Your video, Neil deGrasse Tyson explains meaning of life to 6 year old, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Kudos, I'd just like to really highlight two of the good points you make.

First, Tesla motors is huge. When I said electric cars, I didn't mention them by name but was thinking specifically of them. They have proven that electric cars are the future and are coming quickly.

The second is as Tyson pointed out, the most important metric is energy coming into the planet compared to energy going out. Temperatures fluctuate to many other variables. Particularly if the oceans are absorbing or releasing energy, temperatures as we experience them will shift on that and muddy the perception of what's actually happening to the overall planet's energy balance and long term change. In the late 80's we started measuring the energy in and out of the atmosphere with satellites. There was an observed increase between late 80's and late 90's in the energy imbalance. That means not only was more energy coming in than going out over that time, but the excess staying in was getting higher. With increasing CO2 emissions, that is exactly what we expect. An increased overall greenhouse effect should see the energy imbalance growing quite steadily as the effect gets stronger and stronger. Now, the IPCC's fifth assessment report has the the longer term data from those same and new satellites. The data shows that since 2001 there is strong agreement that the data shows NO TREND. That doesn't mean the energy in the planet hasn't been increasing. It means the rate of extra energy coming in hasn't gone up or down statistically since 2001. It means the overall greenhouse effect has been entirely stagnant for a little more than the last decade. Things are warming, but no faster than they were ten years ago.

I hope that's not to technical, but it paints a non-catastrophic picture. It also gives a superb metric to measure climate models against going forward. The models universally are projected on a steadily accelerating greenhouse effect as CO2 emissions rise. If the measured results of the last decade continue to not reflect that much longer, we have more reassessing to do. As noted in the IPCC, the effect of water vapor and clouds to increasing temperature is poorly modelled right now. If we are lucky the uncertainty of the sign on it as feedback is resolved to find it is a negative feedback. Meaning, as things warm, more clouds appear and reflect more energy back out. As things cool, less clouds appear and more energy comes in. And yeah, that's my own hope, and it is not the majority opinion within the scientific community as represented by the IPCC. They do acknowledge it as a possibility, but a less likely one. That said, the models they base that opinion on do not match the satellite energy measurements, and that one uncertainty would explain it rather well. My fingers are still crossed. More reasons for my optimism is the IPCC projections through 2100. If you look close, the actual temperature plotted against the projections has the actual following the very coolest of projections so far. Again, that lends hope that something like water vapor is either working for us, or not as badly against us as is currently modelled.

I used to be a pretty strong "doubter", if not a denier. I made a gradual shift away from that, but one strong instance of shift was when Neil Degrasse Tyson presented it as a (relatively) simple physics problem in his new Cosmos series. Before we started burning fossil fuels, x% of the sun's energy was reflected back into space. Now, with a higher concentration of CO2, x is a smaller number. That energy has to go somewhere, and at least some of that is going to be heat energy.

Still, I don't think that anything on the level of "average individual citizen/household of an industrial country" is really where anything needs to happen. Yes, collectively, normal people in their daily lives contribute to Climate Change. But the vast majority of us, even as a collective single unit, contribute less than industrial / government / infrastructure sources.

Fossil fuels have been a great source of energy that has massively contributed to global advances in the past century. BUT, although we didn't know it in the beginning, they have this associated cost/downside. Fossil fuels also have a weakness in that they are not by any means inexhaustible, and costs rise as that becomes more and more obvious. In turn, that tends to favor the status quo in terms of the hierarchy of industrial nations versus developing or 3rd world countries -- we've already got the money and infrastructure in place to use fossil fuels, developing countries can't afford the costs.

All of this makes me think that 2 things need to happen:
A) Governments need to encourage the development of energy sources etc. that move us away from using fossil fuels. Tax breaks to Tesla Motors, tax incentives to buyers of solar cells for their homes, etc. etc.
B) If scientists/pundits/whoever really want people to stop using fossil fuels (or just cut down), they need to develop realistic alternatives. I'll bring up Tesla Motors again for deserving huge kudos in this area. Americans (and in general citizens of developed countries) have certain expectations about how a car should perform. Electric cars have traditionally been greatly inferior to a car burning fossil fuels in terms of living up to those expectations, but Tesla threw all that out the window and made a car that car people actually like to drive. It isn't just "vaguely functional if you really want to brag about how green you are", it is actually competitive with or superior to a gas-engine car for most users/consumers (some caveats for people who need to drive long distances in a single day).

We need to get more companies / inventors / whoever developing superior, functional alternatives to fossil fuel technologies. We need governments to encourage and enable those developments, NOT to cave to lobbyist pressure from big oil etc. and do the opposite. Prices will start high (like Tesla), but if you really are making a superior product, economy of scale will eventually kick in and normalize that out.

Outside of the consumer level, the same thing goes for actual power production. Even if we did nothing (which I would certainly not advocate), eventually scarcity and increased difficulty in obtaining fossil fuels (kinda sad that the past 2 decades of pointless wars 95% driven by oil haven't taught us this lesson yet, but there it is) will make the more "green" alternatives (solar, wind, tidal, nuclear, whatever) more economically practical. That tipping point will be when we see the real change begin.

Your video, Neil deGrasse Tyson Explains the Third Act of Interstellar, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Who did you see on the list?

Kareem Abdul-Jabar
JJ Abrams
Alan Alda
Christiane Amanpour
Jon Batiste
Big Bird
Cory Booker
Tom Brokaw
Ken Burns
Bill Clinton
Andy Cohen
Francis Collins
Cookie Monster
Bob Costas
Katie Couric
Bryan Cranston
Mark Cuban
Jeff Daniels
Bill DeBlasio
Maureen Dowd
James Franco
Thomas Friedman
Vince Gilligan
Doris Kearns Goodwin
David Gregory
Terry Gross
Mike Huckabee
Arianna Huffington
Dean Kamen
Toby Keith
Henry Kissinger
Nicholas Kristof
Paul Krugman
Alexi Lalas
Cyndi Lauper
David Leonhardt
George Lucas
Yo Yo Ma
Barry Manilow
Senator Claire McCaskill
Tim Meadows
Willie Nelson
Randy Newman
Grover Norquist
Eleanor Holmes Norton
Ric Ocasek
Keith Olbermann
Mandy Patinkin
Stone Phillips
Samantha Power
Pussy Riot
Charlie Rose
Dan Savage
Smaug
Shane Smith
Eliot Spitzer
Gloria Steinem
Jon Stewart
Patrick Stewart
Michael Stipe
Andrew Sullivan
Matt Taibbi
Jeff Tweedy
Neil Degrasse Tyson
Sam Waterston
Elijah Wood

(http://www.vox.com/2014/12/19/7419893/colbert-finale-song)

Got excited there at 1:54. Thought Neil deGrasse Tyson was in the house!

100% agree. Too much pussy footing around ( not accusing Tyson here just in general )
The bullshit fairy tales have got to go
and guess what ? There's no Father Christmas or tooth fairy either.
There is no equivalency in the different sides. One is just plain lies and bullshit. The other is objective truth.
I have never heard a religious person gently explain they a religious and like to tolerate science, they just start screaming 'Praise Jeebus'
For fucks sake, even religious morons use a cell phone, hospital, electricity, cars etc etc So Fucking Dumb

Congratulations! Your video, Neil deGrasse Tyson - "Do You Believe in God?", has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 41 Badge!

Your video, Neil deGrasse Tyson - "Do You Believe in God?", has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 40 Badge!

Can we get more love for tyson with this *related vid?

Your video, Neil deGrasse Tyson: a Billion-Year Journey to Stardom, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

"You're a talker. Listening to talkers makes me thirsty. And hungry." -- Sandor Clegane

First of all, don't tell me what we're discussing: "What we are discussing is the value of mike tyson's endorsement ... ," especially if we're not discussing the same thing.

I criticized the broadcaster -- others criticized Mike Tyson.

In fact, my primary argument was against the broadcaster, and my secondary argument is on the validity of Tyson's rape conviction (I used a different thread and video for that one). Notice the difference?

I criticized the broadcaster's sloppy attempt to predict the future (which is unethical because it's impossible, to say the least) and his lack of sources thereof. What was ridiculous on my part, was my original assumption that future sources could possibly exist!

And I didn't respond to all of your quips because they're not all worthy of response. In your introduction you stated, "I'm utterly unconvinced by your assertion that the public did not think his rape conviction devalued his endorsement. <--[I'm criticizing the broadcaster, you're criticizing your assumption of what I think of Tyson.] Why do you think that? <--[Begs the question.] Because you did? <--[False accusation.] As soon as i understood the story (there's no description) my immediate reaction was, "well if an ear biting rapist ex-boxer endorses you...."
How am I supposed to respond to this? I was originally offended by the broadcaster's lack of professionalism regarding his sources, but this thread forced me acknowledge his lack of logic and ability to predict the future. How cool is that?

"Think I'll take two chickens."

"Some people would say" -- does not necessarily indicate future tense.
I would say (see?) it is often used to more politely present a point.
Other people would say (again..) that he is referring to what people might say to tyson if they were present in the interview, and so he is saying what they would say if they were present.

For all any of us knows, two or three people asked him to ask the question and he's completely accurate and right. As i already stated, i'm interested in that question even if you aren't, so he's completely right in his statement, other people WOULD say that. Me - and probably others. Though you don't address any of that in your reply.

I don't understand what you mean in your first paragraph about the public - i never said that you had interviewed them nor that you should (??). What we are discussing is the value of mike tyson's endorsement, and an endorsement is for the listeners, the public. So what i am referring to is the viewing public of a TV show on which mike tyson has appeared and offered his personal endorsement to.

In fact, you specifically said that he has a duty of care to his audience to explain his sources, so it seemed to me that your primary concern was the public's full understanding of the interview... is that not the case? I think you may have contradicted yourself here - i asked you what that duty of care was, and that's a hard question to answer without referring to the "public thought". Perhaps that's why you didn't bother addressing it in your reply. I'm doing my best to keep the discussion going, but i don't understand what this paragraph refers to or what it means.

Finally the legal battle that you linked to me. As i already reminded you, we are not his judges and it is not a courtroom, so it is utterly irrelevant to the case. Furthermore, the world is bigger than one country and this is an international website with a plethora of opinions. In exchange i'd like you to read the introductory paragraph about protection of sources which finishes with several particular comments about the united states, and one addressed directly about the US - the land of the free and home of the exiled whistle-blowers. Please remember as you read that this refers to a legal setting, and really has nothing to do with the example in this video about which you incorrectly assert that he has a duty to expose his sources. Which you still have not made clear. However i wanted to make clear that i think protection of sources is imperative to combating corruption which is absolutely rife in this day and age of illegal wars, illegal detention, worldwide spying and tracking of individuals by the NSA and Great Britain's intelligence agencies, expenses scandals, etc.

You haven't answered even half of the questions i posed to you in my first comment, i'm all ears. Or eyes. Whatever.

can't remember if I ever actually beat the game. I know I got to Tyson