Comments by "Marc Jones" (@QT5656) on "Professor Dave Explains" channel.

  1. Thank you! I totally agree that Sabine is playing both sides (whether intentional or not). Some parts of her climate change videos are good but other parts are either poorly introduced, poorly concluded, unfairly extreme, or seem intentionally ambiguous to attract likes and clicks from climate-change-evidence deniers. Many of the comments under her videos highlighting the confusion resulting directly from her words. Sabine says she wants Science to improve. However, many of her fans simply want all Science to end so that their opinions are equal in weight to those of experts.
    25
  2. Good point.
    25
  3. ​ @Dwarfurious  Yeah, she claimed that in the 1980s the evidence wasn't good enough to justify action. And yet as I've pointed out to her in the comments and on Twitter, in the 1980s the companies thought the evidence good enough to justify upgrading infrastructure to prepare for higher sea level, permafrost thaw, and stronger storms.
    17
  4. It's true. Many people do comment as they are watching. The smart ones delete the comments they made in haste or add another comment underneath to acknowledge any misunderstanding or jumping the gun.
    7
  5. I agree. Her climate change videos have some good in them but they also at times seem intentionally ambiguous to attract likes and clicks from the climate-change-evidence deniers. An opportunity wasted.
    7
  6.  @SpeakerWiggin49  Believe me, I have done but there is only so much time in the day. As Professor Dave explains, Sabine often presents facts ambiguously such that the comments under her videos are full of comments by climate change deniers who think she agrees with them.
    6
  7. Regarding video view counts and click bait. You can tell which recent videos by @ImpHist says something perfectly valid about retreating arctic glaciers because it has way fewer views than his others: fewer than 150 k vs the usually over 400 k. Many people sadly don't want facts and reality. They want to feel good.
    6
  8. Yay! A shout out for Vaush!
    5
  9.  @tedarcher9120  Yes, they did. Did you?
    4
  10. Thank you Dave! This might be one of your best ever videos!
    4
  11. Sorry but I don't agree. There are many people who can do both. There are many teachers who are good at research and there are many people who do awful research and also weasel out of teaching. At the conferences I go to it is the academics that teach who give the best research presentations because they have more experience explaining data and concepts to other people in person.
    4
  12. Jean Michael Godier also does a good job of showcasing new discoveries.
    3
  13.  @marknieuweboer8099  😂 whatever. You've clearly already made your mind up admitting that no proof will ever be good enough for you. The fact is that evolution underpins all modern biology and isn't going away any time soon so enjoy living with it.
    3
  14.  @marknieuweboer8099  😂 very good.
    3
  15. This interview by Michael Knowles is further proof that many people who consider themselves conservatives or on the right fixate on people rather than deeds and evidence. They are constantly concerned with who to believe and who to support (e.g. feelings) rather than simply what action to take (e.g. policies) and what the actual evidence is (e.g. facts, data, science).
    3
  16. 53:30: Roger Scrutton: "The job of the conservative intellectual is to articulate things that the common man knows intuitively". Professor Dave: "In other words conservative so called intellectuals take the delusions and prejudices of idiots and artificially intellectualise them in order to validate and manipulate those people"
    3
  17.  @xxwookey  The oil companies have repeatedly lied about their product. It's unreasonable to claim that the consumer shares some responsibility without that key context. Particularly when oil companies have done all they can to restrict alternative sources of energy including wind, solar, and nuclear. Please listen to Drilled by Amy Westervelt.
    3
  18.  @jonasmejerpedersen4847  Consumption is part of the equation but only a very minor one given that oil companies have repeatedly lied about their product and deliberately sabotaged alternative options. Please listed to Drilled by Amy Westervelt.
    3
  19. Lots of great things in this video but I have one nit pick. Historically, I think, the term basal was used to refer to fossil taxa found in older rocks. As you mention, it's since been used to refer to living taxa that are less nested within a phylogenetically hierarchy for avoiding the misleading phrase primitive. However, the phrase basal has now simply become a synonym for "primitive" with all the same baggage. The fact that most people would never refer to Mammalia as the most basal clade of Amniota is evidence of this phenomenon. Their (false) anthropocentric perception of Mammalia as the most advanced amniotes stops them from doing it. "Least nested" is a better phrase because it refers to the shape of the tree in question.
    3
  20. Thank you! Some of the comments under Sabine's Climate Change videos are depressing which highlights how her video titles and openings often pander to people such as "enlightened centrists" who do not understand science nearly as much as they think they do.
    3
  21. 6:32 utter garbage. There are plenty of fossils that show gradual change as Professor Dave explains.
    2
  22.  @rixs2630  By definition, prejudices are preconceived opinions that are not based on reason or actual experience.
    2
  23.  @rixs2630  Are denying the definition of prejudice or that prejudices exist?
    2
  24.  @rixs2630  Also, I clearly wrote "actual" not "real".
    2
  25. To be fair, ad hominem attacks are also currently common, e.g. people referencing other people's nationality in a lame attempt to distract from their point.
    2
  26. Dave was remarkably restrained.
    2
  27. Someone should carefully encourage him to play chess and record it: it is a very easy game even if your IQ is in the toilet.
    2
  28. Most flat earthers are basically right wing nutjobs who wish to undermine scientists and intellectuals. Reality is just too left wing for them so they choose to reject it.
    2
  29. Or Clintel.
    2
  30.  Skydaddy Myth-Busters  👍
    2
  31. Congratulations for the best comment award 🎉 🏆 👏 awarded in part because of all the awesome diverse and creative replies that it inspired 👍
    2
  32. If God designed our body how come so many people have back problems or joint issues? How come so many people have to wear glasses? How come our teeth don't last a lifetime? How come the recurrent laryngeal nerve doesn't take shortest route? How come wisdom teeth often don't fit in our jaws? Etc.
    2
  33.  @heisaidmisuchiang2307  yes I've previously read the Bible although not recently. Mathew 7:1 translated to English says something along the lines of "Don’t judge, so that you won’t be judged." It's reads like the sort of convenient thing people in power say to control the masses. I prefer "You have a brain and mind of your own. Use it, and reach your own decisions." as said by Napoleon Hill and "The important thing is not to stop questioning." Albert Einstein (neither of those quotes are from the Bible).
    2
  34. Hey Dave. I really love your videos debunking flat earther idiocy and have started watching your other videos. Sorry to nit pick here but the branching relationships shown in your tree are very misleading, e.g. the branching pattern at 7:36 gives the impression that Reptilia shares a common ancestor with Agnatha and Amphibia independent of Mammalia and Aves. Moreover, Aves is a clade within Reptilia (or Sauropsida). Lizards, snakes, and tuatara would be better represented as Lepidosauria. Similarly, the branching pattern at 7:01 suggests that Porifera and Cnidaria share a common ancestor independent of Arthropoda. I appreciate that some things need to be simplified but I refuse to accept that simplification requires inaccuracy. Sure there is a better way to explain this part of your video.
    2
  35. Chris is abusing male privilege here.
    2
  36. Thank you Professor Dave!
    2
  37. 11:12 it's the far right and always has been. Science, knowledge, and intellectualism is the enemy of those who prefer prejudice, "strong men", and heirarchy.
    2
  38.  @marknieuweboer8099  I had to reread your first comment (more carefully) via my notifications because YouTube seems to have hidden it for me(!).
    1
  39.  @Krugis  I can't see it now either... it was something like "creationist dingbat: No! that evidence isn't good enough. There is no proof that I will ever accept" I didn't read the first couple of words. My brain assumed it was part of the user name and ignored it or something.
    1
  40. Equally, you can tell which recent video by @ImpHist says something perfectly valid about retreating arctic glaciers because it has way fewer views than his others: fewer than 150 k vs the usually over 400 k. Several of the comments are classic climate change denial. Many people sadly don't want facts and reality. They want to feel good.
    1
  41. Many of the people that make up Sabine's audience may not actually be science deniers but the comment sections indicate that many are.
    1
  42.  @editname6868  Well it's true, e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTfhYyTuT44
    1
  43.  @editname6868  same with antivaxers. It's true that a minority of them consider themselves left wing - but they aren't.
    1
  44. Science is a method but the word is definitely also use to refer to "the current concensus of knowledge based on the scientific method".
    1
  45. Regarding video view counts and click bait. You can tell which recent videos of @ImpHist says something perfectly valid about retreating arctic glaciers. It has way fewer views than his other videos: fewer than 150 k vs the usually over 400 k. Many people sadly don't want facts and reality. They want to feel good.
    1
  46. Yes, true.
    1
  47. Michael Knowles is a weird guy.
    1
  48.  @Dwarfurious  Exactly. She claimed that in the 1980s the evidence wasn't good enough in the 1980s to justify action. However, as I've pointed out to her in the comments and on Twitter, in the 1980s Exxon thought the evidence good enough to upgrade infrastructure to prepare for higher sea level, permafrost thaw, and stronger storms. Not to mention the fact they buried the evidence and invested millions in a cynical disinformation campaign which is still ongoing today.
    1
  49.  @Dwarfurious  Yeah. She claimed that in the 1980s the evidence wasn't good enough to justify action. And yet as I've pointed out to her in the comments and on Twitter, in the 1980s Exx0n thought the evidence good enough to upgrade infrastructure to prepare for higher sea level, permafrost thaw, and stronger storms. Not to mention the fact they buried the evidence and invested millions in a cynical disinformation campaign which is still ongoing today.
    1
  50. O • • - • o. ø. o. o. .
    1