Global warming, with many small warming and cooling cycles, has been around for about 18,000 years or since the last ice age with sea levels rising 400 feet from that time to present. As little as 9,000 years ago, one could walk from what is now England to France with trifling concern for wet feet.
Some math, 400 foot sea level rise translates to 4800 inches total in 180 centuries for an average 26.7 inches of sea level rise per century…..a rise far greater than many estimates of the global warming hysteria crowd. Perhaps the sea level rise rate is decreasing?

Consider Michael Crichton’s analogy in his book “State of Fear”
(My Paraphrase)….
Imagine the composition of the Earth’s atmosphere as a football field. Nitrogen, most of the atmosphere, takes you to the 78 yard line, adding oxygen advances you to the 99 yard line. Most of what remains is the inert gas argon that brings you within 3.5 inches of the goal line. The remaining amount that is CO2 is one inch with man’s contribution to CO2 in 50 years adding up to three-eights of that inch. Yet you are asked to believe that this tiny change has driven the entire planet into a dangerous warming pattern.

Tony Favero
Half Moon Bay, CA

In my observation, the rank and file liberals/Democrats usually have no idea of the left’s Marxist/communist leanings; it’s one of the manifestations of their are guided primarily by feelings rather than by reasoning.

When I point out to leftists that their arguments are Marxist/communist, they generally have one of two immediate reactions, either “You’re just name calling, there’s nothing Marxist here” or “If that’s what Marxism is them I’ll for it, this is just common sense!”

As with many things, the root of the problem is education in the broader sense; not just what’s learned in school, but being able to think for oneself and seek knowledge.

I like to point out that we run our (immediate) family on the Marxist tenet “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.” In that arena, it is common sense, very practical, and very fair. I used to point out the same thing to my Marines; the basic tenet of Marxism is the best way to run a small unit who often spend all waking hours together and who may have to depend on each other for their very survival.

The trouble is when we try to apply that and other principles to larger groups and to society as a whole; human nature prevents Marxism from working outside a small, tightknit group where there are strong bonds on multiple levels and an incentive to make nearly everyone self-sufficient.

After all, when raising small children we have to cultivate their abilities and make them contribute to the family, while weaning them from dependency so that they can build lives of their own. Anytime you have a government program fulfilling the needs of the less fortunate/less industrious, the people running the program have no incentive to make the recipients more self-sufficient, and many of the recipients have no desire to be weaned off.

Na, not too strong. The Democrat party holds a lot of communist ideals dear and communists are a welcome and influential part of the party. Just look at the groups that help organize and fund Democrat protests.

Democrats regularly bounce from, “We are not communists.” to, “So what if we are communists? There is nothing wrong with it.”

What I have never seen is the party leadership or activists repudate communism or more importantly stop associating with communist activists.

None of my liberal friends admit to communist leanings, but most of them are proud (and loud) about socialist goals. Wasn’t Pres. Obama’s appointee, Van Jones, now with CNN, an avowed communist?

We have one fact that no one disputes: The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing. Whether that can cause the atmosphere to warm significantly, however, remains a theory only.

The problem is that CO2 in our atmosphere is a trace gas. Though the greenhouse effect is real, the major greenhouse gas is water, not CO2. The water in our atmosphere warms the Earth from 10 to 20 degrees, depending on what scientific papers you read. CO2 is not thought to do very much to warm the atmosphere. For example, in every past case where the Earth’s climate warmed, the warming occurred first, then the CO2 rose in the atmosphere, suggesting that the warming was caused by other factors and that this warming then caused the generation of more CO2 (probably from plant life that was prospering in the warmer temperatures).

To get CO2 to cause global warming, it is required that the increase in CO2 reacts with other atmospheric components, such as water, to cause them to generate a bigger greenhouse effect. Climate scientists call this feedback. The CO2 causes a feedback with the important greenhouse gases, they trap the heat, and the climate warms. It is this theory on which all the global warming fear-mongering during the last twenty years has been based.

The problem is that this only a theory. The climate models the IPCC uses all depend on it. None, however, have shown any ability to predict anything. See this link for a good summary. See also my comments here and here and here.

Not only has the CO2 global warming theory not been proven, the facts we presently have are showing it to be a failed theory. The expectation had been that the climate would warm in lockstep with the increase in CO2. It has not. None of the models, written with this theory as their basis, has been able to predict the global temperature, at any time.

That’s the theoretical and scientific arguments. Then there’s the question of scientific fraud, coming from scientists who believe in global warming. That fraud actually disturbs me more than anything else, especially in that the climate science community has done nothing to clean the mess up, and in fact has done what it could to protect these dishonest scientists. See also this long detailed post by me: The Fantasy of Extreme Weather.

And finally, we have the bad influence of politicians, whose only real interest is to increase their power. They have helped distort this science more than anyone.

I hope that answers your question.

Socialist/Marxist, any proof of that? A little strong don`t you think?