No, it's not because Harris is mad as a hatter on the Green New Deal or because Trump will kill all of this off - although both are entirely correct. No, this is thinking about the polling which shows the race to be neck and neck even though it is anything but.
Long time readers know how I bang on and on about the hideous data problems in today's Climate Science. I've been doing this for fifteen years - this post may not be the earliest where I delved into the problems in the climate databases, but it's one of the earliest. How To Create A Consensus On Global Warming:
We keep hearing people tell us that there is a "consensus" that the planet is warming, because the "science is settled". Longtime readers know my feelings on the latter, so there's no need to rehash old arguments. Instead, I'd like to look at how one might go about manufacturing a consensus. It's actually not hard.
Step 1: Change the data
[lots of details on data manipulation and shenanigans removed]
We see this in high fidelity in the polls for this election. There are a million ways to manipulate the polls to give you the results you want, such as estimates of Republican vs. Democrat turnout. In essence, I'm not objecting so much to the results of the polls, but rather to the assumptions that go into the sausage-making machine. Change the assumptions, change the output.
But my old post also highlights a key issue in play on today's polls:
Step 2. Fund only scientific research that confirms warming.
Who is paying for these polls, and what are their agendas? Quite frankly, we don't know either of these but the polls are acting in very close agreement. You could look at that as a measure of accuracy, or you could look at that as an outcome of the agendas - such as shaping public opinion and expectations.
Now I may just be nasty and suspicious but there is a way that we can test whether my suspicions hold water. It's the same thing we can do with Climate Science, to validate what we hear from the establishment scientists. All we have to do is ask a simple question: if the data are so settled, do we see lots of corroborating evidence or do we see a lot of evidence contradicting the establishment view?
In both cases, we see a lot of evidence contradicting the official narrative.
For example, for Global Warming, we see all sots of non-warming things:
- "Global Warming" seems to be causing a whole lot of blizzards.
- Record temperatures show the hottest year in US history was almost 90 years ago.
- We're told it's the HOTTEST YEAR EVER!!!11!!eleventy!!! but we still see record snow and cold.
You would think that if the science really were so settled that evidence for Global Warming would be falling off the trees. It's not.
And so with evidence for a "neck and neck election". If it were so settled - after all, essentially all polls say exactly that - then why all the evidence that says it's not?
- Donald Trump campaigns for Arab-American vote in Detroit
- LA Times, Washington Post, Gannet refuse to endorse Harris
- All the betting sites have Trump not just ahead, but way ahead.
- Even the crooked polls have Harris neck-and-neck, where both Hillary and Biden were up by 5 or 6
- She is the incumbent but only 28% of Americans think the country is on the right track
- Barack Obama is trying to shame Black men to vote for Harris. And it's not working.
If it were a neck and neck race, you'd see a bunch of these on Harris' side, too. You don't.
Remember, we're in the middle of a preference cascade. Don't pay any attention to the polls which are trying to gaslight you. Pay attention to what you see with your own eyes. And as to the "margin of cheat" you can believe that a bunch of Democrat operatives are doing exactly that right now, and wondering if they want to risk 10 years in Club Fed to try to push a loser across the finish line. A bunch of them will take a hard pass on that.
