Saturday, March 26, 2016

Statement Analysis and Global Warming

         Statement Analysis and Global Warming
                                                     by Peter Hyatt

Statement Analysis seeks truth. 

Period.

It is not a defense of Judaism, Christianity, Socialism, Reaganism, Feminism, or a slave to any "ism" in life. It tests the 'isms' and ideologies that influence how people speak, around the world.  

 It is a method of which human communication is examined, and truth is separated from deception.  

Politicians give us much sample from which to work by virtue of their profession and media exposure. The same goes for celebrities.  Some find the use of statements by celebrities degrading to our science yet I simply see the exposure of principle as a great advantage. 

Political Correctness is a fascinating term which refers to how something appears, rather than what something is.  

It is, in a sense, propaganda versus truth, exterior versus interior, emotion versus logic, and the sacrifice of truth (including fact) for the purpose of "narrative." Even in the view of ideologies that have impacted history, we are concerned with truth, rather than appearance or impact.  

Truth. 

Those who are "PC orientated" fail in Statement Analysis.  This requires little explanation.  If something is more important than truth, the person is in the wrong field.  Math, for example, is neither left wing, nor right wing, yet those who seek narrative will make attempts to destroy or in the least, distort math.  

We often see that political correctness is illogical; that is, it is not part of human logical thinking, including consequence.  It also is a form of deception that brings great harm, both short term and long term. 

Imagine living in a civilized country where someone breaks into your home, threatens you to stay back, grabs your valuables, and runs, only to call police and be told not to describe the assailant's most basic visible attributes.  

Imagine living in a country where your daughter was raped but the rapist, a 30 year old male, was let go because he testified under oath that he was 15 years old, and by law, his testimony must be taken.  The 30 year old is not only free to rape Swedish women again, the working women of Sweden finance his life from their taxes.   

Imagine living in a world where your opinion, which impacts no one but you and your family, could mean loss of liberty.  

These are the consequences of the illogical world of Political Correctness.  

Statement Analysis can, and must withstand healthy scientific skepticism.  

What would you think about the science of Statement Analysis, with its claim of "90% to near 100% long term accuracy" if I told you:

1.  If you disagree with me, you are mentally ill.  You have an irrational fear of analysis.  
2.  If you disagree with me, you are morally so depraved that your opinion is of no consequence and will not be heard.  You disagree with analysis because you hate me, personally, and are a person filled with hatred.  

Words, alone, are not enough to stop you?  How about consequences?

3.  If you disagree with me regarding Statement Analysis, you will jeopardize your job, your income, your standing in the community. 

Freedom?

4.  If you disagree with Statement Analysis, you may find yourself imprisoned.  

It is very likely that if you have read this blog and learned anything over the years, you would conclude:

"The NTP is acute."

Or in simpler language, you might say that 'this nut job's need to persuade, rather than truthfully report, is so highly deceptive that his position can only be protected by fascist violence and there will be no reasonable discussion.' "Deception Indicated.

I began with "Statement Analysis and Global Warming" and readily admit, I am not a scientist, nor have I studied much of weather.  

I do not believe in Global Warming.  

In fact, I think it is a  dangerous hoax put upon the world by a political elite with deceptive and illicit motives, including both partisan and financial. It is a tangent to move attention from other threats; deadly threats that our children and grandchildren will inevitably face. 

 It's comical when someone who's career is to pretend to be someone else, is adored for it, makes a pronouncement of demarcation:  those who disagree with him are "evil." 

But what about my opinion?  I'm no scientist.  

How could my opinion have any weight, other than looking at long term charts and saying, "I don't see it."?  Or, by listening to Al Gore, 20 years ago saying that the world would have been struck with catastrophe by 2012?  Or, by saving my pennies and buying a Canada Goose parka, looking like Nanook of the North, because I walk in temperatures lower than -20 F in spite of all the dire predictions.  

Obama says it is our worst threat, while arming a country with a nuclear weapon who has promised to use it against us.  


Better still for the purpose of applying Statement Analysis is when it was released that Barak Obama had formal discussions with his advisors on making scientists who disagree with him face potential criminal charges, I knew all I needed to know about Global Warming, and will save my pennies, or book a seminar in south Florida next February to escape Maine's global warming.  

That which cannot be challenged, itself, is weak, but that which is so weak that any challenge is ridiculed and no debate heard, is deceptively weak. 

In our Advanced Course, I dedicate a chapter to dealing with Political Correct language, particularly as it has grown dramatically in the past 30 years, but its impact has become acutely dangerous in the last 7.  

Islamic Terror

If the danger of a nuclear Iran is not enough to scare you, consider the following:

When Barak Hussein Obama took office, he concealed his Islamic beliefs, though when anyone questioned him, the questioner was considered "racist" with no answer given.  

Beginning in 2009, with most completion by 2011, anti Islamic terror manuals were scrubbed clean of "Islam" after Muslim terrorist organizations in the United States claimed that they were unfair to Muslims.  We do not know how the designated terrorist groups accessed these manuals.  

A picture of a terrorist with a beard was removed, as it, too, was "offensive."  

There are now more than 80 mosques in the United States known for being connected to terrorism.  

Our bombing of ISIS has dropped off precipitously, while reports continue which show us deliberately avoiding ISIS headquarters.  

Steve Emerson said that security experts who lectured both the CIA and the FBI on Islamic terror were banned from speaking to both; instead Muslim Brotherhood representatives were invited to speak. 

Suicide?  Tacquia?

How about freeing killers in Guatameno, and then having dead Americans because of it?  

Islamic jihadists, in obedience to the Koran, kill innocent civilians and Obama lectures Christians about "irrational fear of Islam" as if fearing an ideology far worse and far more successful than Nazism, is irrational.  30 dead, 150 wounded, in Brussels, hours later, Obama interrupted his condemnations of America while in Cuba to speak for less than 60 seconds about Brussels, without using the word "Islam."  

Is it racist to analyze his short speech?

Imagine Winston Churchill, circa 1940, not using the word "Hitler."  

a. What impact would this have upon England and the war effort?
b.  What impact would this have had upon Hitler and his followers?

The emboldening from a nation's leader too fearful to even utter the name, would be powerful. 

I love truth.  

With the deception of PC language so popular today, I developed a habit of making a politically incorrect statement at some point in my seminars so that I can quickly read the faces of the attendees. 

Some will chuckle;
some are a tad uncomfortable, as if they just indulged in the guilty pleasure of a 2nd chocolate bar;

and generally, one or two show deep offense, sometimes even contempt.  

They will not abide Statement Analysis because Statement Analysis does not have its narrative of which principle and result be be enslaved towards. 

Statement Analysis is a slave to the subject's words; the context, the non-interpretating of the words...the bowing before the context and letting the context raise and answer its own questions.  Where it raises questions without answers, interview preparation begins. 

I sometimes reference a 65 year old grandfather who wears women' dresses and has had all sorts of surgery to make others think he is a 22 year old attractive female. 

He is not.  

This is the "Bruce Jenner Effect" where inevitably, a deceptive person is offended at Glamor Magazine's Woman of the Year being used in a seminar by me. 

Truth be damned, the process of learning is shut down, as the person reveals himself as a slave to political correctness.  There is no such scientific classification as "transgender."  It is not "truth."  

Objection:  "This just shows how hateful you are!"

Answer:   My point about truth is hereby exampled.  I feel sorrowful for one who must have experienced severe trauma to have such terrible confusion,  but I feel anger that he is likely not getting treatment because instead of intervention, politicians are throwing him parades.  The parades are not for him, but to benefit the politician.  

When the parades die down, what is left but a terribly confused person in desperate need for professional intervention but psychologists and other professionals are too frightened to intervene.  They can only "affirm" him or her, but cannot help, lest they be charged with the same objection as above, and watch their career be destroyed, or their corporation be sued in court.  

Women and Men speak differently.  This statement, alone, would produce no response a generation ago.  Today?  It could destroy a career.  

Sometimes black people and white people speak differently, too.  Even 10 years ago, one might respond to this with, "yeah?  so, what's your point?" suppressing a yawn.  Today, at best, there is a shifting of seats of uncomfortableness, and at worst, a violent protest so no freedom of expression can be exercised.  

The 16 year old girl, starving herself to death, who "identifies" as a terribly obese young person, is given a parade, rather than treatment, left to "celebrate" her "diversity" as she slowly and painfully commits suicide. 

Suicide. 

Interesting word. 

Years ago, I was motivated by statistics of suicide and those who are vulnerable to the final act of self loathing yet today the mental health industry's professionals do not dare intervene, and got involved. Today, it is very different and the professionals  know the risks of intervention, and remember what violence, protests and threats did in the 70's.  

I just want the truth. 

If I were told, regarding any aspect of life, that I was "less than 2% of the population", I would be hungry to learn why.  

After Cologne, feminists held up signs saying they prefer rapists to racists, which is self loathing suicide progression before our eyes.  

"Political Correctness" is a fascinating phrase because it highlights "politics"; that is, appearance for one's personal gain, at its core and center.  The politician stands to gain the most; the public loses the most.  This is why I think the term "political correctness" is so appropriate:  it is only "correct" to one with political and financial ambition.  

It is very effective in committing personal, regional and even national suicide.  

A statistic was recently released showing that more than 90% of illegal immigrants are unemployed.  This means welfare benefits to those who did not pay into the system.  Hmm.  "How can we argue for this to be accepted? "  This is the question for whom?  It is the question for politicians to answer.  

In some countries, immigrants are 2% of the population, but 80% of the prison, or some bizarrely close numbers.  

What do you and math conclude?  Versus:

 What does the politician conclude from this?

a.  We are racists and the criminal justice system is racist. 
b.  We need more immigrants to show how we are not racist. 

Those who enter the country illegally, including those with criminal backgrounds, generally vote for one party...creating motive).  

If 1 of every 4 Swedish women are raped, the politician says "let's increase this number" and actually does so by promoting judges who will give lenient sentences, paroles, and refuse to deport.  

Suicide. 

A welfare state cannot exist without borders, mathematically, although some can (and do) argue that a welfare state, itself, cannot exist for more than a few generations because each newly elected politicians must offer more social benefits, and eventually, the pesky debt increases and...well, you know how nature and math seem to work.  

Suicide.

Suicide is an example of illogical thinking carried out.  

Even those given to political correctness who study Statement Analysis end up seeing the inevitable conflict between truth and presentation.  

Statement Analysis can and must experience incessant scientific scrutiny.  

It is the only way we can improve.  

If "90% to near 100% sounds wonderful to you, I agree, especially when compared to other schools, but this also means that up to 10% can be wrong!  

Scrutiny, questioning, challenging and forcing those with strong intellects and a commitment to principle, will rise to the surface and push our statistic north. 

Would any of us accept that with a 10% room for improvement, we should actually fire the best analysts and begin choosing analysts, not based upon their training and performance, but upon their belief that 90% to near 100% success rate is embarrassing and discriminatory against body language analysis?

Imagine putting S/A in the hands of politicians. 

"How many of these analysts are male?" instead of, "Which analysts have the highest scores?"

Imagine: 

"Which analysts are making micro-expression training look foolish?  These are full of hate for other schools of thought.  Terminate contracts with them!"

When a topic is before you and the only defense it has is to ridicule you, and even threaten you, 

you may be looking at deception.  

Hence, my "statement analysis of global warming" conclusion is this:

Buy a warm wool sweater, made in the UK.  

The illogic of Political Correctness is in opposition to truth seeking.  It is why one cannot be a slave to Political Correctness while being a slave to truth seeking.  Even when seeking to discern "the expected", the PC adherer is lost.  

Not only does he not understand human nature, but this lack of understanding is best seen in how the language of the expected is not understood.  

It is a form of self-loathing, not from the top, but from the bottom.  At the top, it is exploitation.  

Those who's children go to private schools, who live behind walls with arms to protect them, are capitalizing on the suicide of the non-engaging suicidal followers, who repeat phrases and bumperstickers, without any follow through thought. 

The elite gain; the public is fleeced.  

Like the delicate snow flakes, young college men in need of a safe place to cry tears because someone did not 'feel the bern', they face a future where truth is sacrificed for a narrative, but it will not help them pay the bills, and they will, one day, feel terribly betrayed as they watch, long after leading office, that the only ones who gained from the nonsense, are safely tucked away behind riches.  

They protest for "free college", not understanding that someone is going to pay for it and by the time they get free college, they will be on the other side; paying the taxes, and watching what human nature does with that which is not earned, as it turns even worse than it is today.  

The consequences of political correctness is loss. 

The loss begins slowly but steadily increases.  Yet, each step, political correctness appeals to the pride of its adherer.  

He is told that he is morally superior to others.  

He believes he, alone, cares for the poor, as he robs them of drive and potential success, and feeds a bureaucratic system. 

He believes he is morally superior with the way he runs his company, while he limits its long term success and ability to spread wealth much further. 

He believes himself morally superior, while he endangers lives.  

He believes himself morally superior, while he watches others commit suicide. 

It is this need to feel morally superior that is exploited by the clever politicians.  Recall the meeting of 10 making financial decisions with tax payer monies regarding multicultural programs. 

Not one of the ten was willing to vote against it, even though they knew it would harm the small nonintegrated violent culture it was giving money to, and waste tax payer monies.  Privately, they felt it was immoral, but no one was willing to risk his or her career and be logical, at the risk of being "hateful."

The power of a word! 

Before you condemn police, consider that orders come from the top.  When they know that if they intervene and protect a citizen, that they will be called "racist" or "phobic", and even face loss of job, or arrest, they, too, must feed their families.  

Political Correctness comes from Politics. 

I am not a meteorologist, but I do know deception when I see it.  






40 comments:

Anonymous said...

In another example of political correctness run amuck, a couple of weeks ago I received an amber alert on my phone. It was for a two year old girl, last seen with two men.No race was given.

I saw an article online about the missing girl. Her picture showed she was black, but no race was given in the article about her or her abductors. It would help to locate the girl to know her race of course!

tania cadogan said...

I love when i hear people go on about climate change and that it is man made.
I get to point out to them the earth is 4.5 billion years old, we have gone from particles to dust to rocks to molten to snowball and all temperatures in between.
We are only 10,000 years out of the last ice age, of course the planet is going to warm up, of course at some point it will cool down.
At some point approx 4.5 billion years from now, the sun is going to expand and become a red giant.
Global warming on a cataclysmic scale.
we will either be blasted out of orbit by the gravitational pull and solar winds, to end up as a frozen bit of rock floating through the darkness, or, we will end up sitting comfortably inside the sun and being charcoaled until the sun dies off and shrinks down to a white dawrf ending its days as an ember.
The fun bit will be whether planets currently outside the goldilocks zone (perfect for life) will become suitable for life as the zone moves.

Should we still be around by the time the sun does its thing, will they be complaining about man made global warning and ordering everyone to cut back on greenhouse gases?
What about the next ice age?
Everyone create more greenhouse gases to warm the planet up.

Everything is cyclical, from seasons, to hurricanes and sunspots, warm and cool, hot and cold. Nothing we do can stop nature doing what it has done for billions of years.
Enjoy what we have as in a few hundred years we could be complaing about temperatures falling.

Happy Easter one and all xx

Joesph said...

What part of consistent and repeated "warmest year on record" is cyclical?

tania cadogan said...

Anonymous Joesph said...

What part of consistent and repeated "warmest year on record" is cyclical?

March 26, 2016 at 5:38 PM


Our planet probably experienced its hottest temperatures in its earliest days, when it was still colliding with other rocky debris (planetesimals) careening around the solar system. The heat of these collisions would have kept Earth molten, with top-of-the-atmosphere temperatures upward of 3,600° Fahrenheit.

Even after those first scorching millennia, however, the planet has sometimes been much warmer than it is now. One of the warmest times was during the geologic period known as the Neoproterozoic, between 600 and 800 million years ago. Another “warm age” is a period geologists call the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, which occurred about 56 million years ago.

Temperature records from thermometers and weather stations exist only for a tiny portion of our planet's 4.54-billion-year-long life. By studying indirect clues—the chemical and structural signatures of rocks, fossils, and crystals, ocean sediments, fossilized reefs, tree rings, and ice cores—however, scientists can infer past temperatures.

None of that helps with the very early Earth, however. During the time known as the Hadean (yes, because it was like Hades), Earth’s collisions with other large planetesimals in our young solar system—including a Mars-sized one whose impact with Earth is thought to have created the Moon—would have melted and vaporized most rock at the surface. Because no rocks on Earth have survived from so long ago, scientists have estimated early Earth conditions based on observations of the Moon and on astronomical models. Following the collision that spawned the Moon, the planet was estimated to have been around 2,300 Kelvin (3,680°F).

What the collision that spawned Earth's Moon may have looked like. Collisions between Earth and rocky debris in the early solar system would have kept the surface molten and surface temperatures blistering. Image courtesy NASA.

Even after collisions stopped, and the planet had tens of millions of years to cool, surface temperatures were likely more than 400° Fahrenheit. Zircon crystals from Australia, only about 150 million years younger than the Earth itself, hint that our planet may have cooled faster than scientists previously thought. Still, in its infancy, Earth would have experienced temperatures far higher than we humans could possibly survive.

But suppose we exclude the violent and scorching years when Earth first formed. When else has Earth’s surface sweltered?
Thawing the freezer

Between 600 and 800 million years ago—a period of time geologists call the Neoproterozoic—evidence suggests the Earth underwent an ice age so cold that ice sheets not only capped the polar latitudes, but may have extended all the way to sea level near the equator. Reflecting ever more sunlight back into space as they expanded, the ice sheets cooled the climate and reinforced their own growth. Obviously, the Earth didn’t remain stuck in the freezer, so how did the planet thaw?

tania cadogan said...

cont.

Even while ice sheets covered more and more of Earth’s surface, tectonic plates continued to drift and collide, so volcanic activity also continued. Volcanoes emit the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide. In our current, ice-age-free world, the natural weathering of silicate rock by rainfall consumes carbon dioxide over geologic time scales. During the frigid conditions of the Neoproterozoic, rainfall became rare. With volcanoes churning out carbon dioxide and little or no rainfall to weather rocks and consume the greenhouse gas, temperatures climbed.

What evidence do scientists have that all this actually happened some 700 million years ago? Some of the best evidence is "cap carbonates" lying directly over Neoproterozoic-age glacial deposits. Cap carbonates—layers of calcium-rich rock such as limestone—only form in warm water.

The fact that these thick, calcium-rich rock layers sat directly on top of rock deposits left behind by retreating glaciers indicate that temperatures rose significantly near the end of the Neoproterozoic, perhaps reaching a global average higher than 90° Fahrenheit. (Today's global average is lower than 60°F.)
The tropical Arctic

Another stretch of Earth history that scientists count among the planet’s warmest occurred about 55-56 million years ago. The episode is known as the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM).

Stretching from about 66-34 million years ago, the Paleocene and Eocene were the first geologic epochs following the end of the Mesozoic Era. (The Mesozoic—the age of dinosaurs—was itself an era punctuated by "hothouse" conditions.) Geologists and paleontologists think that during much of the Paleocene and early Eocene, the poles were free of ice caps, and palm trees and crocodiles lived above the Arctic Circle. The transition between the two epochs around 56 million years ago was marked by a rapid spike in global temperature.

During the PETM, the global mean temperature appears to have risen by as much as 5-8°C (9-14°F) to an average temperature as high as 73°F. (Again, today’s global average is shy of 60°F.) At roughly the same time, paleoclimate data like fossilized phytoplankton and ocean sediments record a massive release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, at least doubling or possibly even quadrupling the background concentrations.

It is still uncertain where all the carbon dioxide came from and what the exact sequence of events was. Scientists have considered the drying up of large inland seas, volcanic activity, thawing permafrost, release of methane from warming ocean sediments, huge wildfires, and even—briefly—a comet.
Like nothing we’ve ever seen

Earth’s hottest periods—the Hadean, the late Neoproterozoic, the PETM—occurred before humans existed. Those ancient climates would have been like nothing our species has ever seen.

Modern human civilization, with its permanent agriculture and settlements, has developed over just the past 10,000 years or so. The period has generally been one of low temperatures and relative global (if not regional) climate stability. In our next Q&A, then, we’ll tackle this same question on a more Homo sapien-scale time frame: What’s the hottest Earth has been “lately”?

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-hottest-earths-ever-been

Nic said...

those who seek narrative will make attempts to destroy or in the least, distort math.

… as in, figures don’t lie, but liars figure! :0)



In fact, I think it is a dangerous hoax put upon the world by a political elite with deceptive and illicit motives, including both partisan and financial. It is a tangent to move attention from other threats; deadly threats that our children and grandchildren will inevitably face.

Hallelujah (Technically, Easter Sunday isn’t for another 1 hour, but I’m saying it anyway!) Acid rain/global “warming”/global “cooling", now they're calling it climate “change”, whatever it is they want to call it, it is the biggest hoax since Y2K.

The green movement is nothing more than a green machine (cult), dispensing money to the likes of Al Gore, a failed presidential candidate and David Suzuki, who holds nothing more than a Phd in fruit flies and who once requested “young women” at a college be chosen to be his security for him while there at a speaking engagement. http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2013/01/30/david-suzuki-dirty-old-man/ To quote the author: “Ick!”

Planet Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Look at Canada’s Badlands/Dinosaur Provincial Park and the types of dinosaurs who once roamed Canada and you (generally speaking) will discover that Canada was actually tropical at one time! The once hot climate and foliage is why there is so much oil — literally spilling above ground. Refining it, actually cleans-up Mother Nature’s oil spill. But the greenies use it against us. Punish us. Demand money in carbon taxes to give to the rich. Hollyweird fly in on their private jets, drive their electric car (followed by a caravan of burping diesel busses) for photo-ops, while said burping busses idle, and then request that the looney-left media crop out their caravans as they burp back to their private jet to fly to some "conference".

Greenland was thus named for a reason. Just read up on the Vikings to learn how warm the northern seas were.

There was more 'methane' (horses) and pollution (coal), industrial revolution in the 1700, 1800 and 1900 hundreds than there is today and Mother Earth had no problem getting through/recovering from those centuries.

Contrary to the propaganda, glaciers melt, especially in the summertime. Even the Arctic experiences the change of seasons, (land of the midnight sun).

The arctic is a floating iceberg. If the ice cap melts, the seas will not rise. Well maybe an inch, but technically ice takes up more volume than liquid so it should stay at relatively the same level especially considering that the ice cap wouldn't melt in a day and if it did, it would be because of the sun and so we'd be frying ourselves so big whoop about melting icebergs. In any event, N.A. will not be covered in water. Archimedes principle will tell [you] why.

The Earth’s climate is always changing. Aside from the little ice age and skating on the Thames, they discovered the fossils of the hippopotamus. Two very different documented occurrences.

We’ve only been documenting the weather for 100 years. The planet is 4.5 billion years old. There is not enough data to say precisely one way or the other how the weather will change. Only that it has, does and will continue to and that makes it a natural occurrence and not one to be fearful of.

Nic said...

Tania, I should have read your first post first. You said so much more sophisticatedly!

Happy Easter to you!

Happy Hop-Hop to all the PC'ers. :0)

Nic said...

Al Gore Plagiarizes Clip from Hollywood Movie

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnvJDwv3Z-w

"In his Emmy-award winning documentary about global warming, Al Gore uses a clip that shows melting glaicers. However, the footage is actually a shot from "The Day After Tomorrow" and is 100% computer-generated. I wonder if Al will have to give back his Emmy and Nobel Prize?"

Hey Jude said...

Well, sometimes I either have, or prefer, to be a bit politically correct to get by, especially when I don't even know who I am talking with, as sometimes happens. Other times it's just polite not to inform someone (who already knows) that their kid is fat, for instance; asked for an 'honest' opinion I might venture that he is a bit overweight, and might just need a bit more exercise - which is a less blunt way of saying 'yes, he's fat, give him a bicycle' - fat is a four letter word, no lie. ;-) 'Husky' though - did that ever take off as a boys' clothes size for outsize boys? I wouldn't go along with that, 'outsize' would give more of an idea to the kid than being 'Husky' - what IS (or hopefully was) that? That said, euphemisms probably saved a few friendships, or at least a few faces, for most of us along the way. If that's deception, well, too bad - 'manners maketh man'. I like to persist in this belief, despite knowing how people who are polite are apt to be walked all over by those who are not.

Fat Boy does not make a Husky, though - oh, no.

Sometimes it's fun just to take the p*ss out of everything PC, but again that depends on the company. A bit like the nine in the room when the tenth, who is through and through PC, leaves - except that here, if there was only one PC person present, he would've been mincemeat.

Isn't everyone a pragmatist when it comes to being PC? Sometimes it might be necessary so as not to wantonly/gratuitously offend; sometimes I share and agree,entirely, or to one degree or another, with a 'PC' position, and other times I make fun of PC ideas and trends, and of people who are uncritically PC, rather than reasonably (in my view) pragmatically PC. We're all a bit deceptive, sometimes.

I think with regard to SA, that if a person holds a PC position or belief, he or she should be able to suspend it for the purposes of doing SA, along with all moral, social, and personal preferences. The aim is to be objective - it would be a bit like looking at a murder case and having someone who's meant to be investigating saying, 'Murder is wrong - I don't agree with it...it shouldn't happen ', over and over - yes, great - except it doesn't add anything apart from noise and distraction.

Global warming - I am a sceptic. I accept there is global warming, but I also believe it's natural - man might contribute to it, but I don't believe it is caused by man. I think every effort should be made to help those affected by increased flooding, erosion, rising sea-levels, where practical and possible. Primarily for their own sakes, but also for all of ours - migration is already a growing problem without yet encompassing the problem of 'global warming' - or 'climate change' as it's now called (why the change of language?) - when homelands become uninhabitable, populations migrate

Hey Jude said...

Peter - On the subject of weak positions (little explanation, deletions and threats to delete) I think there's still a TE shaped elephant in the room. I wanted to ask a question about something he said in the recent family interview, but I know it would likely attract comments (which, with my question, would all be deleted), along with possibly sharp words from you, all better avoided. But WHY is TE excluded from any type of scrutiny or analysis? - it is out of keeping with what is allowed in the comments in other cases. I am pretty sure, if it was anyone else in the interview, if it did not involve this case but a similar one, that you would be willing to analyse it or to allow discussion.

elf said...

The majority of the amber alerts I get give the make and/or model of the vehicle, color of vehicle, and sometimes license plate information. There might be a brief description of the child or suspect but I'm not quite remembering.

Anonymous said...

Elf - The amber alert did give info about the car (no license plate). The girl was listed as " 2 year old x," with no race given for her or the suspects.
My point is that it would narrow the search and help the girl to be told the race, instead of pretending that race does not exist.

Peter Hyatt said...

Hey Jude,

I will accept that you have come rather late to the case.

Early on, Terry Elvis was cleared in the investigation. A small group of people who supported the Moorers took to attacking him and his family.

I said back then that there would be no bashing of an innocent man in pain.

Statement Analysis and my own involvement show no involvement. If that is not acceptable to you, you are free to start a blog and go after the innocent, but not here.

Peter

Nic said...

Hey Jude, Regarding rising sea levels, I am linking you to a specific article about this. I think you will find it a satisfying read.

http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Calen7/MornerEng.html

--snip 1 --

EIR: What is the real state of the sea-level rising?

Mörner: You have to look at that in a lot of different ways. That is what I have done in a lot of different papers, so we can confine ourselves to the short story here. One way is to look at the global picture, to try to find the essence of what is going on. And then we can see that the sea level was indeed rising, from, let us say, 1850 to 1930-40. And that rise had a rate in the order of 1 millimeter per year. Not more. 1.1 is the exact figure. And we can check that, because Holland is a subsiding area; it has been subsiding for many millions of years; and Sweden, after the last Ice Age, was uplifted. So if you balance those, there is only one solution, and it will be this figure.

That ended in 1940, and there had been no rise until 1970; and then we can come into the debate here on what is going on, and we have to go to satellite altimetry, and I will return to that. But before doing that: There's another way of checking it, because if the radius of the Earth increases, because sea level is rising, then immediately the Earth's rate of rotation would slow down. That is a physical law, right? You have it in figure-skating: when they rotate very fast, the arms are close to the body; and then when they increase the radius, by putting out their arms, they stop by themsel-ves. So you can look at the rotation and the same comes up: Yes, it might be 1.1 mm per year, but absolutely not more. It could be less, because there could be other factors affecting the Earth, but it certainly could not be more. Absolutely not! Again, it's a matter of physics.

So, we have this 1 mm per year up to 1930, by observation, and we have it by rotation recording. So we go with those two. They go up and down, but there's no trend in it; it was up until 1930, and then down again. There's no trend, absolutely no trend.

Another way of looking at what is going on is the tide gauge. Tide gauging is very complicated, because it gives different answers for wherever you are in the world. But we have to rely on geo-logy when we interpret it. So, for example, those people in the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], choose Hong Kong, which has six tide gauges, and they choose the record of one, which gives 2.3 mm per year rise of sea level. Every geologist knows that that is a subsiding area. It's the compaction of sediment; it is the only record which you shouldn't use. And if that figure is correct, then Holland would not be subsiding, it would be uplifting.

Nic said...

--snip 2 --

And that is just ridiculous. Not even ignorance could be responsible for a thing like that. So tide gauges, you have to treat very, very carefully. Now, back to satellite altimetry, which shows the water, not just the coasts, but in the whole of the ocean. And you measure it by satellite. From 1992 to 2002, [the graph of the sea level] was a straight line, variability along a straight line, but absolutely no trend whatsoever. We could see those spikes: a very rapid rise, but then in half a year, they fall back again. But absolutely no trend, and to have a sea-level rise, you need a trend.

Then, in 2003, the same data set, which in their [IPCC's] publications, in their website, was a strai-ght line—suddenly it changed, and showed a very strong line of uplift, 2.3 mm per year, the same as from the tide gauge. And that didn't look so nice. It looked as though they had recorded something; but they hadn't recorded anything. It was the original one which they had suddenly twisted up, because they entered a “correction factor,” which they took from the tide gauge. So it was not a measured thing, but a figure introduced from outside. I accused them of this at the Academy of Sciences in Moscow —I said you have introduced factors from outside; it's not a measurement. It looks like it is measured from the satellite, but you don't say what really happened. And they ans-wered, that we had to do it, because otherwise we would not have gotten any trend!

Nic said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nic said...

If ever anyone would like to read real science based discussion around global warming "issues" in the news, may I suggest the site, www.friendsofscience.org

Nic said...

--snip 3-- (it just keeps getting more informative)

When we know that there was a Japanese pineapple industry which subtracted too much fresh water from the inland, and those islands have very little fresh water available from precipitation, rain. So, if you take out too much, you destroy the water magazine, and you bring sea water into the magazine, which is not nice. So they took out too much fresh water and in came salt water. And of course the local people were upset. But then it was much easier to say, “No, no! It's the global sea level rising! It has nothing to do with our subtraction of fresh water.” So there you have it. This is a local industry which doesn't pay.

You have Vanuatu, and also in the Pacific, north of New Zealand and Fiji— there is the island Tegua. They said they had to evacuate it, because the sea level was rising. But again, you look at the tide-gauge record: There is absolutely no signal that the sea level is rising. If anything, you could say that maybe the tide is lowering a little bit, but absolutely no rising.

And again, where do they get it from? They get it from their inspiration, their hopes, their compu-ter models, but not from observation. Which is terrible. We have Venice. Venice is well known, because that area is techtonically, because of the delta, slowly subsiding.

[...]

If you go around the globe, you find no rise anywhere. But they need the rise, because if there is no rise, there is no death threat. They say there is nothing good to come from a sea-level rise, only problems, coastal problems. If you have a temperature rise, if it's a problem in one area, it's bene-ficial in another area. But sea level is the real “bad guy,” and therefore they have talked very much about it. But the real thing is, that it doesn't exist in observational data, only in computer modelling

Hey Jude said...

Thanks for your response, Peter. Happy Easter - and to all.

Peter Hyatt said...

Answer: how oft it's telethon is heard.

Peter Hyatt said...

I don't know any person who is indifferent to the planet.
I've read about them but haven't met them.

Imagine watching thousands and thousands of deaths and saying global warming is our biggest threat?

Handing nuclear capabilities to Islam and demanding fear over a temp jump?

It's called "tangent" in analysis.


Bullying scientists into submission was exactly what both Adolph Hitler and Barek Obama did during their reigns.

Peter Hyatt said...

After Obama gives back his.

The one that he won before he had time to do anything.

Peter Hyatt said...

You make some excellent points.

Consider, however, the character of the analyst who "really" is PC not a pragmatist.

He or she is willing to lie to justify a narrative. He cannot therefore be trusted with objectivity since he is willing to abandon it at will.

I too have read articles pro and con, and think that we will see record highs and re ore lows.

When a car is blamed by a rich actor arriving on a personal jet, he's a bit much to take.

An analyst must be willing to submit his intellect and emotions to truth.


There is something very freeing in all of this.

I appreciate that you're hesitant to call me chubby.

Peter Hyatt said...

PS: he was scrutinized initially. Afterwards, the blog was bombarded with vile anti Terry comments with two purposes:

Take attention from Tammy

Revisit the imperfect father with as much cruelty as possible. Hence, deletion.

I took the same stance w Desire, Kyron's mother, once SA showed innocence.

Two IP addresses were responsible for many attempts to heighten her pain and guilt she struggled with.

I would not allow my blog to be used to harm her.

I have had interaction with Terry and when he comes here to read analysis of his daughter's killers he can do so without seeing him or his other daughter attacked.

If Kaine and Desiree read here, a blog, I do not want them to read anonymous vile and dishonest attacks upon them.


I hope this suffices with the understanding that I frequently do not nor can not post all that I know. I'm not a journalist and this is not a news blog but a personal blog.

I do correct things so that ignorance of our science is not misrepresented.

Some love correction

Some have the end correct but err in application and often embrace correction.

tania cadogan said...

Thanks Nic.
My post was a copy paste of the article i posted the link to.
Yours was hand written, well finger written :)

It was easy to follow and explained its reasoning and conclusion in simple terms.
I know most folk will roll their eyes and go elsewhere if an article contains lots of technical language which means either only smart interested people will read and understand it or those interested enough to learn why something is happening or said and willing to grab a dictionary for the technical terms, everyone else is "ugh,next!"

'Climate change' is the latest buzz word, created to cover the questions about why temperatures had dropped whilst we had 'global warming'

It is a way of making a bucket load of money by allowing countries to buy and sell carbon taxes.
Even i struggle to work out how carbon taxes actually work.

I have often gotten into debates about 'climate change' when someone will make a really dumb statement which usually ends with them introducing "Lovejoy's Law"
"Think of the children!" or "Think of the animals!" usually relating to Polar bears.

foodiefoodnerd said...

Quoting Nic:
"When we know that there was a Japanese pineapple industry..."
~~~~~

Would this be a major supplier in the USA that doles out much of its pineapple sliced or chopped, in cans? :^D

Peter Hyatt said...

You don't mean...

diced carrots,

do you??????

Tell me that you are not saying "diced carrots", okay? just tell me.


Peter

Peter Hyatt said...

Hey Jude,

The TE...

make sense?

Am I correct that you had not read some of that material before it was deleted?

Peter

PS: Did you ever listen The Beatles, " Hey Jude", high def, like Tidal, with Mojo and headphones?

Like nothing I've ever heard.

Hey Jude said...

Peter - yes, thanks, that is better for my understanding - I can accept that you have knowledge to which we are not privy, and that if we did know what you know, it would change our perceptions regarding your own objectivity on the case. It must be frustrating to know and not be able to say things which would quell the discontent. I am still discontent (reasonably so, as I don't share your knowledge) but will refrain from expressing it any further. I hope you can see it from my point of view, too - it is not your integrity, but rather your objectivity in this case which I was questioning, particularly when the new interview, which to my mind, might hold new or extra information, was not looked at - it seemed you were shut down on the case - well, you are, but for reasons you are not at liberty to share, I get your sharp responses better now, too, -it is a difficult position to be in. I have not read all of it - if it was in comments on articles made before I started commenting (July 2015 - DeOrr) then I did not read them. I am aware that you had some personal contact with TE - I forget, though I should not, how much you can gather even from a passing conversation with a stranger in a supermarket.

--

No Tidal or Mojo for me - I have a Bose iPod dock, but 'Hey Jude' isn't in my playlist at the moment - it got messed up, and it's too time consuming and complicated to fix. We sold a new Bose sound system for a guitar - expensive guitar, which then got sold for a camera. Lol. :) I wish we had the kept the sound system in retrospect, but we act in haste and repent at leisure. :) I do, anyway, sometimes.

Hey Jude said...

I was not thinking to call you chubby - in fact I thought you had lost some pounds in a recent photo, or that it was an old photo, lol.

If the person is really PC, though - as in really believes and holds to whatever PC position that might be - how is he lying to justify a narrative? If he believes it, he thinks he is being truthful, even if others do not believe the narrative and consider it lies - to him it is true, he is not engaged in an act of conscious lying, though others may consider it lies.

One thing PC which really gets to me is 'trigger warnings' on websites - if someone needs trigger warnings they shouldn't be online. Real life doesn't come with trigger warnings, except occasionally. Sometimes I think kids these days will be lucky to grow up without being afraid to walk in the rain.

Hey Jude said...

Nic and Tania - thanks for all the posts and info. 'Global Warming' became 'Climate Change' when they had to concede it wasn't adding up. I got really upset, some years ago, over a story with photo of a polar bear floating off into the distance on a chunk of ice - well, as they do, because that's what they do, before they jump back into the water, catch a fish o seal, or whatever it is they do. Like this sort of thing - I'm sure someone will or might come along and lecture me about the plight of polar bears, but actually they do float about on bits of ice and not eat for months at a time, as normal. See how this is presented, for instance - but it's just polar bears doing polar bear stuff. Corrections to my ignorance welcome:

https://weather.com/news/news/polar-bear-melting-ice-sea-norway

Nic said...

Polar bears - people see that and they project a deer or their dog onto the ice and "just know" that polar bear is in danger.
I was disappointed to see Coke get sucked into the hype. (Polar bear on their cans.)
_________

I could have found a better article, but this one illustrates the debate of the "scientists" (computer model) against the community.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/healthy-polar-bear-count-confounds-doomsayers/article4099460/


[snip]The debate over the polar-bear population has been raging for years, frequently pitting scientists against Inuit. In 2004, Environment Canada researchers concluded that the numbers in the region had dropped by 22 per cent since 1984, to 935. They also estimated that by 2011, the population would decrease to about 610. That sparked worldwide concern about the future of the bears and prompted the Canadian and American governments to introduce legislation to protect them.

But many Inuit communities said the researchers were wrong. They said the bear population was increasing and they cited reports from hunters who kept seeing more bears. Mr. Gissing said that encouraged the government to conduct the recent study, which involved 8,000 kilometres of aerial surveying last August along the coast and offshore islands.

Mr. Gissing said he hopes the results lead to more research and a better understanding of polar bears. He said the media in southern Canada has led people to believe polar bears are endangered. “They are not.” He added that there are about 15,000 polar bears across Canada’s Arctic. “That’s likely the highest [population level]there has ever been.”

[end snip]

Nic said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nic said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nic said...

A woman I use to go to college with would send me periodic fundraising email for her pet environmental project/s to help a village in Africa. The last email I received from her was a 'go fund me' campaign to fund HER trip to Africa! I responded that I was always happy to see her name appear in my in-box, but was disappointed that the only time I was on her mailing list was when she was looking for money. I then requested to be removed from such lists and in future looked forward to receiving email of a personal nature ... and that we should try to coordinate a lunch to catch up! That was the last I heard from her.

I despise people who use "friendship" as an excuse to pick pockets.

Hey Jude said...

Nic - thanks for the polar bear info - I was well taken in by the stranded polar bear hype for a while, until I watched a documentary about polar bears, and then felt such an idiot, but at least I hadn't started a find-raiser to go and save/get mauled by a polar bear. I don't mind people asking for donations so long as it is for a cause I consider worth a donation - funding personal trips, not so much, unless they are personally building the school, or making a well - no poverty tourism.

Turtle said...

Whooooooosh! That's the sound of Peter's credibility going out the window. Actually it went out the window for me a long time ago with the many racist posts he's made over the years. Peter, you're blind. And trying to convince the blind to see is a fool's errand.

My parting words: You tout your success rate, but your success rate is calculated BY YOU. If someone else is arrested for a crime you believe a person to be guilty of, you say it's the system that's wrong, not you. You leave your success rate untouched. So nothing ever could bring your success rate down because you don't accept any authority other than your own. I hope you take this to heart - it is the fundamental flaw in your practice and it's a huge blind spot for you. You need to be clear about metrics and have a better way of calculating them if you are going to talk about success rates. Right now it's "I've always right because I continue to believe I'm right no matter what." That's confidence, that's persistence, that's a lot of things... but accuracy it ain't.


Nic said...

Did you know that there is a whole cottage industry around turtle fences?

“The city anticipates that such permits will become a more common requirement of infrastructure projects, due to the substantial amount of habitat for threatened and endangered species in the city,” Stow said.

The city didn’t specify a budget for the turtle fencing.


http://www.ottawasun.com/2015/09/23/taxpayers-have-nowhere-to-go-on-turtle-fencing

The city could just not allow the wetlands to be developed. Then there are cultures who love turtle soup. They've yet to figure out how to tackle that 'threat'.

Anonymous said...

Peter,

Could you do an analysis of Calvin Harris? He has been found guilty two times of murdering his wife, but managed to get both convictions thrown out. The third time he went on trial, there was a hung jury. Now, he is going on trial for a fourth time, and has opted for a bench trial.

Below is a link to an interview he did for 48 hours. He only allowed them to ask very limited questions. I have an opinion on his statements but would like to get someone else's take on it first. Thank you

http://www.eyesforlies.com/blog/2014/06/48-hours-cal-michele-harris/

Venus Doom said...

Come on, Peter. I love this site and very much enjoy your analyses of crimes. Enough already with the Islam posts (we get it, for God's sake). This post, too, made me raise my eyebrow high enough to injure my scalp. Could you please leave your political opinions and conspiracy theory nonsense off this site? Start another blog if you must, but the vast majority of us are not here to read that crap.