StSomewhere
Contributor
Don't clutter the issue with facts.saying:Are reefs less or more healthy now than they were 10 years ago?
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
Don't clutter the issue with facts.saying:Are reefs less or more healthy now than they were 10 years ago?
If junk science bothers you, then Crichton's fiction-as-fact novel ought to bother you at least as much, maybe more. For those who haven't seen the book, his alleged evil scientific inept ecoterrorists as villans have somehow devised a way to generate tsunamis at will (no mean trick). Funny that an author of his stature would ignore common literary conventions such as character development and plot closure. This has to be the most rushed ending in his entire body of work, and pasting someone else's "facts" as an appendix in lieu of a proper ending is something no high school English teacher would tolerate.Boogie711:As one of the resident "Junk Science Debunking Experts," St. Somewhere, I can assure you that it's not just vogue today to discredit the crap that is the Kyoto protocol and claims of global warming - I've been doing it for years.
derwoodwithasherwood:Perhaps we should limit the crap we put in the air anyway...
There's actually much more to the subject than just Kyoto, though I'll readily admit it helps if someone needs to frame the issue in strictly black and white terms to further their political position. Frankly, if there is a real problem with Kyoto, its that the poor countries that do much of the harm are exempted for political/socioeconomic reasons.Boogie711:They're not. Kyoto does nothing to affect changes in carcinogens or common irritants.
saying:I just don't understand how you could argue against spouting less polutants into the air so... you know... so you could have fresh air. Not polluting just for the sake of not having pollution everywhere. Well, unless, of course, you are involved in the fossil fuel or manufacturing industries and your livelihood depends on polluting stuff... then I imagine you'd be really psyched to be dumping crap into the water, air, or soil.
I cycle back and forth between the two, my 2 year old son absolutely loves both. I have the whole movie memorized after watching it about a bizzilion times. Even then, it's still pretty neat to watch.Rick Inman:..ah, yeah...well, anyway, back to the movie...
I enjoyed "The Making Of" on the DVD as much as the movie.
The 300' dive was with Richard Pyle to collect species samples. The reason HH got bent was that he didn't properly understand the deep diving decompression protocols with a rebreather (he says as much). HH was one of only two guys qualified to run the IMAX camera underwater and as the producer had sole responsibility for what shots to get.RonFrank:One of the things that I felt was a bit foolish was the dive to 300' to *inspect* the reefs.
As a diver it was somewhat interesting, but hey, the guy had already got bent once... not sure what earth shattering discoveries that 300' dive resulted in. IMO those types of explorations are better done in a submersible where it is safer, one can stay down MUCH MUCH longer, and go much deeper as well.