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:
Continue reading “Potholer54’s ‘Live Debate’ Turned ‘Private Discussion’ with YouTuber Ben Davidson (Suspicious0bservers) on Climate Change – Transcript Part Two”
The science journalist Peter Hadfield (Potholer54) just released a new video on YouTube that reveals the first part of his “live debate” that turned into a “private Skype discussion” with the YouTuber Ben Davidson (Suspicious0bservers).
Be sure to 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.
If you haven’t already, don’t forget to read my previous blog article, “The War Against Fake News and Pseudoscience on YouTube: What Constitutes Evidence for Claims (Prequel to ‘Potholer54’ vs. ‘Suspicious0bservers),” for a little more background on the two involved in this “discussion.”
I find it’s helpful to read the things that people say in order to read between the lines and discern the real meaning behind the words they’re using, because some people sure do say a whole lot! It’s important to note that not everything that someone says is true, even when they say that it is; this is especially true when the person making the claims has no relevant education or expertise to back up the assertions/interpretations they’re making.
Scripted “Discussion” & Tangential Responses (Ranting)
Continue reading “Potholer54’s ‘Live Debate’ Turned ‘Private Discussion’ with YouTuber Ben Davidson (Suspicious0bservers) on Climate Change – A Partial Transcript”
While a debate between the science journalist Peter Hadfield (Potholer54) and YouTuber Ben Davidson (Suspicious0bservers) has been set for Wednesday March 28th, 2018, their current “misunderstanding” is going to be the topic of my next blog post.
My previous blog article pointed out the illegitimacy of Ben Davidson’s (Suspicious0bservers) claims of having a “peer-reviewed publication” to his name. This was done by emphasizing the criticisms made by the solar physicist behind the YouTube channel, Space Weather, about how “what Ben has done is he’s given his paper to a poor journal with no quality peers and as a result ended up with poor results and bad research” (Space Weather 2017).
This blog post is going to expand that focus to a couple of Ben Davidson’s other claims. But first, it’s important to sledge-hammer this nail on the head: there is a big difference between publishing a paper in a reputable peer-reviewed journal and publishing one in a predatory journal that is meant to mimic the peer-review process; the latter of which is pseudoscience that anyone can do, while the former is what constitutes evidence for the scientific claims made by experts.
What is a Predatory Journal?
Continue reading “The War Against Fake News and Pseudoscience on YouTube: What Constitutes Evidence for Claims (Prequel to ‘Potholer54’ vs. ‘Suspicious0bservers’)”