Good post, but too blunt for the indoctrinated.
Just read a blurb that referenced a study by a Russian scientist who hypothesized that oil is being produced deep in the earth and the pressures drive it into cracks in rock formations.

In 2004 Michael Crichton wrote a novel about the end-of-the-world, global warming movement, and how data has been manipulated to strike fear in people, of a world dying due to the earth's climate changing due to man-made causes.

The book was called "State Of Fear".

We are now living in it.

There are three reasons I believe in human caused climate change.

First it is the consensus of climatologists. I do not think most of them have the incentive to lie. The only climatologists who would have the incentive to lie are employees for the fossil fuel industry. On most issues I think the consensus of the experts is most likely to be correct.

Second, during my life I have noticed milder winters and hotter summers.

Third, I understand the science. When dinosaurs lived the earth's climate was much warmer. Sea levels were higher. Much of what is now the United States was under water. Tropical plants were closer to the north pole and the south pole than is now the case.

Over a period of hundreds of millions of years plants removed carbon from the atmosphere in photosynthesis. When these plants died many because coal, petroleum, and natural gas. As the carbon dioxide contend of the earth's atmosphere declined, so did the temperature.

By consuming fossil fuels we are countering a process that took place in millions of years in two centuries.

1. There are as many not in consensus as there are for consensus.

2. Human-impact is an issue but climate Activists flat out refuse to listen to any talking point but their own. Their own mostly grounded in hysteria and not the vaulted science that they claim to honor.

3. Fossil Fuel hate is rooted in ideology and mental illness as compared to seeing how can we move off of them. Conservation principles are flat out tossed by Climate Activists so how does anyone deal with these people???

Climate Activists rage for EV's but fail to address how the manufacture of EV's is the same as fossil fuel impact.

Climate Activists refuse to acknowledge reality and how the market must drive the change but they completely reject innovation in favor of an absolutism to regulation.

Climate Activists utterly reject the fact that our Earth will do as it pleases and if there is a "change" may very well be Nature acting on its own with no stopping it. HISTORY!

The Ideology behind climate change is about a communist-driven top-down control of global society than any claim to "save the planet." Our Earth will take care of itself.

There are hardly Communists left in the United States. Calling anyone a Communist is name calling. Name calling is the lowest form of discourse.

Correction: the bulk of the Democrat Party has went decidedly communist in its ideology. It is more of a post-communist/Elite-knows-best but the goals of centralized government running everything you do to solidly attacking self-sufficiency and individualism all lead back to communism. Communism is a great theoretical construct devised by Marx that when applied in a very narrow and tight research focus offers great insights on capitalism but as a solutions-fix is the horror of human history.

PhallicSupermacyOne,

Communism proves that a dictatorship is an inappropriate government for a command economy. Very few Americans want a Communist dictatorship in the United States. Very few ever have. There has never been a remote danger of a Communist dictatorship in the United States. (During the Cold War the danger was of a nuclear war, but that is a subject for another thread.)

Communist China contributes more to global warming than the United States.

Right wingers calling Democrats "Communists" is as detrimental to a serious, civil debate as those on the left calling Republicans "racists." In each case the term is used, not to advance a rational, discussion of a serious issue, but to suppress it.

When I am trying to find where truth lies on a complex and controversial matter any appeal to emotion inclines me to give greater credence to the other side.

I have read enough by Karl Marx to know that I am not a Marxist. In my fallible opinion, Marx had two accurate insights, and he was mistaken about everything else.

Again, CORRECTION. The Democrat Party and those who would identify as a Liberal in the USA are now driven by an embrace of communism. Probably a post-communist/Elitist model more accurately but communism as a whole. They desire the government to be a regulation nirvana aka same as communists do. Contrary to their yelps and rages they are the ones promoting fascism too.

One of the ways that one can see the Ideology at work is the phrase "save our democracy." America is a Constitutional Republic founded on democratic principles but it has never been a "democracy." Using that term is a method of corraling the proletariat to be "one" versus anything else.

A second example is the raw attack on Free Speech and how only certain types of speech will be permitted. The censorship regime that they are pushing from big tech platforms being controlled by them to safe spaces on campus to how they are all conducting themselves in support of Hamas is how they are doing it.

Liberals in the USA are right now craving a crash of the Constitution because they view adherence to it as a threat to "save our democracy." The entire Green Movement is rooted in neo-communism, to its core" as it is now about conservation and ecology but subjegating the masses to control in order to "save the planet." Liberty has no place for the Climate crowd because that would allow for individualism and that cannot be allowed as they all march lock-step to "save our democracy" as well as "save the planet." Some of it goes to the issue of Zealotry and Cause but that is for another thread.

American political discourse can be so useless. Calling the Democratic Party communist is simply so absurd as to be useless in any real discussion except on a meta level as to how propagandized America is

Whatever. I find the essence of the science behind greenhouse gasses to be incredibly simple. It is why Venus is warmer than it should be relative to its distance to the sun and why the temperature trends that have been recorded on our home planet, both historical and recent times, make sense

I personally don't fully understand why the "don't do anything" crowd worries so much. COP28 was run by the head of the UAE's national oil company. Due to big money's ability to corrupt such things and human kind's lack of desire to invite inconvenience nothing substantial has ever been done by the COP's or the UN or really any individual national governments.

IMO: We clearly ARE going to burn every bit of fossil fuels that make sense economically until it is all gone, the limit on burning them is not going to be some arbitrary # set by governments. The only question left is what will be the true effects of all the added greenhouse gasses and if any mitigation technologies develop that could actually make a difference.

You do not prove any of that by asserting it. The United States is a representative democracy. This is what Thomas Jefferson had to say about the matter:

-------------

Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 26 August 1816
To Isaac H. Tiffany, Monticello

[Ancient writers, especially Aristotle] knew no medium between a democracy (the only pure republic, but impracticable beyond the limits of a town) and an abandonment of themselves to an aristocracy or a tyranny, independent of the people...

the introduction of this new principle of representative democracy has rendered useless almost every thing written before on the structure of government: and in a great measure relieves our regret if the political writings of Aristotle, or of any other ancient, have been lost, or are unfaithfully rendered or explained to us. my most earnest wish is to see the republican element of popular control pushed to the maximum of it’s practicable exercise. I shall then believe that our government may be pure & perpetual. Accept my respectful salutations.

Th: Jefferson

-------------

The United States is the second oldest representative democracy on earth. Great Britain is the oldest.

There is no contradiction between being a democracy and being a republic. The United States is both. Great Britain has a democratic government and a constitutional monarch.

As far as I have been able to determine the cliche that "The United States is a republic, not a democracy" originated with reactionaries during the Eisenhower administration, or shortly after. Reactionaries disliked the New Deal reforms of the earlier administration of Franklin Roosevelt. I suspect that the John Birch Society is responsible.

Reactionaries wanted President Eisenhower to repeal the reforms of the New Deal. Eisenhower did not because he knew that those reforms were supported by the vast majority of the American people.

Thereupon the reactionaries decided that majority rule did not matter, because the United States was not a democracy,

By the way, Communist countries have been more polluting than democratic countries like the United States.

The freedom that is most important to me is intellectual freedom. Like you, PhallicSupermacyOne, I chafe under the restrictions of political correctness. Nevertheless, from the beginning of the Cold War to the Communist Tet Offensive in the spring of 1968 Republicans offended against intellectual freedom with loyalty oaths, witch hunts, and black lists. Back then it was dangerous to criticize capitalism, advocate socialism, or to say anything good about any Communist country.

The Tet Offensive changed that, because it made the War in Vietnam unpopular, making it safe to question the beliefs that got us into that war.

My response begins with "You do not prove any of that by asserting it."

I have known and liked members of the American Communist Party. We disagreed on many issues, but we disagreed while remaining agreeable.

dziga, you are as wise as you are courteous, intelligent, and well informed.

Your assumption on just calling Democrats "communists" misses the point that they believe the principles of communism and that is the real issue with this mess of the role of ideology in the Green Scream.

Fossil Fuels are just a source of energy but yes, how to mitigate their emissions is critical for a healthy planet. So, until the EV crowd has it all figured out, so to say, then why not have automobiles get, say, a 100 mpg? The Combustion Engine is the issue because of real power that comes from it so how will that power be replaced? No one in the Green Scream can answer ECONOMY OF SCALE.

COP28 and other such groups are just part of the Elitist Model of "we know best" that does not include nor care for We the People or the role of markets and innovation to fix a problem.

Finally, what if Fossil Fuels are "burned up?" Will we become Venus? Perhaps but did not Venus develop that way on its own? No Fossil Fuel use made Venus its way. Thus, what if Nature does not care and does its own thing? Humanity has a duty of dominion over Nature but the question is how to do it? We bend Nature to our will daily but until we have a paradigm, a belief system, and just way of life that grounds the bending to morality then we will be in conflict about it.

The issue is not that political party but how Democrats have metastasized communism with a mixture of dictatorship love (how they love Xi ruling China as he does with hating the West outright to develop a neo-communism that is driving them right now.


Doubt me then ask your friends in that party, get with those in the Green Party, or any other such political party. See what they say.

Understanding that the USA is a Constitutional Republic that may be driven by representative democracy does not change the fact that it is a Constitutional Republic. If education, public or private, taught that truth it would eliminate a great many headaches we have in this land right now. Has nothing to do with political parties but with getting it right. It does because knowing what kind of regulatory power is needed in such a republic is determinant of our level of freedom and liberty. Individualism has no place in the "save our democracy" crowd.

Trump is the one who talks about being a dictator for a day. He admires Putin.

Did you or anyone referencing then"dictator" see the interview in full?

Trump kept Putin in check so whether or not he alledgley "admires" him is a moot point.

Talking points straight from the DNC is not worthy of a real discussion. The facts under Trump from keeping Putin in check, the Abraham Accords-that were on the verge of a true leap forward in the Middle East versus the same old drama of Hamas/Iran, the economy, immigration being managed, it all speaks for itself but all of this talk is for another thread.

The Democrats, including me, believe in some of the principles of Communism. For example, in the Communist Manifesto Karl Marx advocates:

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s
factory labour in its present form.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Manifesto.pdf

------------

I think those are good ideas. So do most Americans.

No, most Americans still embrace, "Live Free or Die." The principles of the Manifesto are zero individual liberties of any kind whatsoever as gains for the proletariat (aka, masses) is all that matters.

How about ending the abhorrent practice of Income Tax altogether? Repeal the 16th! Install a national sales tax + other traditional sources of tax revenue but no Income Tax. It is the worst inhibitor of productivity in human history.

What Progressives fail to mention, ever, is that taxation is about spending priorities. Why not address the budget versus tax, tax, tax? The best action that the American government could take right now for 2024 is to suspend 100% of foreign aid and reinvest that money in America only. See how the world reacts and then start 2025 by being super-targeted in foreign aid.

Progressives just have no concept of money, earning a living, actually running a business or really any organization but government and that mess that up daily, no concept of work ethic or how to work for a goal. All they have offer is to tax a citizen into bankruptcy and nothing else.

Free education is already in place-where are at with it? How many college grads leave the university with a degree ready for a career or instead a scorecard on keeping a tally of microaggressions? How will that help the business plan????

A national sales taxes would raise taxes on poor people and cut them for rich people. Most Americans want the rich to pay higher taxes.

You write the way Republican politicians talk to each other when they don't think any one else is listening. I wish you wrote campaign literature and campaign speeches for Republican candidates.

Democratic presidents have a better record of economic growth than Republican presidents. This is because Democratic presidents raise taxes on the rich and spread the wealth around.

Most Americans are unconcerned about who pays taxes with the taxation of their own income being too much. You are the campaign writer for Democrats with that nonsense of "tax the rich." I have advocated for ending and repealing the 16th for years and instituting a national sales tax. Most lower income Americans already do not pay taxes as data shows that the rich pay their share. Class warfare slogans ignore the fact that taxation should never be on income and should be congruent with spending priorities.

Your statement is straight out of a DNC Memo. None of it is accurate.

JFK actually cut taxes that spurred growth as he was the last Democrat to advocate such a policy action.

When you raise taxes on the rich or business owners, all they do is pass the added cost onto the consumer. Poor people included!!!!

During the 1950's the top tax rate fluctuated between 84,36% to 92.0%

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/02inpetr.pdf

Even after the war and recession, the 1950s saw strong GDP growth, low inflation and low unemployment. Despite an average unemployment rate of 4.8% over the 1953–1959 period, inflation remained muted. The average of just over 1.3% in that period is low even by modern standards.

https://employamerica.medium.com/expecting-inflation-the-case-of-the-1950s-b197c7a926e6#:~:text=Even%20after%20the%20war%20and,low%20even%20by%20modern%20standards.

The lowest tax bracket, for the poorest wage earners, was 20%, too. And they probably paid more of the taxes. Yes, the government had more money to spend on things like education when everyone paid taxes. Today, just over 50% of filers pay nothing, and the rich pay 50% of the revenue the IRS collects.

And, either way, what you posted and said does not negate the fact that when businesses taxes, or other costs, go up, it gets passed on to the consumer. Fair or unfair, that's the reality, and that's how it works.

Oh, and it's easier to have lower inflation when your manufacturing base is intact and your country is more or less self sufficient in nearly everything.

And, either way, what you posted and said does not negate the fact that when businesses taxes, or other costs, go up, it gets passed on to the consumer. Fair or unfair, that's the reality, and that's how it works.

- milfchaser

-------------

As I explained in my earlier post, there was no evidence of this happening during the 1950's, when the U.S. economy worked better for middle class and working class people. Beginning with the Reagan administration the rich have paid lower taxes on higher incomes. One could argue that the greater spending ability of the rich inflated the prices of items purchased by middle class people.

Back in the 1950's, the US was supplying machinery, vehicles, electronics, agricultural products, and everything else under the sun to the rest of the world, at a profit. And it was all built in US factories, or grown or mined in the US. That is the reason the US economy worked better for middle class and working class people.

But not all working class people were well off, as 25% of Americans lived under the poverty line in the 1950's, a statistic that held up until the mid-1960s when the Great Society began to kick in. So the 1950's really weren't a utopia for everyone. Especially for most African Americans and poor whites in rural areas.

Reagan's tax policies didn't screw the workers as much as free trade, offshoring of our manufacturing, replacing a manufacturing economy with the "service economy", outsourcing of labor to foreign countries, and allowing other countries like Japan (and later, China) to dump their products here. And the economic policies that allowed those things to happen were written by Congresses and Administrations of both parties over a 50 to 60 year period. When Japan was allowed to dump their autos and steel on the US market it damaged US auto and steel industries. Reagan might have approved of that, as he was a free trade capitalist, but that shit was happening even before Reagan.

Then you had the decline of labor unions, and deregulation, things which damaged workers' earning capabilities, and which also started before Reagan. The fact the US economy is still somewhat intact is probably a testament to the will of the American people to try to make things work, but our governments, from both parties, have done their share to screw the American people in the process of governing them. If they do the right thing it often feels like it was a mistake that got overlooked.

Its a standard DNC mantra that Democrat presidents always give us prosperity and more jobs. I guess that's why the Rust Belt put Trump in office in 2016, because of all that wonderful prosperity that Obama gave the country. Right now "prosperity" under Biden is groceries costing twice as much as they did when he came to office, and the dollar being worth 17% less than it was worth on January 20th, 2021.

The fact is that Presidents can not make or break an economy, but their party's policies definitely can affect it. What we're living in now is the result of maybe 50to 60 or more years of economic misrule by Congresses and Administrations of both major parties.

The 1950's were a great time to be a white worker in the industrial North and West. Not so great for other people. Taxing the rich more back then didn't do much for the average African American still living under discrimination, or for the poor white who had to live in poverty in Appalachia or the rural areas of the US. Those 90+% tax rates on the rich didn't improve their lives much, if at all. There is only so much you can do with tax rates. Trade policies, labor policies, energy policy, proper use of tax credits, proper regulation of businesses, social safety nets like Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare -- those things probably have a more positive effect on the average American than just taxing the rich.