Monday, June 8, 2015

Global Warming and Deception

               Do you believe the earth is warming due to the pollution of automobiles?

This is the basic argument of "Global Warming"; that man-made pollution is harming the environment to the degree that it is causing the earth to warm, which will have devastating consequences upon mankind.

I don't know if it is true or not, and I have listened to dire predictions of doom for many years, and have read various statistics, counter statistics, and have wondered why is it an issue of such divisive impact upon the nation.

I'm not a scientist.  I have some opinions, but my strongest views come, not from pictures of ice melting, or of a beautiful polar bear seemingly caught out alone without food, but from the manner in which politicians have presented the issue to the public.

I personally don't know anyone who would not be alarmed at the potential destruction of our planet.  Yet, if I am reading the news articles correctly:

Republicans are hard-hearted profit driven ego-maniacs who would pollute their own mother's backyard if enough profit was to be made, and when negative consequences hit, they will blame minorities for the damage.

Democrats are  soft-headed, self-loathing, illogical darlings of Hollywood, media, and the White House and are the easiest to deceive by politicians because they're hooked by "the moral high ground" technique of deception more than the Republicans are.

I personally don't know anyone that fits into either of these two categories, either.

I do know about deception, however, and the point here is not Global Warming, but what to look for around the techniques currently being successfully employed by our nations' leaders, today.  

I do know that Global Warming a darling of politicians which should make everyone of us stand up and take notice.  This is the point.

Q.  When does science become propaganda?

A.   When it is in the hands of a politician who seeks short term personal gain over good or harm that might befall the people.

What To Look For

There are two major indicators that we are being played by politicians that will be useful for you to consider applying to any issue or theme you are presented with.

Science is science because it withstands the scrutiny of skeptics.  The skepticism, itself, is helpful in strengthening the understanding.

I urge commentators to not simply be satisfied with posting an anonymous position on an issue, but to choose a name; any silly name, which allows dialog, and to post the reason for the opinion.  This is called "critical thinking" where one is able to trace the roots or influences that caused the opinion to be made.

*This is vital in Statement Analysis.

Statement Analysis should be given a healthy dosage of skepticism to test it, especially as communication has changed to e-communication, and the paradigm of Statement Analysis must shift to fit the changing landscape.

Anonymous Threatening Letter work:

This is the most exciting, yet 'weakest' element within Statement Analysis.   It is easy to be wrong.  As a statement is analyzed, it is broken down to single words, single letters, single punctuation marks, and so on.  Questions are asked at each point of the breakdown:

Who might say this?
Is this more likely to be a female or a male?
Is this more likely to be someone educated, or uneducated?
Is this more likely to be someone who is white or someone who is black?
Is this more likely to be someone who's native language is English, or not?
Is this more likely to be a teenager, or someone much older?

On and on this goes, with contradicting answers along the way, in the hopes that a dominance will show itself, over the long course of time in the analysis.  (it takes many hours).

Even with all of this, it is an inexact science.  There is always the chance that the exception to the norm will arise in any given point which will ruin the entire profile's conclusion.

Statement Analysis needs constant questioning and challenging, as does science.

There is nothing better for scientific development than healthy scrutiny.

  If our work can withstand scrutiny, we increase the odds of success.  When the analysis is in error, we are able to go back over each point and learn from our mistakes.

Advancements in medication has come to mankind because of intense scrutiny with tests after tests after tests.  

If someone posts, ""I think he is deceptive" but does not identify the sensitivity indicators that led to this conclusion, and the person is wrong, the person cannot be corrected.  Therefore, even when someone does not know why they have concluded what they have concluded, I ask them to post "I think he is lying, but it is just instinct.  I don't know what it is that leads me to believe this."

At least this is an honest response.

Science advances because of constant testing, scrutinizing and proving.  

We must be free to challenge, test, prove and scrutinize if we want truth.  

Therefore, when you are confronted with these two elements, you should be aware that deception is going to be the result:


1.  The moral high ground propaganda technique is used

2.  The politician calls for restriction of freedom.

These two elements, alone, do not declare "weakness", they scream it.

Hence, Global Warming is not the focus of this article:  deception is.

When someone expresses doubt or skepticism over _____________  (fill in the blank), and they are said to be, somehow, "lesser moral", you should be aware of the element of propaganda known as "moral high ground."

Moral High Ground says:  "You agree with me because you are of a morally superior character than those who do not agree with us.  You are one of us; the morally superior."

This feels good and appeals to our need to belong and receive affirmation in life.

It is the next step that the weakness goes from broadcast to scream, as once we are done looking at our own selves, we begin to look at others quite naturally, as morally inferior.

"It is not that you don't understand our issue, it is because you are hateful."

When you hear the word "hate" used by a politician, be on your guard for deception via the Moral High Ground propaganda technique.

It was not just good enough for us to say that we are morally superior, but now we must first question, and then insult, the moral character of those who disagree with us.  They have "hate" in their hearts, while we have love, acceptance,  and tolerance.

Once you hear "hate" joined with "tolerance", you are ready for Number Two:

The politician calls for the restriction of healthy scientific skepticism by criminalizing the disagreement.

It was not enough to say:

We are superior, but then we had to say:  "they are inferior."

But to then weaken our assertion to the uttermost the very American nationalistic theme of freedom is then to be denied to those who disagree with us.

This is tyranny in practice.

This is why when you hear a politician use "hate" and "tolerance" in the same sentence, he is broadcasting to you that he is about to announce an intolerant position upon those who disagree with him.

It is the downward spiral of tyrants.

You agree with the tyrant, therefore, you are as wise and wonderful as he.
Those who do not agree with us, are not wise, and they are not wonderful. They are inferior.  Therefore, as we, the tolerant ones, must take action:
Intolerance to those who disagree:  silence them.

How many readers would have been left here, in the Statement Analysis blog, had I began the blog, years ago, first shouting down anyone who asks a question, and then ridiculing them, and then refusing them access to the blog because of disagreements?

There would likely be just me here, until that is, when I disagree with myself, which I often do, and then there was none.

Think of the various issues of our day and how our politicians paint the portrait of those who do not agree.

It goes in progression:

1.  We see it this way because we are superior;
2.  They do not see it this way because they are inferior;
3.  They should not be allowed to express their opinion.

Truth is eternal.  Truth is unchangeable.  Truth can withstand any scrutiny and the very process of scrutinizing the world we live in has produced one thing that is undeniable:

PROGRESS

By testing, questioning, re-testing and testing again, we have:

Created vaccines that virtually wiped out certain diseases.
Cured many illnesses that would have wiped out our planet.
Found ways to travel that just a few hundred years ago was nothing more than a dream.
Found ways to communicate that were a dream, just a few decades ago.

One of the reasons we have had to be so very thorough in our scrutinization in life is because of evil motives.  We have recognized that:

One vaccine marvelously eliminated a certain disease while...

another one may be causing illnesses but the company has invested millions and might be willing to push it upon the population because of illicit motives.

Without the constant questioning, we would not have progress.

This is why we question, so that we may grow in truth.

Gasoline Energy

Since a barrel of oil produces only a small percentage of usable gasoline, what if someone refuses to accept the status quo, and finds a way to get just 1% more use of a barrel of crude oil, in converting it to energy?  Can you imagine the impact upon the world?

What about the stunning and amazing military technological advances?  What will it be like to see these marvels of technology turned into just as amazing agricultural advances?

If I told you, 150 years ago, that you who were too poor to afford to hire an orchestra come to your home and entertain your guests that one day, you would have 1,000 musicians locked into a little box, no bigger than your hand, ready to play more than 10,000 songs, at your beck and command?  Would you believe me?

If I told Jonathan Edwards, back in the 1700's, that he would be able to whisper to his loved one, living hundreds of miles away, and she would hear every word he said he would have said, "Is this heaven?"

What if I told you that technology may make it so that your tiny suburban backyard may be enough land to feed your entire neighborhood for a year?

Without scrutiny, there is no progress; no advancement.

Life is terribly uncertain and it is scary.  It produces anxiety for us.

Will we experience another world war? Will China fight with us over the Sea of Japan?
Will NATO go to war with Russia, over the Ukraine?
Will Islamic terrorists continue to kill us while main stream media refuses to report it?
Will a new disease wipe many of us out?
Will our children have a chance to compete in this world, or will they be hated due to the color of their skin?
Will pedophilia find a way to become a "civil right", endangering our children?
Are more riots coming?
Is a race war going to happen?
Will the nation eventually split up, again?
Are we giving our sovereignty away to international rule?
Will the stock market crash, leaving millions unemployed?
Will the number of people on welfare exceed the number of people working and cause bankruptcy?
Will my child be destroyed by drug addiction?
Will I lose my home?
Will I get into a car accident today?
For parents, any number of fears await them every morning they wake up, if only in their imaginations.

Life has enough uncertainties without having politicians artificially create them, just so they can build a voter base.

Mankind has enough issues in getting along without politicians inciting racial hatred in our country, the likes of which we have not seen in decades.

Fear shouts down the opposition, while truth stands up to criticism and scrutiny.

Those who are concerned about global warming may be those who love their environment and feel that the evidence they have seen is persuasive.
Those who have read the same evidence and do not believe that this is of alarm may be those who also love the environment but disagree with the warnings.

Truth can withstand questioning, disagreeing, and scrutinizing it.

Those who disagree with me are not inferior, nor hateful, nor should they be silenced.

Today, we may make a lengthy list of issues of which there are calls for legally silencing difference of opinion. This is why many of us say,

"I do not recognize our country any longer.  It does not resemble the country I was brought up in."

It has nothing to do with skin color, or temperatures, or sex, or any one of the 1001 issues we wrestle with.

It has to do with the weak.

The weak have a need to demonize, ridicule and ultimately, silence those who disagree with them.

Consider this, carefully, since it is that you have come to this blog because you love discerning truth from deception.

Consider our "NTP" in event statements.  The "Need to Persuade" is noted for weakness, as an indicator of sensitivity that often leads to "deception indicated" because the truth needs no such help.

The truth does not need its questioners to be silenced.  It is not "Global Warming" that is our enemy.  Our enemy is the call to restrict our freedom to question Global Warming, and anything else we face.

The truth thrives on healthy, honest, fair-minded, evenly applied and intense skepticism.  

36 comments:

Anonymous said...

Peter what do you think of this Billie jean Dunn interview?

http://cbs7.com/multimedia/article_1e68ab74-0a68-11e5-9fda-c30ca31b8705.html

Anonymous said...

Pollution is a horrible murderous thing. I'm not sure if overall the earth is getting warmer per se. if it is getting warmer than the ice caps will all melt and for people it'll get much colder before it evens off at warmer again, and we may not survive that roller coaster. I think the real danger is more extremes and destructive weather patterns/ and the immediate -this life span - risks of pollution. Being and Tehran could be the new normal. and it doesn't matter what temperature the world is then.

Anonymous said...

what they tell us about the earth may not be correct. I agree wit that. however pollution is a real danger no matter what the governments of the world hide or reveal. pollution kills at any temperature.

Anonymous said...

Peter, there are some amazing arguments that - specifically the science that comes from Nasa and relates to space travel, satellites and the shape of the earth - is mostly propaganda.

the theories go so far as to say the earth may actually be flat and the governments are in collusion to convince the peoples that we are on a globe and outer space is being conquered - in order to pacify and confuse.

I do not know. but I looked into it because I love theories that challenge what I think I know - and I was really stunned but the clips shown of Nasa giving news conferences on the mars rover. along with the moon landing, etc. --- take out of context - where its so "crazy" to question all of Nasa's contribution to our knowledge -- those press conferences are like a crash course in statement analysis - red flag after red flag. if you wanted to dabble in looking into it - I'd be super interested in your response - coming from (I assume) somebody who does not doubt Nasa -- and yet knows how to see when somebody is lying.

-- I bring it up because it is all connected to this global warming stuff -- the idea that there are some huge lies at play that get continually juggled when any talk about our planet is delivered to us by officials. (personally I'm sure pollution is super bad, but I'm not sure the discourse we are being presented with about it is not also full of lies)

Anonymous said...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVzfDZlEwaU

Nasa talking about Mars landing

GeekRad said...

Earth has a 1,500 year climate cycle. It is documented in the geologic record, in written historical records and in ice cores from Greenland. This has been occurring LONG before man was on earth and long before we became industrialized. You have heard of the ice ages? They are the results of these climate cycles.

That said, the deception regarding climate change is that people are not willing the have an open mind and listen to the facts. People are easily swayed by emotion and unfortunately have personal agendas.

Katprint said...

I believe that 95% of any group (doctors, lawyers, priests, teachers, police officers, repairmen, bartenders, etc.) are hardworking, honest, decent people but 5% of that same group will be criminals. Some scientists are criminals who exploit their position for personal gain, like Dr. Andrew Wakefield's fraudulent vaccination/autism study, his bogus lab test to determine whether a particular child's autism had been caused by their vaccinations, his selling his expert opinion for lawsuits, his ongoing sale of publications and speaking engagements, etc. Ever since the disclosure of the emails between the climate scientists conspiring to alter data and to favorably peer review each other's results and to unfavorably peer review the results of scientists who did not agree http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/nov/20/climate-sceptics-hackers-leaked-emails , I have been a climate skeptic. The 15 year long "pause" and the various conflicting explanations for it have increased my skepticism. The increasing polar ice indicates the Earth may actually be cooling down. If nobody can prove conclusively whether the climate is getting warmer, colder or staying the same, they cannot prove conclusively that global warming is caused by man-made "greenhouse gases."

Anonymous said...

The "15 year" pause is a mathematical hoax repeated by politicians and their groupies. The change in temperature is not a straight line constant, and, as with any fluctuating data, if you find a high point as a place to start and a low point to end, it shows no change. It's like taking the S and P index, starting from the height of the dot com boom in early 2000 and ending at the crash during the financial crash in 2008 and saying "stocks aren't rising!" When looking at the S and P from 1950 to the present shows an undeniable rise in large cap stocks.

I'm not addressing what has caused the rise in temp over the last century, just that those who for years now have used1998 as a starting point of measurement are manipulating numbers to fit their cause. Pick almost any other year as a starting point, it shows a rise in temp.

Anonymous said...

I am much more concerned about the effects of geoengineering (chemtrails) than I am about carbon emissions.

Anonymous said...

Global warming is not something you need to formulate an opinion about, any more than you need to formulate an opinion about whether smoking causes lung cancer. It also does not matter what politicians say. Even Shell Oil acknowledges it as an unavoidable fact, they build all their scenarios around it: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/18/magazine/shell-oils-cold-calculations-for-a-warming-world.html?_r=0

Sorry to post Anon, I did choose a name awhile ago and would use it, but have forgotten it. Possibly little turtle or something like that.

tania cadogan said...

We are only 10,000 years out of an ice age, the earth warming up is normal and expected.
Remember, at one stage, we were snowball earth, covered top to bottom to a great depth in snow and ice.
It was a tad nippy.
All this is over the last 4.5 billion years where we have gone from pole to pole molten rock, slightly toasty shall i say, and from there we went to snowball Earth and guess what folks, in the next 4.5 billion years we will bimble from nice and toasty to a tad nippy millions of times.
Finally we will be really nice and toasty as the sun expands into a red giant and either caramelizes us to a nice crispy golden brown or, gets a bit over excited and charcoals us back into stardust.
Mercury and Venus will literally be toast.

Then the sun will use all its fuel and dwindle to a white dwarf for the next trillion years or so until it is a dark ember wandering around our galaxy.

Everyone , especially those looking out for handouts to enable 'research' into what is normal phenomenon will bleat on abou how humans are causing it.

There is nothing we can really do to the climate unless we start firing off lots of nuclear bombs.

All it is is mother nature doing what she has always done and will continue to do.

ginx said...

When politicians use science as a weapon or tool they seem to rarely understand it. I don't think their statements have any value in terms of science, but how they want to use the science to further their own agendas. So the opinions and ideas to be gleaned from such analysis should be for the political realm. Analysis of a statement from a regular climate scientist--someone who actually knows what they're talking about--would probably give better data in terms of deception (and informed opinion).

Also, "pollution of automobiles" is just a piece of the problem. Larger concerns are use of fossil fuels for power plants and heavy industry, plus deforestation, and several other things. I don't know if you were singling out one issue to make it sound ridiculous or not, but it's much more complex than that.

Pam said...

Of course the climate is changing, it is and has been in a constant state of flux since the Earth was formed. In historical times, The Medieval Warm Period lasted about 500 years (800-1300). Grapes were grown in England, Vikings colonized and grew wheat in Greenland and the populations of many towns grew into cities. Then came the Little Ice Age (1350-1850) that cooled everything down. We may now be in the 500 years of a warming trend that will last until 2350 or so, then cool down again.

The Earth will continue to warm and cool according to it's own rhythm. Man is insignificant and it is hubris to believe that we can change the rhythms of 4.5 billion years. Unless we detonate numerous nuclear weapons, there probably isn't much we can do to change Mother Nature.

Frank said...

Off Topic: This is regarding the 2 prisoners who escaped the maximum security prison in upstate New York. I was intrigued by this one portion of what the governor said seemingly unprompted by any question and wondered what others here think. Here is the quote
""These are killers. They are murderers," the governor said. "There's never been a question about the crimes they committed. They are now on the loose, and our first order of business is apprehending them."

Is there sensitivity in this quote particularly in this sentence "There's never been a question about the crimes they committed."

I certainly would not have questioned whether they were guilty as charged just because they escaped and doubt anyone else would, so is it sensitive that he stated this? Only thing I can figure is if he was thinking others might question whether they were guilty because of it being a "Shawshank Redemption" type escape where that character was innocent. I am interested in others thoughts about this.

Anonymous said...

Cuomo's ratings are in a slump; he's milking it for all he can.

Anonymous said...

Off topic: Peter, I wondered if you'd be interested inlooking at the statements by Alice Goffman who wrote On the Run-a book about her time w/ blacks in Philly. The book is coming under question. http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-is-the-next-big-publishing-scandal-20150605-column.html#page=1

She destroyed her notes, so its not possible to check her sources.

trustmeigetit said...

I am usually skeptical of any theory.

My husband is the type that will skim an article and come to me saying "this is happening...I read about it"
Most the time I'll do some more research or read the article and discover it was not as he said.

So I see your point all to clearly.

People in masses accept. Like Mike Brown. How many people beleive he was innocent. Thousands, millions. All based on a lie that no one was skeptal enough to wonder if it was true.

Anonymous said...

"Also, "pollution of automobiles" is just a piece of the problem. Larger concerns are use of fossil fuels for power plants and heavy industry, plus deforestation, and several other things. I don't know if you were singling out one issue to make it sound ridiculous or not, but it's much more complex than that."

A thousand times agreed!!! cars are not the main issue by a long shot.

tania cadogan said...

Perhaps we should be prosecuting volcanoes for air pollution, poisoning of rivers, lakes and in some cases seas.
Mother nature in general for homicide, floods, droughts,plagues, hurricanes and tornadoes (wanton destruction of property)
The seas for leaking of methane from methane hydrate deposits causing ships to sink.

Volcanoes again for mass homicide, arson, wanton destruction of property and building new land without a permit causing ecological damage to local wildlife and sensitive areas of conservation.

Tectonic plates for earthquakes causing mass genocide, wanton destruction of property,arson, contaminating water supplies, denial of services

Mother nature for crimes against humanity in general.

O0o0o i could make a fortune from all the litigation both as a claimant (I, being the victim of too much rain, not enough rain, too much sun, not enough sun, too hot, too cold, too windy, not windy enough, disturbed sleep patterns due to the sun being up when i want to sleep and not up when i want to be awake, local wildlife being around when i want to be left alone and being absent what i want to interact with it.
Birds singing too loudly in the early hours and not loudly enough in the twilight hours,wildlife trespassing on my property when not wanted and not visiting when i want.
The sky not being the right color when i want it, the air i breathe being too dirty or too clean and not smelling right when i want a specific scent,the wrong types of season, neutrinos touching me without my permission, exposure to harmful rays, exposure to the passage of time causing me to age physically and all the illness and ailments that result and then finally homicide since i will be killed by mother nature and her cohorts at a time and place of their choosing and with no consultation with me, the end user.
We could all be part of a class action.
Life is inherently harmful to humans since use of the product will result in death and no one told us this when we were born.
None of us signed a contract and the really smart ones who managed to not eat the writing instrument of choice could never have understood all the clauses and subclauses, penalties incurred for misuse of the body etc.

I could also be an attorney since only i could understand all the gobbledygook i have written/will write.

That will be 5 cents/pence/currency of your choice.
Precious metals, jewels, land deeds also accepted

Anonymous said...

Ha....! Worrying about global warming and the end of the ice age and every other thing that God designed, created, oversees and controls is a total waste of time. And THAT would be all of it. Everything.

One way or another, we are ALL just dust in the wind.

Anonymous said...

Wake up and smell the coffee. There is no such thing as "Mother Nature".

"MOTHER?" If you think there is, find her and bring her here to me. I'd like to shake her huge mammoth sized hand that would be bigger than the universe.

But it ain't gonna happen.

"MOTHER Nature?" Cracks me up. Makes we wanta laugh out loud.

There is GOD out there, and HIS kingdom at His command; nothing more, nothing less.

Peter Hyatt said...

Anonymous said...
Off topic: Peter, I wondered if you'd be interested inlooking at the statements by Alice Goffman who wrote On the Run-a book about her time w/ blacks in Philly. The book is coming under question. http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-is-the-next-big-publishing-scandal-20150605-column.html#page=1

She destroyed her notes, so its not possible to check her sources.


There is much on line now that suggests she made much of this up, which leads me to go to motive, but for now, it is interesting that she chose 3AM as her start time for justice!

Interesting link.

Peter

John mcgowan said...

OT:

Forensic psychologist can’t ‘fathom’ why father of missing baby didn’t call 911

INDIANAPOLIS (June 8, 2015) — The father of a missing three-month-old girl wrote an email to our newsroom explaining how he placed her body in a dumpster after she died of natural causes.

It has been nearly two weeks since Janna Rivera went missing and police are still searching for her body.

Her father, Jeff Fairbanks, is the last known person to have seen her and the only person of interest named in the case.

In an email sent to our newsroom, Fairbanks said he placed Janna’s body in a dumpster.

“Finding Janna was the most important thing, at first, because that gives us closure, a chance at a respectable burial, and exoneration,” wrote Fairbanks. ” However, I am afraid that window may have passed. It was the hardest thing in the world to do, after the fact of Janna’s death, to take the detectives to a dumpster.”

He goes on to explain why he didn’t call 911.

“Believe it or not, it never even occured to me. Once I couldn’t save her, all I could think about were the girls downstairs… I guess, in some strange way, I was trying to protect them, because I knew she was already gone.”

Fairbanks said after driving “aimlessly, waiting for her to wake up, praying, thinking somehow she would,” he placed her body in a dumpster. Then he said he lied to his family and told them he had actually buried Janna, because he felt “so ashamed of what I had done.”

“He sounds guilty,” said legal expert and former prosecutor Jack Crawford. “The letter is extremely important to the prosecution of this case. It shows the thinking of Mr. Fairbanks and it shows – in my opinion – a guilty mind. When you make up a story so outlandish as this, lying to your own family about where you buried the little child, that indicates guilt.”

Forensic psychologist Dr. Margaret Ann Keaton couldn’t make sense of why Fairbanks chose not to call 911.

While admitting, people react to trauma differently, she said the act of calling 911 is something even a child knows to do in an emergency.

“As a parent and as someone who has studied violent crime for over two decades, it does not ring true to me that a loving parent with nothing to hide would willingly toss their deceased, infant child into a dumpster for whatever reason,” she told CBS4.

She was also concerned by other statements made by Fairbanks.

“The statement that ‘after the fact of Janna’s death’ taking the police to the dumpster was the hardest thing he ever did is also troubling because how could anything be harder than tossing your baby’s lifeless body into a trash dumpster in the first place?” she asked.

In the email, Fairbanks also mentions passing a polygraph test despite his nervousness. Dr. Keaton said polygraphs are not admissible in court and sometimes, people with psychopathic tendencies can easily pass polygraphs.

“Some individuals have flattened affect resulting in less strong emotions, especially less guilt/shame. Such individuals may have a better chance of fooling a lie detector,” explained Keaton.

So why haven’t police arrested Fairbanks? Crawford believes they are trying to exhaust all their avenues of finding Janna’s body.

“Prosecutors and police want to find that body,” he said. “It helps their case tremendously. And I think by the fact they haven’t arrested Mr. Fairbanks yet, that they’re close. They have some strong leads on where the child’s body may be.”

If police cannot find the body, Crawford said they can still charge Fairbanks with murder based on what he’s said. But he believes Janna’s father has much more left to say.

“I think he wants to confess. I think he wants to tell where that child is.”


http://cbs4indy.com/2015/06/08/forensic-psychologist-cant-fathom-why-father-of-missing-baby-didnt-call-911/

Anonymous said...

It makes no sense and no excuse that Fairbanks wasn't arrested the minute he said he threw the baby into the dumpster, whether she was found there or not, whether they ever find her little body or not, or whether he ever tells them where the baby is or what he did to cause her death, or if someone else caused it, who did?

So why the big stall? Finding her or not finding her won't change the fact that HE disposed of his dead baby.

WTH!!!? Case opened, shut and closed.

Jen Ow said...

It's kind of hilarious the importance that we humans seek to ascribe to ourselves.

I wonder what exactly precipitated the end of the last ice age, or the one before that? Not cars, not burning fossil fuels, not global agriculture, or industrialized livestock farts driving up the temps...yet amazingly, the climate managed to change with no help at all from us infinitely important human beings!

We are truly 'dust in the wind' in the realm of the universe, but to hear us tell it, we are the nexus. I particularly love the people freaking out because the coastal areas are 'shrinking', and valuable real estate properties are being reclaimed by the ocean. They use this as 'proof' of some apocalyptic climate issue. News Flash...we humans don't get to arbitrarily decide where the coast begins, and ends, based on real estate zoning. The ocean goes where it pleases, even if you built a house there. Every square inch of earth was at some point covered by water, (ice, etc)...and it likely will be again some day.

Yes the climate is changing...as part of the natural warming and cooling cycle of the planet which has preceded humans, and will outlast us. We better start focusing our energy on ways to adapt, rather than futility trying to prevent it. Nature waits for no man.

Anonymous said...

"Nature waits for no man".

Nor does God.

Jen Ow said...

Agreed

Matt Whan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Matt Whan said...

I admit that, though I am fascinated with deception detection as a whole, which Statement Analysis even more fascinating, I find myself skeptical sometimes. My wife is highly skeptical of Statement Analysis, and she, like me, will explain it as "I say a lot of those things, but its just what I say. I don't mean anything bad about it". I find it hard to disagree sometimes, as I see an analysed word or phrase and say to myself " I say that all the time, and I don't mean it that way, nor was I lying " I defend Statement Analysis, but sometimes I find myself reading an analysis and reaching a slightly different conclusion, or feel that some of the analyzed items appear to be " over reaching", sort of a self-fulfilling kind of thing. I don't know how better to describe it.

That being said, its is incredibly exciting to listen to something that's probably fake, liike Maury. Or watch something interesting on Dr. Phil, and find out the analysis is correct. Statement Analysis seems to be excitingly accurate, but is filled with many variables.

Exceptional article, Peter.

Anonymous said...

Matt, it isn't always easy to gauge which of the talk show hosts are fake and those that aren't; say like Maury Povich. Who can say for sure since his is just crude blasé entertainment. Then there's Jerry Springer. I knew Jerry personally prior to his entering show business. I happen to know that he was a gentleman back then and not at all like the person he portrays on his show. It pays well. He makes the best of being what he really isn't. Sometimes I can sense his utter disgust towards some of his guests. However, I can't see how he will ever recover his prior good reputation among those who knew him prior to becoming what he is today.

Then there's Dr. Drew, I liked him, now I find that he previously did cocaine and smoked pot and recently admitted to it. Right. But that also means he lost all credibility with me and I will no longer listen to anything he says. He's history.

I like the frankness of Dr. Phil who doesn't mince words. However, my former husband, now deceased, who was a practicing psychologist/psychiatrist/professor, well published and with vast credentials who reaped high honors in his profession, a brilliant man; said that Dr. Phil never had the proper credentials nor was he ever a qualified practicing psychologist/psychiatrist, and couldn't stomach listening to him. SOOo, do we really know Dr. Phil? I think not.

My favorite is Dr. Keith Ablow, who really IS well qualified. Him I admire as being one who tells the truth and stands by his analysis. IMO, no fake. Also, I liked Joy Behar and perceived her to be above board in her interviews. As to Dan Abrams, I always expected him to tall flat on his face, it was no surprise to me when he did.

Are they all liars waiting for the fall out? Your guess is as good as mine.

Nic said...

Peter, this is a subject that sticks in my craw. Some of the arguments I've run into follow:

Re: melting ice caps - The Arctic icecaps are floating. If they melt (which they have in the past, hence why Greenland was aptly named,) no amount of the world would flood. Archimedes’ Principal supports this. Fill a glass tippy top with ice, (some even sticking out of the top like an iceberg,) add water to the rim, and let the ice melt. Note that the glass of water does not overflow as the ice melts. In fact, the water line may be even lower because ice has more volume than water. The same could not be said for the Antarctic cap; however, given the earth's axis and the constant temperature of the Antarctic, this occurrence would be improbable.

Canada’s OIL sands. (Tar is man-made.) If you are reading or listening to anything about Canada’s OIL sands and [they] are calling it “tar sands” you know you are listening to hysterical propaganda. The oil sands is a natural occurrence. Refining the oil sands is actually cleaning up Mother Nature’s “oil spill”. And while Barack Obama is pointing his finger at Canada and vetoing the Keystone pipeline, which is arguably the safest way to transport oil (Lac Megantic,) and wanting his legacy to be the “environmental president”, it is an undisputed fact that ‘he’ has invested/sponsored more money in domestic drilling for oil and fracking for gas than anyone else before him (or around him!), creating more domestic output thereby having to import less. (Made in America!) He’s a hypocrite.

Speaking of hypocrites, side glancing Neil Young, David Suzuki, Al Gore et al, what about the 1.700 private jets owned by the “greenies” that descended on Davos for the “World Economic Forum” to discuss climate change? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-2916539/World-Economic-Forum-Skies-Switzerland-double-number-private-jets.html A military base had to be opened up just for them. What about traveling economy? (gasp) Or video-conferencing? (gasp!) Neil Young has the audacity to come to Canada to pontificate his “green altruism” for the media, while driving around in an electric car, but he has a caravan of burping busses following him around, and idling, empty, while he puts on a concert for Calgary. Not only that, but he doesn’t seem to mind that the channel used to support his music career (manufacturing of records, discs, MP3s, etc., etc.,) is fossil fuel based. http://www.calgaryherald.com/entertainment/Corbella+Neil+Young+chooses+comfort+over+convictions/9406082/story.html Driving an electric car negates all that./sarc

imo, this ‘green machine’ (follow the money and careers,) and policies like energy “credits” (aka redistribution of wealth,) is a bigger sting operation than Y2K.

The only climate man can control is his immediate surroundings via the thermostat. There is a natural ebb and flow (cooling/warming) of the earth which coincides with the SUN’s solar flares and other natural occurrences (volcanoes, etc.). Other documented events before industrialization (disappearance of the Saqqaq/Dorset/Norse Vikings/ for one, http://nature.ca/en/about-us/museum-news/news/press-releases/dinosaurs-diets-ecological-niches-new-study-shows-recipe-su) Little Ice Age/Medieval Warm Period supports the notion that the Earth warms/cool and its a natural ‘rhythm’. How long each period lasts is unknown. The “hockey stick” fiasco is evidence of just how far the “green movement” will go to falsify data to support their “work” and FUNDING. Thank God for curious and critically thinking people like Stephen McIntyre who unmasked their “errors".

Nic said...

Further to the oil sands and using it as an example to dispute man-made global warming/cooling/change, etc. At one time, 75 ?million years ago, Canada was a much warmer climate than it is today. How so you ask? The oil sands/Badlands are evidence of this. Given how oil is formed, and given the kinds of herbivorous dinosaurs discovered in Canada’s Badlands (and even on the east coast,) and the temperature required for the kinds of foliage they consumed, Canada was a much warmer country. In fact, gold, diamond, and other exploration in Canada’s north, indicates that much of Canada was very warm ‘back then’.

There was more environmental/air pollution at the turn of the 20th century/start of the industrial revolution than there is today. i.e., toxic fumes from factory chimneys, transportation (horses (manure/urine)) oil burning street lamps, oil and wood burning stoves to name a few contributors. The advent of coal fired power plants/nuclear power and the following decades demonstrate that Mother Nature has a capacity to recover, but mostly, there is much less pollution today than then.

I could go on and on, but I will end by saying, the fabrication, never mind the owning of, i.e., the electric car has a larger carbon footprint than a fossil fuel car. A two minute video on one versus the other from The Economist: http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/12/economist-explains-18

Sara said...

To anon on June 10 @7:36 am
About Dr. Drew - you dismiss him because of his admitted drug use. Is this wise? Because I'm typing on an Apple IPad produced by a dope smoking LSD user-- the great Steve Jobs-- and its a great product! If you think drug use in itself discredits people, you are living in a bubble unaware of all the advances in our society that were produced by people who, currently or in the past, use drugs. DNA testing of all kinds was revolutionized by the invention of a method for DNA replication that speeded up the process to such an incredible degree that major scientific advances were made possible. The inventor got a Nobel Prize for his work. He came up with his idea after using some LSD. We couldn't test for HIV without it! Ironically, the inventor does not believe HIV causes AIDS.
I'm all for debate and skepticism, especially in science. The TRUTH does not fear a challenge.

"I'm for truth, no matter who tells it"----Malcolm X

Nic said...

One last comment/link. This is a link to the Int'l Climate Coalition site. If you watch the 3.42 min video, you'll get an "honest" answer about climate change. I like what Tom Harris has to say about preparing for the "unknown" as opposed to knowing/forecasting the when and where/hysterical propaganda to "give now"/silence the opposition. Nobody knows! If you look at dangerous locales along the rim of the Pacific Ring of Fire, based on knowledge of what happens when the tectonic plates rub or bend/snap, there will be a tsunami. But no one can say when it will happen. Or, most recently, Kathmandu, Nepal. Nobody could foresee their last earthquake. Based on history, they knew they were vulnerable and it had been a long time since the last earthquake so they were 'due'. However, *preparing* for the eventuality through aid would be more purposeful and practical. i.e., building/codes to match the vulnerability of the environs, early warning systems via alarm outside of radio and TV frequency.

http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&id=393

Anonymous said...

To Anon at 2:00 p.m. today; yes, I am against Dr. Drew as being an authoritarian in the position he now is, having formerly been a cocaine user, in attributing any real credibility to him. Cocaine is very dangerous to the user and all those around them. It also causes brain damage. The former user cannot be trusted not to do it again, for the very same reasons they did it in the first place.

All of these drugs play with the brain cells, frying many of them; one never knows what minute they might fly off the deep end for no good reason; which is why the drug user is referred to has having fried brains.

As for the rest of the drug users you mentioned, at least they did get something accomplished with their lives in spite of their mind altering substances. Bully for them. If they'd been so smart, they would have never played with their brains in the first place. In the end, like it or not, they were still drug users and abusers.

Unknown said...

Please do an analysis on Ricky Jones of Delta Utah, based on an article I saw in the Daily Beast. Purported hate crime against him. Tons of red flags in this, and an astonishing level of bias in the article. Please, I'm dying to get your analysis Peter!