–What is your opinion regarding climate change?

Twitter: @rodgermitchell; Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

Mitchell’s laws:
●Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
●The more federal budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes. .
Liberals think the purpose of government is to protect the poor and powerless from the rich and powerful. Conservatives think the purpose of government is to protect the rich and powerful from the poor and powerless.
●Austerity is the government’s method for widening
the gap between rich and poor.
●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.
●Everything in economics devolves to motive,
and the motive is the Gap.

Do you believe:
1. Global warming would have an adverse effect on human and non-human life?
2. The world’s climate is warming?
3. Humans are partly responsible?

Here is what the right-wing Washington Post says:

Over the past four years, the Republican Party has undergone a fairly dramatic shift in its approach to energy and environmental issues. Global warming has disappeared entirely from the party’s list of concerns.

Clean energy has become an afterthought. Fossil fuels loom larger than ever.

Back in 2008, the Republican Party’s platform had a long and detailed section on “Addressing Climate Change Responsibly.”

The same human economic activity that has brought freedom and opportunity to billions has also increased the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. Common sense dictates that the United States should take measured and reasonable steps today to reduce any impact on the environment.

“Those steps, if consistent with our global competitiveness will also be good for our national security, our energy independence, and our economy.”

Skip ahead to 2012, and the GOP platform takes a markedly different tone. That section devoted to climate change? Gone.

Instead, the platform flatly opposes “any and all cap and trade legislation” to curtail greenhouse gases. It demands that Congress “take quick action to prohibit the EPA from moving forward with new greenhouse gas regulations.”

It criticizes the Obama administration’s National Security Strategy for “elevating ‘climate change’ to the level of a ‘severe threat’ equivalent to foreign aggression.”

Science allows us to weigh the costs and benefits of a policy so that we can prudently deal with our resources. This is especially important when the causes and long-range effects of a phenomenon are uncertain.

Remember, this came from a right wing paper.

Today, four years from the time when the Republicans were sure that “human activity increased the amount of carbon in the atmosphere,” the same people now feel the costs of climate protection have become too high and the benefits “uncertain.”

Of course, four years ago, the billionaire Koch brothers, and other massive environment destroyers, were prohibited by law, from bribing the politicians as much as the Supreme Court now allows.

The language echoes an op-ed written by Paul Ryan in December of 2009, which accused climatologists of using “statistical tricks to distort their findings and intentionally mislead the public on the issue of climate change.”

Ryan’s charges were untrue; a number of subsequent investigations into the leaked Climate Research Unit e-mails found no evidence of wrongdoing by the scientists involved.

This is the same Paul Ryan, the Republican budget guru and Presidential aspirant, who not only wishes to sell his soul to the highest bidder, but ironically claims the climatologists used “statistical tricks.”

That, in itself, is an old trick. Accuse the other guy of your guilt. When you lie about the climate, accuse the scientists of lying.

I’m sorry about the repeated condemnation of Republicans, but this is not my Republican Party — the party I favored from Eisenhower through Reagan.

No, beginning with Newt Gingrich, this Republican party has been dominated by mean-spirited, lying illegitimates, who care for one thing, and one thing only: Money.

This is the party of the haters. This is the “religious” party of Christie, Carson, Paul, Palin, Huckabee, Santorum, Cruz, Romney, Bachmann, Jindal, Ryan, Perry and Walker. Put them all in one room, and you’ll not find one ounce of warmth or compassion.

This is the party of the rich, by the rich and for the rich — and frankly, if you are not in the upper 1% income/power/wealth group, I cannot understand why you would give them your vote.

They will not give you anything.

Of course, the Republican chameleons will change again. Within the next couple of years, when enough of the public finally realizes climate change is real and killing us, and is the result of human fossil burning, every Republican will tell you, “I knew it all the time, and I said so . . . (many years ago.”)

By then, we will have wandered farther down the path of no return, and our planet will have been permanently mutilated.

That scarred, twisted and poisonous environment will be our legacy to our sick children and grandchildren.

And more than any group on earth, the U.S. Republican party and its followers deserve the credit.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

The 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. Federally funded, 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. (Refer to this.)
8. Tax the very rich (.1%) more, with higher, progressive tax rates on all forms of income. (Click here)
9. Federal ownership of all banks (Click here and here)
10. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99% (Click here)

Initiating The Ten Steps sequentially will add dollars to the economy, stimulate the economy, and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and the rest.

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.
1. A growing economy requires a growing supply of dollars (GDP=Federal Spending + Non-federal Spending + Net Exports)
2. All deficit spending grows the supply of dollars
3. The limit to federal deficit spending is an inflation that cannot be cured with interest rate control.
4. The limit to non-federal deficit spending is the ability to borrow.

Monetary Sovereignty

Monetary Sovereignty

Vertical gray bars mark recessions.

As the federal deficit growth lines drop, we approach recession, which will be cured only when the growth lines rise. Increasing federal deficit growth (aka “stimulus”) is necessary for long-term economic growth.


13 thoughts on “–What is your opinion regarding climate change?

  1. There is little doubt the People represented by the Republican party are determined on keeping the status quo alive for ever.
    It is, after all quite OK today, thank you!!! Lets not stir the pot.
    When the climate monster shows them the whites of its eyes, then we’ll see interesting action!


  2. To assume that the position of Republicans, or anyone else that doesn’t buy into the ‘climate change’ agenda, is dishonest is to assume, just as naively and irresponsibly, that the agenda of Al Gore and the ‘global warming’ agenda proponents is honest; and providing honest and sincere ‘statistics’. There is climate change. However, the planet is not just warming, and that because of man made ‘greenhouse gases’, but is going through the continued phases of warming and cooling that it has gone through for a long time. Long before ‘man’ ever got here to determine how to manage the environment, as if the environment needed man’s greedy wisdom. And incidentally. do you ever wonder why the ‘neo-libs’ refer to ‘greenhouse’ gases? Its because this atmosphere that gives us life is because of a greenhouse effect. Greenhouse entrepreneurs know that if they don’t add extra CO2 to their greenhouse produce factories, the plants inside do poorly, and become stunted and weak. Does that mean that we should artificially increase the amount of CO2 to our atmosphere? Of course not, and we all know better. However, one volcanic ‘belch’ can emit hundreds of times more CO2 to our environment than we could ever eliminate if we all stopped using any fossil fuels, and quit passing methane from cows and humans. The motive behind the ‘global warming’ agenda is driven by nothing but greed for those in position of levying and collecting taxes for the purpose of keeping all of the wealth for themselves. And RMM knows this as well as anyone I know. And our lobbying for more goods and services than our efforts can produce is just as dishonest as the ‘neo-libs’ wanting to use ‘global warming’, or climate change, for the same purpose; gaining goods and services that we did not produce. Our greed, because of their greed, will produce nothing of value. There is serious change needed. And change is coming. But it won’t be from a ‘robin hood’ effect of the poor re-stealing what the rich already stole. Father God, gives us the wisdom to hear your voice for remedy and change that is honest and sincere improvement. ADN


      1. Roger you believe the government the media and the economist are all lying about money. Yet you seem to readily accept from these same sources that Co2 is going to kill us all. Sorry but climate scientists are not infallible nor are they immune to exaggeration. Their flaws are being documented at climate audit.org. wattupwiththat.
        The Co2 story is in fact is much like the monetary Big Lie one claiming that we are creating a debt of money and the other claiming a debt co2.

        But again why punish industry with taxes when you know government can pay for it?


        1. According to your logic, since I don’t agree with mainstream economists, I should not believe what any other scientists say. Right?

          Of course, if you don’t believe what the vast majority of climate scientists say about climate change, whom do you believe — and why?

          I do agree not to punish industry with taxes — which has nothing to do with believing in climate change.


          1. RMM,

            Even the idea about what the “vast majority of scientists say” is a part of the Big Climate Lie. This is the so-called 97% consensus. It’s bogus. But its’ repeated over and over and over again so people belief it’s true. Google criticisms of it. Really, look into criticisms of all the major claims in the climate scare – ocean “acidification”, rising sea levels, melting ice, species extinction, etc. – it’s a whole lot of fear mongering and speculation.

            I used to buy it. Then I got curious about what the skeptics are so skeptical about.

            Like the debt and deficit, through human-caused climate change we are burdening our children and grandchildren… and we must accept lower current standards of living to prevent it from happening. It’s just another Big Lie.

            “All this was inspired by the principle – which is quite true in itself – that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters, but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.” Adolf – Mein Kampf


    1. So climate change was invented by Al Gore and “global warming” proponents? Actually climate change is predicted by climate scientists and they are 97% in agreement that it is human caused at least in part!


  3. If someone points a gun at your head and tells you to empty your pockets or die, what do you do? Do you say to the gunman, “I don’t believe you’ll shoot and I bet there’s no bullets in that gun.” Or do you take no chances and do everything you possibly can to stay alive?


  4. Rodger, there you go again! I’ve repeatedly pointed out that while CLC is actually occurring, no one can be sure whether it’s effects are deleterious or
    as natural as are weather shifts! And, you’ve always agreed!

    Yet you continually imply that ‘the end is near unless we somehow act’? At least that’s the erroneously ambiguous message you’re imparting!

    Sorry! …. Nonetheless, best health, wise man!


    1. You’re right — perhaps half right.

      No one can be sure whether long-term the effects of climate change are deleterious. Long-term, they may even turn out to be beneficial. Maybe they will prevent another ice-age. No one knows.

      There is, however, substantial agreement that short term, warming is harmful to us and most of the life around us.

      As for “natural” as weather shifts, that most assuredly is not true. CO2 definitely is a greenhouse gas, and humans definitely are adding massive amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere. So unless you consider humans to be a “natural” part of the environment, the weather changes definitely are not natural.

      Because we cannot predict long-term weather, anyone can say anything is harmful or beneficial, long term. So from that standpoint, we are rolling the dice.

      We only can say what we believe to be harmful in the short-term. But the fact that we are ignorant about the long term, does not free us to do anything we damn well please, and justify our actions the by lack of absolute scientific proof.

      We must live with best guesses, and the best guess among scientists currently is that fossil fuel burning is hurting, and will continue to hurt us more and more.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s