Potholer54’s ‘Live Debate’ Turned ‘Private Discussion’ with YouTuber Ben Davidson (Suspicious0bservers) on Climate Change – Transcript Part Two

This is the second part of the transcript from science journalist Peter Hadfield’s (Potholer54’s) video “Discussion with Suspicious Observers,” which was supposed to be a “Live Debate” that turned into a private Skype “discussion” with the YouTuber Ben Davidson (Suspicious0bservers). Part one of this transcript can be found here.

In a previous blog article, I mentioned that Ben Davidson has a disclaimer (published in all capital letters) on the “About” section of his website that says, “I OFTEN INTERJECT MY OPINIONS ABOUT THE TOPICS PRESENTED ON THE CHANNEL AND ON THIS SITE, AND I ATTEMPT TO CLEARLY COMMUNICATE WHEN THAT IS THE CASE” (Davidson 2018). I went on to point out that this is:

“a great example of why his [Davidson’s] ‘news’ content constitutes opinion and not fact: you either do, or do not, communicate that something is an opinion…there is no attempt. This is why newspapers and news websites have sections that are clearly labeled ‘editorial’ and ‘op-ed’ to avoid any confusion; interjecting opinions and presenting them alongside cherry picked ‘facts’ is how people create half-truths…and fake news” (Reality Challenged 2018).

Fake newsmen, conspiracy theorists and pseudoscientists all pay close attention to current events and often use the new research, and news articles, that are being published by qualified professionals to confirm their own “overvalued ideas” and beliefs. This is something that was established in my previous blog article, “The Tactics of Pseudoscientists and Cranks: From Misuse of Language to ‘Just Asking Questions.’”

Again: an over-reliance on confirmation, instead of falsification, of a hypothesis while combing through current events for “proof” of their ideas are the hallmarks of any pseudoscientist or conspiracy theorist. While listening to this video “discussion” and reading between the lines with the transcript, be on the look out for instances of “confirmation bias” and notice how it’s all predictable behavior that is influenced by a conspiratorial worldview

Questions Send Scripted Responses Off the Rails

The second half of this video/transcript sees Ben Davidson’s (Suspicious0bservers’) scripted responses (rants) go off the rails as he’s eventually wrangled into answering Peter Hadfield’s (Potholer54’s) questions.

Ben Davidson’s improvisational skills falter, and so does his memory as he cannot remember the conclusion of a paper that is one of the two sources that Ben cited in his original video, “Yale’s Two Climate Bombs;” about which they’re supposed to be ‘debating/discussing.’ This leads to Peter (Potholer54) having to spoon-feed Ben (Suspicious0bservers) his own material that he supposedly knew and understood well enough to “officially” accuse Peter of “misrepresenting with intent.”

As per usual, the truth is stranger than fiction. If this seems unbelievably convoluted, that’s because it is. For proper context, check out the series of four YouTube videos that led up to this whole exchange, which include: Ben’s original video, “Yale’s Two Climate Bombs,” Peter’s first debunking video, “Correction of ‘Yale’s two climate bombs’ by suspiciousobservers,” Ben’s response of “How Someone Tried To Debunk A Video,” and Peter’s “Second response to Suspiciousobservers” video.

“Discussion with Suspicious Observers” Transcript Pt. 2:

Peter @ 17:57 So, could we just go back, would you mind if I talk about, you know, what we were here to debate, which was my “misrepresentations” of your video and what you said in that video. I’m sure that you’ve said a lot of things in other videos and I’m sure that this is the eighth in a series, and that one through seven talked about all sorts of other things, but I can’t really get into those now, because I haven’t seen those videos, so let’s just deal with this video.

Ben @ 18:23 What I want to know is: why, and I don’t know if you did this in comments or if there was some other video or if you did this on Facebook, or whatever, because I don’t understand how this happened: but I got literally over 800 comments, within the span of 24-hours, all saying virtually the same thing, ‘that I didn’t understand what those papers were saying and that I didn’t have any basis whatsoever in talking about…’

Peter @ 19:00 Okay, then. Let’s talk about that, because I suspect the reason they said that was because you didn’t understand what the papers were saying. Now, if you want to say, ‘you did understand them.’ That’s absolutely fine with me, and that’s what I would like to talk about…

Peter @ 19:12 So, what I’ve got, um, is what you’ve said about my video. I mean, I’m happy to talk about one of the papers if you want me to talk about how I felt that was misrepresented.

Ben @ 19:27 Which paper did you think I misunderstood? Well, here’s the thing: I wasn’t, I was not attempting to represent the conclusions of the papers; I was not attempting to do that.

Peter @ 19:40 No. No, I know, but let’s go with what you actually said you were doing. Let me just play this clip, and this is from your video:

Ben (Voice-Over) @ 19:48: ‘Cold fresh water and various atmospheric connections send us spiralling into an Ice Age thereafter. Just this month we learned that part of that process may include that extra cold fresh water creating a stratification in the oceans that halts convection; not to mention the Gulf Stream.’

Ben @ 20:10 So, um, all that this was, all I was meant to do – and this may help you understand a lot – I put huge faith in observations, I put much less faith in interpretations and conclusions; based on those. And, uh, frankly I have the track record to back that up. Um, this, the only thing I cared about was we have been looking and waiting for the story that says that there is an increased freshening of that water.

Ben @ 20:43 And the reason we’ve been waiting for that is because we’ve been waiting for the Beaufort Gyre to release, we’ve been waiting for that for three times longer than we’re ever supposed to have waited for that before. And it’s not like people are just stationed up there, taking measurements of the current all the time; it’s not like you can put buoys there.

Peter @ 21:03 Okay, so basically this paper, you’re saying this paper doesn’t support what you were saying about the, um, ‘this cold water being part of the process that leads into an Ice Age,’ you agree that it doesn’t support that?

Ben @ 21:18 It supports my overall thesis that we could have a mini Ice Age like event this century and all we were looking for was the increased freshening of the surface water.

Peter @ 21:33 Alright, so this is your theory? This is something you’ve come up with?

Ben @ 21:38 This has been what this whole thing is about, the notion that: hey, look, we’re about to see pollution is about to take a dive, while there are…everywhere you look signals that cold is coming or at least ‘cold forcing’ is coming…

Peter @ 21:51 Yeah, yeah…but no, no it doesn’t; it doesn’t. Sorry, I…this is where I can actually begin to disagree with what you’re saying here, because you say, ‘cold is coming,’ you’re talking about ‘global cold,’ are you not?

Ben @ 22:09 I’m talking about another mini Ice Age like event we had in the 1400s to the 1600s; something like that.

Peter @ 22:16 Okay, that was called, ‘the Little Ice Age,’ which was global cold. You are talking about global temperatures getting cooler rather than warmer?

Ben @ 22:24 Yes.

Peter @ 22:26 Okay, right. Now that we’ve established that you agree that these papers don’t support that, but this is basically just your idea. We’ve already established, in fact I did play my video the part where you do say that they don’t support it, so I’m not trying to misrepresent what you said. 

Peter @ 22:42 But, you did say that ‘we learned this month,’ in fact you were showing this paper suggesting that ‘we learned’ from this paper. So, all I’m saying is well, we didn’t learn it from this paper: this is something that you have come up with, and you would agree. Uh, all this paper does is show that there is cold fresh water coming down from the Arctic and it’s hovering above the saline water (the more saline water) of the overturning circulation, and possibly cutting it off. So that’s basically what the paper says, the rest of it is your interpretation; I think we’re agreed on that are we?

Ben @ 23:19 Yes, but that has never been something I…so is this whole thing going to be about like, you didn’t realize that I was giving my hypothesis and my things [opinions] about this and you don’t think I have the chops to do it? Should we just skip to where I…

23:38 Oh, no, no, no. Not at all. Not at all. I’m just trying to establish um, that one of the things you said was, ‘that somehow I had mislead people into saying that you were claiming that these papers somehow did not support warming’ or something like that; I can play you the clip. But basically, what I’m showing is: there was a slight misrepresentation in that you did say that ‘we were learning from these papers’ that this is part of the process that leads into a Glaciation and that’s not the case.

Ben @ 24:10 Brother, I think that was a kind way of saying it. If you were to walk into this seminar, week nine in this video, the whole thing seems like a wild misrepresentation.

Peter @ 24:22 Oh, okay. Well that’s fine, I didn’t misread anything, so, even you would agree that [Ben interjects: No, but what you did do…but what you did was…] – sorry – even you would agree that if you just watch this video and you haven’t watched the entire series, of which most people when they watch YouTube videos, they watch videos because it has an interesting headline. They watch it and they get kind of taken in by it.

Peter @ 24:44 Now, if they hadn’t seen the previous seven they wouldn’t know what this video is saying. So, when you say, well, you know, ‘you’re misrepresenting what I said,’ actually, I’m just taking exactly what you said. Now, maybe there were a lot of thoughts behind that that you didn’t put out in the video – there were a lot of things you’d said earlier that were not in this video – that’s fine, I’m just saying that this is what you were putting out in this video which is what a lot of people would see without having seen the entire series.

Ben @ 25:11 I strongly disagree. The only reason why so many people are going to see this is because of what you did. I am not discoverable easily, unless you type my name in; I am intentionally hard to discover on Youtube.

Peter @ 25:23 Oh no, no, I’ve seen your name before. 

Ben @ 25:26 Yes, you’ve seen my name before because it pops up on a lot of your video and we’ve talked about the same kind of thing a lot of times. But it’s not like somebody could go type in ‘climate change’ and my name would ever come up in a million years.

Peter @ 25:41 Hm, but even so I think we all have a responsibility to represent these…

Ben @ 25:46 If that is the case, then I think you had the responsibility to send me an email and say, ‘hey, what are you doing?’ or at least go and try to find some of my other videos on the climate. Because what ended up happening is a bunch of people, hundreds of people didn’t know what happened and they came and my god, some of your viewers were so horrendously vulgar.

Peter @ 26:07 Yeah, okay. Listen, I can’t – I’m sorry – I had a lot from yours as well. So I can’t be responsible for what people post on your videos and I’m sure you can’t be responsible for what people, uh, post on my videos so…

Ben @ 26:18 No. But. No, but the idea that…the idea…

Peter @ 26:22 …Let’s not get into…can we talk about the science? And not get into an argument about how somebody posted something that you found offensive.

Ben @ 26:27 Yes, because what I was talking about…what I was talking about, what offended me was the notion that this was portrayed to be something it wasn’t; this was portrayed to be…

Peter @ 26:39 Okay, then. That’s what this discussion is about Ben, that’s what this discussion is about. So, let’s get to the bottom of whether this was fair enough or not. Um, now you did say ‘you need to go to the studies on this,’ right? The uh, study that you’re talking about is this one by Oltmanns, you’ve read this study – have you?

Ben @ 27:02 Yeah, if you’re gonna ask me to remember specific lines out of it I…

Peter @ 27:07 No, I’m not. I’m not, but you did obviously read the study, you know, because you’re quoting the study and you did advise people to go read the study rather than just the summary – so I’m just establishing that you actually did read that study?

Ben @ 27:20 Yes sir.

Peter @ 27:22 Okay, and now it doesn’t – and I think we can agree – it doesn’t concur with your idea that uh, this is gonna lead into an Ice Age; we’ve already established that. How about whether it concurs that ‘the cold water coming south is likely to freeze’? Is there anything is the paper that suggests that?

Ben @ 27:39 I did not suggest that that is where that information came from. That was something that people all over…

Peter @ 27:45 No, no you didn’t. No, I didn’t say that. I was just asking whether the…

Ben @ 27:48 No, nothing in this paper says that, but as long as people realize: I didn’t say it did. I didn’t say this paper said that.

Peter @ 27:56 No, but does it contradict that though?

Ben @ 27:59 Um, maybe. I don’t remember exactly, that’s not really the reason I was reading this paper; like, for example, I didn’t really pay much attention to the methods section of this paper?

Peter @ 28:12 Mmhmm, okay. I very rarely do either, but um, what do you think – I mean – do you disagree with the paper? Put it that way: is there anything in the paper that you disagree with? That you think they got wrong?

Ben @ 28:24 You know I…I do remember the answer’s yes, but I don’t remember what that was exactly at this time. And frankly, the majority of my problems with these papers is the fact that, you know, because of how many papers come out in the ‘climate realm,’ um, even though we have known what ‘solar forcing’ is gonna be for CMIP6 for a year now. And even though there are have been 100s of papers that are going to be included in the next update when it comes out, there is nobody who is using anything but CMIP5 for these studies. And it, this is by necessity, you couldn’t expect even these three people (and if they had ten students working with them) to go and figure out what all of the new variables would be in their model between the time the time they submitted the paper and it got published a bunch of those variables would change. You know…

Peter @ 29:16 Okay, what was the conclusion of the paper? And I know it’s been a while since you’ve read it, but basically what was its conclusion?

Ben @ Dude, I…um, man, I’m racking my brain here. Was this the one that was talking about the accumulation versus…the accumulative retention versus the release amounts?

Peter inserts a Voice-Over Fact Check @ 29:41 ‘The paper we’re looking at is the one that Ben mentioned here, and that he’s citing. It’s the paper from which Ben said, ‘we learned that part of the process of Glaciation may include extra cold fresh water creating a stratification in the oceans.’ The paper does say that fresh water will be injected into the Atlantic, but it does not say that that is part of the process of Glaciation. So, we did NOT learn this from the paper. If you want to check this, I cited the paper in the video description.

Ben @ 30:16 I’m seeing it, but it’s a little blurry in terms of the words.

Peter @ 30:20 Okay, the headline of the paper is, ‘Increased risk of a shutdown of ocean convection posed by warm North Atlantic summers,’ and, which pretty much says it all – you know – that was the one that I just played on your clip, that you suggested showed that this would stop the overturning circulation of the Atlantic and it would keep the cool fresh water on top and the saline water underneath; stop the circulation. Now, your theory is: this would lead to freezing of this top layer of cold water?

Ben @ 30:57 Not all, it’s not like it’s gonna freeze down the coast of North Carolina, man. But it, as more ice enters the water and as it loses it’s saline-profile we will see spikes in ice. I mean, how did we get record high Antarctic ice in 2013 and 2014?

Peter @ 31:16 Okay, alright. Let’s deal with that then, if we’re going to see spikes in ice – do you know that the conclusion of the paper was the complete opposite? 

Ben @ 31:27 I am aware of that. But we have seen the opposite happen in both the north and the south over just the last decade; in 2013 and 2014 there was record high Antarctic ice. And then we didn’t have record high Arctic ice but we saw what they called a ‘record recovery’ of the Arctic just a couple years ago.

Peter @ 31:47 No, I think you misunderstand. I think you misunderstand me. When I say that its conclusion is the complete opposite I’m not saying it’s the complete opposite of your theory; I mean, that’s something else. We’re talking about specifics, you say, ‘that the water on top will freeze,’ now in fact what the paper concludes and the paper is quite clear on the quantity of heat coming out. Have you got, can you see now the middle of the paper, which I’m showing you with two red boxes; one left and one right? [Ben responds, ‘Right.’]

Peter @ 32:20 They talk about um regressing (on the left-hand side), ‘Regressing the results on both summer indices, we find that the salinity anomaly accounts for an energy surplus of around ~2.8×10^8 Jm^-2 after fresh Irminger Sea summers and around ~4.8×10^8 Jm^-2 after fresh Labrador summers…’ now, we can go on and look at their conclusions. 

Peter @ 32:48 And their conclusions actually say that the reason, that because we’ve got this fresh water on top, the reason it’s not sinking is not because it’s too cold, but because it’s too warm. And if it got colder it would sink, because of course colder water does sink, and then the circulation would be okay. The reason the circulation’s not working is because the water is too warm. So, in fact, those figures, which I haven’t heard you disputing, show that in fact this water is too warm; it wouldn’t freeze, it would simply drop and cause the circulation to continue. This is not just my interpretation of the paper, and I’ve read the paper, New Scientist says exactly the same thing.

Peter @ 33:35 And this is a clip from the New Scientist which I’m showing you now, ‘The fresh water press a threat to convection because, being less dense than seawater, it has to be cooled to…

Ben @ 33:46 I am very aware of this conclusion. 

Peter @ 33:50 Oh, you are, okay. I thought you didn’t know what the conclusion was.

Ben @ 33:57 Show me…well I mean, I remember it now, but that would be the part I disagreed with. Because… 

Peter @ 34:02 Okay, and why do you disagree with them?

Ben @ 34:05 Because we have actually seen observations of the physical world that show the exact opposite of that.

Peter @ 34:13 Okay, I want to know – sorry – specifically what you disagree with: do you disagree that cold water would sink? That as the fresh water got colder it would sink, do you disagree with that?

Ben @ 34:19 No, I don’t disagree…No, what I am saying is this same excuse of, you know, this is the same thing they said caused the record high Antarctic ice back in 2013 and 2014. When all those website were using those record high Antarctic ice to try to slam climate science – what was the proper answer?

Peter @ 34:44 Yeah, but you’re talking about this paper and you’re talking about the North Atlantic, so, can we get back to this paper and the North Atlantic? And this is the thing that you said you disagreed with…

Ben @ 34:51 What I’m saying is…you keep cutting me off, you keep cutting me off, man. I’m just trying to get the full thought out and you keep cutting me off. And it’s, you…your accent, your accent is so charming that it’s like hard, I’m thrown off; I don’t know what to do about it.

Peter @ 35:07 Thank you [laughing].

Ben @ 35:09 But what I’m saying is: the reason given for the record high Arctic recovery when it happened a couple of years ago was that so much cold fresh water had melted off into it. The explanation for the record high Antarctic ice in 2013 and 2014 was that, ‘cold fresh water had melted off into the water, cooled it off, slightly changed the salinity’…those were the, I mean, I wasn’t part of that battle back and forth. 

Ben @ 35:44 But I saw one side of the debate, yelling, ‘Hey,’ like, ‘look at this we’ve got record high Antarctic ice (back then)’ and ‘hey, look we’ve got a record recovery in the Arctic.’ And I saw the other side saying, ‘well, you just put a bunch of cold fresh water in there, chilled it off, and increased…I’m sorry, decreased the salinity – what did you expect was going to happen?’ And here, we have this other paper that it observes the same thing and the uses, uses you know, what I suppose is very good math, um repeatable – you know math that can be replicated – to show that something is going to happen. But, we have seen this exact same thing and the exact opposite happens on the planet. This was the, that water, the freshening on top and the melting of the ice: that was what was supposedly causing that. And it, will this not have an effect on the Gulf Stream as well? I actually don’t know as much about its effect on the Gulf Stream and the Kuroshio current, but I mean, would it not disrupt those as well, eventually? 

Peter @ 36:58 First of all, let me apologize for interrupting you. You’re right, that was rude. I’ll tell you why I did it: because I felt when we’re on a track and we’re on a subject, I’ve had the experience as a journalist, and I’ve interviewed a lot of politicians – and I’m not saying you’re a politician – but people do tend to get away to other subjects. And the Antarctic and the Arctic are completely different situations, completely different. So, you can’t say well, this study said this and …

Ben @ 37:25 Um, yes and no. I wouldn’t say they’re completely different situations, it’s both…what I’m talking about: the surface freeze. It is about the temperature and salinity-profile of the water which is affected by the melting ice. That is not, I mean, it’s not like you’ve different chemistries at work, and you’ve got different laws of physics at work, on the north and south poles – right? 

Peter @ 37:52 Okay, but there is a difference in ocean circulation, [Ben: Certainly. Certainly.] there’s a huge difference in the amount of warming. And, I’m sorry, but I think let’s focus on the thing that we’re talking about, because once you start saying, ‘yeah, but in another situation it’s completely different.’ Yeah, in another situation it is completely different, I think we can both agree on that; there are reasons why things happen in Antarctica, for example…

Ben @ 38:15 It happened in the Arctic too. it happened in the Arctic too.

Peter @ 38:18 Yeah, so let’s deal with the Arctic then, and the North Atlantic, and the paper that is now the one that’s under discussion. What I’m interested in knowing is – that you disagree with the paper – and what I’m trying to get at is: what is it you disagree with when they say that, ‘the fresh water is on top is staying on top because it’s warmer, because it has a heat content, whereas if it cooled (as we know from basic physics) cold water tends to sink.’ And so, you disagreed with the conclusions of the paper and I’m trying to find out why you think that cold water would not sink and restart the ocean circulation – what is it that you know that these researchers don’t know?

Ben @ 38:59 Because this is the exact same thing that happened when the Arctic had its record ice recovery.

Peter @ 39:07 Uh, with respect, it’s not. The Arctic doesn’t have the same overturning circulation…

Ben @ 39:14 We are talking about the Arctic…

Peter @ 39:16 The other thing is the Arctic is a lot colder, [Ben interjects: I wasn’t talking about…] sorry, I might have missed something…you say that again; I’m sorry that was probably my fault, misinterpreting what you just said.

Ben @ 39:38 Alright. So, yes. Okay, I did include that thing about the Antarctic, but during that same time they had what – up north – what they called a ‘record recovery of the Arctic ice,’ there was a spike back up. And during that brief period and now of course it’s all gone now – we’re at record low now – but if you’ll recall, and I don’t remember if it was exactly at the time when Antarctica was at record high or it was slightly after. But there was that period where there was the record recovery from the ‘low point’ in summer to where it was in winter; and it had a great winter. And the explanation for that was: more cold fresh water melted off into the ocean.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Peter inserts a (Voice-Over) ‘Fact Check’ @ 40:10 So I emailed him after the discussion and asked him to cite the study that said, ‘the explanation for that record recovery was more fresh water melted off in the ocean.’ His response: it didn’t come from a scientific study, it was on a social media site.

Peter (V.O.) @ 40:27: Ben doesn’t remember what year it was, but he remembers there was, ‘a post from Michael Mann and some guy from NOAA,’ whose name he can’t remember. He doesn’t remember which ice recovery was being referred to but he says, ‘it was in the last 10 years and it was a record recovery.’ So, that can only be the record ice advance of 2012-2013.

Peter (V.O) @ 40:49 Unfortunately Ben didn’t keep a copy, so I have no idea what was actually written in that post or what study it was based on…if any. So let’s go to the actual study which shows the scientific explanation: they don’t say the recovery was due to ice melting into the ocean, they said the opposite; it was caused by a lack of melt.

Peter (V.O.) @ 41:11 A definitive study published in Nature – Geoscience  concluded that, ‘The increase was driven by the retention of thick sea ice northwest of Greenland during 2013 which, in turn, was associated with a 5% drop in the number of days on which melting occurred.’ 

Peter (V.O.) @ 41:28 So, we moved on to other issues, which I’ll have to put in part 2 of this conversation when I get around to mixing it with the graphics. I go on assignment in the middle of April, which is why I had to get this done quickly. I’ve got another timely video to post this week, plus my discussion with ‘Academic Agent’ (another YouTuber). And, I’m putting the final touches to a regular video that I hope to post before I leave…it’s going to be unusually busy on this channel for the next couple of weeks. Thanks for watching!

Going to be Unusually Busy

That’s an understatement. I hope you’ve enjoyed reading along to the video with the transcript provided above. Be sure to check back in the near future for follow-up blog articles containing more commentary on, and fact-checking of, the content above; as well as for transcripts from the upcoming second part of science journalist Peter Hadfield’s (Potholer54’s) “discussion” with YouTuber Ben Davidson (Suspicious0bservers).

As always, you’d better fact-check yourself before you wreck yourself.


References:

Barras, Colin. “Polar melt may shut down the Atlantic current that warms Europe.” New Scientist: March 12, 2018. Website: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2163429-polar-melt-may-shut-down-the-atlantic-current-that-warms-europe/

Davidson, Ben. “How Someone Tried To Debunk A Video.” YouTube: March 17, 2018. Website: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7okeDIxHGSE

Davidson, Ben. “Yale’s Two Climate Bombs.” YouTube: March 14, 2018. Website: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xh2nGqy9KVw

Hadfield, Peter. “Correction of ‘Yale’s two climate bombs’ by suspiciousobservers.” YouTube: March 17, 2018. Website: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOfqOsuEIVI&t=1s

Hadfield, Peter. “Discussion with Suspicious Observers.” YouTube: April 03, 2018. Website: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttmQbCeSQAg

Hadfield, Peter. “Second Response to Suspiciousobservers.” YouTube: March 19, 2018. Website: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xS13WYen0k&t=34s

Oltmanns, Marilena; et al. “Increased risk of a shutdown of ocean convection posed by warm North Atlantic summers.” Nature – Climate Change: March 14, 2018. Website: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0105-1

Reality Challenged. “The Tactics of Pseudoscientists and Cranks: From Misuse of Language to ‘Just Asking Questions.’ RealityChallenged.blog: June 16, 2017. Website: https://realitychallenged.blog/2017/06/16/the-tactics-of-pseudoscientists-and-cranks-from-language-misusage-to-just-asking-questions/#more-1023

Reality Challenged. “The War Against Fake News and Pseudoscience on YouTube: ‘Space Weather’ vs. ‘Suspicious0bservers.’” RealityChallenged.blog: March 20, 2018. Website: https://realitychallenged.blog/2018/03/20/the-war-against-fake-news-and-pseudoscience-on-youtube-space-weather-vs-suspicious0bservers/

Reality Challenged. “The War Against Fake News and Pseudoscience on YouTube: What Constitutes Evidence for Claims (Prequel to ‘Potholer54’ vs. ‘Suspicious0bservers’).” RealityChallenged.blog: March 24, 2018. Website: https://realitychallenged.blog/2018/03/24/the-war-against-fake-news-and-pseudoscience-on-youtube-what-constitutes-evidence-for-claims-prequel-to-potholer54-vs-suspicious0bservers/

Tilling, Rachel L.; et al. “Increased Arctic sea ice volume after anomalously low melting in 2013.” Nature – Geoscience: July 20, 2015. Website: https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo2489

Advertisements

Author: Reality Challenged

I have created this blog to record, analyze, investigate and report on the ideas, events, and people that would otherwise mislead you and waste your time.

3 thoughts on “Potholer54’s ‘Live Debate’ Turned ‘Private Discussion’ with YouTuber Ben Davidson (Suspicious0bservers) on Climate Change – Transcript Part Two”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s