Wednesday, August 16, 2017

Law Enforcement in Training: Human Nature

             Deception Detection is difficult work. 

 If it was as simple as it is sometimes portrayed, or if reading a face expression sufficed, we'd all do it, and deception would be greatly hindered in its progress in society. 

A twitch of a leg, a hand over the mouth, a "micro expression", and so on, all represent various short cuts in one way or another, and as in the nature of short cuts, rates of success inevitably betray the employer of such.  

We live in a culture that may be viewed as the ultimate expression of narcissism, where our feelings overrule reason, our children are raised to believe that how they feel is more important than obedience, and where even science must be subordinated to emotion.  

Law Enforcement, however, does not succumb easily to folly.  

In Statement Analysis Training, the investigator/analyst begins by learning some simple principles of sensitivity in language, and moves on to detecting deception, content analysis, and on to giving a detailed profile of the subject (speaker/writer).  

In initially testing law enforcement on detecting deception, scores are often poor.  

Why?

Because professional  experience leads them to incessant contact with deception to the point where "everyone is lying."

Training over comes this prejudice with only initial resistance.  What brings success is when the law enforcement professional begins to recognize that outright lying is rare, and that in a statement where the subject is deceptive it is very likely to find 90% or more of reliable information (content).  

In short, they learn to let the subject's own words guide them to truth.  

Law Enforcement cannot afford error.  They have cases in which the initial analysis is going to be immediately tested against the evidence, the case development, the polygraph, the confession and so on. 

They must see accuracy to be convinced to study.  

After becoming quite good at detecting deception, they move into deeper and deeper content analysis.   This allows them to know the case details before the investigation even begins.  

Over and over they find that the deceptive suspect  "honestly" guided them to the truth. 

This is thrilling and fuels them to more and more study.  Their superiors are impressed and their solve rate moves up.  Promotions are granted.  Professional satisfaction is powerful. 

Then, they move on to the most challenging and exciting aspect of all:  psycho-linguistic profiling. 

This is where they learn four things about their subject from the subject's words:

1.  The subject's background 

This tells them if the subject is a male or female, white or black, young or old, and so on. This recognizes the impact of sex, race, culture, age (etc) have on language.  

2.  The subject's experiences 

This tells them what, for example, the subject has experienced in life such as work profession.  This recognizes that, for example, being in the military is going to impact language.  Prior crimes is another example, as this experience can enter language.  

3.  The subject's priorities 

Here is where we often find exactly why the subject wrote out his statement.  Was it to clear himself? Was it to confess?  Was it to steer the investigation away from the truth, or towards it?

4.  The subject's dominant personality traits 

This is where we see things as narcissism, or human indifference, and many other personality traits that show up in criminal investigations.  

Law Enforcement may struggle when it comes to initial deception detection but it is only until they learn how the deceptive suspect can and will guide them to the truth. 

But Law Enforcement does not struggle with psycho-linguistic profiling; that is, profiling based solely upon the language.  They grasp the personality traits well because they deal with them each and every day.  

Law Enforcement's experiences, daily, lead them to outscore their non-law enforcement counter parts in psycho-linguistic analysis;  they hold a very sober minded view of human nature, and are rarely self deceived by narrative. 

Why is this?

In part, their exposure to human nature means, even in rural communities, incessantly being in a position where they never know if they are going to have their lives threatened.  Few can grasp how this wears down the mind and the immune system.  Coping with this can be at times, even more challenging in locales where violence is not expected as it is in a high crime city.  In high crime/high violence locales, the element of surprise is lessened.  Both professionals must learn to cope in healthy ways.  

Predominantly, however, it is pragmatism that keeps them from being self deceived by narrative:

They cannot afford to allow emotion, belief, or ideology to over rule anything:  they have a case to be solved. 

In areas where leaders operate under the deception of "political correctness", the public often rails at law enforcement. 

It is mostly unjust. Rank and file investigators are often represented by those they do not consider to be "cops" but politicians, and the madness of such impacts them as it does the population. 

Investigators, like analysts, care for nothing but the truth.  The case demands it.  The interview is waiting; the evidence is guiding, there is a polygraph to review and...

there are confessions and convictions.  

In other words, they do not "play" analysis as if it was a game; they not theoretical.  

This is not to say that theoretical work is of no value; it has  value.  But its value is seen in its testings and results.  

Law Enforcement professional men and women do not have time to debate the latest politically correct wave of belief; 

they have crime to solve.  They have truth to find.   

They have little time and even less care for politicians.  They understand what psychological impact a successful theft has upon the thief, even when politicians do not.  

They know what desensitization to violence looks like, first hand, even if they do not possess the vocabulary of the DSM.  

Most professionals in law enforcement have extensive experience dealing directly with human nature, making fine sounding platitudes valueless to them.  

Professionals in training treasure the input of other professionals, as iron sharpens iron, they thrive on peer review of their work.  

One of the most common expressions I hear is,

"I wish I could do the same high level of work alone that I do in team analysis!"  

For training in law enforcement, see Hyatt Analysis Services. 

The training is in seminar, or it is in your home.  Both types of trainings are supported by 12 months of e support and allow for potentially joining live team analysis online, with investigators, analysts and professionals of many fields, from around the globe.  

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

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