For Your Eyes Only

[monkyyy0]

i was just called the nerdest geek D:<

[KoolDude576]

nice one

[01thankyou]

the grid was ok just shorten it alot more

[BNoel1234]

Maybe you can get by without the grid but if you do you risk making a very hackneyed "better safe than sorry" argument which is pretty meaningless by itself.

[mdiem]

This is a beautiful look into the scientific process!

[mskittychic79]

Oh wow totally do NOT take out the grid..

that is what makes it possible for some of the less intelligent of us to wrap our minds around the issue..Plus it grabs your attention.. although you can make it less elaborate if you feel it is too time-consuming. You should make a movie out of these vids..

[WAKeele]

I guess I'm one of the nerdiest people because I've sat through hours of this stuff on YouTube! Maybe it's because this kind of stuff is EXTREMELY important & you should invest more than the 2 to 3 minutes found in most commercial breaks on TV that people are accustomed to! Plus the MTV generation syndrome where kids growing up watching "music" videos have no more attention span than the average video. It's gotta be FAST& NOW! I think a "documentary" would be the best way to get this word out.

[WAKeele]

Have you approached any activist groups about you're ideas? I'm mean you've got a product that has produced big numbers. Heck, have you tried contacting someone like Al Gore for support and potential networking possibilities?

[starfiremale]

I've watched your stuff with interest. And will watch more. Something I am puzzled about: Does that bird box thru your window have a real bird in there?? If not, why not?? And can you tell me why I've never ever seen a bird in one of these bird boxes??

[fastLupus]

Well, i can calm you down on this subject. I've seen real birds in those boxes with my own very eyes several times. So the concept of these boxes seems to function at least here and then. But wheter there is a birdy, in that particular box whe see in this video, or not, i can not garantee you. Maybe there are no more birds in this area?

whatever ^^

[starfiremale]

Thanks for the reply. We don't have such big gardens in England. Maybe that's why I have never seen a bird in one. And I will admit I was being somewhat playful in the question. How are your projects coming along??

[kswilson99]

Have you thought about making a Documentary of it all?? Just an idea. (You know a nice way to make money possibly and you can cover everything without having to condense.)

[Fastbreak2020]

KEEEP THE GRID AND TALK ABOUT why we buy car insurance but never know if we will ever even be in an accident that was what interested me.

[pearlrabbit]

i agree, the grid is a great visual aid and the way you explain you argument is what kept me watching. honestly, i want to see more hats....

[nightshifter50]

mr. science guy with a bad hat fetish...you have def attempted to make yourself a pseudo celeb. the ideas you have are borrowed from the other experts, but given a twist to simplicity that kids who ride the short bus could grasp. good job.

the hair looks better with a funny hat on it

[greyflcn]

Well, I grabbed a clip of one of your videos for my own purpose's in a forum discussion.  Posted it over here:

youtube. com/ watch ? v = Y2u4zNGtnY8

[12395aa1]

i personally think. that the grid in the first video helped to explain where you were coming from. that is my opinion and im sure alot of other peoples

[quathar]

Ok. The very thing that was being criticized, namely the simplification ("condescending" - which I thought was alleviated totally by your personality and dry wit) was the videos great strength. And of course "weasel words" or emotionally charged statements that affect people, for instance - saying that something is absolutely true, or the most frightening thing you will ever see.

[willdotftw]

You should make a forum to have an organized discussion on climate change.

[jodom1979]

Reap the end of the world people. This truly is the end of days.

[borris79]

The hats where a charm, drew me into watching and take intrest in the rest of your vidio's, the bangs also where cool too. If you treat people like a smart 4 year old you wont go wrong...

[glenra]

This also comes up when you claim in one of the hole-patching vids that we can act gradually to minimize the economic harm done. Sure, if we made *you* the bureaucrat-god in charge of the effort, you'd act sensibly to monitor and minimize net costs and call the whole thing off if it seems not to be working. But you won't be in charge and some bureaucrat's job security will depend on not noticing any reason to scale back. So you can't finesse the cost issue.

[mrmonkeypie]

You're right. We should just be entirely pessemistic about Humanity and our capacity to set forward on the 'right' path...

Seriously, if you're right and we suffer from much more bureaucratic bullshit than we do, then we'll fuck ourselves over anyways. You act like if global warming wasn't happening, we'd be heading in the right direction anyways. We shouldn't take the 'risk' because we'd rather fuck ourselves over some other way?

[glenra]

What made the first go viral was primarily your personality and earnestness, but the grid helped too.

One of my several complaints about your argument is the assumption that if we tell policymakers we want them "to act" they are likely to do more good than harm. 9/11 is a nice contrary example: invading Iraq and passing the Patriot Act and everything else the government did pretty clearly made our problems *worse*, not better.

[mrmonkeypie]

Because we now know all the bullshit about 9/11 and the Patriot Act, and infact we knew about it in the past. The argument for Climate Change is looking extremely solid, and the circumstances are much greater.

[pieerrrree]

I think the argument that glenra was making is that the government acted in a damaging way, rather than in a positive way. Action was demanded, and the government went to war.

(I'm not supporting nor opposing those actions, just saying.)

[djclough]

... thank you for pointing out that i'm a super nerd.

[Derekness22]

I would watch all 4 video's or what ever..

[MrMeanerr]

Sooo, jrwakefield, let me sum up what you are saying:

There is no problem, we had similar warmth in medieval times. Warming is no problem, we will lose a few cities, but instead get more and better farmland. And this is just a big hoax to confuse everyone, so we don't return to science.

It seems to me that you are shooting with a shutgun. If what you say about medieval time is correct, why do you even move on from there?

-->

[MrMeanerr]

Funny thing you say in the last post, because confusing the public is exactly what global warming denialists (=Exxon employees?) are trying to do. Your halfassed attempt to blame these tactics onto those trying to solve the problem, is pathetic.

Your claim that we will get more farmland: Pathetic. We'll experience extensive draughts on top of rising sea levels, and we'll see areas flooded by rain water (like England+Scandinavia right now). These has both serious impacts on harvests.

[jrwakefield]

And you have physical evidence to back up these doom and gloom scenarios are what is going to happen?  Watch my second last video on making predictions on climate. If anything the evidence of the past is that it WAS better, ie the MWP.

[jrwakefield]

BTW, stop with the alligations that anyone who objects to AGW is funded by Big Oil. It's simply not true and an attempt to discredit people who have LIGITIMATE evidence, concerns and questions. Only people who hold DOGMATIC views resort to this tactic.

[jrwakefield]

From now on anyone who accuses anti-AGW as being in bed with Big Oil will get an accusation back. That YOU are communist and funded by big-left-environmentalists hell bound to rid the world of capitalism. Then we'll see how you like to be tarred.

[jrwakefield]

That's not what I meant. I was asked if there could be conflicting outcomes which would affect decissions, and that is one POSSIBLE conflicting outcome. I'm not advocating anything.

[rfxn]

I am a 23yr old, well grounded individual that has always tryed to keep an open mind and think I am an intellectual person. Having said that, the presentation of the grid for me was a very compelling part of what helped to demonstrate the argument you were making. Yes, in just a verbal fashion I would have still grasped the argument but the visualization was a strong presentation point that allowed me to forward it onto my family and friends knowing they could understand it as well.

[Blue2Panther]

The ordinary Joes who are exploring Global Warming arguments are looking for an explanation that makes sense to them. Yes, the subject is complex. No, it can't really be debated by us non-scientists. On the other hand, if we can't debate the subject then no action will ever be taken. By showing people how to model a complex subject using a tangible grid, you are giving people a tool to analyze the prospect of global warming on their own.

[MrMeanerr]

Do *NOT* eliminate the grid! It was IMO this argument, that made it so accessible. It brought the video to another level, with its graphical representation, that I believe made it more accessible.

Don't worry that much about people claiming that you copied Pascal's Wager, the grid makes the argument strong, no matter where the inspiration from it came.

[therevolution2k7]

you got the point all wrong. it doesn't matter if people are critizizing you because the point IS to generate a debate, debate will cause intrest and thus cause more debate, but in the end your side of the debate will win if it is correct which i believe it to be. To try and address everyones critisism is insane, and unessesary, let there be critisism but know that it is only causing a greater intrest and in the end the majority will favor your side.

[darbeau1]

Part 5 of 6 (no 6 after all)

Lastly, any messages that are a personal attack, delete; any messages related to the controversy, ignore; and messages that discuss or suggest ideas related to the scientific process or risk analysis, I would tease out the most common suggestions and ideas and see if you can either re-edit your four videos or build a new one from scratch. Add a few more explosions - it will make the two-year olds happy.

"I can smell Science!"

[darbeau1]

Part 4 of 6

As a scientist and researcher I think you should focus on the risk management approach - explaining (in eighth grade terms) exactly what risk management is, how it is used today (i.e. insurance companies), and then re-introduce your rows and columns but keep the focus on the columns. Hey how about introducing the concept of a Mendelian trait chart and discuss the issue in terms of dominate versus recessive?

[darbeau1]

Part 3 of 6

6- Thanks to politics and religion in the mass media the approach is to teach/expose the controversy (explaining all the pinheads that responded about this or that study, and not understanding the difference between the controversy and theoretical framework of risk management that you packaged your suggested solution within), 7- 70% of the people in America do not even know the basic geography of America.

[darbeau1]

part 2 of 6

3 - a culture that has the attention span of a two year old (e.g. the 7 second "sound bite" that the eighth grade nightly news broadcasts, demonstrating why you are putting out a request on how to reduce the length of your videos) 4- a society that has absolutely no idea what risk management is, 5- no concept of time in any scale (we all want it NOW, who cares about the future),

[wagthedog1]

Wouldn't adopting the sound bite approach simply be reinforcing the short-attention span thinking that leads to denialism based largely on emotion. I started my search for who's right on GW by starting with the so-called sceptics and it took SEVERAL HOURS weeding through the various arguments on all sides, and to my mind thus far the climatologists have won out.

[jrwakefield]

"to my mind thus far the climatologists have won out." Then you need to dig more, the docs I posted, and the websites that will be in my reply video.

[darbeau1]

Part 1 of 6

The problem you face is a country that: 1-has no knowledge of how the scientific process works (even with you giving one of the shortest and best explanations), 2- has a learning and listening level of an eighth grader (this is the level that the nightly news is geared towards),

[wagthedog1]

What I've found is that people mistake being tech-savvy with being science-savvy. We end up with the many Jerry Pournelles and Michael Crichtons who believe that their understanding of technology makes them experts at assessing science. I used to think this way too, but recently found out the hard way how mistaken I really was.

[granmomdi49]

The "Title" caught my eye. The risk table, your personality and honest logic.

[SteveTharPirate]

I think your idea of an argument that you couldn't put holes in (which, indeed, was a brash statement, but was not that far off) was seen as audacious enough to the skeptics and that the argument itself seemed realistic enough that both sides would want to see what you had to say.

[wonderingmind42]

So keep the audaciousness, because it's provocative. Is that right? (If so, I'm thinking of a title along the lines of "An Irrefutable Argument on Global Warming.") But what about snipboy's comment above that one reason the first video did well was that I seemed "to try to remain impartial"? My dilemma is that impartiality tends to be more convincing for those who watch, but audacity tends to be more inflamatory, getting more people to watch. Help!

[ElSickOz]

the grid was important,

the best thing you did was started out very simple then made it slowly more difficult, but even the average joe (or my mom)could still get it.I like how you got me on my edge :p

[hereward88]

Briefly, I think the grid was important, though for me personally, it could have been done much faster. I'll try to watch the other videos again and pick out the important parts!

[MrMeanerr]

....

[wagthedog1]

Inclusion of the matrix that includes rows that the IPCC and AAAS say are highly unlikely outcomes contradicts your view that one cannot reject what these scientific organizations are saying. If you must include hte matrix, include the probabilities of each outcome according to the published IPCC reports. i.e. 90% GW is real, 10% all the scientists are wrong (which is very conservative; it's more like 95:5 )

[jrwakefield]

Watch the 3 documentaries. Evidence exists that the solar cycle affects global temperatures. If such a row did not exist where would it go? Probabilities are not the issue in the grid, possibilities are. Regardless of the remoteness of a possibility a row MUST be in there.  That's how we do software. We must write for even the remotest possibility.

[wonderingmind42]

jrwakefield: what "3 documentaries" are you referring to?

[jrwakefield]

Great Global warming Swindle

Exposed the Climate of Fear

Global warming, Doomsday called off

All here on YouTube.

[wagthedog1]

All those documentaries have been debunked at several websites which are easy to find via googling "realclimate swindle", "Glen Beck climate matters", and "doomsday cicero" respectively.

Do a YouTube search on "Durkin Australia" for a more scientific appraisal of Martin Durkin's Swindle film.

[jrwakefield]

You mean smeared, not debunked. The evidence presened in those documentaries can be checked out and it's correct. The mediaval warm period was world wide. There is no increase in the rate of sea level, etc, etc. What is being attempted is a smear job.

[wagthedog1]

So anything that debunks your denialist position is a smear, but anything that similarly attacks the science of the IPCC and AAAS is not a smear. You are not even pretending to be unbiased. How very scientific.

[jrwakefield]

I go with the EVIDENCE, period. I'm not a denier, I'm a skeptic. Different. Deniers are just as dogmatic as the alarmists. My position is that NO EVIDENCE be rejected. There is no "consensus" and the science is not "settled", it CANT BE, see my video on dogmatism for why.

[jrwakefield]

I did those searches, and I maintain these are just smear tactics. There is no consensus, the science is not "settled", and there is an attempt by the alarmist movement to squash any attempts to clear the air and return to science, instead of the dogma that dominates AGW. Watch my video replies, specifically the one with the quotes.

[wagthedog1]

Ooh! Quotes! I'm so convinced now.

[jrwakefield]

So all those I quote in my latest video are liars?

[velo911]

hmm.. well the table i think is a must, mainly for the fact that it takes your words and adds the visual for people to follow you more clearly. What i think caused the video to go viral is your attitude. "I'm right, and that's that" .. let's face it.. no one likes to be wrong. so, keep the video, keep the attitude, and i'm sure you'll do fine.

[wonderingmind42]

Yes, I'll keep the table. I agree that the "I'm right, and that's that" attitude is more provocative, and may get more people to watch. But I'm concerned that it's also more off-putting, and therefore will be listened to less by those who do watch. So I'm left with a dilemma: be audacious to go viral, or be humble to be convincing. Above, snipboy commented that the first video went viral because I seemed to "try to stay impartial." Help! What do I do? Thanks!

[jrwakefield]

But are you going to upgrate the grid to 10 row? Or a priori leave out evidence that shows that the world could be a better place with warmer temps. On your grid where would you put the fact that sea levels have not changed their rate, hence no threat to coastal regions?

[wagthedog1]

Why just 10 rows? One possible outcome is that global warming will benefit 33% of humans, have no effect on 33%, and be disasterous to the remaining third of all humans. This possibility is not even covered by the 10 row table. Don't say that average over all humans is "no effect" since you might be amongst the third facing disaster.

[jrwakefield]

No, it's 10 possibilities, an empty frame work within which you add the evidence. Hence in your example that bit would span several rows.

[wagthedog1]

On outcome spanning several row implies adopting several different policies. How will you do this if the recommended actions conflict with each other?

[jrwakefield]

Yep. Exactly. Example. Assume sea levels will rise more than they are. It swamps major cities. But the increase in average temps means warmer winters (no heating), longer growing seasons (more food), and higher CO2 means food grows faster. Conflicting possiblities of good and bad.

[masoudorg]

The grid was the good visual representation of your arguement, and for those who think visualy like myself the grid and the systematic way you explained is great. I don't really care if it resembles some other modeling (pascal).

From a video production point of view, while it was good to switch from talking head to you standing, you might want to consider using some animation tools, like flash, to make your video more appealing to watch.

[jrwakefield]

Just because I disagree with the "consensus" on AGW does not mean I reject all science. That's a logical fallacy. I don't accept bio evolution because of any consensus, it's because the evidence demands it. Consensus does not belong in science.

[jrwakefield]

Seems to me that removing the grid just means you will d nothing different than anything anyone else is trying to do in promoting AGW. The grid was systematic (though wrong). If done right, with 10 rows, you're conclusions will be reversed. Maybe that's why you want to remove it?

[wagthedog1]

Why stop at 10 rows. If one must include all possibilities, however improbable, the number of rows will be infinite. Your 10 row table is missing the possibility of a mega asteroid hitting us and wiping us all out before GW gets us. Quantum Theory also allows a non-zero probability the entire population will vanish and reappear on a different planet where CO2 is back down to 200 ppm so you need to include that also.

[jrwakefield]

No, no, no. You are expanding beyond global warming. ONLY within global warming that are 10 rows, no more. I don't model a business with software that includes paramters of someone else's unrelated business.

[wagthedog1]

Then you have to delete the last row "There is no global warming", since by your rule "ONLY within global warming".

[jrwakefield]

No, because it is possible of the negative of global warming, that it is not occuring, otherwise if evidence supporting that possibility exists where would it go?

[wagthedog1]

Clarification: It's not whether rows should be added or deleted that I'm concerned about, but whether they should be divided more. You seem to have assumed GW will affect all humans equally. It is possible for example for GW to be a disaster to poor people but leaving rich people unaffected or even improved. Then there are the middle classes. 10 rows seems just as arbitrary of 2 rows.

[jrwakefield]

No, again you are missing the point. Columns and rows represent POSSIBILITIES, which on their own have no data in them. As data starts to be placed into cells then you can argue about these issues. Look, this is how we model the world in software. Are we all wrong? Seems not, games look quite real.

[snipboy]

Vice President Al Gore Jr. is the son of former United States Senator Al Gore Sr, whose major benefactor was Armand Heimer [aka Hammer], who in turn was the son of Dr. Julius Heimer [aka Hammer], founder of the American Communist Party.

[snipboy]

..... There is a new world order conspiracy :)

Vice President Al Gore's Jr.'s daughter Karenna Gore, was recently married to Andrew Schiff.

Andrew Schiff is a descendant of JACOB SCHIFF.

Jacob Schiff gave $20 Million Dollars in Gold (worth Five Hundred Million, $500,000,000.00, in 1999 dollars) to LEVI BRAUNSTEIN, also known as Trotsky, and Vladimir Ilich Blanc Ulanyoff, also known as Lenin.

[snipboy]

Here's why your message was successful:

You are well meaning, you have good intentions

You are very methodical

You try to remain impartial (though lenient)

You are fairly down to earth and not too serious...

I respect all that... even though I don't agree with you. ; )

[lauanoarr]

I think Viddler would be a better format for what you're trying to do. Timed metadata/comments/video comments allow for a better viewing experience of something complex. Like you say, people won't watch a long drawn out video. But if you can immediately point them to what they're looking for, they'll be more likely to listen to you.

[lauanoarr]

3) You can also post video comments. You could video comment on your video, removing the need for creating a smattering of videos.  All your argument could be contained in once place (videos within videos) if you so chose.

[lauanoarr]

2) You can post timed comments as well. You could comment at a specific moment with a link to another video. So as you're talking you can say, "See the link that will pop up NOW for more information," and that link will pop up at that moment.

[lauanoarr]

You should create and post this video on Viddler (dot) com

I'm not suggesting this only because I'm an avid Viddler user, but also because:

1) You can create timed tags to give specific moments in your video more meaningful metadata, pointing people interested in specific moments to the right place.

[harryoverstreet]

Do not remove the graphical grid. Thankyou

[wagthedog1]

What makes a video viral? Advertising companies spend $millions to find out themselves. What made your video viral? The controversial topic (global warming), the bait-and-switch title (Most terrifying? C'mon!), use of a superlative (e.g. "best card trick in the world" got over 6 million YouTube views), and claiming that nobody has bested your argument.

[wonderingmind42]

Excellent points, wagthedog, which match what I've been thinking. Problem is, what do I call the new video? Ideally, it will also be easily reduce-able to a single word or two, so that the appendix videos are easily found and associated with the main one. Such as "The Answer! Finally! (In Question Form)" for the main video, and "The Answer: the Mechanics of Climate Change," "The Answer: For Hardened Skeptics Only," "The Answer: Uncertainty and the Nature of Science," etc. Suggestions?

[brianimator]

If you want to stick with crafty sensationalism:

"This Video Will Make Your Head Explode!"

"This Video Made My Head Explode!"

"This Video Made Paris Hilton's Head Explode!" (Too far? Probably.)

"The Most Amazing Answer Ever!"

"The Scariest Answer Ever!" (That we actually have to do something)

"Attack of the Awesome Answer!"

[brianimator]

"Earth vs. the Meltdown Monster!"

"Space Monkeys Cause Global Warming!" (Take that Michael Crichton!)

"Real Video of a Polar Bear Ghost!"

"The Biggest Secret Ever!"

"The Biggest Question Ever!"

"The Biggest AL Gore Ever!"

"The Hottest Video Ever!" (Not only a pun on GW, but also a way to get MANY accidental hits.)

"Science Teacher Goes on Killing Spree!" (Ok, that might not be so good.)

[wagthedog1]

You claim rejecting the ICCP and AAAS statements on GW implies rejecting all science. The hard core denialist doesn't think this way. They'll happily drive their scientifically designed SUVs, fly around in scientifically designed airplanes, and post anti-science drivel via their scientifically-designed computers, while completely failing to see the hypocrisy of their cherry picking which science to agree with. You'll need a video to explain this also.

[wagthedog1]

The grid (the simplified 2x2) became a strawman argument and was too easy for a GW denialist to knock down and claim to have debunked your arguments. If you're going after the hard core denialist then you'll need a direct attack on their talking points: CO2 lags T, H2O is 98%of GHGs, manmade CO2 contribution is minor, sun is the real cause, etc.

[wagthedog1]

And if you're targetting the fence sitters, you'll still have to target the denialist talking points, since these simplifying sound-bites are what sways people and stops them thinking about complex scientific issues.

[sesoma0]

no no no !!

the grid is what makes the whole stuff so easy to understand !!

you sure can delete the explosion and add more of those funny jokes to keep everybody's attention

also the more you simplefy ... the more ''less intrested'' ppl will listen so ... im for simplefying the whole stuff and talk... slowly :D so ppl can understand you better

[deathweaselx86]

Personally, the grid is a good graphical tool. Maybe flash a big yellow disclaimer admitting that you have oversimplified things in an attempt to get the viewer to think about it themselves (how did people miss that?)

[rebeccamadill]

I think you need to keep video one as it is. When you start intellectualizing too much, you lose popularity. But when you stay fun, and interesting, which you are good at, you are good. I think you need to keep the grid. I think it makes it more memorable.

[futurelight]

I would say, your original video went viral because you claimed to have an irrefutable argument, and a lot of people agreed with you because they weren't as educated as your "skeptics." I know I wasn't. The grid helped with the ease of conveying your message, but *because* it was so simple, it invited criticism and gave a sense that your argument was "over-simplified."

[futurelight]

I definitely think your point about trusting these strong science organizations or not trusting science is a strong one. You may want to include the numbers of scientists that are in these organizations, and give more information about why they are the deFacto source of scientific authority rather than just dropping names.

[Foober]

Absolutely do not remove the graphical grid from your argument.