Monday, August 14, 2017

Statement Analysis and Global Warming

Statement Analysis is used, in its primary form, to discern truth from deception. In more advanced forms, it identifies content and reveals the author's background, experiences, priorities and dominant personality traits.  

In training for deception detection, much data is gathered to the point where deception is indicated and deeper work can then begin.  

Deception is a form of theft, via communication, and it has consequences for mankind. 

Let's look at the allegation and the responses.  

A statement is not reality. 

It is a verbalized perception of reality.  

The action (reality) and the statement work, in a sense, as filtered mirrors.  

Here is an example:  

When we ask a question and do not get an answer, we recognize that the person has a reason for not answering the question.  We may even, by the need to avoid or deflect, have our answer. 

When we ask a question and are told the question should not be asked, we identify the same sensitivity towards the question.  

When we ask a question and the language is changed, we recognize a need to deceive, via fraud, or theft, of language.  

Allegation:  Mankind is destroying itself through advancing technology by causing world wide temperatures to climb. 

Any reasonable person should be concerned about our possible self destruction regardless of where it is found.  

By "reasonable", I mean those who embrace or acknowledge the human instinct to survive. Few people wish to destroy our planet.  Those fatalists who do, exist, but for the purpose of this article, I exclude them from the notion of reasonable.  This includes anarchists, nihilists, Islamists and those who have no vested interest in the well being of future generations. 

This is similar to topic of responsibility of feeding the hungry. I personally do not know nor have met any one who would not open his cupboard and help a fellow human being suffering from hunger.  I do, however, know many who believe that involving politicians in this is not only inherently wasteful, but corrupt and is a tool of exploitation by the politician. 

Global Warming 

Context:  This assertion is that mankind is destroying his own planet by causing temperatures to climb by technology was made in earnest in the late 60's, and early 1970's.  We have amassed 5 decades of data and catastrophic predictions based upon the data.  Scientists measuring global temperatures and observing impacts of temperature upon nature, made predictions based upon their scientific findings of what would happen if man continued to cause temperatures to rise, remove trees, pollute, etc via  technology.  Here are a few to note.  From the early 70's to the present day, the predictions are consistent in declaring destruction of the human race. 

1. In 1970, Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.

2. “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,”:  Washington University biologist Barry Commoner in the Earth Day issue of the scholarly journal Environment.

3.  New York Times editorial warned more than 40 years ago: “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”

4. “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Paul Ehrlich, April 1970 Mademoiselle. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.” (1970 - 1979; see obesity rates to date) 

5. “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born,” wrote Paul Ehrlich in a 1969 essay titled “Eco-Catastrophe." 

By 1975 some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.

6. Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would die in the scientific  “Great Die-Off.”

7. “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” declared Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for Earth Day, in the Spring 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness.

8. Peter Gunter, a North Texas State University professor,  “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.

9. In January 1970, Life magazine emphasized the "solid research" and reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….

10. Ecologist Kenneth Watt told Time that, “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”

11. Barry Commoner predicted that decaying organic pollutants would use up all of the oxygen in America’s rivers, causing freshwater fish to suffocate.

12. Paul Ehrlich: “air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” Ehrlich sketched a scenario in which 200,000 Americans would die in 1973 during “smog disasters” in New York and Los Angeles.

13. Paul Ehrlich  May 1970 issue of Audubon:  DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons “may have substantially reduced the life expectancy of people born since 1945.” 

Note the life expectancy world wide since. 

14.  Kenneth Watt:   “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.'”

When I was in grade school in the 70's, we were taught that the "fossil fuel" supply of the world would be depleted by 1980.  As a boy, this was frightening.  Little did I know how history would repeat itself with my own daughter, who came home in tears in 2005 thinking that her father was killing polar bears with his air conditioner.  

Politicians began to weigh in:  

15. Sen. Gaylord Nelson wrote in Look that, “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.

16. Kenneth Watt warned about a pending Ice Age in a speech. “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years,” he declared. “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

Then, reviewing predictions made since then, including from scientists and increasing numbers of politicians, right up to 2017, including former vice president,  Al Gore's "doomsday clock" and those made in "An Inconvenient Truth" show the same failure rate. 

 Al Gore won a Nobel Peace Prize for his "war on Global Warming" and has made two movies about it.  In the first, he made dire predictions that failed to materialize , thus inspiring him to make the sequel.

What has happened since his film's assertion that the earth is warming due to technology?

The opposite results.  

Politics and Science 

Former US President Barak Obama criticized  President Donald  Trump as a "coward" for pulling the United States out of the Paris Agreement.  

Whether President Trump was correct or not in doing so, having 159 nations stand against him, with world wide universal political and media condemnation and not yielding, is not an act of cowardice.   

Prediction Pace: 

The world would end by 1979 via cataclysmic weather shifts, including the melting of the polar caps, causing extreme flooding, with millions dead.  

This was then pushed to 1980 and President Ronald Reagan was declared to be the culprit of our demise. Celebrities, politicians and political pundits told us that he would destroy the environment and engage in a nuclear war with Russia causing cataclysmic death and destruction.  

Political Involvement in Science. 

Politicians getting involved in science is not new, but it has an impact.  

Politicians got involved  in Global Warming and eventually this led to major partisan politics for the priority of vote getting; not saving mankind. 

In the 1990's, as  global wealth continued and human longevity continued to improve, a trend came where, in 2000's,  temperatures turned to  a period of cooling.  This led to headlines of ridicule when various Global Warming seminars were canceled due to snow storms.  

Politicians responded as expected:  instead of acknowledging the decrease in temperatures (science), and letting data speak for itself,  they assaulted language in order to protect their political investment.   This is an in-vogue form of deception today:  simply redefine basic terms and understandings.  

Al Gore had predicted "hundreds of millions" of "refugees" fleeing due to warming temperatures.  

No longer was the claim that we were driving up temperatures by our technology which would cause cataclysmic destructive flooding, but we were  driving temperatures down, which would now cause flooding. 

So, which is it? 

Which causes the polar caps to melt and flood the world, rising temperatures or falling temperatures?

Politics never misses a beat.  Its never met a failure it could not describe as a success, nor an opponent it could not demonize.  

Hence, with the science of global warming in disarray, all that was required was a deceptive  assault on language. 

"Global Warming" was changed to "Climate Change"  with scarcely any protest or even questions from the followers of the politicians. 

The very same science that showed catastrophe ahead by temperatures rising, now showed catastrphope ahead by falling temperatures.  

The End of the World

Eventually, someone will have to right...right?

Famed Wall Street investment guru Peter Lynch wrote that "the morning after the world ends, people will get up and put their pants on one leg at a time." 

Thus far, he has been 100% accurate.  

Long Term Trends in Temperature 

The scientists who pointed out the long term temperature fluctuations as both normal and limited, were silenced, threatened and condemned.  The new phrase was employed calling it "settled science."  This phrase means:  no discussion, disagreement, debate or healthy scientific scrutiny permitted.  

To call it now "settled science", in Statement Analysis, is to recognize the importance of that which is not necessary.  

To call it "settled science", it really is not "science" anymore, in the sense of constant testing of results.  This is similar to the seemingly unnecessary phrase of Islamic ideology,  "the religion of peace."  If the ideology was not plagued with prescriptive violence, this would need not be stated.  

The use of the unnecessary term shows its sensitive need or necessity, due to violence by both precept and by precedent.  

None of us wants to destroy our environment. 

Each dire prediction of the world ending made in more than 40 years by first scientists, and then by politicians with now limited scientists, have failed.   In spite of this record of failure, politicians press the issue and divided us in two.  This is where the political tool of exploitation of moral narcissism is successful:  

Those who believe the politicians are  the good people.  

Those who doubt or disagree with the politicians are the 
 bad people.  

These are people who did not believe in Global Warming and are "hateful" and "destructive."  

Politicians took front and center in Global Warming, and decried any scientific disagreement.  

The rank and file quickly embraced the stance of the politician.  From government scientists to junior high chemistry teachers, they learned to stop asking questions and stop seeking truth so as not to be "bad."  This set up the "us versus them" that divides so successfully.  

Censorship by Authorities 

The demonization of disagreement moved into a new realm.  Angela Merkel's hot mike revealed Facebook's intent to label as "hate speech" anyone who disagree with her.  

When questions arose about the legal status of claiming "refugee", or "safe country", those who questioned were called "racists" and in the US, were "afraid of widows and orphans."  This need to ridicule was noted, and only ceased when citizen videos made it out of Europe which showed the "widows and orphans" to be predominantly male, age 18 to 35, with reports from social workers of  90% young male in some locales, and only few being from Syria.  

The point:  the need to silence disagreement with a politician.   

In the United States, the powerful Internal Revenue Service was turned on those who disagreed with Barak Obama.  

America's free speech stance, created for those who spoke against the king, came under attack, and this spread not just to criticism of these two world leaders' policies, but to political dissent, itself. 

In the 2009 United States, if you disagreed with anything Barak Obama said or did, you were "racist." 

Americans were afraid to speak up at their jobs and in schools, for fear of not only social status, but loss of employment; of which proved to be founded fears. 

Science, like civilization itself,  thrives on free speech and the free exchange of ideas.  We, as humans, stand upon the shoulders and successes of those who came before us. 

This is "progression" in science as it is in life itself.  We do well to learn the lessons of history, and we fail when we ignore, or even now, attempt to erase history.  

To use coercion to silence free speech is to see how Islam has avoided reformation in 1400 years:  it calls for the death penalty for even satirizing  it.  Enough deaths and the message is sent:  compliance sets in. 

Science that is "settled" is no longer tested. 

Statement Analysis Techniques

What have we seen the last two decades?

1.  Politicians championing a cause.  This is the first warning that deception may be present or will soon be present.  Anyone who thinks that a person with short term gain will not exploit anything and everything for votes is not likely to be reading here at the Statement Analysis blog.  

2.  We are told to:  Trust Scientists who have not gotten a single prediction correct, no matter how much data, radar or computer models they employ. 

3.  We are told that no healthy scientific scrutiny and debate is allowed.  Those who disagree will have severe consequences.   

4.  Governments have been caught forging statistics to fit the narrative. 

5.  The demonization of difference of opinion.  

I am not a scientist.  I do love science and in particular, I love weather. I, like everyone I know, am concerned about conservation and the good of our planet.   Unlike some of the elite of Europe, I have children and grandchildren of whom I need a better place for them to live in freedom and in peace.  I am concerned about global trends, including the spread of Islam, the spread of socialism, and the tyranny that both of these things bring.  I am concerned about what happens when ideas are coercively silenced, including weather trends.  

 I am a weather fan and if you bump into me in travel, chances are this is with me.  I use it daily.  I love all kinds of weather, including walking when it is -22 F, or in a thunder storm.  Once, as a teen, one of my friends pointed to me in horror as the sky grew black.  My too long hair was standing up and I felt a tingling sensation throughout my body.  Within a moment, lightning struck an awning 50 feet from me.  For the teenaged version of me, it was thrilling.  

I am not a scientist, but I have the powers of listening, observing and the power of reason; three indispensable elements of science. 

 I am open to wherever the truth leads me.  

I've had a German Shepherd Dog my entire adult life.  

Many years ago,  as I looked at my dog's teeth, I could not conclude that corn was what these teeth were designed to eat.  They appeared best suited for tearing flesh and crushing bone. I researched and sought answers within Police Canine experts, as these service dogs need to be robust and healthy.  

 I am not a veterinarian, but when I first took my dog off corn based dog food, and switched to meat,  in two weeks, his coat changed dramatically (especially the red),  and his energy levels increased.  With my love of detecting deception, I have done  reading of veterinary  studies as to why corn is best for dogs.  I also researched and learned where the funding ($) for such studies came from, and who underwrites the veterinary schools the studies came from. 

It may  be that my dog is guilty, in concert with me and my air conditioner, for killing polar bears., if a UCLA professor knows more than about this than I do. 

In a local radio program, a vet presented her argument that chicken meal by products, which, she said, were "like, you know, chicken beaks" were actually  healthier for my dog than "any other part, including the breast meat" as her defense for store bought kibble. 

The show's host did not ask why his grandparents' dogs lived longer than his, although they lived before modern corn-based dog food was sold in stores, while living on people left overs.   Honest veterinarians, like honest auto mechanics, are of great value to society.  

We have advanced as a society in many ways, due  to the open debate of science.  

No longer are we claiming that air travel is impossible, or that radio signals can't carry human voice, or that electricity can't be safely harnessed.  

Progress has been made because we have had open and free debate and sharing of ideas, without politicians declaring any of it to be "settled." 

Question:  What brought about these marvelous advancements?

Answer:  Healthy scientific debate, scrutiny and open sharing of information.   (perhaps I should add in the absence of politics?).  

Can you imagine if politicians  claimed moral superiority over certain scientific endeavors?

"Humans are not birds.   Anyone who believes humans can fly is a bad bad person, full of hate, like a nazi and should not be permitted to post his fake findings for the innocent public." 

"Anyone who thinks talking into a piece of machinery is a good is trying to destroy us all. If this keeps up, we will all be dead by 2020.  

These objections were not heard. In fact, people fell over each other to get the first patent on technological advances.  

Even the mantra  "the earth is flat"  was not the historical teaching of the earth's circumference in the ancient world of Greece.    It may make for good sound bites today, but its not based in reality. 

In Global Warming, however, we now have millions of people now declared to be "hateful" and "immoral" (that is, "bad people") and even "Nazis" for questioning or not agreeing with a "settled science"  that: 

1.  Has always been incorrect in spite of scientific advancements in meteorological measuring tools, including better radar and computer mapping; 
2.  Has scientists who have been caught lying and changing data to fit narrative; 
3.  Has  have been protected from scrutiny by main stream media; 
4.  Has a position that is  championed by politicians;  
5.  Is a science that has the need to silence opposition, questioning or disagreement;
6.  Is a science that has the need to demonize those who disagree as being immoral, irrational, hateful.
7.  Is a position that is not permitted to be tested by other scientists (who are fired for even questioning the validity of methodology) 
8.  Where you are not allowed to read the results of our testing (if you wish to believe the NY Times) 
9.  Where you must allow the scientists favored by politicians,  to change their test results whenever and wherever they see fit; 

That the "champions" of Global Warming are often the biggest betrayers of their own ideology is not a lost irony for some. 

This includes Al Gore  and the myriad of celebrities who travel in air conditioned private jets, and who own and operate homes that run down more energy than many of us combined, who openly condemn us for destroying the planet before their very eyes.  

Deception takes its toll in life.  We seek truth.    

In the late 90's, I spoke with Christians who were so convinced that the end was upon them, that some sold their homes and purchased billboard ads warning others.  They were so intensely "supreme" in their knowledge (from a book by Harold Camping) over others that it was impossible to reach them.  The emotion was so high, that they were immune to reason.  

 What were their lives like the day after the end did not come as predicted  is something that provokes deep pity.  

In 1999, there were the "Y2K people" who also had "special insight" which told them catastrophe awaited December 31st, 11:59AM. At the stroke of midnight, all the computers in the world would stop and chaos would destroy everyone, except those with the insight to hide in the wilderness with canned food and bottled water.     

Al Gore had his "doomsday clock" which expired yet he still is honored as the champion of saving the world. 

When reason is removed, emotion takes over, but not without its absurdity.

  "ISIS was created by global warming and not by Islamic ideology.

and "cows passing gas..." and

"air conditioners are more dangerous than terrorists." 

This week, my grandson was born. 

When the doctor said, "its a boy!", should he have been charged with "hate speech"?

Question:  After 6000 years of recorded human history, when did we suddenly discover that a man was no longer a man if he wore women's clothing?

Answer:  When politicians said so. 

If you disagree, you are "bigoted" and "hateful" according to the moral narcissists.  

Effectively, treatment for gender dysmorphia is ending before our eyes. 

One police department advertised for "trans-gender" police officers.   This means the suffering of mental instability will not only no longer have treatment, but we give them authority while carrying lethal force.  

It is a part of the "war on logic" we see today, as human emotions are elevated over truth and reason.  

With investigators who must produce results, this is not an issue.  They do not have the luxury of feeling superior to others because they solve crimes, no matter where the truth leads. 

The divorce from logic and truth has its consequences while those who champion absurdity believe themselves to be morally superior to others.  

That suddenly temperatures began to go the other way, with no measurable technological changes and no international agreements among countries should not be ignored.  Scientists have said it is part of the long term natural fluctuations of weather.  These scientists have been rebuffed by politicians.  

If you have an idea that you wish me to believe in and you tell me:

 That I am not allowed to disagree or question you, and if I do, I am a morally inferior person and deserve to lose my job, if not my life, not be your friend, and am mentally ill... 

 I would conclude that your science is not likely credible. 

Next, if I were to view your idea's results for more than 40 years of data building and testing, and see a 100% failure rate, I might question even your motive.  

This year, (January 2017) one of the top Global Warming scientists in the United States resigned his governmental post and advised  Americans of the "doom" that Donald Trump was about to bring them. (this was before Brexit would put Britain to the bottom of the queue in destruction, and that millions of children would die without obama care)   When asked for his advice, he told his audience to move to the highest location they could afford to move to,  and "buy a boat", urging them to do so "yesterday."  Those who did not have the resources to do so, he said, would die.  

I am not a meteorologist, but I recognize not only deception, but more importantly, the need to deceive, the need to silence, and the need to coerce into agreement


Think for yourself.  

Ask questions; lots of them. 

Identify emotion within yourself.  
Ask yourself what is the emotion I am feeling?  
Why do I feel it?  
What is its impact on me? 
 Can I reason while under it?
  Why is it present? 
Why is it so powerful? 
 Do I want to live under it?

Identify reason within yourself. 

Separate the two.  

Be honest with yourself.  

Use a trusted love one to process with; it is precisely what we do in team analysis.  

Due to projection, it is essential to avoid error in analysis, particularly in anonymous author identification.  

Learn to see not only the view point of another, but to enter into their language, and see the profile's impact upon the statement.  

Our backgrounds influence us. 
Our experiences, especially those that included elevated hormonal response (child growth, puberty, trauma, etc) impact us. 
Our priority?  Is my priority defending a narrative, or is it getting to the truth?
Our personality traits:  what do studies say about my traits and how they influence my thinking as seen in my language?

Do not let yourself be portrayed as the good guy, for agreeing with Global Warming, or the bad guy, for asking questions or not agreeing with Global Warming, Climate Change or whatever the next language change will suggest.  

Remember, anarchists aside,  those who disagree with you want to live and want to save the planet from any destruction, just as you do.  

Grow in discernment, even when discernment, itself, is demonized by the very people who will fail to benefit unless you surrender your intellect, emotions and vote over to them.  

You do not need politicians to protect you from words or ideas.  This is how tyranny gains a hold upon society.  

Consider, carefully, your view point on censorship.  You may want "hate speech" to be silenced, but learn from history:  

eventually your opinion will be considered "hate speech" when the historical pendulum swings.  Besides the advancement of truth and science, free speech is something you, personally, need, just as society does.  

Consider the nations where free speech has been historically squelched and what the results have been.  

See the need to deceive.  

The New York Times reported that they had received exclusively the scientists' unpublished data.  It claimed the scientists sent it to them because they feared the Trump administration would change the data. 

It was a major embarrassment for President Trump who's administration is accused of fudging science. 

It was  deception.  

The truth:  the data had been up on their government website for 6 months.  

The scientists who authored the study took to twitter to report the lie of the NY Times.  

This is deception; not error. The difference is intent.  

If you copy/paste something from the web, and then claim it to be:

1. unpublished; you are lying. 
2. sent to you exclusively; you are lying. 
3.  sent to you specifically by the actual authors; you are lying
4.  give a false motive for that which did not take place; you are not only fabricating reality, but reveal the intensity and devotion to deception within the narrative. 

It is not error.  It is not only deception, but it is malicious deception; intended to cause harm, and gives insight into the journalistic ideology of the New York Times.  

 If you believe the earth is warming, eschew division and lying narrative and demand honest testing and report writing in the science.    Nothing is as persuasive as truth, and nothing can obscure and undermine truth like deception.  

If you do not believe in Global Warming,  continue to press for scientific integrity and conservation, while being prepared for the inevitable consequences of tyranny and bullying, which today ranges from loss of family, friends, employment, to violence and even the loss of freedom.  

Remember: the tyrannical see the world in three types of people:

1.  The victims (which is everyone except you) 
2.  The victimizers (this is you, who dare question or disagree) 
3.   Themselves, the champions who claim to feel, by proxy, the victimization of  others.  

They do not see you as doubting, but as "hateful" with deliberate desire to destroy the planet leaving them with a powerful, but false moral impetus:  They must destroy you to save the planet. 

This historically identifiable form of moral narcissism and superiority leads to violence.  

The violence is preceded by language. It is the window for you to see the coming violence.   As language escalates in segments, so does violence that comes from the identity politics used to divide peoples.  

Divorcing logic and reason from this  equation of believing one to be morally superior for agreeing with a politician  hastens violence, even as it increases its intensity once realized.  This was what caused scientists in the 1930's Germany to destroy scientific evidence that showed no difference between German blood and Jewish blood.  Scientific testing, scrutiny, and open sharing of information ceased to fit narrative.  

Just like in sentence structure, the weaker the position, the greater the need for persuasion, which, regrettably today includes coercion.   

If we are causing the earth to warm dangerously, it behoves us to be concerned. 

If we are being deceived by  politicians, it  behoves us to be concerned.  

We need the freedom to agree, disagree, test, verify, test some more, gather data,  debate and exchange ideas without politicians hindering or censoring us.  

We need to recognize scare tactics, deception and manipulation for votes, too and call it what it is.  

Statement Analysis

An allegation is a question.  It warrants, by necessity, a response.  

The allegation is:  "the earth's warming is caused by technology and will destroy life."

This is a "question" that needs to be answered.  Is it true?

The response: 

1.  Refusal to answer the question
2.  Demonization of the one asking the question 
3.  Coercion used to silence the question 
4.  Deception employed in making answers.  
5.  Attempt to marginalize science, scientists leading to polarization in mankind.  

If we are harming and endangering our own lives through technology, we must do something about it.  If we are responsible, via technology, freeing science from political restraint, and allowing for financial profit, will allow and even drive us towards solutions.  

Yet, no such solutions will be appropriately sought as long as deception is used.  

No one argues about pollution being bad for our environment.  There is no need to call tobacco smoke or air pollution "settled science."  To call something "settled science" is unnecessary wording, meaning, the speaker, himself, has a need to.  Science does not "need."  Science is not interested in our feelings or emotions. 

We want data.  We want truth.  We don't want politics. 

Main Stream Media:  ABC's Good Morning, America 


Hey Jude said...

So well said.



The climate change alarmists who claim that those who dispute the 'settled science' are 'climate change deniers' is, I believe, a form of hate speech, in that it creates (deliberately) the association with the term 'Holocaust deniers' - therefore inviting the listener/reader to view the 'climate change deniers' in the same way as they would the Holocaust denier, and maybe react emotionally to them in a similar way. I can't think of any other way in which 'denier' has been applied, except in relation to those who deny the Holocaust happened, and to climate change.

So - well - that's not accidental?

New England Water Blog said...

OT: Is the white woman lying?

"“When I asked her to move she refused, I asked her again and she swore at me calling me a fat b---h, to that I informed her that I was a Christian and asked her if she knew who Jesus was, she said ‘f--k Jesus’ and I lost it!” Hensley said in the statement."

Anonymous said...

Hi Peter,

Ever since I came across your blog, I really enjoy reading it.

There is one thing though that I have picked up from several of your posts. It is regarding your views on Islam, which, having read your posts, leads me to believe that you have not yet read the Koran from cover to cover.

I urge you to do so and I'm confident that once you do so, your views won't remain the same.

Thanks for sharing your writings.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Anonymous, I have not read the Koran cover to cover.

What I have read, there are lots of positive elements to it. I also know Muslims who I consider good people.

I am not concerned about the good portions, but two things:

1. The bad portions. This is the portions on supremacy, slavery, killing, rape, lying and so on. I recognize that there are portions that contradict these things and apologists say "you're taking them out of context." My answer is:

I am not taking them out of context: the people strapped with bombs: accuse them.

2. The history that the bad portions produce.

To be fair, the Muslims I know are non religious. They are "cultural" Muslims.

I do not judge Muslims. I do condemn the ideology.

the problem is that many people do bad things in the name of religion.

When Christians commit murder, they do so against their ideology.

When Islamists commit murder, they do so in obedience to their ideology.

This is a stark difference.

I am very concerned about Islam encroaching upon the West. This concern is more than Iran, North Korea, etc. History tells us what happens when Islam gets a minority position and how it grows.

It is the fastest growing religion today.

I think it is the single worst ideology that our planet has ever known and has killed more than Nazism and Marxism combined. It is the most successful form of tyranny, one that is immune from reformation. Muslims are the first victims and non Muslims are the next. It is, as Winston Churchill called it, a "rabies of the mind" that infects and destroys. It began in sexual perversion and violence and has had 1400 years of "success" in this.

Islam sees the moral decay of the West, and it exasperates it, rather than repairing it.

I appreciate your tone in writing; thank you.


Shush said...

"The Koran"I read,,,,once....a book full of EVILNESS,MURDER,,, PEDOPHILIC BILE,,,I'd never read it again,it's a horror filled hate mag.

Bobcat said...


Peter, have you seen this quote from Davey Blackburn? In a "What Happens When You Die" sermon from September 2016, he talks about Monday, November 9, 2015. The morning BEFORE he came home from the gym TO discover Amanda.

"I remember, you know I found her on, on a Tuesday when I came home from the gym but the Monday morning before, so that Monday was the last day I had with her.
And I remember like, getting up, and having all these to-dos swirling around my brain, you know, I gotta go do this, I gotta, drop this thing off, I gotta run this errand, I gotta, take care of this I gotta go meet with this person, right, so I get up, get my shower, you know, get ready to go. Weston’s up, she’s up with Weston, and she’s kinda taking it slow, Monday morning… (sigh) And um, I don’t really remember much about our conversation, honestly. I don’t remember much about what was going on. All I remember is I had all these things in my head of all this stuff that I needed to do, all these things, uh, this agenda that I needed to take care of, and so I, you know, rush into the bathroom while she’s, getting ready and I, kiss her goodbye, and I, walk out of the house, and, uh, spent the rest of that day, doing things. ( ) Pushing the ball forward. ( ) Building a church. ( ) Meeting with people. ( ) Pouring myself out."

General P. Malaise said...

here is a link that gives insight to the Koran its language and more importantly its implications. it is explained in easy to understand manner

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Besides the alert for deception, I hope that the tool of Global Warming will not be another weapon in the arsenal of those trying to rush the United States into civil war.

President Trump condemned racism and violence, but this was not enough. He then explicitly blamed both sides, but this was not enough.

He threatened NK with hyperbolic language of negotiations, and MSM reported he was leading us to Nuclear annihilation.

NK blinked over the threat and MSM is ignoring it or downplaying it.

The hatred for the rule of law and the rush to emotionalism over fact is what is increasing violence. The identify politics that was the hallmark of the Obama administration has been successful.

The young that fall for it, do so believing themselves to be morally superior than others, which only fuels their rage.

Truth is hate speech.
Statistics and facts meaningless.

We are rushing towards Sweden, who continues to denigrate males, strength, borders and somehow believes that a welfare state without borders can magically overcome the laws of mathematics because of moral superiority.

While the Islamic rapes continue, the feminist carry signs, "rapists over racists."


Statement Analysis Blog said...

General, thanks for the link.

imans routinely say that the latter verses trump the former, as allah changed his mind and the latest revelations are what counts.

Then there is the hadiths, and then finally the interpretation of law, known as Sharia.

Female Genital mutilation, for example, is not only barbaric, but immensely cruel to women. By "immense" I mean that it not only is painfully put upon them at the time, but they suffer loss for the rest of their lies.

It is diabolical and revelatory about Islamic view of women. They are incapable of enjoying sexual gratification for the rest of their lives.

Imans and apologists love to say "Islam is for feminism" without coughing.

While they hold to views that homosexuality is unnatural, they carry out, in Islamic lands, the death penalties for it. What is the American homosexual community reaction to this?

Praise and defense of Islam

Ann said...

Global Warming is Global Fear Mongering. Al Snores Fear Fest if to panic ppl into giving him and other PoLIEtions Gr$$n/Money to stop something you can't see. You cut a tree down and it's like "ahh it's the end of the world,how dare you cut down trees - fireplace / wood burning 'causes' CO2" Uhhh,the idiocy is all this.

Tree cutting is fine IF you replant another. GW is geared on emotional reaction and not stop and think "hmm,is this true or not?". They just want you react on their hot air and not even 'think' about it. As if just saying it means it's true. smh.


General P. Malaise said...

Blogger Ann said...
Tree cutting is fine IF you replant another.

Ann this too is somewhat misleading. trees capture CO2 and release oxygen, but it is really a net zero as they also consume all the oxygen they produced and release the CO2 when the leaves decay and when the tree dies.

besides CO2 was historically a lot higher than it is today. Plus there are more than double the trees in north america than 100 to 150 years ago.

I agree global warming / climate change is an emotional argument since there is no catastrophe looming and historically all the great civilizations lived in warmer periods than today's.

Bottle Cap said...

OT Susan Shannon, Peter wrote about it here:

A jury has ordered a female blogger to pay an Army colonel she accused of rape a total of $8.4million in damages.

Susan Shannon, 52, who now lives in Everett, Washington, first alleged that she was sexually assaulted by Army Colonel David 'Wil' Riggins in 1986, while they were both cadets, on her blog in 2013.

She said she waited three decades to come forward about her experience because of the army's 'code of silence'.

But Riggins, also 52, who vehemently denied the claims, said the 'false' allegations had cost him a sparkling military career.

Anonymous said...

I get the feeling Richard Spencer is perverted--something very off

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Long term readers recognize that OT posts are acceptable when they are posted for analysis.

I am interested in Statement Analysis Blog readers thoughts on Global Warming...thus far, few deletes!

Someone sent this to me:

Please post your thoughts on this topic, pro or con, con or pro.



Bobcat said...

"Rain bombs"

Con. Con.

All I hear in the background of AlGore's voice is circus organ grinder music. ...Step right up and see the amazing liar...

Peregrine said...

Thank you Peter for making my day twice in short order, first a McCann analysis and now Global Warming. To me the Global Warming (and it's alternate cold weather argument-Climate Change)is typical of the Procrustean Bed fallacy where the arguer simply stretches the data to force a conclusion or shortens the data to conveniently fit the argument, so that everything neatly fits in the global warming bed. Maybe it's growing up being taught in school that the next Ice Age was eminent or maybe it's not being a crowd follower, but suffice it so say, it's difficult to have any opposing conversation with those who love Al Gore and his An Inconvenient Truth. I believe we need to protect the environment but I don't believe there's nearly enough information to make any kind of conclusion.

German Shepherds and dog food; completely agree, wag, wag.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Recently, a scientist said it had to be true because:

97% of scientists agree and

156 countries agree.

This is an interesting argument.

1. 97% of scientists agree. Is this true? Who polled whom? Were the pollsters the same that did the election day polls?

What of all the scientists who have lost their jobs, not been hired, or silenced by fear for not agreeing?

2. 156 countries all agree on something.

POTUS may have waffled on the ideology (I don't know) but he recognized that this was another world issue that would exploit the United States financially.

But think of the argument that these countries all agree on.

Then, ask,

are there other issues where so many countries agree upon?

I can think of a few but most pressing: Islamic migration, and people replacement.

here is another: that the politiican t is best for making personal designs for us.

just to name 3.


Anonymous said...

You have few deletes on the subject because few have attempted to discuss the subject.

Al Gore: Global warming fearmonger and inventor of the Internet.

Richard Nixon: Inventor of all wars to come and signer of EPA. No wonder the hippies hated him.

Anonymous said...

Oh, I forgot: ha,ha,ha!

Anonymous said...

Global warming is made up imo. The weather maturally goes through cycles. The sun, which causes warmth, is very powerful & will either create warmth or it wont. "Gasses" in the atmosphere do not create a "greenhouse effect"...that would imply the sun's heat was being magnified as if by glass. Weather is very difficult to predict or understand. It goes through cycles ie. the ice age.

Tania Cadogan said...

Climate change happens.
It has happened in the past and will happen in the future.
We have been around as a planet for 4.5 billion years.
In this time we have been molten,scorchio, a snowball, more scorchio, more cold as buggery, everything in between and in the future the same will continue.
We are only 10,000 years out of the last ice age, a mere blink of the planetary eye so to speak so of course we will get warmer.
Since the sun also affects our temperatures and thus our climate, they have figured out that as well as the usual 11 year sun spot cycle there is a longer one where the sunspots pretty much vanish and we get cold (will they be telling us burn more fossil fuels before we freeze to death?)
Then the fun really begins when in approx 5 billion years or so the sun expands and becomes a red giant effectively obliterating Mercury and Venus and either cinderizing us into ash or just leaving us well caramelized before it shrinks back to the dying embers of a white dwarf.
As we live in the Goldilocks zone currently, presumably as the sun expands, said zone will migrate and previously cold planets will warm up, perhaps becoming more conducive to life or killing off all the life that is perfectly suited to seriously cold temps as they scream about global warming until they too revert back to planetary normal of frikken freezing as the Goldilocks zone shrinks considerably.

Like everything in the universe, it is all cyclical, as we move around the galaxy, cosmic forces affect us even if minutely and then the sun does its thing with sun spots and growing and shrinking, then we have the movement of the continental plates which no doubt will have an affect on climate as mountains and valleys move and grow or shrink, plus earthquakes which affect land masses and the earth's tilt on it's axis even if by fractions of a degree (about 6.5 inches) undersea quakes perhaps releasing millions or billions of tons of methane hydrates which are potent greenhouse gases.
Then we have volcanoes doing their bit chucking out tons of ash and interesting gases, more so if one of the super volcanoes kicks off such as Yellowstone.
Then we have the fun of nuclear disasters/wars, asteroid impacts then in the distant future, the moon buggering off on vacation to who knows where which is a really bad thing for Earth.
Tides would become affected only by the sun and far lower than currently (when the moon first showed up we had spectacular tides of miles high) our rotation would speed back up to approx 6 hour days , weee!
interesting wind and storms right there.
Our axis would be all over the place which would play havoc with seasonsand thus growing crops and animals in general.

Then there is also the risk of gamma ray bursts hitting us which would be really bad news.

Climate change has happened, is happening, will happen and nothing we do will stop it, especially when the sun expands.
I would love to see all the activists trying to work out how to stop the sun doing that (assuming of course we are still here)

If so, make sure you got plenty of marshmallows and beer and sunblock. Factor 250 million might suffice.

habundia said...

Thank you Peter, for your interesting read. Your articles give material to think about and are always written in a way it makes it understandable to read.

When i read about statistics i always ask myself so based on what theory and research did this conclusion (statistic) appeared?

If I then read the research was done with a couple hundred people, I always feel fooled. Like as if that will cover for the billions of people this planet carries? Still they want us to believe them. Many just blindly do or just take them for granted (just as I have)

"Question: After 6000 years of recorded human history, when did we suddenly discover that a man was no longer a man if he wore women's clothing?"

An interesting question. Which also raised the question with me, who decided what "woman's clothes" are? Although my history knowledge is not that huge,I do remember pictures/paintings/images of earlier times where man wore dresses and skirts and woman who are wearing white and costumes. It shows how people envolve, not their reason why or how it happens. Could science tell us how it happens? I am not certain if science can capture this or could it?

Could this maybe be related to "gender dismorphia" as being stigmatized as an illness? And wherefore these days the subject is speakable, while it wasn't even recognized in old days, let alone speakable.

There is so much of the human brain and genes we not yet understand, and i think that because of this lack at understanding, people quick decide that because it is not "the norm", it is an illness, something out of the ordinary.
But unfortunately in this world you need stigmatization to get the help you need if you aren't equipped with the tools and skills and oppertunities, DSM-V shall arrive soon lol.

Climate change
What does Islam has to do with climate change?
Farmers now days use CO2 to give their plants because it make them grow better, is what I've read, so are the reasonings being given for the change the real truth or is it nothing more then propaganda?

Just as with statistics.......what do you have to believe?!

Anonymous said...

Theyve proven that gender dysmorphia is strongly correlated with profound psychological issues connected to the integrity of the ego. To put it in layman's terms individuals with gender dysmorphia have egos that do not "hold together" well...their egos are fragmented, there is no cohesiveness....this causes the individual great distress & in order to try to "fix" what is wrong they project their distress (unconsciously) onto their gender with the rationale "I am the wrong gender...I would not feel distressed if I was the opposite gender". Most of these individuals have "narcissistic personality disirder" but the actual problem is more deeply rooted than NPD in that the individuals ego does not "hold together" which causes great distress. The individual projects his or her distress onto his gender thinking that is what is wrong, when actually it is a profound psychological problem regarding the lack of integrity of the individuals ego structure.

rob said...

There was a cartoon in my local newspaper that show several people labeled as countries, pushing a wheelbarrow up to President Trump, saying "your president said he would fill this with money." Trump responded "FORMER President."

Johns Hopkins says that gender dysmorphia, transgender is a mental condition, not physical. Don't hate me, google it.

I live in SC. In my 56 years, I have spent as many Christmases in shorts as sweatshirts. We have been 5 or 6 years without one flake of snow. Everytime we get a snow now, everybody comments "this global warming is killing us"

This country/world has went insane. Right is wrong and wrong is right. I'm afraid it's following the script in the bible. Who would have thought it?

rob said...

I forgot a vital part, the wheelbarrow was labeled 'paris climate agreement'

Anonymous said...

As a scientist who presents results in court, I know that when investigators, jurors, lawyers, etc., don't get the results they thought they would, they turn to other scientific disciplines. Sometimes they turn to unscientific disciplines, as Peter has pointed out in the past(psychics). It is human nature. Give me what I want now! I can't imagine how much more that happens on a national/world-wide scale with $$$$ pushing the agenda. I don't think the scientists really care what their results affect, as long as they get paid and continue to get paid. I hope that there will be more and more people who pursue truth, like Peter does. There isn't much reward in it most of the time.


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

Re: Global Warming

My girlfriend and I recently had a conversation about global warming and I though you might find it interesting. She has Master's Degrees in math, mechanical engineering, and computer science and a PhD in Computational Fluid Dynamics. Her PhD defense was on climactic modeling focusing on global trends and climatic change. She had access to all the data from NASA and other organizations that deal in the whole global warming arena.

I expected that she would have the same opinions as Al Gore and others but her take was a little different. She told me that yes, global temperatures have risen and that it is measureable and statistically significant; however, the data did not support that the rise was due to human activity. She said that anyone that claims a connection between the two was, at best, making a guess. The data simply does not support such a claim. She also said that even with the best modeling available today that the atmosphere is simply too complex to effectively model with too many variables. Simply put, she said, scientists just don't know why temperatures have risen but they have risen.

Thanks for the history Peter. When I was growing up my parents got Time magazine and I remember believing that we were headed into a new ice age. How times have changed!

Hey Jude said...

I don't believe the globe is ‘warming’ or more latterly, that the climate is changing due to human activity - the climate has always changed; some human activity is very destructive to the environment. I think natural climate change and environmental damage caused by man are often cynically conflated into one and the same, and presented as 'climate change' or the effects of climate change, rather than the consequences of greed, exploitation, and poor stewardship of the land and natural resources.

I can't talk science - I like this site:

Anonymous said...

This post must be a filler (and a darn good one at that) in an upcoming book.An entire chapter. It's grrrrreat!

Anonymous said...

There has been a 2nd terror attack in Barcelona.

I am a big Trump fan but I cant believe he said that today about the general who soaked bullets in pig's blood.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Anonymous said...
There has been a 2nd terror attack in Barcelona.

I am a big Trump fan but I cant believe he said that today about the general who soaked bullets in pig's blood.
August 17, 2017 at 10:05 PM

Although not a big fan, I am glad he is attempting to turn the dialog back to executing terrorists and ferocity. In studying both Islam and its culture, Islamists respect strength and exploit weakness. This is why they run rough shod over women, in general.

Thus far, these other methods have not worked:

1. Ignoring Islamic terrorists
2. Giving them money (used to buy more weapons)
3. Give them jobs (where they file law suits of false discrimination used to fund weapons)
4. Claiming they are right wing white Republicans
5. Claiming it was not them, it was "guns" and then "knives" and then "vehicles"
6. Claiming they are mentally ill
7. Claiming their confessions are all false
8. Giving them hugs
9. Importing more of them
and so on.

To use hyperbolic language with its 20% factor is a negotiation technique. I hope to cover more in upcoming analysis.


Statement Analysis Blog said...

3 attacks Barcelona

1. bomb
2. car (rammed police)
3. van

1 in Finland 1 dead 4 injured

before politicians ordered police to cover up, a video came from a citizen.

1 is Dusseldorf --- we will likely hear it is "gang violence" or "Asian mental illness."

Seeing a violent culture from afar, and importing it, is the height of egotistical thinking. 1400 years has not reformed Islam an inch.

Angela Merkel, without offspring, believes Mercedes Benz, beautiful music, and high culture will magically do what nothing has done:

change Islam.

Islam appeals to the lowest elements within human nature. It does not only excuse the worst in us all, it encourages it.


Statement Analysis Blog said...

I don't know anyone not concerned with pollution. I do understand how big business will exploit, to the last dollar (London) but on a personal basis, I have never met nor corresponded with someone who did not care about

a. environment, pollution, conservation

b. feeding the hungry.

As politicians got involved in both, corruption, waste and deception have overtaken both.

I read Winston Churchill's own agonizing about government milk and the children of Britain and how he knew that once the government's foot was in the camp, it would never be withdrawn.

A close friend had an interesting conversation with several co workers. They all like each other and recognized how politicians are trying to get them to hate each other. It was my friend and 4 leftists.

Besides children being told to "choose" their sex at age five, a new "progressive" ideology is emerging that I thought, initially, was satire.

Millenial parents decry "obedient" children with the phrase, "they are not dogs."

As they condemn obedience, they are finding great success in applying it.

The prison industry will benefit, as will, initially, the special education industry. Eventually, if unchecked, it will overwhelm the school system.

It is as if leftism, as a religion, is morphing into contrarianism. Anything that existed before it, must be wrong, including successful teaching and child raising techniques.

Awaiting these sugar driven children (literally) is not only obesity and diabetes, but something far more heartbreaking.

Under this scenario: the allowance of a child's emotions to rule the household (giving anxiety), I have a question ---

The child who demands and is given sugar, around the clock: besides obesity and diabetes, what do readers here think may happen to this child?

In context: male child with his first years of life dominated by sugar.

I appreciate feedback here. I am wondering if pattern recognition will be evident.

thank you,


Tania Cadogan said...

Islam appeals to the lowest elements within human nature. It does not only excuse the worst in us all, it encourages it.


August 18, 2017 at 11:51 AM

Not only that Peter, islam demands it

habundia said...

I came up on this article. My first question did the mother came to mind that the symptoms of her daughter were related to this syndrome EHS?
After reading the symptoms (although never proven to be really related), it didn't sound like symptoms that immediately would make someone to think about EHS, imo.
I feel sorry for her lost of her child. To me it seems like mom is a bit of in denial which is normal in such a situation.
The article says there was no medical history known of her symptoms being related to EHS, so how did she came up thinking this is what her child has?
Non of the symptoms were said to be depression.......the note she left behind indicates to me she was feeling depressed rather then being "sick of electronic signals because of Wi-fi."
She got rid of internet, not only wifi, but banned internet from the home. Did she got rid of other devices either that use electronic magnetic signals? To my knowledge not only wifi use these.
I wonder what other people have to say about this girl. How was she known by others then her mother?
Why would the mother say, "she became sick and I did too"? (or something like that)
Could internet have been a problem issue between mom and daughter (I as a mother of a teenager girl know the troubles to deal with this) and this removal of internet from the home could have led to deeper depression?

Anonymous said...

Enjoying your website. Thanks very much!

My thoughts and opinion on Global warming

It is real, but not due to anything humans have done and cannot be reversed by humans. It is the natural cycles and rhythms of nature! Al Gore and others seized the opportunity to use this natural occurrence to create another Government money making scheme. Al's motives were also ego driven to capture his 15 minutes of fame since he couldn't seem to make it to the oval office. No telling how many tax laws and legal mandates have been created due to the belief that humans have created the changes happening to our earth.

On the other hand much good has come from this hoax by the creation of new ways to create energy apart from coal and oil. And that is Divine Providence at work. No matter how badly humans get it wrong God brings good from it. From another standpoint, it is again the arrogance of humans to think that we even have the capability to destroy what God created. The earth will survive no matter what.