What makes you all think this isn’t just sped up?

sped up looks like hes nervous. heres a tutorial with link to buy the build

Actually some of those shots did use visual effects. Specifically, they were run backwards. The first clip is a famous example of it - they didn't time the drive forward to just get ahead of the train, they timed the drive backwards to cross the tracks just after the train had passed. No real danger involved.

I can't speak for all the clips, but you can see a fair few of them were done backwards or significantly sped up.

Still, a nice compilation, and I sure as hell wouldn't be doing most of those.

Damn good thing he sped up otherwise he would have crashed into those signs.

Holy shit! This video isn't sped up or a time lapse!

That's sped up right?

I know they're just ducks, but that's still pretty intimidating!

@newtboy,

"Stupid to use all these differing sets, that only adds confusion to an already technical and confusing topic."

I'm just glad they stick to metric, with sea level rise you don't even get that .

"No matter what, it's incontrovertible that every iteration of the IPCC reports has drastically raised their damage estimates (temp, sea level) and sped up the timetable from the previous report."

At least temperature wise the AR1 report had higher temperatures, and definitely higher worst case projection scenarios for temp than the latest. I can't say I checked their sea level projections, though typically they're other projections have followed on using their temps as the baseline for the other stuff and thus they track together. That is to say, if you can point me a source that reliably claims otherwise I might go check, but currently what I have checked tells me otherwise.

"I'll take the less conservative NOAA estimates and go farther to assume they over estimate humanity and underestimate feedback loops and unknowns and believe we are bound to make it worse than they imagine."

Which is fine, I only object if that gets characterized as the factually scientific 'right' approach.

"The NOAA .83C number was compared to average annual global temperatures 1901-2000...and oddly enough is lower than 2017's measurements."

Which is yet another source and calibration period from what I found. The 1901-2000 very, very roughly speaking can be thought of as centered on 1950, so in that fuzzy feeling sense not surprising it's 0C is colder than the IPCC centered on the nineties.

The source on current instrumental I went against is below:
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

As for 2018 being cooler than 2017, that's pretty normal. 1996/1997 were the hottest years on record for a pretty long time before things swung back up. It's entirely possible we stay below the recent high years for another bunch of years before continuing to creep up. Same as a particularly cold day isn't 'evidence', the decadal and even century averages are where the signal comes out of the noise.

You are correct, I was using NOAA numbers, not realizing they use a different start point to compare from. I honestly thought both would use 1890, pre industrial era start points, since that's what the 1.5C limit is based on. Stupid to use all these differing sets, that only adds confusion to an already technical and confusing topic.

No matter what, it's incontrovertible that every iteration of the IPCC reports has drastically raised their damage estimates (temp, sea level) and sped up the timetable from the previous report. You can accept their current estimate, that's better than the average person. I'll take the less conservative NOAA estimates and go farther to assume they over estimate humanity and underestimate feedback loops and unknowns and believe we are bound to make it worse than they imagine.

I have no horse in this race. I hit my best by date next year, and don't have kids...got fixed in my 20's. What happens after 2050 isn't my concern, and I have no problem if humanity goes extinct. It's all the other life we will take with us, or worse, that we survive as the last species standing, that gets me upset.

I like Mike, but that looks sped up to me.

It's pretty scary but I think the video being sped up makes it look scarier than it actually is.

Edit: Oh, it slows down...

dead

So damn fast it looks sped up.

Hah, I always have to point out that the Gladiator music is used in Pirates, just sped up. =)

I disagree that it is victim-blaming.

He is honking his horn and yelling and neither speeding up nor slowing down in the face of a car coming for him.

Drive defensively. So every time they run that PSA, that is victim blaming?

She was totally in the wrong. You saw I said that right?

And he didn't drive defensively.

As a car driver (encased in a metal box), I don't argue with someone who is coming right for me. I try to get the heck out of the way (and curse at them the entire way).

Now, maybe I am missing something -- you can correct me if I am wrong about my observations. I"m not a motorcycle driver. Maybe he couldn't have slowed down, sped up, or done some other maneuver. Looked to me like he could have.

Please do correct me if my observations are incorrect.

(And might I inquire as to why in particular it is odd to see me "victim blame"? Not that I think I am?)

Am I the only one who wonders why he so aggressively held onto the lane when she clearly wasn't acknowledging his existence?

He's on a frigging motorcycle. Get out of her way, stay out of her way.

Had he been hurt in this particular instance, I think it would have been 100% his fault. He saw her. Saw her coming. And neither sped up nor slowed down to avoid potential physical harm to himself.

You can be 100% right while being 100% wrong sometimes.

Wonder how sped up that was? Be interesting to see in real time.