I made a global warming video! Any good?

[zerospeaks]

I made a global warming video, debunking a couple of myths about global warming, like it's the sun blah blah blah

Tell me what you guys think!

If you like it, please spread it around! I have like 2 people who read my blog.
LOL!

--- In case you guys didn't figure out the link from my sig, it's http://www.zerospeaks.com/

[Carefulplease]

This is some quite remarkable work. Beautiful visual and audio integration. Not too many issues raised. Your points are effectively conveyed.

[Towlie]

I agree. A real work of art.

[shadron]

Zero, did you see the latest greenman3610 video? It came out this afternoon.

cp-iB6jwjUc

[BenBurch]

Brilliant, zerospeaks. Absolutely wonderful. That needs to be aired somewhere.

[DevilsAdvocate]

Zero, did you see the latest greenman3610 video? It came out this afternoon.

cp-iB6jwjUcOK. That is awesome. Not as fancy as zerospeaks (which was also nice). But packed full of facts.

And when trying to make a point, I'm not big on insults and emotional imagery, but greenman3610 tactfully worked in a couple nice zingers:

To say there is no difference between climate denialism and astrology does a great disservice to astrologers.

The anti-science movement’s fascination with the 12th century goes way beyond just the temperature of the medieval period.

[Cavemonster]

Looks great!

A few nitpicks from a video guy.

1) the Music
I generally think of hugely dramatic music as an appeal to emotion. I know it's a movie and not a formal debate, but myself I always prefer to be led by the content into an emotional state more than having an emotional state laid over the content. People who agree with you or some fence sitters may feel the emotion of the music with you, but as soon as they hit a fact they think they can argue with, they'll be less immersed and likely the music will feel phoney and forced.

Just think how you feel with the dramatic scare music used in campaign attack ads or 9-11 conspiracy videos. When you don't agree with the content, dramatic music starts to feel manipulative and it's easy to dismiss the content.

2) Blank spaces.
A dramatic air of mystery isn't a bad way to start, but attention spans are low. Cut down the opening blank spot and look at the blank-ish spots around 3:15 and the big one at 4:15. You shouldn't have 25 seconds of black in a video of this length unless you're doing something veeery specific with it.

3) Argument
Your central refutations are good, the sunspots and snow are key issues that need to be targeted. Your central thesis with the tobacco, has a bit of a "They laughed at Galileo" feel to it. I know your actual claim is better than that, but the framing opens it up to that misinterpretation. A more casual viewer could misread the thesis that AGW deniers and Lung Cancer deniers are equivalent are similar because the protected corporate interests, or because they disagreed with the new popular finding, but your real thesis is that they were both wrong because the science proved them wrong and dissenting public voices don't change that.

If you want the focus to be on the science, bring in a nice dramatic graph showing the effect of cigarette smoking on cancer rates. That would make the connection clearer that it isn't about dissenting voices, but about the clear science in both cases. You're relying on what we all already know about cigarettes, but I think you need to use a parallel structure to make the specific connection you want to make clear, it's voice vs graph, with voices representing the denial windbags and graphs showing the indisputable truth. Make that pattern clear right away.

4) Evaporation Image
You're going from right to left, with a medium value color over a medium valued complex image. It needs to read more clearly. People are used to reading from left to right. If you flip the image it will be easier to follow. You're also starting low, then going down, then up then down then up, I'm never looking in the right place, and since the new text doesn't jump out, I'm always a second behind.

Have them bolder, or in a white box, something to have the added elements stand out more, animate them into place, scaling down, dropping in, if they're moving, that'll attract the eye and make it clearer where the change is happening

5) Ending
Your original smoking clips are about smoking as a cause of disease, the ones you use at the end are about addictiveness, it's not a big deal but it's sort of bringing in something new in your conclusion where you should really be telling them what you told 'em. The parallel with Limbaugh is great, but it would be better if you used clips of them saying something about the link to disease, it's a better parallel to your thesis, to the beginning, and the connection between global warming and lung cancer is more direct than global warming and nicotine addictiveness.

All of the stuff I mentioned, are just a video geek's rantings, the piece is great and you can ignore my mutterings if you like.

[DevilsAdvocate]

Tell me what you guys think!

Well, here’s some criticism:

I liked the music.

My favorite part was the chart on public vs. scientist position. I liked the way it went up the big red line for the scientists.

I thought the issue on more snow was well done and clear. Some of the screens flipped too fast to follow along and others were too slow. There was a part where it said something like “Increased Precipitation!” with some maps. The exclamation point and not having any comparison maps made me fell like it was an appeal to emotion.

Some parts had a blank screen for too long. At the end, I think it might have been showing glaciers disappearing. There weren’t any titles or explanations, so it took a while to figure out what I was supposed to be seeing. I’m still not sure if that’s what the purpose of the images was.

The comparison to tobacco companies lying seems a bit weak if climate deniers are not also linked back to some motive to lie about climate warming. I understand scientists lying about tobacco: they are employed by tobacco companies that want to sell tobacco. But why would scientists want to lie about global warming? What is the motive?

The video seems to say that scientists will just lie about stuff without providing a motive, which would just make think that scientists lie. So if a large part of the public believes warming is a lie, and scientists are liars, then scientists are lying and there is no global warming and the only reason there is any significant number of people that believe in global warming is because they have been fooled by the lying scientists….You see where this goes.

[Skeptical Greg]

I see it sort'a like DevilsAdvocate suggested ..

You make the point about scientists lying about smoking - then make a presentation about global warming ..
It would seem to suggest that you can't trust scientists, and they are lying about global warming also ..

[zerospeaks]

I thought it was clear that it was the tobacco companies lying and not the scientists.

I have appreciated all the constructive comments.
I am trying to get better all the time.

This (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1j4lRC1JiKQ) was my first attempt at a video.
I made it after someone insulted me over my atheism.


I hope to continue to use youtube as a stepping stone to practice editing.
My goal is to make a documentary about evangelical christians who homeschool.
Film equipment, and more advanced editing tools are expensive though :(

Cavemonster,
Loved your comments, and any other suggestions I would appreciate!
Or if you could point me in a direction to learn to edit better (effects etc...).