New Video : “Basic Physics For Potholer”

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to New Video : “Basic Physics For Potholer”

  1. Stephen Richards says:

    The problem is the posh voice. There are very many non scientists who always fall for the posh voice. You can see it everyday in YouTube comments.

    • richard says:

      I am English and his posh voice is really irritating-to me. It is BBC from the 80’s or 90’s and a , now, really dated way of “forced” presenting- thankfully we have moved on from that though there are now, UK Youtubers, using that style- I guess they think they sound professional.

      Interestingly the “Heller” voice has a languid, laid back, bathed in treacle quality to it, sounding natural.

      • Anon says:

        OT: I am American and due the whole Brexit thing I having been watching a bit of the UK House of Commons debates… as a result I encountered that John Bercow MP – he talks like nobody else I have ever heard from the UK. Why? Is that how the high aristocracy in the UK speaks?

      • Gator says:

        Yeah, Potheader sounds like even he is bored with his own BS. He claims to have a “degree in geology”, but he clearly did not study our planet. I tried to run down details on his “degree”, but the only reference is his own claim.

        Peter Hadfield (born 7 January 1954) is a British[1] freelance journalist and author, trained as a geologist,[2] who runs the YouTube channel Potholer54,[3] which has over 185,000 subscribers

        2- Evelyn (14 May 2011). “Earthquakes and End-of-the-World Nonsense”. Skepchick. Retrieved 14 October 2013.

        “Peter Hadfield, who has a degree in geology…”

        Her reference was his own claim.

        This is all there is to his…

        Early life and education
        Hadfield has a degree in geology.[5]

        5- “Peter Hadfield addresses the recent email release”. Retrieved 26 November 2017.

        “I’ve been a journalist for 20 years, 14 years as a science correspondent. My degree is in geology…”

        My guess is that, at best, Potheader has an Associates of Science degree.

  2. John says:

    As someone who is English (from England not the rest of the UK) we have a multitude of regional accents, some of which are barely understood outside their areas! Potholer54 is speaking with an accent that was prevalent on the BBC fifty or sixty years ago is not representative of the English ‘accent’ any more than someone from Georgia or Texas is representative of the US ‘accent’. To be honest I find potholer’s accent grating and annoying; however if you want to give the appearance of gravitas or a villain in a US crime drama then a cut glass , upper class English accent is it

  3. Jimmy Haigh says:

    Potholer? Never heard of him.

  4. MGJ says:

    Potholer seems to rate crap analogies as the gold standard of modern science. They brook no criticism because – after all – they’re analogies and not supposed to be perfect. Bah, all you silly nit-pickers!

    Perhaps you should speak to him in his own language. Not posh English but dumb analogies. Then you can ask him why his is applicable but yours isn’t. Then we’d see whether he could refute yours without doing the same to his own.

  5. KevinPaul says:

    What lifts the balance back off the ground, it would require enormous amounts of energy, and what detects the crash and switches it on?
    A stupid model to try and push the alarmist “tipping point” fallacy.
    He needs to stop listening to consensual

  6. Ed Bo says:

    Let’s accept, for the sake of argument, that CO2 is a significant positive (amplifying) feedback in the glacial/interglacial cycle.

    But even granting that, we see in cycle after cycle that the warming stops at about present conditions. The increasing levels of CO2 do not provide enough additional imbalance at these conditions to continue the warming trend.

    So why should we believe this is evidence that additional CO2 now will create significant warming?

    • Disillusioned says:

      Perhaps you meant, why should we consider that based on “cycle after cycle” that this interglacial is about over… and that we’re on the precipice of the next ice age?

      Because that does not support global communism, which the funders [and the recipients of funding] of the CO2-based catastrophic, anthropogenic global warming fantasy are tirelessly working toward.

      Real scientists have known for many years that additional Co2 will not create significant warming.

  7. gregg says:

    Feynman’s wife, Gweneth, was the one who said “why do you care what other people think”? Not Feynman. He used her expression as the title of his book.

  8. gareth says:

    Thought experiment:

    Crash base – minimum limit of plant metabolism? i.e. at the bottom of the CO2 decline plants die and stop metabolizing it, giving effectively a strong restoring force, or at least a lower bound of the fall.

    What might the upper bound be?

  9. Aussie says:

    I have had a couple of arguments with Potholer. He quickly went to ad hominem attacks and refused to acknowledge that the temperatures in the 1930s were hotter than now.

  10. Angus McFarlane says:

    Tony, I apologise for the late response.

    Potholer is also violating structural mechanics in his “teeter totter” (I would call it a “see-saw”). Let me explain.

    From basic structural mechanics, if you moved the square weight slightly to the right then the system is not in balance. It does not reach a new balance. It is out of balance and consequently the whole system collapses. You do not need the runaway ball for collapse – the slight out-of-balance of the new (square) system causes the whole system to collapse.

    This is fundamental structural engineering and highlights Potholer’s lack of understanding of basic physics.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.