Trump vs Clinton Round 3. Probably the biggest debate ever.

[claig]

Oct 20th 2 am UK time.

Last chance for the Establishment to stop the Trump surge in the polls.
World leaders will be watching, Establishments will be tuning in on the edge of their seats in trepidation.

People will be laughing, diving into the popcorn and knocking back the alcohol.

Round 3. Rock'n'roll.

Why on earth should we care that Martin Luther King's niece endorses Trump? She's not Luther King, and surely no-one suggests that he would agree with his niece? She used to go round saying he was a Republican even whilst he was publicly campaigning against Goldwater, after all. If, say, Winston Churchill's niece popped up saying we should all vote for the EDL because she says so and she's related to Churchill, she'd be laughed to scorn. (No aspersions on Churchill's niece, by the way, I don't even know if he has or had one).

James O'Keefe of Project Veritas Action says "the media is losing control of the people". They were forced to mention it last night on Fox and elsewhere. All the big names had to talk about O'Keefe's "vote rigging" videos, Bob Woodward talked about it. Then they all move on to the usual spiel.

You should have seen Fox mocking Trump's Facebook Live event last night before the debate. The smug, arrogant, phoney conservative Bill O'Reilly mocking it. Megyn Kelly looking embarrassed over it. All the mainstream media are being bypassed by citizen journalism. Trump is bypassing the mainstream media and showing the public that they are all in the tank for the Establishment, the system and Hillary.

WW, I know what a circular argument is, and I understand why you are calling it that. I'm just saying you're wrong. However, let's see what your scientists have to say.

Then you know that you are defining reputable as 'believes in man made climate xhange' so the argument is stripped of validity

To me, this looks like our Brexit vote.'

Absolutely, Draylon. Our own Steve Hilton, known as 'Cameron's Brain', was on Fox's Hannity Show last night flying the UK flag up there in the midst of the earthsshaking Trump phenomenon and he said it is just like Brexit where the Establishment called the people racist and where those who had never voted before turned out to vote to leave the European Union.

'There's a term, here, called Regreteers. Brexiters who have now recognised how they were mislead in the hope of 'change'.'

That is just the Establishment's media, having lost control of the people, trying to force them back into line. More spin, more lies.

Dralon, yes, to all of that. These are feeling like pretty desperate times, but I'm hopeful that reason will come back into fashion before it's too late.

Perhaps it is a blessing that Trump is so repellant. If he were 1% less obviously monstrous the outcome could be much worse.

You're saying 'no scientist who believes in man made climate change does not believe in man made climate change'. It's an empty truism.

There are different forms of knowledge to describe the world. Religion is one.

How does that work? Since when did superstition become knowledge?

"That is just the Establishment's media, having lost control of the people"

I take it you've seen the Sun, the Express and the Mail? You think they are anti-establishment?

The Luther King's niece thing is a classic Argument from Authority fallacy, isn't it?

As will the Professors who are going to be trotted out to deny Climate Change. Professors of Linguistics, Sociology, Psychology...............

No, WinchesterWoman, no I am not.

Tell us the names of the scientists you are thinking of and we can see how they've been treated by the rest of the scientific community. You never know, I might have a Damascene conversion to Climate Change denial. That would make me very happy as it happens.

On the subject of climate change, there are a small number of practising climate scientists who are partly sceptical of manmade climate change - it's not that they don't believe in it (the basic physics was established by Arrhenius over a century ago) but they dispute how fast it's happening. A good example of this would be Dr Roy Spencer whose temperature series derived from satellite data is much quoted by deniers. The problem for these people is that reality has caught up with them over the last year.

Just give us the names WW!!!

Well you are the. You said you understood a circular argument.

You are though not the.

It's not hard to find the name of scientists that dispute Global Warming. They're on Wikipedia. :)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming#Scientists_questioning_the_accuracy_of_IPCC_climate_projections

Anyway, the ones on the list disagree with the projections, not with the past data to this date, which does show an increase (it's hard to dispute that, unless you really are blinkered).

Not many climate scientists on that list, but then again, the theory of Continental Drift also had some trouble establishing itself.
I know, from experience, how hard it is to establish a theory, even with hard data, and how hard thinking some old professors are.

There are different forms of knowledge to describe the world. Religion is one

It's still a way of saying something about the world (knowing). There are many different ways to know (understand) the world. Faith, superstition, religion, introspection, science - all ways of knowing. They are valued, evaluated, upheld or rejected according to different criteria but they still give us knowledge about the world (scientific knowledge, religious knowledge...).

Understanding is not knowing, it's how you interpret it.
Religion is mostly about interpretation. Funnily enough, it changes data to fit into the interpretation.
Science is mostly about knowledge. It changes interpretation to fit with the data.

You won't find climate scientists on the list. One astrophysicist says it's what people do when they can't do the physics.

That's like saying biologists aren't real scientists.

Even physicists can't agree on a theory of everything, or on their particle/string theories. Compared to them, climate science is a doddle and a real consensus.

Well he was asked about it and he went on to clarify - yes he WAS saying that climate scientists were academically and intellectually inferior to astrophysicists

Let's not forget consensus does not truth make. At least we can all agree on that.

(see what i did there

The former head of research and development at the large chemicals company I work for was a denier. But he'd have had a coronary if a climate science had dared suggest he might be wrong about the basic science of catalysis.

Basically - science is specialised. Scientists specialised in one branch of physics are unlikely to have a good grasp of the science in another, rather unrelated branch, particularly one like climate science that tends to cross disciplines (for eg much of the research on paleoclimate has been done by people with a biochemistry or geoscience background).

How is atmospheric physics 'rather unrelated' to climate change?

Richard Siegmund Lindzen (born February 8, 1940) is an American atmospheric physicist known for his work in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides, and ozone photochemistry.

When i said astrophysicist above, i was referring to this guy, not an astrophysicist.