Oh boy, climate science is all wrong.

daftcunt's picture

Correction of "Yale's two climate bombs" by suspiciousobservers

It is amazing how some are able to misrepresent actual research and get away with it because too many people are headline huggers.

3.714285
Average: 3.7 (7 votes)

Comments

skeptoid's picture

Was wondering if you were going to post this - here's their response, which of course I'm sure you didn't watch. Are you one of Potholer54's foul-mouthed commenters? Before this attempt to misrepresent and smear I thought Potholer54 was open to honest debate on the issue, but it's pretty clear at this point that the guy is either really daft or he deliberately pulls this shit so fanboys like you, who apparently didn't catch on to what he was up to, can feel good about your fanatical religious beliefs. Also note how Potholer basically ignores the fact that SO pointed out different academic sources are using old models rather than the newest models and it's hurting the credibility of their results. Aren't you the one who always says "All variables have been accounted for in climate change models"? So why are they still using the old ones?

 

If your position is so strong and obvious to anyone with a brain, why does your YouTuber need to make things up? Why can't he just honestly debate with Suspicious observers? Like you he must really feel insecure about their observations and how they point out the holes and miscommunications in mainstream climate science.

 

 

+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft's picture
Beta TesterDiscord userImage gallery

Potholer is a debunker so that's kinda what motivates him, being able to tell people they are wrong. Guess he was too eager this time and didn't actually listen to what was being said.  

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid's picture

Here's the original video Potholer is commenting on (not provided of course by DaftCunt) and after that is a fascinating comment from Potholer54 where he pretends to be open to debating the matter after the backlash to his dishonest video.

 

 

I was INSTANTLY reminded of DaftCunt while reading this:

 

SuspiciousObservers is claiming I took his words "out of context," without giving any details. For the record, none of the first half of my video -- up to 4:18 -- contains any changes, edits, or missing talk, frames or text from S.O.'s video -- it is exactly as he posted on YouTube. All I have done is stop his video at certain places to issue corrections to his numerous mistakes. In the second half I skip about a minute of his video to get to his main points and claims. I have put a link to his original video in my video description so that you can see for yourselves that I have reproduced his claims in full and in context. SuspiciousObservers has invited me to what he calls a "debate," and I responded as follows in a post below:

 

Sure, I'm always happy to talk to anyone. But stop foaming and the mouth and shouting "liar!" long enough to tell me what the errors were in my video. I will be happy to correct anything I got wrong, and discuss -- live, if you like -- anything we still disagree on. Just write a list of my errors -- quoting exactly what I said, and the time on the video when I said it, and explain how it is wrong. Anything not on your list we can assume I got right, and therefore I am sure you will do the decent thing and correct it. Fair enough?

 

The ground rules are that we are not allowed to simply spout belief and opinion -- any two idiots can do that on the internet -- we have to use facts published in respected, peer-reviewed scientific journals, and cite them. Give the other person a chance to read them and fact-check -- you know, the way grown-ups do. Blogs, TV programs, opinion pieces or people we met in a bar are not legitimate scientific sources. If we quote something I said, you said or anyone else said, it has to be a verbatim quote with the source cited. No making up quotes, paraphrasing or skewing. No interrupting, shouting or name-calling. If you thought a skype "debate" would be an opportunity to see who can make up the most amount of BS and shout the other down loudest, sorry, it doesn't work that way.

 

I am writing this on an open forum rather than in a private e-mail exchange because everyone can see what the rules are and what we have agreed on. Finally, I am in Australia, so you'll have to adjust to the time difference. Unless I'm working on a news story, between 6pm and 8pm AEST is the best time for me, because I'm always here. If you agree to the ground rules and want to go ahead, just give me a time and date from next Tuesday onwards. TTFN.

 

Like Daftcunt often does, he claims he wants to have a debate and then reveals a set of ground rules with items that are heavily dependent on the subjective interpretation of himself or others. Look at how he maims any possibility of a debate by issuing a series of insulting ad-hominens and assumptions about his opponent's expected behavior which are completely injustified. This protects him in the off chance that he finds himself actually debating the issue in a long format with Suspicious Observers - the debate will go nowhere because Potholer will insist that the ground rules are being broken via his personal definitions every time Suspicious Observers makes a point against his absolute certainty. Suspicious Observers focuses mainly on pointing out inconsistencies BETWEEN various scientific papers and conclusions regarding climate change, as well as situations where the paper's author are using outdated data and models. Besides the solar activity observations, models and predictions, pointing out the problems with mainstream climate science deriving conclusions from bad or outdated climate data is the rest of what he does. Because Potholer54 can't accept that his confidence in the conclusions of "what happens next" and "what precisely is responsible" is unscientific he goes for deliberate misunderstanding and misrepresentation of what is being said.

 

I think SO's instinct is right on this one - Potholer didn't just "accidentally misunderstand". You can see a back and forth conversation between Suspicious Observers and Potholer54 in the comment section of this video regarding the time and nature of a live scheduled debate. I would make damn sure that Ben understands what Potholer54 means by his "ground rules" - he's not playing for truth he's playing to win. Hopefully Ben will take this into account and ensure his understanding of Potholder's "ground rules" are the same in the minds of both debaters.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt's picture
Discord userfront page

LOL the headline huggers and of course the biastoid don't like this shit, I know. 

 

What potholer tries to do is define the language, which unfortunately can only be one, which is what the scientists use.

 

There is no uproar in the scientific community about this, only the headline huggers and conspiracy theorists misinterpret valid research, as they often do. I told the same to backdraft in another "conversation": look into what the study (about the clouds in this case) actually says and THEN and only then make up your opinion. In this particular study the gist of one of the first sentences was "this does not contradict current climate science" and it is sad enopugh that this needs to be in there. 

 

We have to do 2 things, get our facts and interpretations straight and use the same language, then we can have a conversation.

 

If people are too scared to use the scientific terms and definitions but prefer to use the babble invented by whoever they fancy they may talk to themselves and likeminded but not expect to be respected by people that actually know what they are taling about.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid's picture

"Defining the language" again are we Daftcunt? LOL The number of conditions Potholer has placed in front of the debate continues to grow. What's obvious is that Potholer does not want to debate the issue - AT ALL. Ben has pinged him via e-mail and in multiple comments on both his channel and Potholer's and Potholer continues to either avoid these offers or lays down a set of ground rules that no intelligent person would accept going into a debate. Your "define the language" is an appeal to dogma and authority rather than an honest desire for true exploration.

 

You did this with our disagreement about practical vs. theoretical when it comes to dog training and obedience. I tried repeatedly to engage you in conversation and you repeatedly ducked and avoided with the excuse that I refused to "use your language". You basically said "Sure I'll debate practical experience vs. theories derived from scientific experiments, as long as anything related to practical experience is banned from the debate." LOL Potholer is doing the exact same thing here - Ben has engaged him every which way from Sunday and the dude will not agree to a fair debate. That's all you really need to know about Potholer's motives and credibility.

 

Btw I gave this post 3/5 because this back and forth (now that all of the relevant information is included) is interesting to watch. 

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid's picture

Oh, and you forgot Potholer54's repsonse to SO's response. The amount of shit-eating dishonesty in this second video response is truly breathtaking - watch a dude who's playing to win rather than understand, and see how quickly he takes the disgreement into the semantic weeds while issuing arrogant ad-hominems along the way. At 7:30 he shows his hand, which I predicted based on the "ground rules" he set of a debate - Potholer will only discuss papers in isolation and refuses to address the fucking "observations" that these papers are written in silos and aren't apparently aware how thoroughly they either contradict each other or demonstrate that these people need to be talking WITH each other instead of writing papers in silos based on outdated data:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt's picture
Discord userfront page

Again you make bold statements as you like to do and then don't tell us what tthey are based on. What is "dishonest" about the reply? He is correcting (again) the flaws in terminology in the presentation of the other guy.

 

Regarding to your coment above: the theoretical and practical part of EVERY scientific field uses the SAME terminology. Some may have different units, that is why these are ALWAYS added. So speed is not 5 but rather 5m/s or 5km/h (kph is actually INCORRECT) or 5 mi/h (mph is, like kph only used in traffic applications)* and weight is expressed in kg, lbs or stone etc. etc.

 

The terminology in the learning process is equally as good defined in psychology -IRRESPECTIVE OF SPECIES, for both theoretical and practical application, of course.

Ask ANY psychologist. Even your favourite Peterson would insist on using the same terminology.

There may be a difference how we call our METHODS (i.e. "kicking" or "communicative touch" to use a more drastic example so don't get hung up on it**), however, the mechanism in the learning process behind it is the same (for an individual in a particular situation), it may be different for other individuals in other situations (or the same individual in other situations or another individual in the same situation - or location or activity etc.).

 

* km/h speak: ilo etres / (per) our; mi/h speak: mi les / (per) our

 

** Example: Loud heavy metal music in the gym for me is a motivator, for my wife it would be a deterrent. A heavy slap on the back of my 100kg / 220lbs mate for an achievement would be a praise, for my 50kg / 110lbs wife it would be quite the opposite....

 

I went to a pre-school yesterday to talk to the kids about dogs (a very short presentation, lol) and of course took my pitbull. Why? Because when kids pull his tail or accidently stick a finger in his eye he would not have an averse reaction, due to his high pain threshold and general character he would consider this as "praise", my 10yo lab suffering arthrosis would react quite differently.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid's picture

This is why a debate with Potholer will not happen - it's always a confusion over whether you're daft or being deliberately obtuse. Neither state will foster an interesting debate. There seems to be no way you can acknolwedge the value of knowledge gained and applied outside the strict confines of academic science. Dude - I just posted a video of a Lady who's trained Border Collies for 25 years. She's not a scientist, but her understanding of the dog's umwelt is as valuable as any scientist's theoretical considerations and she and the scientist should be able to sit down and discuss what they've both learned about the mind and behavior of border collies. We can't talk about it because you refuse to accept that a practical, hands-on expert with decades of experience who isn't a scientist could have understandings as good as or better than abstract studies even if she uses a different "language" as she speaks about it.

 

The scientist could identify behaviors she mentions and explain how thoses behaviors are labeled and explained in academia - although she likely has a utility focus for the dogs she could still LEARN something from the scientist that she could apply to her day -to-day work - more scientifically-precise applications that could actually be applicable in her day-to-day. And she could detail her knowledge of Border Collies to the scientist - direct experience described with layperson language - and trigger in the sicentists ideas for new areas of inquiry or experiments derived from watching and learning about the practical work. In fact I believe that it was just such an exchange that prompted scientists to actually begin doing consciousness studies on Border Collies, which produced surprising results.

 

But NONE of that can happen if academia is going to look down its nose at the hands-on, practical experiencers and obtusely scoff when a trainer explains something in what they consider to be an inprecise manner, or the trainer confuses correlation with causation, etc. and they just dismiss that entire body of experience. That's what I mean by theoretical vs. practical - there are opportunities on both sides to learn and expand if they work with each other amicably instead of the ridiculous conflicts perpetuated by people like yourself and Potholer, who are only interested in approval from their perceived peer group as they defend their chosen "tribe" against the other "tribe" - playing to win even if it means interacting dishonestly with an opponent who shouldn't even be regarded as such.

+1
-1
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt's picture
Discord userfront page

I must say your delusions are perfect.

 

Science includes observation, description, experiment. Do you really think the Coppingers or other scientists looking into dogs (or whatever) did their research (maybe even exclusively) in a lab or on the computer?

 

Do you think climate scientists do? There are no scientists sitting on the north or south pole or the equater? 

 

REALLY?

 

Oh, and the moon landing was all a canspiracy too, of course.

 

Then why don't you dismiss ALL scientific papers, ALSO those misinterpreted by your obvious hero? But no, thousands of scienetists READING THE SAME LINES do not see what this guy does, he must be right, they are all wrong, the terminology they use is wrong and we should listen to the man that does nothing but satisfy his headline hugger followers.

 

Why do we need to lay down ground rules for a discussion? Especially when conversing with crowder and this guy?

 

Because if we don't they will start shooting from the hip with shit about related but not prepared for issues. So it must be clear  WHAT we are talking about and WHICH terminology to use. Otherwise we cannot compare the conclusion people draw from the data.

But from someone who can't even specify where on the globe he sits in order to make an appointment this surely cannot be expected.

+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid's picture

"Then why don't you dismiss ALL scientific papers, ALSO those misinterpreted by your obvious hero?"

 

Because I'm not like you Daftcunt. I'm not tribal - I recognize the value of both streams of knowledge. You do not. You understand that right? That's why we can't have a discussion about it, and for similar reasons it makes a debate between Ben and Potholer highly unlikely and/or unproductive.

 

"Because if we don't they will start shooting from the hip with shit about related but not prepared for issues."

 

LOL - these are the words of a coward trying to rationalize his demand for training wheels in the debate. The fact is you cannot accept that knowledge derived outside of formal academic science can have value. That's an extremist position informed by your obvious tribablism.

 

 

+1
-1
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt's picture
Discord userfront page

I'll reply here to both of your replies

 

The dist of your statements is that:

  1. Scientists work in isolation
  2. I don't value "streams of knowledge" derived from practical experience only, scientists work in isolation, no practicality can be found.
  3. Using a common terminology and set of definitions is not valuable in a conversation. 

This is not correct. I'll put some structure to it in order to avoid more hip shooting.

 

Regarding 1 I'll use the SO potholer "discussion":

 

Usually bloggers like SO "work" in relative isolation and they deliver to a fanbase of "wannabe skeptics" mainly composed of headline huggers and those that have an agenda. 

 

It seems SO is not happy with the content and or conclusions drawn by the two studies. 

Why does he not write papers re-interpreting the findings of the "2 yale bombs" and publish it in a scientific magazine for peer review?

Wouldn't a by far bigger and more competent audience be more benefitial for correcting results?

He would be able to shut up potholer for good on the issue and tell him "NAAA NA NA NAAAA NAAA, told ya!" Fortunately this is not how peer review works.

 

2. I will use modern dog training to address this.

 

I don't know how you get this idea at all. "Classical dog training" was derived mainly from observation and applying military style techniques to get the dog to do what one wants. Classical behaviour modification like "correcting" the dog and "alpha rolling" it etc. (arguably much, if not most, of it is not modification at all but supression but hey, call it what you like, there is no need for common terminology) was derived by observation and supported by the  "dominance theory".

 

After the dominance theory was debunked interest in further scientific approach was neglected by "traditional" trainers and they kept developing their techniques in blinkered isolation.

 

Modern dog training techniques were developed together with science, implementing methods that put into practice what the "theory" says.

ALL of this work is practical. One still needs a skill set and talent and practice to become a dog trainer. 

What one also needs when coming from traditional training (like most older trainers) is an open mind to accept the progress that has been made since the seventies.

 

One cannot and must not give the people that still live in the past the same credibility as those that have moved on and developed themselves. I am NOT saying all of them do bad work, never did. They very often could do a better job, though.

 

3. The common terminology.

 

It is still funny that you insist on this being unnecessary when this video submission is actually  all about using the wrong terminology. It could easily have been corrected either by correcting the presentation or by introducing an "own" definition of the terms used. The latter is completely unnecessary as a definition already exists.

And this is a fairly superficial issue, imagine getting into the nitty gritty!

 

Let me give an example in the dog world again (this is only regarding terminology, not practice vs. theory, neither is it judging the applied method):

  • Dog barks at stimulus (say another person).
  • Mechanical input is provided by the handler (tug on the leash or kick for example - there is no qualification of severity in this statement, just an observation)
  • Dog gets startled, stops barking
  • Handler says "behaviour is corrected!" 

IS IT?

 

First we have to look at the initial behaviour. In order for it to be corrected it would have to have been "wrong". 

 

WAS IT?

 

Is there such a thing as "wrong" or "bad" behaviour? Or is it simply "in this situation undesired behaviour"? After all I might WANT the dog to bark at a stranger entering my property!

 

 

 

Regarding the "correction":

 

What is the desired outcome? Let's say it is "dog does not bark at adverse stimulus". This goal has been achieved, good.

 

OR HAS IT?

 

Are there any underlying goals? Like do we want to supress the initial barking behaviour or do we want to modify it?

 

For this little thought experiment it is irrelevant what this goal is or which method is used to address the issue, it is only relevant what we want to achieve and how we define it.

 

If I modified the behaviour (and that is what I wanted) then I may say "the behaviour is corrected". If, however, I wanted to modify the behaviour and it is actually supressed, we could not say that at all!

 

 

In order to judge what we have achieved we MUST define "supressed behaviour" and "modified behaviour". Otherwise we create confusion.

 

This is why I want some terminology agreed BEFORE we start and more as we go along in a discussion.

 

There is no trap, no viciousness, no shooting from the hip (at least from my side) involved.  

 

The other funny thing is that I only hear you complaining about this rather than making an own effort to lay down ground rules.

Remember?

YOU told me it is "unfair" when I say "kick" or "hit" (although I was not even referring to any quality of action, like severity of impact, at all). 

 

I had to ask YOU what you wanted it to be called and in a sort of reverse "SJW safespace" fashion you named this the "communicative touch" trying to give this an air of competence and positiveness, I guess, which is not required. "Mechanical input by handler" would have been way more applicable, don't you think.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid's picture

I'll wait for you to correct item #2 in your first list. Much of what you wrote after that first list is incorrect but I'll give you the respect of waiting for the correction.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt's picture
Discord userfront page

Can't help but chuckle. You could at least give us the courtesy of telling us what you think is wrong. I wasn't expecting you to give a reply that could lead to an educated conversation anyway, I was just bored again because of the shit weather that does not seem to end. 

+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid's picture

Who's us - I'm only refering to you. I'm not, for like the 20th time, going to elucidate it for you. You know what's wrong with item #2 - fix it, and we may be able to have a discussion.

+1
-1
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt's picture
Discord userfront page

I forgot:

 

I am insisting on defining a "common language" (by agreeing to the scientific terms) because during a discussion we would have to cover a lot of details as scratching the surface will lead us to a dead end quite quickly, like in the climate change discussion, where too many surface scratchers and headline huggers voice their opinion which is based on not so scinetific interpretations of scientific sources (or even straight lies).

 

I do not try to let you walk into a trap, quite the opposite, as I stated many times I AM NOT THE ENEMY in this matter.

 

But -as you always seem to think "opponents" have some viciousness in them- your insecurity and lack of knowledge on the topic does not permit you to agree and thus enter into an open and honest discussion. This is a shame, really. Fear is a real bitch.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid's picture

The common language in our discussion about canines would be the English language. My goal would be to demonstrate the value of a cooperative interchange of ideas between two isolated and artificially-conflicted silos in the world of canine behavior and your goal would be to summarily dismiss any knowledge gained through practical work with dogs as invalid by definition because it wasn't developed in the halls of academia. You see the problem? You're trying to game the discussion, and I just want to have a productive discussion.

 

Backdraft is exactly right below - Potholer54 appears to be afraid or at the very least demonstrating his intent to approach the discussion with Ben in bad faith. Ben would try to advance understanding through discussion and Potholer would just be waiting for the moment that Ben uses a word or a phrase that isn't precise or obviously substitutes one word when meant to use another (accumulate vs. concentrate) and keep the focus there, as you do. Potholer will keep the discussion in the weeds and attempt focus solely on an appeal to mainstream academic authority. Potholer will avoid having the discussion at 1000FT looking down because that's where Ben plays - he reads individual academic papers and points out contradictions, old or bad data. Ben has to have made mistakes while doing this - anyone would, and when he's made mistakes in the past he has corrected them immediately if aware. For the mistakes he's unaware of a guy like Potholer WOULD be useful if only he would engage Ben in good faith. But it seems clear Potholer is taking a purely tribal approach, which as Backdraft said is understandable for committed "debunker". Even within mainstream science there are tribal thought processes and behaviors. It takes effort to push past such things - Potholer is lazy. 

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt's picture
Discord userfront page

ROFL Here we go, I knew this is what bugs you and shows your fear of being dismantled in an argument although I told you various times that this is not my goal at all: 

"...your goal would be to summarily dismiss any knowledge gained through practical work with dogs as invalid by definition because it wasn't developed in the halls of academia. "

Why not, you ask? Because ALL scientific achievements have their roots in practical work (law of gravity is the best example), real scientists and self confident "followers" are just not afraid to admit to mistakes. This goes for physicists, psychologists, climatologists etc. but unfortunately not for agendologists and conspiralinuts. 

 

I don't put down the goals or achievements* of other trainers when we** all (should) actually have the same goal: make life better for the dog-human team. I also mentioned various times that I also used to apply the same methods (not "his" btw) and that it is a real shame CM (and others) has not kept up with the scientific development and keeps on with the "dominance", "alpha", "own the space, toy, whatever"  etc (it took me a lot of effort to come round and of course by defiition due to his success he is even more set in his way). He (and others) could be even better than he already is, "intuitive" trainers like him can do good work (he more often than not does) but they get the reasoning wrong, science helped us to correct that.

 

In order to get a conversation going, we have to start at the very bottom (the basics of learning) and that, of course, would force us to use the same (scientific) terminology, also of course we would converse in english, although I would be happy to have the same discussion in spanish, german or catalan, but again you only deliberately misunderstood what I was saying, an annoyingly stupid diverting strategy of yours.

 

But as you are only interested in the scientific side of things when it suits you (I'll come back to this in my reply to the other issue above), there is no point in any discussion, is there.

 

* I may criticise -and abstain from using- certain methods and disagree on how to define the achieved outcome of some training, though.

 

** includes myself, your sister, CM and other dog trainers, excludes you and your likes.

+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid's picture

LOL Yes that's a lot of words to say that I think knowledge derived through academic science is valuable (I've maintained that throughout this long back and forth on this issue over many months) and knowledge derived from hands-on experience over many years is also valuable. You believe the latter cannot have value. This is demonstrably false, and puts you squarely in the realm of a fanatical tribalist. What's hilarious is that it's not personal for me - CM is not my hero. But clearly Potholer is YOUR HERO since you emulate his every move like an unquestioning, star-struck sycophant.

 

You still have not addressed the logical fallacy here. I say let's discuss the value of these two streams of knowledge and you say "Sure, but the rules are that you can't talk about the other stream at all." What else is there to say, other than you are obviously not confident in your beliefs despite your protests to the contrary?

+1
-1
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft's picture
Beta TesterDiscord userImage gallery

You can already tell what quality of the debate is going to be. Potholer is being extremely anal just setting up the time for the debate. 

 

 

BEN WROTE:
Tomorrow between 10am and noon my time. Wednesday 7-8am my time. Thursday almost all morning. Friday almost all morning. I believe my morning matches your evening? 

 

I REPLIED:
Er... Ben, I know that not having a short attention span is supposed to be my failing, not yours, but I have written this in black and white and put it in my response video, so I'm not sure how you could have missed it.
  1) I have already told you which time zone I'm in, and I told you the times I am always home -- from 1800 to 20:00 Australian Eastern Standard Time (AEST). So when you write "Wednesday 7-8am my time" that is meaningless because I have no idea what "your time" is. Your time depends on which time zone you live in. Geddit?

2) I also asked for a couple of days notice, so Wednesday evening my time is obviously out. Let me repeat: I live in an AEST time zone so your message came through at 1am Tuesday morning. That is NOT two days, and since I am asleep at 1am I only read your message at 8am.

 

3) "Thursday almost all morning. Friday almost all morning." -- Sorry Ben, maybe my message still wasn't clear enough. When I asked you to give me "a date" that means a date, not three different dates, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday. 
   I also gave you the time I am always at home -- 18:00 to 20:00 AEST -- so saying "all morning" is meaningless. Not just because "all morning" is not a specific time, but because I have no idea what times that encompasses unless I know what time zone you're in.

 

4) " I believe my morning matches your evening?"
   How would I know, Ben? Once again -- I don't know which time zone you live in. 

Boy, this really shouldn't be so hard. All I asked you to do is pick a date, giving me two days' notice, and a time between 18:00 and 20:00 AEST. Can you please try to do that? If you can't figure out what period of time separates two days, go for three days to give yourself a margin of error. Thanks.

 

 

+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid's picture

LOL What an asshole - completely useless and unproductive attitude from the start and throughout. He just wants to insult Ben, and despite his tone it's obvious his continued antagonism is based around the backlash to his hit piece. Why can't he just be a decent guy and have a discussion with Ben? Ben is ernest but like Potholer he's an extremely committed climate change and solar activity observation "hobbyist", and not a scientist. He has some interesting hypotheses, some I find interesting and others that are too much of a stretch for me at this time. The idea that space weather could affect fault lines is interesting, and he's working on his own models to predict earthquakes based on this data, updating his audience regarding apparent successes and failures openly and transparently. When someone comes at you with obvious animosity and misrepresents what you were saying with a shit-eating sardonic tone, it doesn't really lend itself to a fruitful discussion. 

+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid's picture

Hey Backdraft - some of Potholer's subs are even more small than Potholer. After debating them for two days a little group of them (I assume it's them) are currently walking through all of the canine videos on my channel and spamming them with downvotes. I did somewhat expect this but it's hilarious that of all things they would target the dog videos (likely because the view counts are so small I will notice them), but there it is - about as small as you can get LOL. 

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft's picture
Beta TesterDiscord userImage gallery

Doesn't surprise me at all.

There seems to be a lot of hostility going around potholers followers. Not all of them but he seems to attract people who thrive from the "us against them" tribal mentality. This again stems from the debunker mentality, which has it's place, but easily becomes a mindset one can get stuck in and from there being right becomes more important than seeking the truth. Entertaining new ideas isn't potholers cup of tea because of his ultra-conservative academic take on things. This too has it's place, but can also hinder science if it becomes dogmatic and unwilling to consider new ideas. 

 

SO, on the other hand, is the exact opposite and might be too eager to jump to conclusions, but generally, he tends to stay level-headed. I listen to his stuff every now and then, but I take most things with a grain of salt. I have to give the man props how passionate he is about this and how he keeps up posting every single day. These day science is super compartmentalized and there isn't enough cross-talk between different fields. We need people like him who try to bring things together and I think one of his best examples of this is his earthquake predictions stuff.    

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt's picture
Discord userfront page

So here is an update:

 

It appears after a lot of "communications" and finally giving his timezone SO agreed to a discussion on skype, which he would live stream on his channel. A discussion happened, it was not live streamed (I would say this was to be expected, actually) but only audio recorded by SO, who allegedly agreed to put this on his channel, which indeed he did... NOT (yet? But because hell is about to freeze over due to falling global temperatures this will be happening very soon.... yeah, right). 

 

LOL 

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft's picture
Beta TesterDiscord userImage gallery

And why the hell didn't potholer record it? He's the one that was concerned about the lack of transparency.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt's picture
Discord userfront page

Yeah I found that disappointing. He did record part of the audio apparently but had to stop sometimes due to technical issues when showing video during the discussion. In any case it was initially agreed that SO makes it a live broadcast, which he did not. Then they apparently agreed the full audio recording was to be published by him, which literally takes minutes for audio only, and again he didn't.

 

It also appears SO wanted to avoid public discussion before the event giving some rather weird excuses, I wonder why that was.  

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
backdraft's picture
Beta TesterDiscord userImage gallery

In the YT comments, potholer said he would post the audio on his channel (included with images that they discussed about) once he get's it from SO. Potholer isn't complaining anymore so I'm thinking he got the audio. 

 

I don't know if SO was stalling or just has a tight schedule. He does post 1-2 videos daily and there was a big time difference between the two. Well it's done now, I just hope we get to hear it. 

 

 

 

 

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down