I've posted this as yet another opportunity for people to watch, think, and discuss. I will go ahead and say up front that for the most part, this video is more of an attempt to appeal to your emotions than to your brain. Accepting that as true, I think there is still material here worth discussion.

LEDs will eventually be the best choice. For now however, they are too expensive and produce too few lumens at comparable sizes. CCFLs remain the best choice for the average homeowner to save money without negatively affecting their lighting levels.

I still prefer the vacuum sealed over all other packing techniques.

First of all, that eye tick is really freakin me out. Mine ticks at times as well and it really bugs the heck out of me. I can't imagine how bad that one must be driving her nuts.

Second, it's really not worth going into all of this guys arguments in a forum like this but I have to pick a few out.

1) "To call it global warming is correct, but almost a misnomer. What we are really doing is adding immense amounts of energy to a system..." Interesting attempt an an explanation here. I think he was attempting to say something along the lines of "... adding CO2 to the atmosphere means that more solar energy is retained by the system." I think it is important not to give approximations or short answers in a discussion like this.

2) 80% reduction in CO2 emissions? Good luck with that. Good of him to start with an easily attainable goal. I don't care that he does mean by 2050. It's not likely to happen without a dramatic new discovery in energy production.

3) I went to the web site he is pimping. Nowhere on it does it explain how we are to achieve these goals in a realistic manner. It has fluff like "More biofeuls, hydropower, solar, and wind" but it also says "eliminate current generation of nuclear plants and do not license new ones." Energy demands in the US and worldwide are steadily increasing. Even with conservation, the rate of increase will only slow not reverse. There isn't enough fresh water on the planet to replace fossil fuels with biofeuls, nor is there enough arable land to grow all these miracle fuels. Hydroelectric power has been under attack for decades because of the damage it does to natural systems and neither solar nor wind are realistically economical or practical to replace a substantial portion of fossil fuels. Demands to "fix the planet now" are all well and good, but you need to provide realistic solutions rather than pie-in-the-sky platitudes.

In my opinion, the best hope for a major shift in the production of energy will be development of a practical cellulosic ethanol production system. Until that happens, we are going to need to invest in energy sources that have at least the potential of meeting our needs.

This is the way to encourage reduction in pollutants on a wide scale in my opinion. Demonstrate how the consumer will save money first and foremost. Simplistic, easy to understand, saves money, and oh yeah! Cuts down on pollution too!

Significantly is a funny, funny term and I expect that you know that already. If I were to posit that the global mean sea level were to rise an unbelievable 1m over the next century (and that really is an unbelievable amount), who do you ask if that is significant? In the Bay of Fundy for instance, that would be a substantial rise but hardly significant. On a Pacific atoll however, 1m would be HIGHLY significant. I expect that between thermal expansion and the melting of the permafrost in the higher latitudes, there will be a marked rise in global mean sea level. Do I think it will drown millions of people? No. Will it cause people to move to higher ground? Maybe. See New Orleans and Amsterdam for more info.

I think your second paragraph is where we differ. You believe that it is a "problem" and that there needs to be "action". I believe that we don't know enough at this time to justify absurd "plans". I'm a staunch advocate of fixing the man made problems that we can all point a finger at and say "that has to stop." Should we be cutting the tops off of mountains in West Virginia to make coal mining easier? No, we should stop that. Should we allow long-lining in American territorial waters? Nope, we should stop that too. Should every industrial/agricultural user of fresh water in the US be required to justify their use and return any used water in a cleaner state than they received it? Absolutely. See where I am going here? I'm not arguing global climate change at all. I am stating factually that I do not know and I don't believe anyone knows if man is causing global warming or not. I am suggesting that we fix those problems which we DO know we are causing and allow the science behind global climate change to develop further. I have never suggested that people are doing too much to deal with global warming. What I have stated before is that right now, we are all arguing differing conclusions based on the same set of data/publications. I am of the opinion that those who are most concerned about the environment are arguing based on their FAITH that they are right vs. those who have other primary concerns and have FAITH that they are right. See what I did there? I took your apparent jab at people of faith and showed that even among those in the environmental movement there is faith. Maybe not in a higher power or divine will, but faith nonetheless. From the OED: Faith - Belief proceeding from reliance on testimony or authority. All I ask is that people think for themselves and take no man’s word as the gospel (Ooooh look! I did it too! Well, kinda.).

On the last… I’ll make my response short. I think that there is political pressure placed on scientists. I offer no facts nor anecdotes. I merely state that I think it happens. This is just based on my experiences (and yes, I have written a number of proposals going all the way up to international proposals) nothing more. I don’t ask that you accept it. I laughed and I will stipulate that proposals don’t include conclusions. But if I remember correctly, basically every single proposal I have written includes a section labeled something like “Expected Results.” Depending on the proposal, I normally have to write another section on how I will “deal” with unexpected results.

Young Bing Crosby rates a +1 for sure.

"I happen to know the facts."

Beware anyone who begins a conversation with a statement like that. The fact that this is propaganda doesn't do much to change the underlying message: When someone preaches that X is bad, so you should do Y; you should always look at the motivation behind the preaching.

"War on terror was not yet a twinkle in his speech writers eye..." That rediculous statement alone made this whole video not worth watching by calling into question the journalistic integrity of the authors. I tried to watch the rest of it just to see what they had to say, but I couldn't get past that bit of idiocy.

Hail to the King BABY!

http://www.videosift.com/video/Ash-Hail-to-the-king-baby

Sharks get all the press, but they are the equivalent of the high school jock. All muscles and very little brain. You want sexy sea predators, let me remind you of this little gem:

http://www.videosift.com/video/Octopus-vs-Shark

Wow... Not the video... Some of the comments. I'll let you guys get back to it, I just wanted to say that if you REALLY want to see some serious S. Korean demonstrators, look up videos of the student riots in 1991. I was there at the time and it was unbelievable. What was the best way to get your point across? Light yourself on fire. Yes, light yourself on fire. Now THAT is political activism.

I managed to bork my original response... :-(

Anway, the gist of it was this: Yes, I have read it. And yes I have read his later "Letters" where he attempts to defend his calculations. I especially like the one in 2003 where he gets downright testy that he is being questioned. I think that work like this clearly points to an absolute requirement that as scientists we all are COMPLETELY TRANSPARENT in our calculations. While it is obviously not possible to present complete datasets in a journal, I think it is clear that in cases such as this there should be an online resource where everyone can see (not edit of course) the original source data. Then, it is your responsibility in your methods to explain clearly how you reach your numbers. In cases of satellite data, this is easily done and that's why the authors get so many questions about their work. But I think this is absolutely necessary to prevent absolutely uninformed people being told half the story and then going off on a rant "ZOMG! So and so LIED! GLOBAL WARMING IS TEH F4kZ0RS!" We must police ourselves and I think all of the responses the authors received demonstrate that at least some people are committed to that.

And if by the red squiggly you mean Word and its helpful spell check... If I remember correctly, Mr. Gates lets me know that immunohistochemistry, clupeidae, sciaenops, and otolith are not words as well. I should really let my advisor know about that if it's true.

Hmm....

Fact 1: Agreed. Don't think many people can argue this one, although I have seen people make the attempt.

Fact 2: Not sure what to make of this. If you can provide us a reference, then we can look at the data ourselves. I will make the note that greenhouse gases are not thought to be a localized effect, so you wouldn't necessarily expect to see heavily industrialized areas affected more than others. I would also caution against looking at relatively small areas and making large assumptions. Large rises or falls in a small area are more likely attributable to a point source or climatological effects than due to a global warming trend.

Fact 3: Agreed. This is the root of the problem in my eyes. The global climate has so, so many variables it is not likely that the effects of any one of them will ever be confirmed. The mistake that is often made among environmentally active people is assuming that you can say "CO2 is killing the planet!" and not be challenged.

Conclusion: I agree that protecting the environment is a good goal and one for which we should all strive. I think that the "think globally, act locally" slogan is actually a good one with a lot of truth in it. If we all work on fixing the environmental problems that we KNOW man is causing and that we are affected by every day, by the time we fix those we will have a better understanding of what the next problem is and how we attack that one. Personally, I eat 5 or more servings of fish a week and I can honestly tell you that I constantly think about all the crap we are pouring into the water. I'm much more immediately interested in what the new LNG plant they are building here is doing to the bay than I am interested in how much CO2 said LNG plant is going to produce.

Warning.... extremely long post below. :-D

Mycroft, I reread my post to try and understand your first paragraph. I see where you get that "name calling" bit and I realize how it might seem I am calling someone here a sheeple. Believe me when I say that this was not my intent. So far, everyone here has been capable of having rational discourse and that generally means they are not in fact sheeple. As for the making up words part, I highly suggest that before you begin hanging logical constructs on sheeple not being a word you do just a tiny bit of research. I'm sure if you had done that in this case, you would have found that sheeple is indeed an accepted word in the internet/urban lexicon. Would I publish it in "Nature"? No. But in this venue it is a perfectly acceptable word and clearly not one which I have "made up". I am trying to understand why the tone of your message is so antagonistic in tone. You feel the need to explain anthropogenic to me when I have tried to show that I am relatively well educated. The tone of your comments appears to call my scholarship in question and seems to imply that any arguments I have made are “bad”. Please note that I am not trying to push a viewpoint here, nor am I attacking anyone’s golden calf. I am merely stating my opinions and asking that everyone learn about all sides of an argument before choosing a side to believe. Thus, my reference to “Don’t be a sheeple.”

Ok, with that bit of business out of the way I can address the actual meat of your comment. I do not understand why you ask if I have read any peer-reviewed literature. You might remember from my previous post how I stated that I had nearly completed my PhD in an “environmental” field. I would hazard a guess to say that I am as conversant with recent literature as probably more than 95% of the US population. I’m not trying to claim to be a genius or anything; just that because of my impending dissertation defense that I have paid a bit more attention to the literature than most. In regards to the question if I had read “the paper in Science” by John Christy, I have to ask… Which one? I have read a couple of papers recently in which John R. Christy was an author as well as a number of Letters to the Editor credited to him. I’ll withhold comment until I am sure which one you are referencing.

I am impressed by your willingness to state with “absolute authority” that there is no evidence that the globe is not warming. For the most part, scientists scrupulously avoid absolutes like that. I’m not going to question your absolute authority just because I don’t want to be the jackass of the group and dig out some obscure citation to "prove" you wrong. Seems like every conference I've been to has that one guy that likes to sharpshoot your presentation with a paper from the Journal of Really Crappy Science. I am not that guy. In fact, I happen to agree with you, the globe is warming. (See those other comments above) I will also stipulate that I think man is playing a part in the warming of the planet. I will however stand by all of my arguments in the comments above. I invite you to argue against any of them and will gladly read anything you have to say. I do not discount your or anyone’s opinions and am always open to learning more about the subject matter.