In my writings about “Great Moments in Foreign Government,” I’ve come across amazing examples of bone-headed and incompetent behavior by politicians and bureaucrats in other nations.
The British government giving welfare to people with multiple wives.
The German government having a jihadist working in one of its intelligence agencies.
One of the key campaign promises that then-candidate Donald Trump ran on and that likely contributed to his successful election was his oft-repeated vow to cut through the bureaucratic red tape holding back the economy by slashing unnecessary government regulations.
According to Reuters, it appears that President Trump and his administration are making good on that promise, as the White House just announced that they had either killed or removed from consideration some 800 different proposed regulations set forth under former President Barack Obama’s administration that had not yet been finalized or taken effect.
At least 469 planned regulations had been withdrawn and some 391 other regulations already in the active process had been reclassified as long-term or inactive in order to allow for “further careful review.”
The administration isn’t done there, as some 300 other energy production-related regulations coming from the Environmental Protection Agency, as well as the Departments of Energy and Interior, would be delayed, reviewed and possibly rescinded.
And that is just from those three departments. This process is playing out in virtually every department and agency across the entirety of the executive branch.
Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney said that this was evidence that the administration was addressing and diminishing “that slow cancer that can come from regulatory burdens that we put on our people.”
Along those lines, the Washington Examiner reported on another bit of related good news involving Trump’s agenda to cut back on government regulations.
Our readers will no doubt recall that one of Trump’s first executive orders stipulated that for every new regulation that was proposed, two old regulations would have to be done away with.
Trump’s administration has actually done even better than that in practice; in fact, eight times better, as they are averaging 16 old regulations killed for every new rule put forward.
“It’s really the beginning of a kind of fundamental regulatory reform and a reorientation of where we’re going with regulation,” explained Neomi Rao, administrator of the OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
Rao also revealed that the goal of what is being called “MAGAnomics” is to reach three percent economic growth, largely spurred on by cutting regulations and providing businesses more room to hire and expand.
She further added that, unlike prior regulatory reports from previous administrations which didn’t track deregulation at all, future reports would indeed feature a column highlighting killed regulations.
Just for a bit of context regarding Trump’s deregulation from the Washington Examiner: the OMB pointed out that under the last five months of Obama’s administration, some $6.8 billion in new rules were imposed on the economy. In comparison, Trump has imposed less than $0 in his first six months.
Similarly, Obama added $3.1 billion in new regulatory costs in his first six months, while Trump has instead saved an estimated $22 million thus far.
This is what we voted for, and we are thrilled to see this major campaign promise regarding deregulation being fulfilled. So is our nation’s economy.
I’m going to go out on a limb, and suggest that if I was brave enough to tell a room full of rabid liberals and academics several weeks ago that solar power was more dangerous to the environment than coal or nuclear power combined, it would have been a safe bet that I’d have been ridiculed, personally attacked, or perhaps worse by room of said rabid liberals.
I probably would have heard things like, “Duh, everyone knows that “97% of climate scientists agree that climate change cannot be denied,” and everyone also knows solar power is better for the environment than coal, or nuclear energy, etc. Duh! That’s soooo “settled science.”
Sadly, that type of idiocy is to be expected when those talking would rather commit to memory that “97% of climate scientists agree that climate change cannot be denied, than fill their devoid little heads with anything factual. First of all, news flash: The infamous 97% consensus line is nothing more than an urban legend built on a TOTAL lie. If memory serves me right, factually (that word liberals hate),, 97% out of a total of a handful of California scientists said climate change cannot be denied. Ooops.
Furthermore, a new study now revealed that solar power actually generates 300x more toxic waste than nuclear power, and since social justice warriors have been ramming solar power down society’s throats for as long as they have without knowing all the facts (as usual), now society could have a massive problem on our hands. Well done once again social justice warriors. Well done you fools. In the following video, Right Wing News reviews the horrific findings from the new study…
Liberals are always pushing the nation toward solar power because, they imagine, it is “cleaner” than any other power source. However, a new study finds that solar panels generate 300 times more toxic waste than nuclear reactors!
The new study by the group Environmental Progress finds that the manufacturing of solar panels is fraught with toxic materials, Daily Caller reported.
The report found that solar panels use heavy metals, including lead, chromium and cadmium, which can harm the environment. The hazards of nuclear waste are well known and can be planned for, but very little has been done to mitigate solar waste issues.
Wow, that is revelatory.
“The problem with waste from solar is that it isn’t handled as well as nuclear waste,” Dr. Jeff Terry, a professor of nuclear physics involved in energy research at the Illinois Institute of Technology, told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “There are two types of waste from solar. Waste from the manufacturing scene and waste from the solar panel after it has gone through its useful life. There are materials in those that if they leached out, it wouldn’t be good.
The group noted that as the years pass we will soon discover that all this toxic waste will become a problem as older panels need to be replaced or repaired.
“The magnitude of the waste problem from solar is a lot larger than nuclear just because of energy density,” Terry said. “Per pound of waste generated, you get so much more power from nuclear. You need a lot more material to generate from solar and wind than you do from nuclear.”
There is also the problem that our waste industry is not yet familiar with the toxic materials in solar panels and is not geared to deal with it.
“All forms of energy create byproduct waste materials from their initial construction, operation, and eventual disposal,” Lake Barrett, former deputy director of the Department of Energy’s Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, told The DCNF.. “Society has over 50 years of exhaustive scientific experience with safely managing and technical disposal of nuclear waste, but very little knowledge of renewable energy waste management and disposal.”
And if old solar panel are simply buried in landfills we may have a toxic mess seeping into the ground that wee are woefully unprepared to deal with, the experts say.
Interestingly, the experts also point out that radioactive waste from nuclear power industry eventually does deteriorate and become harmless — even if it takes hundreds of years — but heavy metals are toxic forever and will seep into the environment seriously hurting the land.
As you can see, there is a lot of the mess from solar panels that we just aren’t prepared for.
People on the left operate under the delusion that progression equals leftism; they feel that as America progresses economically, technologically, socially, and culturally that it is natural that the nation will swing more and more to the left. Unfortunately, this is nothing but a false belief; America may indeed continue to progress in all those aspects, but it is highly likely that it will become more conservative, not less.
In the following video, Right Wing News examines an article detailing five reasons why America will become even more conservative in the future. A changing Supreme Court, declining immigration and liberal birth rates plus a more conservative next generation all portend a rightward swing in the future of this nation. How will the left react to this upcoming change?
For generations, we’ve seen the political landscape in this country teeter back and forth between the Left and the Right. Usually about every 8 years or so, whichever political party is dominating Congress, the Executive Branch, and the state legislatures, is kicked out by voters and replaced with the other political party.
However, there’s something very different going on this time around. Donald Trump’s ascent to the oval office represents a major shift in our society and culture, and I’m not talking about the intermittent shuffle of politicians that we see every few years. Instead, the pendulum is about to swing very hard to the right.
I think that the political landscape in America is going to be drifting towards conservatism for the next 20-40 years.Though it may not be identical to what we view as conservative today, and it certainly won’t be the phony neoconservatism that dominated the past, it will be right-wing nonetheless. Here’s why:
1. The Supreme Court Is About To Change
President Trump has already chosen one Supreme Court justice, and there’s a good chance that he’s going to wind up choosing several more (much to the dismay of the Left). Because of their advanced age, we may see three more Supreme Court justices retire or die over the next four to eight years, two of whom lean to the left.
If Trump lasts two terms, we’re definitely going to see a Supreme Court that is dominated by conservatives for the next 20-30 years. So even when liberals take back Congress and the presidency on occasion, many of their most radical ideas won’t be able to take hold for many years.
2. Immigration Is Going To Decline
The percentage of the population that is foreign born hasn’t been this high since the early 1900’s, and most of those immigrants are liberal. That’s why our loose borders, combined with The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, have probably done more to bolster the ranks of the Left than any other law.
But just as our nation’s political landscape tends to swing back and forth between the Left and the Right, so to does number of immigrants in America. In the short term, we can expect people like Trump to restrict the border and maybe pass laws that will decrease immigration to some degree.
But there’s a long term trend to consider as well, because the election of Trump likely represents a turning point for our society. Considering how crucial his immigration stance was to his victory, it’s clear that a growing number of Americans want the border tightened up, and the number of immigrants moving here to decrease. And rest assured that in the near future, there will be more conservatives voting for politicians who will try to lower immigration rates, because…
3. The Next Generation Is Incredibly Conservative
Over the years we’ve seen each generation of Americans become a little more liberal than the last, but that’s about to change. According to a study from last year, Generation Z, which represents kids born after the year 2000, is the most conservative generation since World War Two.
To give you an idea of just how right-wing the next generation is, when asked if they are “quite conservative,” 14% of teenagers say they are, compared to just 2% of Millennials. That’s a mind boggling shift, from one generation to the next.
4. Liberal Birth Rates Are Declining
The Left is about to pay a huge price for denigrating the family and traditional gender roles for so many years. Because liberal women tend to be more career minded and wait longer to have children, they often have fewer kids over the course of their lives. That’s why liberal states always have lower birth rates than conservative states.
All of the states with a birth rate of of 60 or less per 1000 people are liberal, and all of the states with a birth rate of 70 or more per 1000 people are conservative. That may not sound drastic, but consider that these states still have a sizeable mix of conservatives and liberals. Even the most liberal states have millions of conservative residents and vice versa, which offsets the results. If ideology is really driving birth rates, then liberals are probably having very very few children. They’re probably not reaching the minimum replacement rate of 2.1 children per mother.
When you consider how many values kids learn from their parents and carry into adulthood, it’s obvious that the Left has a serious demographic problem. The only way they’ve been able to create more liberals, is through immigration and through indoctrination in the school system. Unfortunately for the Left, they’re not going to have a stranglehold on our schools for much longer either.
5. Leftist Academia Is In Serious Trouble
From Kindergarten to college, our schools are breeding grounds for liberal ideas. That’s become abundantly clear in recent years, as we’ve seen the horrifying rise of political correctness and social justice beliefs on college campuses. These institutions are little more than indoctrination centers for the Left.
But this isn’t going to go on for much longer. We have a whole generation of kids who were buried in over a trillion dollars worth of debt, just so they could get worthless liberal arts degrees that won’t ever help them get a job. They paid tens of thousands of dollars to be indoctrinated by liberal professors, before going back home to live with their parents.
That’s why student loans constitute a bubble in our economy, and once it pops, colleges are going to have to cut back on many classes that don’t actually increase the earning power of students. Coincidentally, the fields of study that harbor the most liberal professors, are the ones that don’t help most students get jobs, like the arts, humanities, liberal arts, gender studies, etc. Someday soon, colleges are going to be forced to trim the fat, and many of these Marxist professors and diversity administrators are going to get the axe. Their positions are incredibly superfluous.
As for the leftists public schools, let’s not forget that the number of kids being homeschooled is growing rapidly, and most of their parents are conservatives. They’re raising a new generation that isn’t going to be brainwashed by government run schools.
And let’s not forget that the mainstream media, which has been largely wed to the left, is dying. So basically, every institution that the Left uses to teach its ideas, from the media to academia, is slowly crumbling away.
In summation, everything liberals have relied on to bolster their ranks, propagate their ideas, and pass their laws, are failing. So there shouldn’t be any doubt. Over the next few decades, America is going to become a very conservative place.
As world leaders, namely in the European Union, attack President Trump for pulling out of the Paris Climate Agreement which would have saddled Americans with billions upon billions of dollars in debt and economic losses, a new bombshell report that analyzed Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) data produced by NASA, the NOAA and HADLEY proves the President was right on target with his refusal to be a part of the new initiative.
According to the report, which has been peer reviewed by administrators, scientists and researchers from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (M.I.T.), and several of America’s leading universities, the data is completely bunk:
In this research report, the most important surface data adjustment issues are identified and past changes in the previously reported historical data are quantified. It was found that each new version of GAST has nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history. And, it was nearly always accomplished by systematically removing the previously existing cyclical temperature pattern. This was true for all three entities providing GAST data measurement, NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU.
As a result, this research sought to validate the current estimates of GAST using the best available relevant data. This included the best documented and understood data sets from the U.S. and elsewhere as well as global data from satellites that provide far more extensive global coverage and are not contaminated by bad siting and urbanization impacts. Satellite data integrity also benefits from having cross checks with Balloon data.
The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever –despite current claims of record setting warming.
Finally, since GAST data set validity is a necessary condition for EPA’s GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding, it too is invalidated by these research findings. (Full Abstract Report)
Of course, this won’t stop global climate normalcy deniers from saying it’s all one big conspiracy to destroy the earth. They’ll naturally argue that data adjustments to the temperatures need to be made for a variety of reasons, which is something the report doesn’t dispute. What it does show, however, is that these “adjustments” always prove to be to the upside. Always warmer, never cooler:
While the notion that some “adjustments” to historical data might need to be made is not challenged, logically it would be expected that such historical temperature data adjustments would sometimes raise these temperatures, and sometimes lower them. This situation would mean that the impact of such adjustments on the temperature trend line slope is uncertain. However, each new version of GAST has nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history.
It is therefore quite-clear that the data has been intentionally tampered with.
Since this has formed the basis for plans to steal literal trillions of dollars and has already resulted in the forced extraction of hundreds of billions in aggregate for motorists and industry this quite-clearly constitutes the largest economic fraud ever perpetrated in the world.
I call for the indictment and prosecution of every person and organization involved, asset-stripping all of them to their literal underwear.
And the establishment, along with their fanatical global warming myrmidons, continue to push the need for massive, costly initiatives to reduce green house gases and global temperatures to “normal” levels.
The problem, of course, is that there is no global warming according to the above referenced report.
Moreover, none of those supporting the Paris Climate Agreement and other initiatives have any idea what these behemoth regulations will actually do to curb climate change, as evidenced by the following video of Miami Beach Mayor Philip Levine, who despite his best efforts, can’t seem to figure out exactly how these agreements actually lower temperatures and help Americans:
As the Grand Marshal of the Supreme Court assembles the posse of Bailiffs, Trumpeters and Attendants, the Learned Scribes are generating the Official Law Warrant of Justice to arrest Donald Trump Jr. for High Treason, which they will do after marching to the White House on a carpet of rose petals strewn by Fair Maidens.
Or something. Whatever. The Menscian media is in a spazz yet again.
Boy oh boy, maybe this time we can overturn the results of the election…
And I admit I almost didn’t think it could happen, but things have gotten stupider. Somehow the media and their enablers decided that the worst thing in the world is for someone to be willing to hear negative information about a political opponent from a foreign government, which wasn’t a bad thing until Trump’s son tried it unsuccessfully. Apparently Putin’s cunning spies work through chunky music…
If you want less of something, merely regulate it more and you will succeed.
Applebee’s Franchise Owner Gives Candid Interview About Firings Thanks to Minimum Wage Hike
Matt recently brought you up to date on how liberals’ minimum wage demands have done severe damage to Seattle’s and New York’s businesses. He highlighted a New York Post report revealing that, in the wake of the increased rate to $15 an hour, New York lost a staggering 1,000 restaurants.
Judge Roy Moore responded Tuesday night to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s apparent concern that the conservative firebrand would be “difficult to manage” if he were elected to be Alabama’s next U.S. senator in the upcoming special election.
In a campaign appearance before the Coffee County Republican Club in southern Alabama, the former chief justice was asked about a CNN article saying McConnell does not want to add a “conservative rebel in a GOP conference already difficult to manage.” The comment was certainly a reference to Moore, who is leading in the race, according to the most recent polling.
“Now, I just want to make Mitchell McConnell to know,” the judge said in response, “I’m not difficult to manage. It’s impossible for him to manage me.”
Among the issues Moore differs with McConnell on is the Senate health care plan currently under consideration.
“We need to repeal Obamacare,” Moore said. “We don’t need replacement. This is socialized medicine. It did not work in Europe it won’t work here. Find it in the Constitution where the federal government is responsible for health care. It is not there.”
The West Point graduate and Vietnam War veteran wondered how people can expect the federal government to oversee a national health care system when it struggles to manage the Veterans Affairs hospital system, according to the Dothan Eagle.
Moore further accused establishment Republicans of not honoring their campaign promises by not seeking to fully repeal Obamacare. “They ran on one thing and are doing another,” he said.
McConnell’s pick in the race is Sen. Luther Strange, who was appointed to the open Senate seat in February by disgraced former Gov. Robert Bentley.
Despite being appointed to the position, the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which does McConnell’s bidding, said it will treat Strange as an incumbent and put its full weight behind helping the appointee prevail against Moore and the other GOP candidates in the Aug. 15 primary.
The NRSC’s super PAC plans to spend $2.6 million in air time for Strange and has threatened any campaign vendors who help Moore or any other contender with being cut out from NRSC funding during the 2018 election cycle.
“We have made it very clear from the beginning that Sen. Luther Strange would be treated as an incumbent,” NRCS communications director Katie Martin told Politico. “It has also been a clear policy that we will not use vendors who work against our incumbents.”
Moore’s campaign chair — former state senator and state Republican Party chairman Bill Armistead — is up for the challenge.
“The establishment candidates have the money. We have the people, and our grassroots warriors are looking forward to beating the heck out of Washington and making Judge Roy Moore our voice in the U.S. Senate,” Armistead said.
Moore took on and defeated the Republican establishment candidates in both 2000 and 2012 to become Alabama’s chief justice. He won the primary races with more than 50 percent of the vote in both instances, negating the need for a runoff.
Alabama political observers, including columnists Steve Flowers and Quin Hillyer, see this year’s contest as one that will likely be a two-man race between Moore and Strange, despite a total of seven candidates vying for the nomination, including Congressman Mo Brooks.
Internal polling released by the Brooks’ campaign last month showed Moore in the lead with 31 percent, followed by Strange at 23 percent and Brooks at 21 percent.
Hillyer believes Moore’s chances of winning in the August primary are very good, particularly given that special elections generally have lower voter turnout.
“Someone with an avid following and an established organization like Moore will get his vote out when others won’t,” the Mobile resident said.
If no candidate garners over 50 percent of the vote on August 15, there will be a run off between the top two on Sept. 26, followed by the general election on Dec. 12.
The winner of the Republican primary is highly favored to prevail in December in the deep red state.
Breaking News: Scientists Discovered A New Paradigm for Climate Science
Atmospheric Pressure, Not ‘Greenhouse Gases’ Are Responsible for the “Greenhouse Effect”
Scientists Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller have a unique and extremely elegant peer-reviewed and published research paper entitled ‘New Insights on the Physical Nature of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Deduced from an Empirical Planetary Temperature Model’ that proves that the accused Greenhouse Gases (Carbon Dioxide (CO2), Water Vapor (H2O), etc.) are actually innocent of the mistaken claims that they are the cause of Climate Change and the ‘Greenhouse Effect’.
Their work comes out of left field; it provides a shocking new paradigm heretofore unbeknown to science; it is physically plausible, and it proves beyond a doubt that greenhouses gases cannot cause, in principle, the global warming observed since 1850. In other words, we now have written Scientific proof that humans are not responsible for climate change on Earth.
However, the problem now is that both believers and skeptics of anthropogenic-caused climate change have a difficult time accepting the Nikolov-Zeller discovery, because:
The proposed mechanism (supported by NASA planetary data) was not taught in school.
In addition, NZ’s adopted macro-level (top-down) approach does not explicitly include natural processes such as radiant heat trapping by free atmospheric trace ‘greenhouse’-gases assumed ‘a priori’ to be true for the last 190 years, but never proven.
The Nikolov-Zeller discovery points to the fact that fundamental theoretical misconceptions can still occur in science despite the high-technology information environment of the modern world.
Rather than argue about global temperature trends or what the sensitivity of Earth’s climate to a CO2 increase might be, Nikolov and Zeller decided to go back to the basics taking inspiration from Copernicus, who propose the revolutionary heliocentric model of the Solar System that was later mathematically proven by Johannes Kepler.
Nikolov and Zeller divined three (3) fundamental questions that most climate scientists do not consider worth asking or thinking about:
What would the mean global temperatures () of the rocky planets Venus, Earth, Mars, and the moons Triton and Titan be if they didn’t have atmospheres?
Might the same physical principles determine the global temperatures () of Venus, Earth, Mars, Titan and Triton? In other words, is Earth a special case in terms of its climate, or is it part of a cosmic physical continuum?
What are the fundamental controllers of the long-term average equilibrium global surface temperature of a planet or moon?
Analyzing vetted NASA data from various space exploration missions conducted over the past three (3) decades, Nikolov and Zeller found that the Earth’s 30-year equilibrium surface temperature is quite stable and fully explainable in the context of an interplanetary physical continuum.
They discovered that the real factors responsible for the ‘Greenhouse Effect’ are:
The Total Surface Air Pressure of the Earth’s Atmosphere, and
The Earth’s distance to the Sun – Enabling computation of the available solar heat-energy;
By applying their PTE Effect theory to compute and accurately predict the 30-year mean global surface temperature of Earth. Likewise, by knowing extraterrestrial data-parameters for Mars, Venus, Moon, Titan and Triton, they can also make predictions for other celestial bodies.
Amazingly, as it turns out, their model (empirically derived from NASA data) does not need any information about atmospheric composition to reliably calculate Earth’s or other celestial bodies’ mean global surface temperature!
In other words, the amounts of greenhouse gases are not needed nor relevant.
The Figure below encapsulates the new finding explained in the scientific paper by Nikolov & Zeller (2017):
Figure: On this graph, is the actual observed 30-year mean equilibrium global surface temperature of a planetary body, while is the body’s mean global surface temperature in the absence of an atmosphere. The ratio shown on the vertical axis represents the Atmospheric Thermal Effect (ATE) of a planet or moon also known as the Natural Greenhouse Effect. The graph implies that the background thermal effect (i.e. the ‘greenhouse effect’) of a planetary atmosphere is only a function of the total air pressure and does not depend on the atmospheric chemical composition.
In other words, the Greenhouse Effect is a Pressure-induced Thermal Enhancement (PTE) Effect and not a radiative phenomenon driven by heat-absorbing & re-radiative gases as currently believed. Hence, carbon emissions cannot affect the global climate.
The sensitivity of Earth’s climate to Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is virtually zero!
Some 500 years ago, Copernicus simplified the complicated “Earth-Centered” model describing planetary retrogressions that accounted for the apparent erratic movement of the planets & sun around the Earth by conceptually observing Earth from afar and recognizing that the existing theory was based on a false premise (i.e., the Earth was at the Center). He correctly discovered that the Earth and other planets rotated around the Sun eliminating the apparent erratic movements and complicated prediction equations.
Similarly, the study by Nikolov & Zeller (2017) simplifies the understanding of the physics of climate by taking a similar broad extra-terrestrial perspective which is based on established scientific principles of Physics and Thermodynamics which prove that the powerful Atmospheric Pressure force caused by the huge weight of the Earth’s Atmosphere (i.e., ~5 Billion-Million Metric-Tons) results in a Pressure force at the Earth’s Surface below 18,000 ft. of 10 Metric-Tons/sq. meter which drives the Pressure Induced Thermal Enhancement (PTE) Effect amplifying the available Solar Heat-Energy that creates the PTE “Greenhouse”-warming Effect.
The Nikolov-Zeller PTE Effect theory completely accounts for why the Earth and other celestial bodies with an atmosphere are warmer than they would be without their atmospheres – Replacing the current ‘Greenhouse Gas Effect’ hypothesis that has never been empirically proven in the last 190 years since it was first postulated.
Similar to the way a Diesel Engine’s piston compresses gases (only constant, non-cyclical) creating pressure that enhances the existing heat in each cylinder to reach the temperature needed to ignite the fuel – The huge mass of the Earth’s atmosphere’s gas molecules, being compressed by the natural pull of gravity, provides the constant Pressure-induced Thermal Enhancement (PTE) of the available Solar Heat-Energy which results in the PTE ‘Greenhouse Effect’ that keeps our planet habitably warmer than it would be without an atmosphere (i.e., a global mean temperature of approximately 58oF with our atmosphere vs. below 0oF without an atmosphere).
Making this new climate-science paradigm most promising is the fact that the Nikolov-Zeller discovery:
Is based on established and straight-forward scientific principles following rules of Physics such as: Charles’ Law, The Ideal Gas Law, Dalton’s Law, etc. which are able to be validated empirically.
Is applicable to not only our Earth, but has been shown to also apply to other celestial bodies in our solar system (Earth, Mars, Venus, & the Moons: Titan, Triton and Earth’s) using vetted NASA empirical data.
Appears to also be Universally Applicable to other celestial bodies within our solar system as well as beyond, since their discovery is based on solid scientific laws of physics of the universe.
Their findings also provide new insight as to why the man-made UN IPCC-supported Global Climate Models (GCMs) based on the radiative ‘Greenhouse Gas’ concept and assumptions consistently fail to predict observed global temperature trends, hence they should not be used for policy decision making.
More information on the Science of their discovery is presented in a video by Ned Nikolov, use this link:
