Twitter: @rodgermitchell; Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Mitchell’s laws:
●The more federal budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes.
●Austerity is the government’s method for widening the gap between rich and poor, which ultimately leads to civil disorder.
●Until the 99% understand the need for federal deficits, the upper 1% will rule.
●To survive long term, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments.
●Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
●The penalty for ignorance is slavery.
●Everything in economics devolves to motive, and the motive is the gap.
======================================================================================================================================================================================
You may be exposed to such liberal propaganda as this:
Scientists Warn of Rising Oceans From Polar Melt
By Justin Gillis and Kenneth Chang, May 12, 2014A large section of the mighty West Antarctica ice sheet has begun falling apart and its continued melting now appears to be unstoppable, two groups of scientists reported on Monday.
If the findings hold up, they suggest that the melting could destabilize neighboring parts of the ice sheet and a rise in sea level of 10 feet or more may be unavoidable in coming centuries.
“This is really happening,” Thomas P. Wagner, who runs NASA’s programs on polar ice and helped oversee some of the research, said in an interview. “There’s nothing to stop it now. But you are still limited by the physics of how fast the ice can flow.”
Two scientific papers released on Monday by the journals Science and Geophysical Research Letters came to similar conclusions by different means.
“Today we present observational evidence that a large sector of the West Antarctic ice sheet has gone into irreversible retreat,” Dr. Eric Rignot, a glaciologist at the University of California, Irvine, said in the NASA news conference. “It has passed the point of no return.”
Or this:
Why Climate Change is a U.S. Children’s Health Issue
Frederica Perera and Patrick Kinney, Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health | May 09, 2014 01:50am ETComing on the heels of recent reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , this week’s report from the U.S. National Climate Assessment makes it clear that climate change is already affecting health in the United States and that policies to curb climate change can improve the health of Americans while also avoiding unprecedented and unpredictable changes in the Earth system.
However, largely missing from the public discussion are the multiple threats posed to children’s health by climate change and by its root cause, fossil-fuel burning.
This is a critical omission because burning fossil fuel not only emits carbon dioxide, the major human-produced greenhouse gas, but also generates a toxic mix of health-damaging pollutants.
Why should anyone believe the above-mentioned scientists, who clearly have a political agenda, when we can rely on impartial, well-informed scientists like:
Charles Krauthammer: Climate Change Is A ‘Superstition’ Like A Native American ‘Rain Dance’
According to that eminent, impartial scientist, Charles Krauthammer, it’s like this: Native American religion is “superstition,” while Christian religion is “science” (as in the science of creationism).
And then, there are:
The rest of the scientists at FOX News
“White House climate change report unveils dire warning. Are they trying to distract from other problems?”
“National Climate Assessment report: Alarmists offer untrue, unrelenting doom and gloom”
“Mark Steyn debunks the alarmism behind global warming”
And who could doubt:
Rush Limbaugh: Media Is ‘Lying’ About Climate Change And Global Warming
In August, Limbaugh sparked controversy when he stated that anyone who believes in God “cannot believe in man-made global warming.” His recent statements expanded on his previous claims:
“They’re [liberals] perpetrating a hoax,” he said. “They are relying on their total dominance of the media to lie to you each and every day about climate change and global warming.”
“Obviously there is no melting of ice going on at the North Pole.“
O.K., so FOX News is a right-wing, political mouthpiece, that first finds out what the position of the wealthiest .1% is, then argues for it, whatever it might be. But what about these well-respected scientists:
Climate Change Truther Marco Rubio Is Now A Scientist, Man
In a 2012 interview with GQ magazine, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) memorably declined to answer a straightforward question on the age of the Earth, telling reporter Michael Hainey, “I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that’s a dispute amongst theologians and I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States. I think the age of the universe has zero to do with how our economy is going to grow. I’m not a scientist. I don’t think I’m qualified to answer a question like that.”
In the 16 months since that interview, Rubio has apparently been taking night classes.
During a Sunday appearance on ABC’s This Week, Rubio shared his thoughts on whether human activity is causing climate change.
“Our climate is always changing. And what they have chosen to do is take a handful of decades of research and say that this is now evidence of a longer-term trend that’s directly and almost solely attributable to manmade activity…I do not agree with that.”
“I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it,” the senator added. “I do not believe that the laws that they propose we pass will do anything about it, except it will destroy our economy.”
And if you don’t believe renowned, impartial scientist and Presidential candidate, Rubio, surely you must accept:
Florida’s Governor Scott Takes Deep Dive Into Climate Change
[humor]My fellow Floridians, as you’ve all probably heard, a new National Climate Assessment report says that Florida is seriously threatened by rising sea levels, mass flooding, salt-contaminated water supplies and increasingly severe weather events — all supposedly caused by climate change.
Let me assure you there’s absolutely no reason for worry. I still don’t believe climate change is real, and you shouldn’t, either.
So, it’s settled. The right-wing, creationist scientists, who do their extensive research in the New Testament, have proved beyond doubt that adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere does not create warming.
As the Tea/Republican Party prepares to take over the Senate and, in two years, the Presidency, be assured. Your grandchildren are safe.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty
====================================================================================================================================================
Ten Steps to Prosperity:
1. Eliminate FICA (Click here)
2. Federally funded Medicare — parts A, B & D plus long term nursing care — for everyone (Click here)
3. Provide an Economic Bonus to every man, woman and child in America, and/or every state a per capita Economic Bonus. (Click here) Or institute a reverse income tax.
4. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone. Click here
5. Salary for attending school (Click here)
6. Eliminate corporate taxes (Click here)
7. Increase the standard income tax deduction annually
8. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99% (Click here)
9. Federal ownership of all banks (Click here)
10. Tax the very rich (.1%) more, with much higher, progressive tax rates on all forms of income. (Click here)
—–
10 Steps to Economic Misery: (Click here:)
1. Maintain or increase the FICA tax..
2. Spread the myth Social Security, Medicare and the U.S. government are insolvent.
3. Cut federal employment in the military, post office, other federal agencies.
4. Broaden the income tax base so more lower income people will pay.
5. Cut financial assistance to the states.
6. Spread the myth federal taxes pay for federal spending.
7. Allow banks to trade for their own accounts; save them when their investments go sour.
8. Never prosecute any banker for criminal activity.
9. Nominate arch conservatives to the Supreme Court.
10. Reduce the federal deficit and debt
No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth. Monetary Sovereignty: Cutting federal deficits to grow the economy is like applying leeches to cure anemia.
Two key equations in economics:
1. Federal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Private Savings
2. Gross Domestic Product = Federal Spending + Private Investment and Consumption – Net Imports
THE RECESSION CLOCK
Vertical gray bars mark recessions.
As the federal deficit growth lines drop, we approach recession, which will be cured only when the lines rise. Federal deficit growth is absolutely, positively necessary for economic growth. Period.
#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY
#Monetary Sovereignty - Mitchell 
Rodger, here you’ve avoided positioning yourself on whether evidential global warming/climate change is unnatural and , if so, human caused,. What do YOU think and why?
Believe in the past you’ve waxed quizzical about climate change holding only that fed bucks spent for clean-environment plussed-up the economy.
Best wishes for your good health, Wiseman!
LikeLike
DanB
Under the KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) principle:
1. The world has been warming.
2. Carbon dioxide is an insulating gas.
3. Humans produce massive amounts of carbon dioxide.
4. Therefore, humans have been contributing to global warming.
I do not know what percentage of global warming can be attributed to humans and what percentage can be attributed to other causes, but that is not one of the two key issues.
One key issue is: Do we contribute. Yes.
The other key issue is: On balance, is this a good thing or a bad thing?
Many arguments exist on both sides. For example: Is an increase of currently infertile, arable acreage more or less important to human well-being than the flooding of shorelines and the spread of tropical diseases?
Will today’s global warming serve as a buffer against future ice ages?
Will warmer weather be more or less conducive to plant and animal life?
Global warming exists and we are part of it. In the short term, all change stresses life, because life as we know it has adapted to the current situation. So our grandchildren will pay a price.
But, long-term, does global warming aid or depreciate human survival? Will our great, great, great, great grandchildren pay a price or benefit.
I don’t know.
About all I can say for certain is: Global warming deniers are wrong.
LikeLike
Let us first define what we mean by “climate change” and by “global warming”. Hint: You can’t do it. These two terms are as maliciously defined (or misdefined) by the master race, i.e., the oligarchy, in the national discourse as are the terms of discourse in the matter of “race” and “color”, and come to think of it, as are the terms of discourse in the matter of “money” and “wealth”.
The fact of the matter is that the burning of abiotic oil as a source of energy pollutes the environment. That’s a fact. As a right-winging slave I say “stop the burning of abiotic oil”. As a left-winging slave I agree with my right-winging slave self. The twin gobbledygook questions of “climate change” and/or “global warming” is irrelevant oligarchically-imposed nonsense.
Have we gone mad? Are my Anglo-Saxon American “compadres” THAT dumbed-down? THAT stupid? ¡Ay de mi!
LikeLike
I thought “global warming” meant the globe was getting warmer, which meant changing the world’s climates..
I also thought increased levels of CO2 were a contributing factor, and that humans burning carbon was a contributing factor to increased CO2 levels.
Are your definitions different?
LikeLike
That is what “they” want you to believe. It is fake science, bogus science. There are “scientists” on both sides of the “issue”. What is clear to me is that there is environmental pollution and destruction. THAT can be stopped and should be stopped. I have noticed a new concerted effort to “stop” global warming/climate change. The facile interchangeable and equivalent use of these two terms by scientifically ignorant journalists and newscasters is so transparent and laughable that it boggles the mind that they can and have been getting away with it for years.
LikeLike
The reason why the rich and their servants (e.g. Fox News) deny the facts of man-made climate change is that the topic is an equalizer. It is a problem that can only be addressed via collective action. It requires that we all work together, rather than work only for the rich and their casinos. It threatens the right-wing, Christian, capitalist mind-set. The threat is not climate change itself, but the possibility that the masses might awaken from their coma, and work together. The rich don’t care if the planet is destroyed. They only care about widening the gap.
The Fox News mentality sees the earth and everyone on it as things to be exploited. It favors a perpetual widening of the gap. It says that war is peace, slavery is freedom, and poverty is prosperity. It favors conquest over cooperation; hate over love. It says we are here to be slaves of the rich, not to create a paradise for each other. We are here to use and discard our neighbor, not to be good Samaritans.
Hence the Fox News mentality condemns the facts of climate change as a tree-hugging, kumbaya, flower-power, can’t-we-all-get-along “leftist conspiracy.” The idea that we love and help one another is anathema to Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. It is an intolerable ray of light into hell.
IT THREATENS THE GAP.
P.S. If global climate change is a myth, then why are the corporations and military forces of many countries now hastily positioning themselves to exploit the receding ice caps? The answer is that new sources of gas and minerals are being exposed. These resources could not be efficiently extracted when they lay under a mile and a half of ice.
LikeLike
==Off topic ==Off topic==
[1] REPUBLICANS ARE CHILD MOLESTERS
Yesterday, Congressman Mike Fitzpatrick (R-PA) told a hundred and fifty eighth-graders (13 and 14-year olds) that they each owe $55,000 on the “national debt.”
This is typical of how politicians violate children in order to doom the kids to a life of poverty and slavery, plus an ever-widening gap between the rich and the rest.
Fitzpatrick spewed the usual filth, telling the kids that the US government is like a private person, and we therefore need a balanced budget amendment to the US Constitution. He said we must cut “waste” (i.e. cut programs that do not widen the gap, and which help average people). And so on.
Fitzpatrick has dedicated himself to victimizing the young. During a recent congressional hearing he displayed a stack of letters from his constituents — including eighth-graders – urging the US Congress to reduce the “national debt.” (That is, widen the gap still further.)
Essentially he is a child molester. He is also a staunch Roman Catholic. Just as the Church tells children they are worthless because of “original sin,” so Fitzpatrick tells children they are worthless because they each owe $55,000 on the “national debt.” When the children grow up, they will have to pay this debt. And when they die, they will go to hell forever. Their only hope is to live in total “righteousness,” i.e. total obedience to the rich.
Notice how Christian dogma weaves sin and debt together. Jesus “paid the price” for our sins. Jesus “paid the debt” to God. We can get into heaven “debt-free” as long as we live in debt bondage on earth.
The purpose of this evil is to warp children into stunted slaves. (“As the twig is bent, so grows the tree.” ~ Alexander Pope, 1734) When rapists like Fitzpatrick prey on their child victims, the victims defend themselves by integrating the trauma into their world view and self-image. They convert the trauma from something evil into something right and just. Meanwhile they regard Truth and Freedom as scary. They regard the facts of Monetary Sovereignty as a threat to their self-image. They shield themselves with mindless buzzwords like “inflation” in the same way that a religious person brands anything he doesn’t like as “Satanic.” Traumatized as children (“All of you are born in SIN AND DEBT!”) they later develop masochistic, self-destructive habits, e.g. voting against their own interests. Their hatred of others is a reflection of their own shame and self-loathing, itself a product of countless rapes by Fitzpatrick and his kind. The victim adopts a kind of Stockholm syndrome toward his tormentor, seeing the evil creep as a wise father that protects him from “liberals.” The brainwashing begins with childhood traumas.
It’s a mass, systematic assault on children.
Anyone who thinks I am exaggerating is a collaborator in the crime.
http://www.theintell.com/news/local/fitzpatrick-talks-to-cr-students-about-national-debt/article_c6928eb5-dba9-5e04-995e-b1a854769cd3.html
[2] FINNISH LEADER VOWS TO END AUSTERITY
…by increasing it.
All euro-zone politicians support the euro, since they all get rich from it. By widening the gap, they get rewards.
The euro is especially useful for “leftist” and “populist” politicians, since it lets them burn the masses while pretending to help them.
An example is Mr. Antti Juhani Rinne, a Finnish trade union leader and politician. Last Friday (9 May) Mr. Rinne became chairman of Finland’s Social Democratic Party (SDP), which is equivalent to Democrats in the USA. The National Coalition Party is equivalent to Republicans. There are six other parties in Finland’s parliament, but they all align with “Democrats” or “Republicans,” and they all are corrupt, since they all support the euro.
Finland is in a severe depression because of austerity, mandated by the euro currency. Mr. Rinne now has a slight majority, and says he will to push his coalition partners into agreeing to more stimulus for the economy. He knows that this will increase the government’s debt, which will lead to even more austerity, which will cause more debt and an even worse depression. Thus, Mr. Rinne will “help” workers by accelerating their death spiral. This will further widen the gap between the rich and the rest, and bring rewards to Mr. Rinne from the rich.
It’s all part of the plan. All depressions are ultimately gratuitous. They are engineered by the rich to increase the gap between themselves and the peasants. Most “populist” politicians know this, and they maintain the Big Lie for their own benefit. Mr. Rinne says he wants to end austerity and create jobs. Meanwhile he defends the euro, which will worsen austerity and kill jobs. But it will bring him personal rewards.
The beauty of austerity is that the more suffering it causes, the more it is beloved by its victims. When “populist” politicians worsen the poverty, they cause the masses to hate them. (Finland’s SDP is at its lowest popularity rating ever.) As a result, the masses vote conservative.
Repeat: when “leftist” politicians screw the masses with austerity, the masses vote conservative. They vote for more austerity. Americans did it in 2010 when austerity mania caused them to angrily vote Democrats out of office, giving Republicans a majority in the house. Result: Americans got increased austerity.
Mr. Rinne is just another slime-ball on the take.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-11/finnish-austerity-nearing-end-as-rinne-pushes-stimulus-for-jobs.html
[3] THE PLAGUE REACHES AUSTRALIA
On June 26 and 27, 2010, British Prime Minister David Cameron released the austerity virus upon the world during a G20 summit in Toronto.
Among leading industrialized nations, only Australia escaped the plague.
Until now.
Yesterday the government of Prime Minister Tony Abbot released its federal budget for Australia, which is full of handouts to the rich (e.g. mass privatization), plus austerity for the masses (e.g. higher taxes and less spending on social programs that help average people).
About 16,000 public-service workers will be fired with more to follow. Government agencies will be shut down, such as the Australian Renewable Energy Agency and National Water Commission. There will be an increase in fuel taxes for ordinary motorists.
Public assets to be sold off include the Royal Australian Mint, which creates all of Australia’s coins. This will bring massive wealth and power to the new private owner, since many items in society still use coins (e.g. vending machines, washing machines in Laundromats, and so on).
Also to be privatized will be an arm of Australia’s corporate regulator. (The US government uses deregulation to widen the gap, while the Australian government simply privatizes regulatory agencies.)
The Bloomberg rag is celebrating all this, saying, “Abbott is staking his Liberal-National coalition government’s popularity on the push for a surplus of 1 percent of gross domestic product within a decade as polls show his coalition trails the Labor opposition.”
Yes, the current Australian government wants to increase its popularity with the rich, which is the only thing that politicians care about.
Austerity means permanent poverty for the 99%. Tony Abbot says this permanent pain will mean only “short-term pain.” He says that, “We have a terrible problem. We are borrowing A$1 billion a month just to pay interest on our borrowing.”
Lies, lies, and more lies, all designed to widen the gap.
Tony Abbot’s finance minster Joe Hockey is furious that the wealth gap in Australia is not quite as gigantic as it is in the UK or USA. Hockey has vowed to correct this by ending what he calls the “age of entitlement” for the masses (thus bringing in a renewed age of entitlement for the rich). Among other things, this means reducing the family tax benefit, and reducing unemployment and disability benefits. Hockey wants the masses to pay much higher deductibles when they visit government-funded doctors. He said the minimum wage must be “reigned in,” and that young people on jobless benefits must be cut off after a year. Hockey has already announced that the retirement age will be increased to 70.
“It’s really going to be an austerity budget,” boasted Alan Oster, chief economist for National Australia Bank Ltd.
The Australian masses lived free of the plague for four years, during which time “austerity” was an abstract financial term that was not important, since it did not apply to them.
Now they will learn the terrible price of their ignorance.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-12/abbott-austerity-to-see-spending-cuts-in-first-australia-budget.html
LikeLike
Global warming is not caused co2. The heat signature of co2 has not been found. What little back radiation occurs is swamped by water vapor.
Now they are predicting an el nino this year which is probably the real cause of
warmer weather patterns. Co2 is not a problem.
Notice how professor Patterson was able to single handedly present the science warning against the use of lead in gasoline. That’s because the evidence was real not manufactured by a computer. Lead in gasoline was rightfully banned.
LikeLike
Thank you for your comment indicating you believe CO2 is not an important greenhouse gas, a belief that is in opposition to nearly all scientific theory (except for that of the global warming deniers).
At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas, you will find this:
The contribution of each gas to the greenhouse effect is affected by the characteristics of that gas, its abundance, and any indirect effects it may cause.
For example, the direct radiative effect of a mass of methane is about 72 times stronger than the same mass of carbon dioxide over a 20-year time frame, but it is present in much smaller concentrations so that its total direct radiative effect is smaller, in part due to its shorter atmospheric lifetime.
On the other hand, in addition to its direct radiative impact, methane has a large, indirect radiative effect because it contributes to ozone formation.
When ranked by their direct contribution to the greenhouse effect, the most important are:
Water vapor and clouds H2O 36 – 72%
Carbon dioxide CO 2 9 – 26%
Methane CH4 4–9%
Ozone O3 3–7%
LikeLike
What is the connection between the greenhouse effect and “climate change”?
LikeLike
The greenhouse effect warms the atmosphere. Increasing the greenhouse effect changes the world’s climates. An extreme example is Venus.
LikeLike
And what percentage of the CO2 on the surface of Venus is manmade? Manmade CO2 is the issue under discussion. 😉
LikeLike
It was made by Venusians, of course.
LikeLike
The definitive argument on “global warming” (or “climate change,” whichever you prefer):
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/05/12/1298838/-Somebody-finally-gets-the-fair-and-balanced-part-of-climate-change-debate-right-John-Oliver?detail=email
LikeLike
“Are Humans Responsible for the CO2 Rise? While there are short-term (year-to-year) fluctuations in the atmospheric CO2 concentration due to natural causes, especially El Nino and La Nina, I currently believe that most of the long-term increase is probably due to our use of fossil fuels. But from what I can tell, the supposed “proof” of humans being the source of increasing CO2 — a change in the atmospheric concentration of the carbon isotope C13 — would also be consistent with a natural, biological source. The current atmospheric CO2 level is about 390 parts per million by volume, up from a pre-industrial level estimated to be around 270 ppm…maybe less. CO2 levels can be much higher in cities, and in buildings with people in them.”
“Why Do Most Scientists Believe CO2 is Responsible for the Warming? Because (as they have told me) they can’t think of anything else that might have caused it. Significantly, it’s not that there is evidence nature can’t be the cause, but a lack of sufficiently accurate measurements to determine if nature is the cause. This is a hugely important distinction, and one the public and policymakers have been misled on by the IPCC.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/my-global-warming-skepticism-for-dummies/
Based on your links i guess your AGW science is based on consensus but your MMT is not a consensus position. I should be very skeptical or just deny your position on the economy.
LikeLike
Through history, scientific consensus often has been wrong, but to say that because you deny climatology consensus, you also can doubt Monetary Sovereignty’s position, is just plain silly.
It’s the falsest of false analogies, a real sign of argumentative desperation.
The logic is this:
1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. (True or false?)
2. By burning carbon, humans have increased the amount of this greenhouse gas and continue to do so. (True or false?)
3. Increasing greenhouse gasses increases the greenhouse effect, which warms the world. (True or false?)
If you can’t answer “false” to 1, 2, and 3, you have no argument, just the usual denier’s argument, “There isn’t enough evidence.” (There never is enough evidence for deniers.)
The climate change deniers remind me of the creationists, who repeatedly put forth false arguments (i.e. the eye could not have evolved), because they simply do not want to believe what science has told them.
What is your motive?
LikeLike
Humans do not cause global climate change, any more than plants create the earth’s oxygen.
The whole issue is a godless liberal communist conspiracy to promote gay people, immigrants, and welfare queens.
LikeLike
Makes sense to me.
LikeLike
My motive is to understand to learn. While i like your MMT i don’t know that it wouldn’t cause runaway inflation. Mainly because we’ve always removed money thru federal taxing. So just controlling it with interest rates is to me an unknown.
And yes i would answer False to your 1 2 3.Mainly because the energy to heat the earth’s surface comes from the sun. The gases are released as the earth heats up and these gases mainly water vapor keep the earth from over cooling or cooling to fast.
Also the signature heating by co2 in the mid troposphere has not been found and or measured.
“The little boy could soon be back. El Niño, a periodic warming in the waters of the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean, will probably emerge in the coming months, according to a forecast issued yesterday by the Climate Prediction Center (CPC) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). If strong, the El Niño event could not only wreak havoc on weather around the world, but could also trigger a resumption of global warming that has been seemingly stalled for the last 15 years.”
http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2014/05/el-nino-coming-back
LikeLike
Is there any evidence whatsoever that would change your mind?
LikeLike
Yes the co2 signature of heating in the mid troposphere. A real world measurement
LikeLike
As I suspected, you have grabbed on to one factor (of many counter factors) and given this one factor 100% importance.
And the factor you grabbed on to was debunked years ago.
Read this article and then tell me if you have changed your mind
Atmospheric carbon
My guess. You have not changed your mind.
LikeLike
“But the increasing carbon dioxide in the troposphere (lower atmosphere) is radiating heat BACK TO THE EARTH — insulating the earth so that excess heat doesn’t escape or dissipate.”
Where is the measurement for the above statement(from your link). What excess heat is being radiated back by co2?
“Each cause of global warming heats up the atmosphere in a distinctive pattern—its ―signature‖. According to IPPC climate theory, the signature of carbon emissions and the signature of warming due to all causes during the recent global warming both include a prominent ―hotspot‖ at about 10 – 12 km in the air over the tropics. But the warming pattern observed by radiosondes during the recent global warming contains no trace of any such hotspot. Therefore”
Click to access MissingSignature.pdf
LikeLike
Rodger, I spent a very small part of the afternoon today contemplating Ms. Penny’s “argument.” Upon further cursory “research”, my vague conclusions were pretty much summed up by the following slam on Evans and his ilk:
http://debunkingdenialism.com/2012/06/23/a-torrent-of-errors-in-david-evans-case-against-global-warming/
Why do Evans and (Stephen) Molyneux reject climate science?
Here is the internal argument I think they are consciously or unconsciously objecting to.
P1. If the mainstream position of contemporary climate science is supported by solid empirical evidence, then increase in state power is required to combat climate change.
P2. The mainstream position of contemporary climate science is supported by solid empirical evidence.
C. Therefore, an increase in state power is required to combat climate change.
Libertarians and free market anarchists do not like the conclusion, so they have to find a premise to object to. Usually, this is P2. Their reasoning is probably that there is no need for an increase in state power to combat something that does not exist. So they avoid the conclusion. The drawback with this approach is that they have to deny the science, which generally does not go well with friends of science, thereby making libertarians look like wacky republicans. There is, however, another option. One could take the route that free market solutions to climate change is more effective than those proposed by governments and that these also do not require the initiation of the use of force. This way, one could accept the mainstream scientific position that humans are an important contributing factor to climate change and global warming, but not be forced to accept the conclusion that more state power is required.
To say that free market solutions will be better is an empirical claim, but it is a more respectable position to take than to deny the science and it also helps to avoid making libertarians look cooky.
LikeLike
Hi Steve. A couple of comments…
[1] When libertarians say they do not want “an increase in state power,” they mean they do not want anything that narrows the gap.
Rich people and their lackeys (e.g. libertarians) love state power. They want it to increase forever…as long as it serves them at the expense of the masses, and thereby widens the gap. A government that does this is called “small and efficient,” no matter how huge it is.
On the other hand, a government that regulates the rich, or otherwise narrows the gap, is called “big government,” no matter how small it is.
The actual size of government is irrelevant.
[2] Steve (above) writes, “To say that free market solutions will be better is an empirical claim, but it is a more respectable position to take than to deny the science and it also helps to avoid making libertarians look cooky.”
Well, it too seems kooky. To propose the “free market” as a solution to global clime change is to claim that the best way to regulate polluters is to deregulate them. This may not convince the masses. It is easier to take the religious (faith-based) route and simply deny the facts.
I SAY THAT THE CLIMATE CHANGE ISSUE IS ALL ABOUT THE GAP.
If facts threaten to narrow the gap, then right-wingers deny the facts.
If facts can be used to widen the gap, then right-wingers affirm the facts.
When global climate change leads to suggestions that people should work for each other (rather than work for the rich) right-wingers deny the facts.
When global climate change leads to suggestions that the rich can exploit it to widen the gap, right-wingers affirm the facts.
For example, there are numerous articles in right-wing blogs that not only affirm global climate change, they celebrate it as the creator of new opportunities for commercial waterways and resource extraction. Here’s a recent article in the (right-wing) Wall Street Journal that calls for increased spending on the military in order to exploit climate change…
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303330204579250522717106330
Bottom line…
When it comes to climate change, a person’s opinion about it mainly depends on whether he wants more equality or less of it. If he wants more equality, then he will accept the facts. If he wants less equality, then he will deny the facts…but only when denying the facts will widen the gap.
LikeLike
A reader above writes, “While I like your MMT I don’t know that it wouldn’t cause runaway inflation. Mainly because we’ve always removed money through federal taxing. So just controlling it with interest rates is to me an unknown.”
The reader makes a standard error in logic.
MMT includes two aspects, a descriptive (or factual) aspect, and a prescriptive (or political) aspect.
The descriptive aspect explains how money actually DOES operate in the real world.
The prescriptive aspect consists of recommendations of how government spending SHOULD operate.
Most MMT advocates are careful to distinguish between the two aspects.
To deny the factual aspects is silly. It’s like saying, “I like your laws of aerodynamics, but I don’t know that it wouldn’t cause the plane to crash.”
To deny the prescriptive aspect is a political opinion. Today most of the world’s governments are imposing austerity in order to widen the gap between the rich and the rest. Since there is not enough money circulating in the real economy, we have a gratuitous global depression.
If we deny this by evoking the bogeyman of inflation, then we falsely claim that the facts of the descriptive aspects of MMT are only opinions. That is, we falsely equate the political with the factual.
This leads to viewpoints that widen the gap, and increase global poverty. Such viewpoints are self-contradictory. (“Inflation will kill us. Therefore I support austerity, which is killing us.”)
It leads to absurdities. (“The known death of austerity is better than the unknown death of inflation.”)
It leads to flat-out lies. (“Austerity is prosperity.” Or, “The US government is broke.”)
We cannot make good political recommendations until we first understand the objective facts.
LikeLike
Too much/little of a good thing can be bad, i.e., imbalance. There’s nothing wrong with CO2 or milk or sugar or a hug from your mommy. But there is something wrong with too much or too little of the stuff of life. The entire universe is about BALANCE. Not too much or too little. Not too close or too far (as in our distance from the sun). Too much green in the house could/may result in green turning bright orange or red or brown. Then we have a red or brown house.
We are literally playing with fire. Why take the chance and tempt our fate? Even if there’s no glowball warming, why chance it? What’s wrong with using the latest state of the art filtration or any other high level, poison capturing technology? There must be a reason for the continual advancement of science and engineering. Ever notice that these people don’t run out of ideas, that they just keep giving and giving and giving? Why not apply the “giving?” Why not open the Christmas present?
Take a pool cue ball and gently breathe on it. The amount of moisture on the surface is proportionate to the thickness of our atmosphere to our Earth. Do not be fooled by your tiny 5-6 ft. tall body as you stare into miles and miles of atmosphere and sky. Don’t lose your sense of proportion or balance.
LikeLike
I agree. I don’t think it’s possible to ever achieve a perfect balance in any aspect of life. I say that perfect balance is an unreachable goal. However balance is a worthy star to steer the ship by, so to speak.
Consider a jetliner. Any jetliner is off course for almost three quarters of its flight. Its nose (it’s direction) constantly drifts from one side to the other. However the onboard computer continually corrects and compensates, back and forth, back and forth, such that the plane eventually reaches its destination.
In life, we can say that our “course” is balance. We are constantly off-course, but we can constantly correct and compensate. If we don’t, we will eventually crash.
Balance in all things. We can never have it completely, but if we don’t have at least some of it, then we are doomed.
LikeLike
There are several groups with whom facts have little effect:
Evolution deniers
Holocaust deniers
Gun death deniers
Vaccination deniers
Climate change deniers
Debt scolds
It always is worth one try to supply facts, but when that doesn’t work, which it usually doesn’t, there is no reason to continue.
These people have powerful motives to believe what they do — motives that have nothing to do with the actual subject — so logic and facts cannot move them.
LikeLike
No person operates totally on facts. Much of his views are products of blind belief and irrational judgment. For example, I disagree with you, Rodger, regarding two of the six categories you listed above. I say that when it comes to those two categories, we are at polar opposites. I say your beliefs are contrary to the facts.
We agree on Monetary Sovereignty, since it is based on facts that we can check right here, right now. For instance, when you say that money is not physical, I can check on this on my computer. I can see the truth in action. I can move money from one of my bank accounts to the other, just by changing numbers. I do not move anything physical. Electrons themselves are not even physical (unlike neutrons.)
However, when you discuss things outside the topic of Monetary Sovereignty, you venture into a twilight zone that includes both facts and beliefs. Your judgments often become self-serving. For example, you mention “gun deaths.” (And no, this is NOT one of the categories where I totally disagree with you.) That’s self-serving, Rodger. No one denies the fact that there are gun deaths. People only disagree on the ramifications of that fact. When someone disagrees with you regarding the ramifications, you claim that they disagree with you regarding the facts. That’s not true.
Regarding those two (unnamed) categories from your list above, we are diametrically opposed in every way. We disagree on both the facts and its ramifications. If we ever discussed those topics, we would brand each other as “deniers.”
Even your categories above are a product of bias. In listing “deniers,” why did you choose only those six categories? Why not list the topics of 9-11, or animal rights, or abortion, or countless other areas where people call each other “deniers”?
MY POINT…
I say that our problem is inequality, which itself occurs because most people at all levels seek to narrow the gap above them, and widen the gap below them. Therefore I say the true essence of denial is to support the gap. Climate change deniers, for example, essentially champion the gap below them.
However, on one of those categories above, Rodger, I say it is you who are in denial. I say you are championing the gap.
Obviously we don’t agree on everything. But what we do agree on is, I think, so important that I don’t haggle with you on those other matters.
LikeLike
As I indicated, it is useless to argue with someone who is convinced that the easy and widespread availability of killing machines does not increase the murder rate.
LikeLike
Many people say that when we look at the overall statistics, the overall murder rate has actually fallen in recent years.
In any case, I do not oppose your stance on the gun issue. I mostly agree with it.
However in two other categories among those you listed, we are universes apart.
LikeLike
It also is useless to argue with someone who is convinced that:
–DNA serves no purpose.
–Germany apologized, paid reparations and put up memorials to something that never happened in their country.
–Smallpox, measles, polio, whooping cough, tetanus, typhoid, cholera and other deadly “vaccinated” diseases decreased all by themselves.
LikeLike
With any war throughout history, the victors always write the history books, portraying themselves as benevolent heroes, and the losers as Satanic villains.
This rule is universal, yet every victorious nation (including the USA) considers itself to be an exception to this universal rule. It is arrogance and self-righteousness, based on crass denialism.
If you question this denialism, you are condemned as a “denier.” It’s part of the madness that is society.
As I indicated before, there are some areas where you and I will never agree. Not remotely. Not ever.
But that’s life. As my late father used to tell me when I was a child, “In this world you’ll find as much people who think like you as look like you.”
LikeLike
I dare to ask if we can at least agree that whether or not climate change is an existential threat that we should not take any chances with. We should not roll the dice on our future. Every step of the way, as soon as clean tech becomes available, it would be advisable to put it into and make it part of our environmental system. I still want clean air and water regardless of whether the weather is being affected in the long term. If we take care of the short term the long term automatically adjusts, like your example of the periodic adjustments/improvements in the on-board flight computer.
This is where MS/MMT may find their way into mass spontaneous acceptance without a revolution of blood letting. As the technology becomes increasingly sophisticated and available, it will make more sense to everyone that we can do/afford anything we want as efficiency lowers costs and increases availability. The point in time will arrive where even the “dream staters” will one by one awaken to the possibility of total success. I don’t have the exact step-by-step evolution and the arrival date, but I know it is a fact that new technology increases both hope and awareness with each bigger and better idea; there’s no end in sight. A critical mass of awareness has yet to reach chain reaction status and was predicted in the 1970 book The Greening of America and others.
Quat, have hope. I understand your pessimism. There are other factors developing awareness, primarily our new teacher–the internet. Unfortunately, this medium also contains a lot of competing religious-political fanaticism, puppeted lies and liars trying to hold back the good news of science like the little Dutch boy with his finger in the dike.
My point is, they can’t win. The .1% is up against science, awareness, and the idea that truth will out. Try as they might to maintain “gap control,” they will fail because the alternative is Oblivion. Though you feel they’re so callous as to want to destroy the world, they also will be forced, like it or not, by overwhelming evidence of utopian hi-tech possibilities– and societal rejection of their stupid old fashioned ways– into going along with the path of least resistance being brought on by Technology’s power and hope. To resist it is madness, no different than refusing to eat or use the bathroom.
I say the .1% will opt to crap AND get off the pot. Even the most selfish have to see the MS writing on the wall. Even Ebeneezer Scrooge did.
LikeLike
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal had a blunt message for the GOP: “Stop being the stupid party.”
Too bad no one was listening.
Next stop: Teach creationism in public schools. Oh, yes. Already there. The stupid party marches on.
LikeLike