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:
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.
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.