Member preview

Steven Crowder’s Climate Change Lies Debunked by potholer54 — Crowder Chickens Out from Debate

Like Paul Joseph Watson and Ben Shapiro, Steven Crowder markets himself as an “edgy and cool patriot” and has had some successful stunts in the past. But when it comes down to it, just like the aforementioned two, behind all antics. he’s clearly just another McConservative. He is simply the Rush Limbaugh of this generation. And like every other McConservative, climate change (at least human caused climate change) denial is a prerequisite.

However, as climate change acceptance increases and deniers look more and more foolish, he has taken to support climate change denial while purporting to simply “point out some flaws in the science” without outright denying it. This allows him to pretend he’s simply pointing out some inconvenient truths (when in fact, he’s clearly misleading his readers or listeners by falsely-interpreting studies. Here is one example:

This is an old trick, likely borrowed by the predecessors of climate change deniers, creationists. Knowing that their audience will never read the original study (and that most people will simply read the headline and share it on social media) deniers can mislead their readers at will.

Crowder Exposed by potholer54

Popular science/climate change YouTuber Potholer54 has made several videos dissecting Crowder’s denier videos. Here are a few:

Don’t Fact Check me Bro!

Can you guess how Crowder responded? It’s one of these two:

1- Actually addressing potholer54’s arguments.

2- Insisting on a real-time debate where an exchange of soundbytes favors the science denier.

If you guessed # 2, you are correct. Science deniers always insist on real-time debates with limited time to talk and explain because they simply have to muddy the waters, which is easy to do in soundbytes, and gives nowhere near enough time for the other side to explain the science well enough for a layman audience to clearly see why the denier is wrong.
 
Here is Crowder’s Tweet:

This makes no sense. What can be said that can’t be written? Or better yet, what can be said in live debate that can’t be said in a response video? To anyone familiar with debates on complicated subjects it’s plainly obvious that Crowder is avoiding a format where his arguments can be fact checked and debunked. What he wants is a platform that favors fast-talking rhetoric and leaves no time for fact checking.

This chart from Buzzfeed illustrates how much more traction climate change denial nonsense gets compared to fact-checking articles that attempt to clean up their dishonesty.

This gives the denier the advantage of using rhetorical tricks and the person defending the actual science with the burden of trying to clean up the denier’s rhetorical mess while trying to explain complicated science in a limited time (and this is assuming (s)he’s not being constantly interrupted). An exchange in soundbytes is always advantageous to the person who is simply muddying and misrepresenting science, especially when their audience doesn’t have the scientific background to realize that’s what they’re doing.

Notice in his message, Crowder doesn’t bother mentioning WHICH of potholer54’s criticisms were incorrect. He merely tries to goad him into a soundbyte-slinging match.

This is the tactic evolution deniers were using a decade ago. It’s the reason Kent Hovind refused to debate these professors in writing, but instead insisted on the soundbyte sideshow. Here is a snippet of the back and forth between Professor Dave Thomas and Creationist Clown, Kent Hovind:

On Jan. 25th, 2000, I replied:

You have “time” to run all over the country staging creationist circuses, but you don’t have “time” to write a little 750-word essay on why evolution is not scientific?

I don’t believe it for a second. I think you are afraid of a formal, written scientific exchange of ideas.

But it doesn’t matter what I think, right? What does God say?

(See Proverbs 19:5, and especially Jeremiah 23:32.)

Regards,

Dave Thomas

On Jan. 26th, 2000, Hovind cut off the exchange, stating

“My original offer is always open. Schedule a time for a debate when you work up the courage.”

Crowder and Crew Misrepresent potholer54’s message

In a message to Crowder’s cabin boy Jared, potholer54 writes:

But I’m sure we can resolve this very easily if you just tell me how I misrepresented your position, with supporting evidence. I will then have time to check your evidence and write a response.

How does Jared relay this information when Crowder “asks” him what “potholder58” said (to which Jared corrects him, saying “56”…geez, you’d almost think they’re afraid their audience will find potholer54’s YT channel)?

He basically wanted to have you let him know everything you wanted to say, which, I don’t know if you know much about debates but that’s not usually, generally, the format.

Part of the irony here is that, even though it’s clear that potholer54 simply wants to discuss facts and Crowder wants an exchange of soundbytes with countless interruptions, it’s potholer54 who is cordial in his videos, and accurately relaying Crowder’s messages. He’s even giving him the benefit of the doubt that he is arguing in good faith (obviously he is not).

Crowder Chickens out

Despite all of this, potholer54 finally agreed to debate Crowder on livestream. Guess what, Crowder never showed up.

So after all the sabre rattling and condescension, Crowder won’t even debate potholer54 in a format that gave him (the side with no interest in intellectual honesty) an overwhelming advantage.

Does Steven Crowder Hate his (future) Children?

Here is one thing I can’t get my head around when it comes to climate change deniers (at least those with children). Do they not care about the state of the world their children and grandchildren will inhabit? I can sort of understand “Lying for conservatism” when it comes to things like tax rates (especially if the person actually has wealth and wants to ensure they can pass as much wealth as possible to their children). But the effect here is the complete opposite.

The more the climate warms the more sea levels will rise, leading to far more powerful storms, floods, droughts and fires. We’re looking at the end of many of the world’s breadbaskets and an onslaught of resource wars. This is the world deniers will leave their children. Confirmation bias for the conservative platform is no excuse here.

Now I understand what deniers will say something like “well it’s simple, people like Crowder don’t actually believe that man made Climate change is real, so he doesn’t believe he is doing a disservice.” Here’s the problem with that: If Crowder were actually confident in his position he wouldn’t insist the debate take the form of a constant exchange of soundbytes. Crowder would have already posted a video refuting potholer54’s points. He certainly wouldn’t have chickened out on his scheduled livestream debate. He displays all of the signs of someone who knows the facts aren’t on their side.

So Crowder knows he is wrong, or at least he knows that he can’t defend his position in a “fact-checkable” format. Which means he knows he’s spouting misinformation and helping stifle the chances that anything meaningful can be done to mitigate the effects of global warming. Hence, his profit motive is more important than the world his children will grow up in.

On the other hand, perhaps it doesn’t matter to him because he believes Jesus will come back anyhow, so it doesn’t really matter. It’s too bad that so much of the skeptic community has switched to bashing SJW’s, as if a few whiney college students blocking people with large online following from speaking in front of audiences of 200 people were a problem on par with the disastrous effects of a heating planet. Of course, bashing SJW’s is far more lucrative. Sahil (The Progressive Voice) and Dusty from Cult of Dusty discussed this in a recent video.

Like what you read? Give Huxley C a round of applause.

From a quick cheer to a standing ovation, clap to show how much you enjoyed this story.