@newtboy,

Walking backwards to simplify, my main point is that simply blaming ALL fossil fuel usage on the company providing the fossil fuel is stupid and misleading in the extreme. We don't see millions of people willingly abandoning fossil fuels and living in abject poverty to save the world, instead they are all very willing and eagerly buying them and this video lets all those people off the hook. This video lets everybody keep using fossil fuels, and at the same time pointing the finger at Shell and saying it's all their fault. It's an extremely detrimental piece of disinformation.

"explain what, specifically, I claimed that's not supported by the science."
-Complete collapse of the food web
-Wars over hundreds of millions or billions of refugees
-Loss of most farm land and hundreds of major cities to the sea
-Loss of well over 1/2 the producers of O2
-Eventual clouds of hydrogen sulfide from the ocean covering the land
-Runaway greenhouse cycles making the planet uninhabitable for thousands if not hundreds of thousands or even millions of years

No sir.
I even mentioned one group in America that never adopted petroleum...Amish...and I would counter your assertion with the fact that most people on earth don't live using oil, they're too poor, not too fortunate. 20-30 years ago, most Chinese had never been in a car or a commercial store bigger than a local vegetable stand.

Both customers and non customers are the victims.
Using (or selling) a product that clearly pollutes the air, land, and sea is immoral.

Yes, it's like our business is predicated on rebuilding wrecked cars overnight which we do by using massive amounts of meth. Sure, our products are death traps, sure, we lied about both our business practices and the safety of our product, sure, our teeth and brains are mush....but our business has been successful and allowed us to have 10 kids (8 on welfare, two adopted out), and if we quit using meth they'll starve and fight over scraps. That's proof meth is good and moral and you're mistaken to think otherwise. Duh.

Yes, we overpopulated, outpacing the planet's ability to support us by far...but instead of coming to terms with that and changing, many think we should just wring the juice out of the planet harder and have more kids. I think those people are narcissistic morons, we don't need more little yous. Sadly, we are well beyond the tipping point, even if no more people are ever born, those alive are enough to finish the biosphere's destruction. Guaranteed if they think like you seem to.

Um, really? Complete collapse of the food web isn't catastrophic?
Wars over hundreds of millions or billions of refugees aren't catastrophic? (odd because the same people who think that are incensed over thousands of Syrians, Africans, and or South and Central American refugees migrating)
Massive food shortage isn't catastrophic?
Loss of most farm land and hundreds of major cities to the sea isn't catastrophic?
Loss of corals, where >25% of ocean species live, and other miniscule organisms that are the base of the ocean food web isn't catastrophic?
Loss of well over 1/2 the producers of O2, and organisms that capture carbon, isn't catastrophic?
Eventual clouds of hydrogen sulfide from the ocean covering the land, poisoning 99%+ of all life isn't catastrophic?
Runaway greenhouse cycles making the planet uninhabitable for thousands if not hundreds of thousands or even millions of years isn't catastrophic?
Loss of access to water for billions of people isn't catastrophic?
I think you aren't paying attention to the outcomes here, and may be thinking only of the scenarios estimated for 2030-2050 which themselves are pretty scary, not the unavoidable planetary disaster that comes after the feedback loops are all fully in play. Try looking more long term....and note that every estimate of how fast the cycles collapse/reverse has been vastly under estimated....as two out of hundreds of examples, Greenland is melting faster than it was estimated to melt in 2075....far worse, frozen methane too.

You can reject the science, that doesn't make it wrong. It only makes you the ass who knowingly gambles with the planet's ability to support humans or other higher life forms based on nothing more than denial.

Edit: We are at approximately 1C rise from pre industrial records today, expected to be 1.5C in as little as 11 years. Even the IPCC (typically extremely conservative in their estimates) states that a 2C rise will trigger feedbacks that could exceed 12C. Many are already in full effect, like glacial melting, methane hydrate melting, peat burning, diatom collapse, coral collapse, forest fires, etc. It takes an average of 25 years for what we emit today to be absorbed (assuming the historical absorption cycles remain intact, which they aren't). That means we are likely well past the tipping point where natural cycles take over no matter what we do, and what we're doing is increasing emissions.

No, sorry, ditching meat and dairy didn't cure his arthritis. It's likely that swimming and training to freedive relieved his symptoms by effectively oxygenating his blood more efficiently and to higher levels. There is no cure for arthritis.

Free diving requires excessively high iron levels in your blood, which is exceptionally difficult to achieve on a vegetarian or vegan diet. That's why very few top ranked freedivers (or other top ranked athletes) are vegan instead of all of them.

True, vegetables don't have cholesterol, but poly and monounsaturated fats they do contain can still raise human cholesterol levels when over consumed. It's just not as simple as plant good, meat bad.

No clue where you get this 20% boost of O2 use efficiency claim....have any references or even explanations? It contradicts everything I find that shows only around 1/2 the iron found in those few vegetables that contain iron is useable by the body unlike iron found in dark and red meats.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by eric3579.

The pond water circulates through the open bottom, so the O2 levels are the same as the pond.
Yes, mine got dirty and had to be removed and cleaned monthly. Since the fish didn't use it, that only lasted 3-4 months before I gave up. I used a tall glass vase about 10-12" wide and 2 1/2' tall. Maybe if I put floating food in it they'll use it, I'll probably try again when the water is warm enough to go in the pond and set it up, they look neat.

There was a programme about the death penalty hosted by Michael Portillo a few years back which pondered weather hypoxia was the more humane way of executing prisoners - it's weird that your brain can be in such a state of euphoria and intoxication when your survival depends on something as basic as correcting o2 levels.

I actually did this as my final chemistry experiment in High School. We used rubbing alcohol (75 and 99%) and got many different results.
Sometimes it would be a jet. Sometimes it would make a 'plane' of fire that hovered 1/2 way down the bottle. Sometimes it made a ball of fire that bounced below the neck. Sometimes it flashed repeatedly, igniting the entire bottle at once and repeating. Different results could be gained by rolling the bottle around, spreading the fuel and creating a denser vapor load, or blowing O2 into the bottle before lighting.
We used a glass 5 gallon bottle (it got HOT). I was surprised he only seemed to get the jet reaction.
(EDIT: I forgot, at the end the teacher brought out some liquid ether for me to try. Everyone (except me) stepped back for that one, afraid it might blow the bottle up)
Almost downvote for the last one...WTF guy?

Unless you're talking about giant redwoods, which take moisture out of the air more than out of the ground, oddly. They have to live in fog belts in order to get enough moisture up to the top.
And unless you're talking about at night, when trees do aerobic respiration, and use O2 to make some CO2.

WATERS & GILMOUR @ O2 LONDON 12 MAY 2011 has been added as a related post - related requested by Zawash.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/WATERS-GILMOUR-O2-LONDON-12-MAY-2011
Very nice sift in deed - thanks!

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by oritteropo.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by oritteropo.

Ya, just not on topic. http://bemoredog.o2.co.uk/ looks like a new mobile phone service in the UK.

Yup, but for two big factors - CO2 in the depression would be heavier than the O2 in the surrounding air so the O2 wouldn't naturally flow in to displace it, and the instant the igniting torch hit the depression, the heat would have started mass-producing local CO2 from the sublimating block. So, no O2 in the area unless it was somehow broken apart from the CO2 in the block itself.

Would be weird to switch their O2 feed to Nitrous