, and getting grant money. (beats the crap out of gainful employment).
As such, they very much engage in herd mentality, and form their opinions based upon the affirmative head-nodding of thier peers and the bestowers of grants. Since the bestowers of grants happen to be resoundingly anti business and private enterprise (not surprising, since their idea of 'survival of the fittest' is to handicap the fittest) the independent critical thought needed is elimiated for a liberal political world view and the 'madness of crowds' becomes the concensus of science these days. And pity the poor scientist, academician or journalist who goes against the tide.
Now, there are exceptions to any generality, but the existence of an exception does not disprove the generality. There just aren't enough scientists with integrity these days---- and journalism? What a joke.
Johnny, I think you're way off the mark on this one. Please, go into a university or two and take a walk around and chat with some folks. Especially head on over to any ecology, evolution, animal behaviour, or physical science laboratory. They will tell you the state of biodiversity and the environment today.
Not many people go into natural sciences for the fame or money... Most do it for a love and deep interest of science and the earth (I'm not necessarily speaking of more "corporate" type scientists).
I agree that the pressures of securing funding can lead some individuals to stretch their morals and beliefs however the world I live in does not include the majority if scientists under such a label. Not even close...
Johnny, I think you're way off the mark on this one. Please, go into a university or two and take a walk around and chat with some folks. Especially head on over to any ecology, evolution, animal behaviour, or physical science laboratory. They will tell you the state of biodiversity and the environment today.
Thanks Josh S. Thats the reality, its no million dollar field...who and why would invest time and money into areas with such little pay if they were not looking for truth and ways to avoid the constant pressure of man on a "Naturally" balanced environment. Were not talking about giving in, its purely awareness. The complication is when individuals take the approach of a "reoccuring past", there is no equation to draw up cause and effect that would make any comparison to anything of the past. Don't run away from the truth because 99% of the media has our minds jaded with the rest of the political propaganda.
"The vast majority of scientists in the world are focused on two things: Getting a name for themselves, and getting grant money."
Isn't that like criticizing business because they are focused on profit, or politicians because they want to get elected? You can't do research without money. If you don't publish and make a name for yourself, you aren't contributing to science. The granting institutions JB is likely referring to all start with N, for National. The heads of these organizations are appointed by presidents. The same president who appointed the NSF chief for the last 8 years allowed businesses to pollute national parks. Anti-business, eh?
If someone wants to put all scientists under an umbrella and bash them, they should probably share what job they have. I would say that anonymously claiming most scientists lack integrity is a poor example of integrity.
Kisutch wrote:
"The vast majority of scientists in the world are focused on two things: Getting a name for themselves, and getting grant money."
Isn't that like criticizing business because they are focused on profit, or politicians because they want to get elected? You can't do research without money. If you don't publish and make a name for yourself, you aren't contributing to science. The granting institutions JB is likely referring to all start with N, for National. The heads of these organizations are appointed by presidents. The same president who appointed the NSF chief for the last 8 years allowed businesses to pollute national parks. Anti-business, eh?
If someone wants to put all scientists under an umbrella and bash them, they should probably share what job they have. I would say that anonymously claiming most scientists lack integrity is a poor example of integrity.
Oh, so now we're back to the 'qualified to have an opinion' argument? Silly me, I thought we were past that.
As I noted in one of my earlier posts, there are exceptions to every rule. They just don't disprove the generality. I didn't bash all scientists, or science. I bashed dogma and the madness of crowds as it currently manifests itself in the realm of what passes for science, and journalism. Scientific standards and objectivity leave the room, my friend, when you just MUST believe.
(One thing I find particularly humorous is the fact that the eco-fundamentalists are the first ones to bash religion, yet they practice the SAME dogma, alienation and rejection of thoughts that don't fit their world view that every loser fundamentalist TV evangelist around uses. Remarkable--but I guess it's understandable. Once the logical processes shut down, what's left?)
You'll also note that I did not state that all environmental concerns are bunk. I stated clearly (but I'll repeat it here as apparently reading comprehension isn't a strength of eco-fundamentalists) that BUNK, is bunk. There's a lot of good science out there--but very little of it is practiced in 'ecology' and similar popular 'science's.
My comments about scientists who go after publicity and funding is directed at the fact that it's hypocrisy. The productive side of the world makes no bones about what they're after--profits come first (but not, as the eco-fundamenalists would have us believe, at the sacrifice of all else). Politicians are hypocrites as are scientists, when they would have us beleive that they are serving some 'higher' goal--when in fact they just seek office, power, fame, and money.
Those who bite the public nipple upon which they feed are heading for a day when they will get kicked out into the world. That's always fun to watch. (They're like sophomores in high school--big talk in thier clique, but on their own, they get real quiet and pitiful)
Here's the fun part: With the economy contracting---the productive part of society is shrinking, drying up the nipple that the govt sucks on, which dries up the nipple that academia and journalism and the silly sciences suck on. With the money drying up--some of them are going to have to find some work to do that they are qualified for and that society actually values. (And if I hear any of that silly eco-fundamentalist nonsense from them they are NOT going to get a tip!)
Just to get back to the original thread..... raw v. jpeg, spray and pray v. select...
Raw v Jpeg depends on the work and the photographer. If you get it right in camera, you're pretty much good to go. I've got no NG experience, but I know wire pros and those dream-like sports pros who shoot both ways. The wire guys like jpeg because they need to transmit 20-30 photos in ten minutes, which means edit (see spray and pray issues below), adjust, caption, send. Not fun. I have seen them flip from jpeg to Raw depending on the lighting/conditions.
Spray and pray? Just to be brutal, only the ones with little skill do this. Somebody has to wade through the images, and you're not going to want to wade through 1000 photos to find one maybe. In the sports context, a shutter speed of 1/1000th of a second theoretically gives you a 1000 frames a second. Only two or three of those consecutive thousands of a second will contain the magic you want.
I've been teaching Enviromental Science at the college level for the past month now, and I quickly learned that I don't know most of the answers. In fact, it seems that noboody knows any of the answers to the more complicated questions. It's those that think they know that get into all of the arguments.
My good friend shoots for NG, and I spent several hours talking with another person that shoots for NG. The other person jokes that NG sends photographers out, and then a story is created based upon the pictures. My friend has given me many pointers on what NG expects of its shooters: "fix it in photoshop" is not permitted; JPEG is shot and sent directly to NG without modification - they do it right the first time; photographers are usually sent out in groups, but have enough lead time to learn the subject that they shoot; he says that the best of them are constantly looking at aperture and ISO so they know how their shot will look when they come upon a scene. He uses an Expodiscseveral times a day to be sure of correct colors.
I know - too long, but I have learned a lot and my shooting has gotten a whole lot better by following his advice.
RAW makes more sense to me also. The difficulty with RAW comes from the camera companies: most companies have about 77 different cameras and that many different RAW converters, so if you buy a new camera (5D Mark II for example) NG needs to buy a new version of Photoshop to do the conversion. Since money is a factor, and they probably don't wish to wait for the update, JPEG or tiff may be preferred choices.
