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.

It is really interesting though to see the way that views on climate change, Trump and Brexit are so aligned, to the point that you can probably predict with reasonable accuracy what a person's view on any one of those will be by how they express themselves on the others.

Why do we think this is?

fourmummy I'm not sure why you think that one single, presumably retired, scientist with no particular climate science credentials is a good source of information on this. I'm going to post one link, about 2016 temperatures - read it with an open mind. It's the blog of a reputed academic statistician, who has a history of working with leading climate scientists, but whose writing and blog posts are for the most part reasonably accessible to non-mathematicians: tamino.wordpress.com/2016/10/18/global-temperature-update-3/#more-8844

He has some entertaining things to say about trump too ;)

If we can make it rain we can certainly heat the planet

Tell me honestly, as a physicist, if that was really 'the clincher' and if that's why you are a believer. If that's the reason you think we are heating the planet.

Why do we think this is?

Blunt answer: a large amount of the correlation is probably explained by IQ.

Kaija I had the same thoughts the other way round - it's interestingly predictable. I would say it speaks to independent thought but I'm sure you'd say something different. The only non correlation I spotted was on transgender: there are lots of people I agree with on that who o disagree with on other stuff.

I still firmly believe we are all of us good enough folk with similar decent aims but different paths towards them.

Misti I thinks that's beneath us all

The thing about some views (that a lot of you don't like people having) is that they're often held by people who used to have the same sorts of views as you. I look back fondly on those days: it made life much easier I must say. One didn't need to think for oneself all that much.

I'm not too interested in the subject area itself. I am, however, very interested in how, as the consumers of scientific knowledge, we sift through multiple sources of evidence and decide which to believe (given that 'truth' is such a slippery concept). Not much point in arguing about climate change because that argument could go on all night (highlighting my point). This process has obvious interesting parallels with what one believes about Hillary or Trump. This is the decision that voters are facing right now.

ww I thought you trumpettes approved of blunt speaking and political incorrectness? ;)

I'm not sure that if can come down to independent thought. One thing that Trump, Brexit and climate change denial have in common is that a tremendous amount of money has been spent on their promotion by interested parties. Another is that that promotion takes the form of very simple, direct, positive messages rather than appeals to research or reasoned argument. In each case the product sold is not being marketed at independent thinkers.

"Misti I think that's beneath us all"

I see you've got your pearls back on

It's the blog of a reputed academic statistician

There are hundreds of reputed academic statisticians with contrary views. That is the process of science. What is interesting (to me) is that we are emulating this very process here - and I do wonder what makes someone selected this eminent statistician over this one when citing evidence, or this piece of information about Trump instead of that piece.

Well I suppose if you want blunt speaking I would have said a long time ago that regular people who are clintonites, remainers and greenies are well intentioned, but struggle with clarity of thinking, have a sort of sentimental woolliness that's smothering their grey matter, and feel validated by sharing their opinions with a large number of similarly weakly endowed intellects. But that's just me.

I'm not going to bother explaining my reasoning for accepting the overwhelming data in favour of anthropomorphic climate change to an anti-vaxxer though....because that way lies true madness.

NB. you can add a correlation between non-believe in climate change and anti-vaxing too. The causal factor there is the obvious complete denial of the value of the scientific method.

No but you said it was the clincher. Don't worry about explaining I'm good. But was it really the clincher? Yes or no would be so good to know.

fourmummy I think it is straight up familiarity bias. I will remember the global average rainfall data and its 7 day periodicity for ever, because I saw it in a seminar at a conference in a lecture given by a good speaker....and because when I saw it, it just clicked with me, why it was a big deal, before the lecturer really got to explaining it. Sometimes you see something and it changes your world view in that moment. It is very hard to turn around a personal connection like that, even when the evidence begins to mount up that it was incorrect. Of course as scientists you have to fight this and all other forms of bias - equally when all the other evidence also points the same way, you can just relax (well when it isn't your field anyway).

WW I'm not interested in debating scientific method or anything else with you. I am not a 'believer' there is no 'clincher', if the tide turned and evidence actually did mount up to show that the earth is heating at an unprecedented rate entirely coincidentally with us burning all the fossil fuel and undergoing an uncontrolled population explosion, then I will be surprised, but then I will change my mind.

Wow. It really was the clincher.

"Well I suppose if you want blunt speaking I would have said a long time ago that regular people who are clintonites, remainers and greenies are well intentioned, but struggle with clarity of thinking, have a sort of sentimental woolliness that's smothering their grey matter, and feel validated by sharing their opinions with a large number of similarly weakly endowed intellects. But that's just me."

So, leaving aside for the moment the idea that the overwhelming majority of the world's leading scientists would be "weakly endowed intellects" in this scheme, how would you explain the correlation between education and voting intention in both the EU Ref and the US election?

You said it was a clincher yourself. You've just described a very emotional moment in almost religious terms. Folding money you never change your mind. The fall would be hard and heavy for you.

ODFOD...back to your little fluffy antivax, science is bad world.

Actually don't answer... I think I can guess this one. You don't believe in polls, right?

Being a scientist is defined as changing your mind when you see new compelling evidence. Only an antivaxxer could paint that as a semi-religious epiphany experience. Get back to worshiping your discredited godhead.

Ah now that's why I said ordinary people. The people with a financial dog I the fight - that's something else again. Your talking about venality, career survival, lack of exposure to alter rice explanations, reinforcement verging on brainwashing that starts at school - all sorts of factors.

Ooh ice you are upset