Screen Shot 2017-05-17 at 1.05.14 PM

By Nancy Thorner and Ed Ingold –

Comments

Screen_shot_2016-12-16_at_11.38.41_am
By Nancy Thorner and Bonnie O’Neil – 
Having lost the House, Senate, presidency and most gubernatorial races, one would think Democrats would wake-up to the realization that the public rejected their Liberal message to consider what they might change to be more aligned with the American public.
That is not what Liberals have decided to do. What they have chosen to do instead may be a shocking revelation and possible wake-up call for many of our citizens. There is substantiated evidence proving specific Liberal leaders, a variety of special interest groups, and over one hundred Leftist, socialist organizations are all part of a conspiracy to create and fund a shadow government.
Their goal is to destroy President Donald Trump or at least damage him significantly, so that he is unable to achieve the goals he promised Americans, specifically those goals that oppose this shadow, socialist government’s Liberal agenda to change America.
There are indications even former President Obama, along with prominent Liberals and organizations, has conspired to create a shadow government in America to work against the Trump administration and its goals.   To date, over 100 organizations and a variety of well-known media sources have joined in this devious plot to destroy our President.  Their plans are largely designed to organize Liberals throughout America to participate in specific actions to attack Trump’s presidency at every opportunity possible.  The goal of these traitors is to leave Trump ineffective, irrelevant, and if all goes well for them, possibly recalled.  There is no apparent concern that this might evolve into a disastrous situation that could severely damage and/or destroy our nation as we know it today.
This plan is not a secret, as the information is rather easily obtained on the internet and is evidenced by the numerous attacks against President Trump which began a few days after the 2016 election; certainly way before our President had the opportunity to prove himself as an effective leader.   Incredibly, there are even some mainstream media sources cooperating with what many now recognize as an orchestrated attempt to destroy our new President.   This effort borders on treason, but no matter the exact definition of this mean spirited attack, the possibility of it causing horrendous damage to America, possibly irreversible, is very real.
 
Movement springs into action with Trump’s election
One of the first indicators of this movement was revealed immediately after Donald Trump won the election when, within days, rioters were bused to specific city streets to protest the results of the election.  The nation witnessed a “Women’s Walk on Washington” to protest Trump.  Hollywood stars used the occasion to make outrageous statements about our new President to the applause of many attendees.   Rational people watching this circus wondered who organized these events that allowed speakers to make outrageous, unfounded statements about Trump, before he even had a chance to move into the White House.
Many of us were surprised when President Obama decided to buy a home blocks from the White House.  Presidents throughout our history have understood the importance and purpose for a peaceful transition of power, which is why former Presidents have always left D.C. and returned to their homes in other states.   This is wise so that the country can adjust to a new administration and thus support its new President.  It is not just for the sake of tradition that this procedure is followed; it is an essential step and a gracious gift to both the new President and the Country, as the new President chooses his cabinet and begins adjusting to the major job of running the nation.  Barack Obama was given this gift by President Bush, but he had no intention of following this tradition.  In fact, quite the opposite.
 
Major Players in Left’s Goal to undermine government
It is necessary for all American citizens to know the players and plans being perpetrated, so they can more easily identify malicious tactics.   Keep in mind our forefathers provided us legal, honorable ways for citizens to express themselves in addition to laws that provide legal ways to remove politicians who break our country’s code of conduct.  We have term limits to remove officials who have proven to be disappointments.  The public cannot allow those who conceive devious plots to gain political power through self-serving methods.
Millionaire atheist George Soros is a major player in political games, and he is using the special interest Liberal organizations he founded and funds to help with this outrageous project.  He is not alone, of course.  Organizations like the Liberal ACLU have taken a large role in this unprecedented effort to destroy our President, and many other Liberal media sources are cooperating with this effort.
It has to do with destroying voices that the far left and the organized left-wing cabal doesn’t like.  Bill O’Reilly confirmed this was the reason he was forced out of FOX.  O’Reilly stated:  “It has to do with destroying voices that the far left and the organized left-wing cabal doesn’t like.”  In his first interview since being fired by Fox News, Bill O’Reilly has just begun speaking out.  He just revealed what happened behind the scenes, and it’s really stirring things up.  O’Reilly plans to name names when the time comes and explain exactly how this crew goes in and terrorizes sponsors; threatens people behind the scenes, and pays people to say things. “We are going to name them and it’s going to be a big, story.”
We also know that the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) committed to a million-dollar “resistance” program called “People Power.”  Its goal is to find and train people to resist Trump and the new Administration from enacting the promises that American voters wanted and Trump promised. The ACLU plan encourages citizens to make appointments with local law enforcement and/or city officials to demand they implement immigration-friendly policies. Currently, the ACLU has been exposing and promoting this new slogan to their volunteers and paid workers:  “We’ll do the work in the Courts, you do the work in the streets.”   Seriously?  Exactly what does that mean?  Is the ACLU encouraging people to deploy and destroy the President of the United States?    What an eye-opener!  It is frightening that an organization was prepared to destroy this President so quickly.
 
Ploys in use to destroy Trump
Specific Left-leaning organizations and agitators use various ways to damage and/or destroy Trump, many of which are detailed by Saul Alinsky such as:  “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”  During the 2016 election, the media sources tried to stop Trump from winning by focusing on his personal flaws, real and imagined.  That failed, so they began targeting the people around Trump, which indirectly is a negative reflection on him.  These detractors use these tactics to criticize and blame the President whenever possible.  They have powerful media sources who will help them with their plan to destroy Trump by fake news and explosive headlines with little substance.
Comedians traditionally make fun of Presidents, but Kimmel, Colbert, and Maher have crossed the line with so-called jokes that are indecent.  Bill Maher inferred incest between the President and his daughter. This type of humor is not funny; It is over-the-top malicious and disrespectful!  Are they part of this cabal to ruin Trump?
Sarah Palin can testify how the media can destroy a candidate through carefully crafted lies intended to harm rather than provide humor.  A segment of our population still think Palin actually said:  “I can see Russia from my backyard.”  The media showed this candidate no mercy, and it worked.  Has the public learned anything from the media’s savage vilification of Sarah Palin?
 
Attacks on Trump a continuation of decade long plan by Left
The continual attack on Trump is a carefully crafted plan that began decades ago, designed to silence Conservatives and promote Liberal ideals.  Liberals have been manipulating the public, largely through our exceedingly liberal schools for decades, as well as various media sources.  We all will suffer from their conspiratorial actions unless we refuse to be deceived.  Facts indicate their intent is to turn America into a Socialist/Communist form of government, and after eight years of the Obama administration, advances were made toward that misguided goal.  That is why the recent election results shocked Democrats and caused Socialist promoters to realize they needed to destroy the Trump’s presidency to preserve the progress they had made.
These specific Liberals call themselves “the Resistants.”  They are resisting what our wise forefathers gave us: a Republic. We need to remember the words of Benjamin Franklin as he exited the meeting which decided the form of government for our new-born nation.  A woman called out from the waiting crowd:  “What type of government have you given us?”  Franklin answered:  “A Republic madam, if you can keep it.”   Generations throughout our history fought and died to keep it and thus we have prospered, but Franklin’s answer remains a warning for all generations.  We cannot assume that because America is the most prosperous, envied nation in the World, it will remain as such.  There will always be those who, if they see an advantage to themselves, will attempt to change America for self-serving reasons, which is why it is essential we stay alert and defend it from enemies foreign and within.
Every American citizen is entitled to embrace his or her own political opinions; America has remained strong because we have wisely allowed elections to decide our leaders. History has proven the wisdom of our populous accepting election results and working together for the good of our country.
We must be alert to recognize any and all who purpose to perpetrate malicious attacks on President Trump, before he is even given an opportunity to prove his decisions correct.  Those aggressively critical of Trump and his administration seem to have one thing in common: they are far Left leaning Democrats who were aligned with President Obama and critical of many of the Conservative values espoused by our forefathers.
Part 1: Thorner/O’Neil:  Political Climate Fostering Intolerance and Anger
| Permalink

Trump-ahca-1

By Nancy Thorner and Ed Ingold –

The first 100 days of a Presidency are often called the “Honeymoon” period. Some honeymoon! By most accounts, it was 100 days of a contentious divorce proceeding, with the Democrats wanting to keep the (White) house and the bank account.  By contrast, all Bill Clinton took was the dishes and flatware (and the “w” keys from the typewriters).

Trump’s major victory was the appointment of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, which happened despite the endless delays and recriminations hurled against Gorsuch aimed at sinking his appointment.  In short order, Gorsuch’s appointment should put an end to judges in the 9th Circuit using campaign statements instead of  judging the law as written. Appropriate for such behavior would be a penalty, possibly impeachment or a “three strikes and retire” rule.

Another contentious and non-compromising issue for Democrats was the dismantling of their sacred cow, Obmacare.

On May 4 the House voted to dismantle the pillars of the Affordable Care Act and make sweeping changes to the nation’s health care system with no help from the Democrats. Read here is what the Republican Repeal bill actually does.

The (dis)loyal opposition, as to be expected, has raked the Republican Repeal Bill over the coals, claiming that 24 million people will lose their insurance under Trump’s AHCA. This is nothing less than a lie promulgated for political purposes. Trump has made it clear that pre-existing conditions and Medicaid will continue, but in a more manageable format.

How did Obamacare (ACA) really fare? The Democrats claim that 20 million people got insurance for the first time. That includes 11.2 million people who qualified for Medicaid under relaxed income rules. In fact, individuals making less than $35k annually were forced into Medicaid by the Exchange program. While this insurance comes at no immediate cost to the recipient, there are downsides. First of all, having insurance does not guarantee health care, and many hospitals and physicians refuse to accept Medicaid patients. Secondly, most of the expense is borne by the states, which will place a lien on the estate of recipients in order to recover some of that cost.

The other hidden factor is the huge number of middle-income citizens who lost their coverage (the policies Obama said they could keep). In 2016 is 6.5 million people paid the penalty rather than buy expensive insurance. That’s a matter of public information. However many more are paying for insurance which does them no good. The cost varies from about $6,000 to over $12,000 a year, but the deductibles are so high (typically $6,000) that it pays no bills short of a medical disaster. Prior to Obamacare, this was called “major medical” insurance. Now they are forced to pay comprehensive insurance premiums for major medical coverage.

Fortunately, the majority of families are covered under work-related policies through corporations and union. The catch is those benefits are now taxed, with a high penalty when they exceed the “Cadillac” cost of $12,000, which is about the same cost as Obamacare for the few paying Obamacare customers.

The new AHCA will eliminate unneeded coverage and most penalties, reducing the cost for Middle Americans. Requirements placed on small businesses will be relaxed, and the threshold for full time work raised once again to 40 hours/week. This will encourage economic growth, and fewer people who seek part time work will need two or more jobs. A high-risk pool will be established for chronic and pre-existing illnesses, much as works with automobile insurance. The cost will be shared by the Federal government, states and the recipients. The cost is high, but affects relatively few individuals. Most policies prior to Obamacare only denied coverage for a specified period of time, like two years.

Hopefully contrarian U.S. Republican senators will soon get their act together, and instead of looking down at House Republican senators as second-class legislators, will come on board to pass the House, without a complete rewrite, so President Trump can sign AHCA into law.


Comments

Comments



Comments


CBN-taxes-Daniel-Pilla

By Nancy Thorner – 

In what turned out to be perfect timing, tax expert, Heartland Institute Policy Advisor, and author Daniel J. Pilla was the featured speaker on April 27 at the Heartland Institute on the same day Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn were sent out by President Trump to reveal his tax plan at a White House press conference briefing. Watch Pilla’s presentation at Heartland here.)

Director Cohn called the Trump’s tax reform package the most significant tax reform legislation since 1986, and one of the greatest tax cuts in American history – while fully anticipating attacks “from the left and right” over the plan, whose aim, he said, was to “create jobs and economic growth.”

Speaker Background: Dan Pilla – ‘Premiere Expert on IRS Procedures’

For over three decades, Daniel J. Pilla has been the nation’s leader in taxpayers’ rights defense and IRS abuse prevention and cure. Widely regarded as one of the country’s premiere experts in IRS procedures, he has helped countless thousands of citizens solve personal and business tax problems they thought might never be solved. Pilla has seen every type of tax problem and believes “there is no such thing as a hopeless tax problem.” See here for Pilla’s comprehensive site, the Tax Freedom Institute, which is dedicated to “Understanding Your Taxpayer Rights and Solving Your Tax Problems.”

Pilla is the author of 14 books, dozens of research reports and hundreds of articles. His work is regularly featured on radio and television as well as in major newspapers, leading magazines and trade publications nation-wide. Dan is also a frequent guest on major talk radio programs where he is heard by millions of people each year. His fast-paced interviews provide hard hitting answers to even the toughest questions, as is demonstrated in this YouTube video of Pilla delivering his very entertaining and passionate lecture to Heartland members and friends.

Pilla on Trump’s Tax Plan

Pilla initially questioned whether Trump’s tax plan could be considered radical tax reform, as Heartland Director of Communications Jim Lakely posited in his introduction. Pilla said it wasn’t “radical,” and explained how tax reform has never been a problem in the action sense of the word. He explained his opinion by presenting examples of several attempts at tax reform since 1986, the high mark of the Reagan Revolution.

In the 1990s, he said, there were four major tax reforms in three years. From 2001 to 2015, there were 5,900 tax law changes made to the Internal Revenue code – and this only led to massive confusion. Pilla called the tax code “hideous” – citing its complexity as the reason for so much cheating, even labeling tax complexity as the number-one problem for tax payers. Pilla spoke about a 1998 law which maintained that the IRS must submit to Congress a report on tax law complexity. Only two reports were submitted, both before 2002, indicating that the required report is too difficult for the IRS to produce.

Trump Tax Reform Proposals Pilla Likes

Pilla suggested that several of Trump’s proposed tax reforms are, if not “radical,” a great improvement – which would improve compliance, eliminate complexity for taxpayers, and encourage economic growth.

  • Repeal of the Alternative Minimum Tax, in which government can tax an individual at a higher rate if government decides you haven’t paid enough tax in your initial filing. This “second system” kicks in, and then the taxpayer is obliged to pay the higher result of filing, basically, twice.
  • Repeal of estate and gift tax, which was a part of the Bush tax law (as long as you died in 2010), but was part of 10-year plan and has been phased out. Pilla spoke of the tax as fiscally insignificant and immoral. Less than one-half of one percent of federal revenue is generated by this tax, yet its audit rate is the highest of all other taxes. The immoral premise is that you have no right to pass along to your heirs what is left of your estate after you have already paid all of its taxes.
  • Repeal of a 3.8 percent capital gains surtax (a tax levied on top of another tax) that was to pay for free healthcare. Pilla noted the economic law that what you tax more, you get less of – i.e. high capital gains taxes curtail individuals from selling assets, which spurs economic activity. People hold on to their assets rather than pay the capital gains surtax.

Other Positive Elements of Trump’s Tax Plan

Pilla also spoke highly of these other aspects of the Trump tax plan:

  • Reducing the current seven income tax brackets to just three: 35% on high side; 10% on low side.
  • Eliminating standard deductions, except for mortgage and charitable contributions.
  • Reducing corporate tax to 15 percent. Pilla noted that United States now has the highest corporate income tax in the industrialized world (a top marginal rate of 39 percent). He also explained that corporations don’t pay taxes. Who pays? People do: the owners of the company (stockholders), employees making do with fewer workers, and consumers who pay more for the good being produced. Job-creating small businesses that account for their owners’ personal incomes would likewise benefit by having their top tax rate go from 39.6 percent to the proposed corporate tax rate of 15 percent. Pilla’s suggestion: Reduce the corporate tax rate to ZERO PERCENT.

Several times Pilla reminded his audience that what was presented by Trump’s financial team was only a thumbnail sketch of Trump’s tax plan, only the first volley, so expounding in length about Trump’s tax plan today might not matter much in a few weeks. For him, he said, it would be like tilting at windmills, trying to guess what the final plan will look like.

The Folly of ‘Revenue Neutral’ Tax Cuts

Pilla signaled that the Democrat Party – and some Republicans are of the same ilk – would be a significant hurdle to getting Trump’s tax plan enacted by insisting that any tax plan be “revenue neutral.” That would nullify all the benefits of tax cuts, and only end up shifting the tax burden. It is unfortunate that over time the federal government has come to believe that it owns all of our money and too many people have accepted the idea that government has the right to tell us how much of our money we can keep.

What happened, Pilla said, to providing for the “General Welfare” as set forth under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States”? Whereas the General Welfare clause should place limits on government spending, the contemporary view is that Congress’s power to provide for the “General Welfare” is a power to spend for virtually anything that Congress itself views as helpful.

Pilla suggested a novel idea for many legislators: cutting spending across board by 3 percent from our bloated federal government to pay for tax cuts, which would amount to just 3 cents on every dollar the government spends.

Pilla was not pleased that the complexity of the IRS tax code – already cited as the No. 1 tax problem for tax payers by the IRS itself – has not been addressed by a single talking head, nor does Trump’s tax plan address the issue. The Pilla solution: If the problem is not addressed, “bulldoze the tax code and start over again.” 

The IRS in Crisis

Although many individuals try to comply with the tax code, they find it too complicated to do so. The IRS should be offering assistance to those who wish to comply, he said, and enforcing the law against only those who are genuinely resisting compliance. A lot of innocent tax payers in the formal category only receive lip service from the IRS.

Cited by Pilla: The IRS fields more than 100,000 phone calls a year from Americans with questions about complying – many who simply want to set up a schedule for paying their taxes or inquire about refund – but they can’t get through to anyone at the IRS who can help. Millions more choose to walk in to IRS offices and receive help with tax problems. How ironic that the IRS has closed 300 offices – and those remaining open were informed not to answer questions during the tax season. What a dismal message the IRS is sending tax payers when in trying to pay their taxes they can’t get through.

Pilla noted that 42 percent of the IRS budget goes for enforcement, while less that 20 percent is spent on tax-payer assistance. This doesn’t make sense, because 98 percent of tax payment made to the IRS are “voluntary” payments complying with the tax code. In contrast, only 2 percent of taxes collected are the result of enforcement action.

Did the adoption of a Taxpayer Bill of Rights by the Internal Revenue Service on June 10, 2014 become a much-anticipated cornerstone document to provide the nation’s taxpayers with a better understanding of their rights?

What about the law to appoint an IRS Commissioner? Given the way the IRS tax code was treated during the past two years under IRS Commissioner John Koskinen who condoned Lois Lerner’s Tea Party Scandal? Instead of firing Koskinen, Trump kept him on, despite the ire of many Republicans who wanted Koskinen impeached. An IRS commissioner can be removed at the will of a president. Dan Pilla said Trump should have taken such action.

Q&A with Dan Pilla

On the incomprehensible U.S. Tax Code: A tax code that contains four million words is a good sign that corruption will exist, and it does!

On a “tax holiday” for overseas profits, which is part of Trump’s tax proposal: A tax holiday could only be a good thing in its impact. Some $3 trillion is parked off shore and could be brought back by American companies. This money represents capital to expand.

On getting rid of the income tax: The taxes on income levied by the federal government brings in 98 percent of federal revenue. Eliminate the income tax and instead impose a national consumption or sales tax.



Comments

Goldilocks1

By Nancy Thorner – 

When it comes to human-caused global warming, most people think there are two camps: “alarmists,” those who acknowledge it, and “deniers,” those who deny it. But this is far from true.  There are credible scientists – such as those at The Heartland Institute’s latest climate conference (ICCC-12) last month – that accede to the existence of some global warming taking place, but question to what extent man is to blame.

For instance, participants and scientists at Heartland’s conference, S. Fred Singer and Dennis Avery, maintain that a warmer planet will be beneficial for mankind and other species on the planet and that “corals, trees, birds, mammals, and butterflies are adapting well to the routine reality of changing climate.” Meanwhile, other reputable scientists attending ICCC-12 believe a period of cooler weather looms ahead in the not-too-distant future because of the lack of sunspots.

Now there is another camp, the “lukewarmers” as defined by Dr. Pat Michaels and Paul “Chip” Knapperberger. Both are recognized environmental climate scientists who believe that man-made global warming is real, but they refuse to buy into the politicized pseudoscience that has increasingly been used to buttress the case that global warming is also likely to be dangerous. In their book, Lukewarming: The New Climate Science That Changes Everything, Michaels and Knappenberger, refer to themselves as “lukewarmers,” and expose many myths about climate change.

In a way the lukewarming view of climate change set forth by Michaels and Knappenberger relates to the English Fairy Tale, The Story of The Three Bears. Goldilocks, in tasting the porridge that had been left to cool by the bears while they took a walk in a forest, found the Great Big Bear’s porridge too hot, the Middle-sized Bear’s porridge too cold, while the Little Wee Bear’s porridge was neither too hot or too cold.

The too-hot temperature of the Great Big Bear’s porridge is the same claim made by climate change alarmists like Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, who falsely predict catastrophic occurrences unless drastic measures are taken. The lukewarming concept of climate science introduced by Michaels and Knappenberger, represents the neither too hot or too cold porridge of the Little Wee Bear – or, just the right approach.

Michaels, the director of the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute, explained all this as a featured speaker April 19 at The Heartland Institute where he talked about his book. Michaels is a past president of the American Association of State Climatologists and was program chair for the Committee on Applied Climatology of the American Meteorological Society. He is the author or editor of six books on climate and its impact, and he was an author of the climate “paper of the year” awarded by the Association of American Geographers in 2004.

While introducing Michaels, Heartland Institute President Joe Bast expressed with apparent delight, three happenings of note in the past 100 days:  1) The election of Donald Trump as president, whose accomplishments are acceding expectations – such as Trump cutting EPA spending by 31 percent, which was long overdue. 2) Heartland’s latest climate conference (ICCC-12) held in Washington, D.C. in March – which attracted 300 participants without a formal invitation being sent. The conference featured 40 speakers attracted 55 members of the media, most of whom heretofore had not been interested in what Heartland had to say on the topic. 3) Heartland sending some 350,000 copies of Why Scientists Disagree with Global Warming to science teachers in K-12 and colleges, as well as 400 CEOs. The message: There is no consensus on global warming. The media and some activist teachers organizations have chosen to respond with accusations that Heartland’s mailing is an attempt at brainwashing – a notion Bast thoroughly rebutted.

 Michaels Explains his Lukewarmer Thesis

Michael’s remarks, tailored to his slide presentation, showed time and again the misuse of the flawed, always too-hot climate models, and the tremendous incentives that exist for their continued misuse. So it follows that unreasonable and unnecessary climate policies have been based on the too-hot and frequently manipulated climate models. Clearly, he said, if the climate models can’t properly simulate the past, they can’t be relied upon for the future – and are a terrible basis for energy and economic policy.

Other aspects of the Michael’s Lukewarmers Camp include:

  • Life thrived on Earth through hot time and cold, mostly with much higher CO2 concentrations and warmer temperatures than we are experiencing in the current era. This enhanced CO2 allows plants to take advantage of warmer temperature. Tropical rain forests have greatly increased because of the increase in CO2.
  • Market forces compel adaptation to all kinds of change, including slight changes in climate. Even if the United States continues to burn half of its corn production, the rest of the world still is able to produce tremendous amounts of food to meet the needs of its growing population.
  • Health effects of climate change on the U.S. are negligible and are likely to remain so. Forty-six percent of all U.S. deaths directly attributable to weather events from 1993 to 2006 were caused by excessive cold; 28 percent were from excessive heat.
  • After 75 years of rapidly increasing CO2 emission, hurricanes have responded only lukewarmly. Severe weather is a characteristic of earth’s atmosphere and every day some kind of story or extreme event will (and likely will) be associated with global warming. Even if the issue of the day were global cooling, such extreme weather events could be made to fit that paradigm, too.
  • Arctic ice has declined before, even in the last century before humans had put very much CO2 into the atmosphere. The Arctic was even ice free for long stretches, both before the end of the last ice age and afterwards.  The Washington Post on November 11, 1922 reported of hitherto unheard-of temperature in the Arctic zone. The seals were finding the water too hot and great masses of ice had been replaced by moraines of earth and stones. Nevertheless, there’s always plenty of ice in the Arctic Ocean, even in the beginning of the fall when it reaches its minimum extent.
  • As for the survival of the iconic polar bear, the polar bear has weathered – and maybe even prospered – during many periods when the Arctic summer’s end was ice free.
  • The Paris Climate Treaty is an unenforceable document that requires its signatories to prepare new “determined contributions” every five years, counts all warming since the Industrial Revolution as having been caused by greenhouse gas emissions, uses the mean sensitivity of the UN climate models, and requires an immediate cessation of all carbon dioxide emissions (fossil fuels) to meet its aspirational goal of keeping future warming below 1.5 degree C. This reduction in potential warming is operationally meaningless, and would result in a lukewarm agreement meant for a lukewarm world, in which only the United States and the EU stand to be harmed.

Michaels predicted a new warming of only six-tenths to a quarter degree by the end of the 21st century.  Accordingly, it makes no sense to plan for and then take measures to prepare for an event that has only a finite chance of happening, but which would greatly reduce our standard of living and further destroy this nation’s economy.

To watch the entire presentation by Michaels, click here.

Comments