Will President Trump win? Or is this how it ends?
by Ed Berry, PhD, Physics
Dear Americans and Citizens of Free World Countries,
President Trump is the leader of climate truth in the free world. If Trump goes down in the November election, it will be the end of climate truth in the free world.
I am writing this on September 27, 2020, 37 days before the US elections. The first of three US presidential debates is scheduled for September 29.
The polls show Biden leads with 269 likely electoral votes, with 270 needed to win. Trump trails with 204.
Four states will decide who becomes our next president: Wisconsin – 10 votes, Arizona – 11, North Carolina – 15, and Florida – 29. Biden needs only one. Trump must capture all four.
Trump has made no gains in the polls for months. The law and order issues have not moved the needle. This shows the Dem’s support is strong and stable. That is because the Democrat’s support depends only upon one issue: climate.
Biden does not have to win the debates. He only has to fog a mirror. Everyone knows the real Democrat presidential candidate is radical vice-presidential candidate Kamala Harris. If America elects Biden, Kamala will be president within one year.
All the enthusiasm in the world won’t save the Republicans because the Democrats have most of the voters. Votes do not count in science but in politics, votes are everything.
But Republican leaders across America think climate is not an issue. Or if it becomes an issue, they think they know how to handle it.
Republicans do not understand that the Democrats will win because they have mesmerized almost two-thirds of American voters to believe we must stop climate change.
My September 4 post “Here’s the Solution: Will Republicans take it?” discusses why this happened.
Therefore, I ask, “Is this how it ends?”
Yet, Trump can still win if he challenges and wins his climate debate against Biden. There are enough Republicans who voted for Trump in 2016 who now plan to vote for Biden only because they believe we must stop climate change. Trump can get these voters back in his camp.
Trump will win his reelection if he wins the climate debate in his three presidential debates.
Trump has no advisor who is an expert on how to win a climate debate. Teaching climate science and winning a climate debate are two entirely different things that require different talents and expertise.
What they say about trying to be your own lawyer applies to trying to be your own climate debate expert:
“Anyone who tries to be his own lawyer has a fool for a client.”
“Anyone who tries to be his own climate debate expert has a fool for an expert.”
Anyone who has not studied how to win a climate debate will end up trapped.
Trump and the Republicans need a climate debate expert to advise them on how to win their climate debates. But there is no climate debate expert is in Trump’s inner circle. And Trump’s gate keepers will make sure Trump does not learn how to win his climate debate.
So Trump is cooked unless he gets outside help fast.
The stakes are high because as President Trump goes, so also will go the US Senate. Then, the Democrats will radically change America within two years. They will make future Republican victories impossible, as they did in California. If Republicans lose this election, it will be their death as a party in America.
Within four years, the Democrats will flood America with immigrants who will vote Democrat and partition them to states that voted Republican. Then, they will control every state. They will make Washington DC a state. They could hold a Constitutional Convention to change our Bill of Rights and the electoral college.
Then, they will begin gun confiscations, forced vaccinations, and chip insertions. No one will be able to hide because the Democrats will start a new government agency staffed by 100,000 Democrats to track every American.
They will enforce climate Lysenkoism in America. They will turn America into a socialist country. They will take down America’s economy and national defense. They will make America subservient to a one-world government. America as we know it will be gone forever.
Will President Trump win? Or is this how it all ends?
This music expresses my feelings: I Dreamed a Dream
Now, please read the Historic climate debate between Trump and Biden
The error in this thinking is many people vote on the basis of more than one issue. There are those who might agree that the climate issue is like women’s rights issue and would therefore agree with the approach being suggested to help Trump win. I think you will need more than this to overcome the negative aspects off a Trump administration identified in Woodword’s book “Rage”.
Dear Neil,
Every issue is one issue. Your “negative aspects” is one issue. No one decides how to vote based on one issue.
Here’s how I think of the climate issue in the election. Each side has locked in about 45 percent of the vote. Those most concerned about the “negative aspects” will vote for Biden. The remaining 10 percent will decide the election.
Who are these remaining 10 percent? Obviously, they are on the fence and not concerned about the “negative aspects.”
Polling data show climate is a key issue in this election. Since 2016, about 20 percent of Republicans decided the government should stop human CO2 emissions to save the planet. These are some of the undecideds or leaning to vote Democrat.
Those are the people I think will change their vote to Trump if we can show them that our CO2 is not causing the climate change the Democrats are claiming we do.
“Anyone who tries to be his own lawyer has a fool for a client.”
“Anyone who tries to be his own climate debate expert has a fool for an expert.”
Anyone who has not studied how to win a climate debate will end up trapped.
It’s arguable, but it is basically all bullshit, as the following correction will easily demonstrate:
“Anyone who *chooses* to be his own lawyer *arguably* has a fool for a client”.
Anyone that is too dim and cowardly to challenge lawyer is a arguably a fool of a client.
Richard Feinman once said, apparently: “Science is belief in the ignorance of experts”.
…he *nearly got it right: “Science..” is actually “…*ignorance* of the *beliefs* of experts”.
Experts are good at findings (when they are not “cooking” them to suit themselves) but are lousy at conclusions.
…and anyone who has no appetite for getting details like these right is a fool in any event.
The fundamental problem, of course, is that with all knowledge comes bias, and for many experts with more knowledge comes more bias:
“The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. And though there be a greater number and weight of instances to be found on the other side, yet these it either neglects and despises, or else by some distinction sets aside and rejects, in order that by this great and pernicious predetermination the authority of its former conclusions may remain inviolate.”
I appreciate the expertise of lawyers, teachers, scientists like yourself, and even the pseudo-scientists of the IPCC; but favour my intellect over their biases any day; and if I’m right, you would not want us any other way.