As a preface to Dr. William Happer’s video, partial transcript, and others insights into CO2 gas, climate science, and deeply held concerns by tens of millions about the need to head off climate change, it is useful to step back and make some general observations. Dr. Happer himself deals with agendas and motivations in the video and report that follows these introductory thoughts.

On any subject, or for any agenda, it often takes sizable sums of money to create and then drive either a stated or unstated agenda.

That is true not only about CO2 gas emissions, but regardless of whatever that agenda may happen to be.

An example from the manufactured housing industry will be used to illustrate the point about agendas, but any number of past or present examples could be used from virtually any profession.

Manufactured homes are routinely misunderstood. The reasons are many. For instance, while there is good news about manufactured homes, as a recent Harvard study once again reflected, the news around manufactured housing is often negative. There is an obvious need to counter that negativity and turn it into something positive.

Millions of new homes are needed in the U.S. Speaking on behalf of the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), CEO Jerry Howard freely admitted on a cable news program that in almost no market in the USA can a conventional builder construct a home and offer it for sale at a price that a first-time buyer can afford to purchase and finance it. Howard’s message has been repeated many times and in various ways. It is simply a fact that for cost, regulatory, and other reasons conventional single family housing builders can’t do what is necessary to close the gap which that lack of affordable housing costs our economy some 2 trillion dollars annually.

Manufactured housing is the most proven form of affordable permanent housing in modern times in the U.S. Yet despite facts, years of research, supportive laws passed by widely bipartisan legislation in Congress, manufactured housing is only performing at under 30 percent of its last peak in 1998? It seems odd at least that this could be so, but that is the reality. Which begs the question, why is that so?

Part of the problem holding back a widespread use of manufactured housing – as a 2024 Harvard research report stated – are negative perceptions about manufactured homes. The Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) understood this problem in 2005 when the Roper Report – which MHI commissioned – was released. The Roper Report said in part that a national educational campaign was needed. The RV industry had proven how effective it could be, manufactured housing only had to follow their template.

While this writer was a member of MHI, I was a regular attendee at MHI meetings. My purpose in joining in part was the motivation to see the industry grow, and by extension, thus grow our own business in the process. Growth through positive, ethical means was supposed to be a win-win-win.

But unbeknownst to my naïveté then, in hindsight it is clear that MHI leaders arguably did not want robust growth, at least not at that or this time. Evidence for that is mounting, but in hindsight the ridiculous handling by MHI of the image issue ought to be one of the keys to understanding why behavior must be viewed through the lens of motivation and possibly hidden agendas. Let’s elaborate to clarify the point.

During an MHI meeting I made the observation to the attendees that a website could be established at a modest cost. Every MHI member could turn their multi-section home into a rolling billboard when it is transported. The plastic used to cover the otherwise open side of a section being transported could be turned into a pithy message with a website address. Literally millions would see that multiple times a year.

Other low-cost but high value options were suggested.

All of them had to do with promotion of the industry through honest education and even entertainment. Articles and viewpoints published by MHProNews at the time illustrate the point.

How many of those ideas to promote the industry were done? To my knowledge, zero. And if they were being done, we’d know about it.

But to be sure, Bing’s AI powered search tool has confirmed the point that MHI has never launched such a national image and educational campaign multiple times.

What does that personal and AI powered finding mean?

Are MHI leaders stupid?

Hardly. MHI’s corporate and staff leaders are intelligent. They are often successful and well educated.

Then what explains the reason why MHI leaders have not done what their own research – the Roper Report – told them was needed? Because they apparently had a stated agenda that was different than their unstated agenda. And therein lies the problem. Since the dawn of human history, some people have manipulated other people with deceptive posturing, with devious spin, lies, and half-truths known as paltering.

With that preface, let’s turn to the headline topic about William Happer, Ph.D., and his insights into the CO2 and climate change issue. For those tempted to disagree before reading it, consider what was written above. This Masthead writer thought I knew something – did know something – but my understanding of the motivations behind what was occurring was errant. Now, I try to approach every topic with a mindset geared toward understanding what is the agenda behind those pushing any particular message.

To be clear, there were some in manufactured housing that routinely cautioned the industry about trusting what MHI was saying, and that included people who used to be in MHI and were award winners, including  a prestigious MHI award winner.  One takeaway from my personal experience thus shared in snapshot form is that even informed people can be tricked by devious people. It isn’t easy to admit you’ve been fooled, which is part of the devious advantage held by bold liars who are backed up with money and influence.

In Dr. Happer’s case, he will likely not get rich saying what he has said. Happer apparently understands the serious nature of the problems from a scientific perspective. A medical doctor is providing the analysis of what scientist Happer is sharing.

Courtesy of the Mercola website is the following article, reprinted with permission. It will be followed by additional information with more Masthead on MHProNews analysis and commentary in Part II.  Keep in mind that the climate issue is a driver behind the DOE’s plan for the manufactured housing energy rule, the push for EVs, and a plethora of changes that are underway. Note that that the expert views that follow are those of the individuals cited.

 

Part I.

Carbon Dioxide — The Gas of Life

Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola | January 27, 2024

 

 

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

• Carbon dioxide (CO₂) is commonly mischaracterized as a harmful waste product of respiration and is falsely blamed for disrupting the planetary climate
• CO₂is an essential gas necessary for life. Moreover, its impact on Earth’s temperatures is negligible, and will remain negligible even if the current concentration in the atmosphere were to double. A 100% increase of CO₂, from 400 ppm to 800 ppm, would decrease radiation into space by just 1.1%, resulting in a 0.7 degree C increase of the average earth temperature
• A 0.7 degree C difference means there’s no climate emergency, and no matter what we do to reduce CO₂emissions, it’s not going to impact global temperatures. To fabricate an emergency where there is none, it is assumed that massive positive feedbacks are involved. However, most natural feedbacks are negative, not positive, so isn’t it likely the 0.7 degree C increase is an overestimation to begin with
• There’s no single temperature of the Earth. It varies by location and altitude. For every kilometer of altitude, you have an average cooling of 6.6 degrees C
• Higher CO₂levels will green the planet, making it more hospitable to plant life. The more CO₂ there is, the better plants and trees grow. CO₂ also reduces the water needs of plants, reducing the risks associated with droughts

The video above, “CO₂, The Gas of Life,” features a lecture given at the Summit Old Guard Meeting in New Jersey, October 3, 2023, by William Happer, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of physics at Princeton University and former scientific adviser to the Bush and Trump administrations.

The topic: carbon dioxide (CO₂), commonly mischaracterized as a harmful waste product of respiration and a pollutant that is disrupting the planetary climate. As explained by Happer in this lecture, CO₂ is actually an essential gas necessary for life. Moreover, its impact on Earth’s temperatures is negligible, and will remain negligible even if the current concentration in the atmosphere were to double.

CO₂ Is Not a Pollutant

At present, the CO₂ concentration in the atmosphere at a few thousand feet of elevation is around 430 parts per million (ppm). Closer to the ground, concentrations vary widely, both by location and time of day. This is because ground-level readings are impacted by photosynthesis and the respiration of insects and the like.

In the room where Happer was giving his lecture, the CO₂ reading was 1,800 ppm — the result of having a large group of people breathing in a closed space. Air conditioning systems have CO₂ meters that turn on fans to bring outdoor air inside when levels get too high.

The question of what is too high is an important one, considering The Great Resetters are pushing a green agenda that demands the dismantling of energy infrastructure and farming in the name of stopping climate change, which quite obviously threatens our quality of life and food supply. Ultimately, it may threaten human existence altogether.

The fact of the matter is that CO₂ is not the “bad guy” it’s made out to be, and the “net zero” agenda is wholly inappropriate if maintaining life on Earth is part of the equation.

“CO₂ is a very essential and natural part of life,” Happer says. “It is the gas of life. We’re made of carbon after all, mostly carbon, and we breathe out a lot of CO₂ a day just by living. Each of us breathes out about 2 pounds of CO₂ a day. Multiply that by 8 billion people and 365 days a year, and just [by] living, people are a non-negligible part of the CO₂ budget of the Earth.

Nevertheless, we are living through a crusade against so-called pollutant CO₂. People talk about carbon pollution. [But] every one of us is polluting Earth by breathing, [so] if you want to stop polluting … apparently God wants us to commit suicide …

We’re doing all sorts of crazy things because of this alleged pollutant … more and more beautiful meadows are being covered with black solar panels. It doesn’t work very well; it doesn’t work at all at night. It doesn’t work on cloudy days. It doesn’t work terribly well in the middle of the winter because of the angle of the sun.

But nevertheless we’re doing it. We’re being misled into climate hysteria, and if you haven’t read this book, I highly recommend it. It was published first in 1841, called ‘Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds.’ It’s as relevant today as it was then …

I’m a physicist. I’m proud to say that no one could call me a climate scientist, but I know a lot about climate and I was a coauthor of one of the first books on the effects of carbon dioxide 41 years ago. This was a study done by the Jason Group which I was a member of. I was chairman for a while and it had really good people there.”

 

Long-Term Impact of Increasing Atmospheric CO₂

The key question when it comes to global warming is, how much do you warm the Earth if you double the atmospheric CO₂ concentration? This is called the climate sensitivity question. The GUESS is that doubling CO₂ would result in a 3-degree centigrade rise in the global temperature.

“It was not based on any hard calculations,” Happer says. “It was because of group-think. That’s what everybody else thought, and so that’s what we thought. Now, in my defense, one of the reasons I didn’t pay much attention to this [is because] I was working on something at this time that I thought was much more important. So, let me tell you about that, so you get a feeling for why I think I’m qualified to pontificate about this subject.

It was the beginning of the Strategic Defense Initiative, of Star Wars … President Reagan … wanted some way to defend the United States so that we didn’t have to have this mass suicide pact, and among other things we considered using high-powered lasers to burn up incoming missiles …

But here’s the problem. If you take the 1 megawatt laser on the ground and you send it toward the missile, by the time it gets to the missile, the beam — instead of focusing all the power on the missile — breaks up into hundreds of sub beams — speckles — and this was something that was well-known to astronomers. You have the same problem when you’re looking at distant stars and galaxies.

Astronomers knew how to fix this … If you can measure how much this wave is bent, then you can bounce it off a mirror bent in the opposite direction, and when the wave bounces up it’s absolutely flat. That’s called adaptive optics and it works beautifully. Then, when you focus the corrected beam, you get a single spot instead of hundreds of [beams].

The trouble with that is that if you look at the night sky, there are only four or five stars that are bright enough to have enough photons to do the measurement of the distortion of the wave. So, we had a classified meeting in the summer of 1982. There were a number of Air Force officers there who explained the problem. By chance, I knew how to solve it.

You can make an artificial star anywhere in the sky by shining a laser tuned to the sodium frequency onto the layer of sodium above our heads, at 90 to 100 kilometers.”

While the Air Force was initially dubious about there being a sodium layer in the atmosphere, they did eventually build the sodium laser proposed by Happer, and if you go to any ground-based telescope today, you’ll usually see one or two of them. Anyway, that story was simply to impress you with the fact that Happer knows what he’s talking about when it comes to atmospheric constituents and their related phenomena.

CO₂ Has No Discernible Impact on Earth Temperatures

According to the climate alarmists, rising CO₂ will result in global warming that will threaten all life on earth. In actuality, however, CO₂ “is a very puny tool to do anything to the climate,” Happer says.

Keep in mind that there’s no single temperature on the Earth. It varies by location and altitude. For every kilometer of altitude, you have an average cooling of 6.6 degrees C. This is known as the lapse rate. That cooling continues up to the troposphere, where it stops.

The cooling is due to the fact that warm air rises and cool air descends. “It’s the convection that sets that rapid drop of temperatures — 6-and-a-half degrees per kilometer,” Happer says. He then explains the following graph, which details the thermal radiation to space from the Earth, assuming a surface temperature of 15.5 degrees C. The greenhouse gases is the area beneath the jagged black curve.

According to Happer, this is only 70% of what it would be without greenhouse gases, which is shown as the smooth blue curve, because as the sun heats the earth, greenhouse gases — mostly water vapor — impede cooling.

The most important part of this graph is the red jagged line, shown here with a red arrow pointing to it. That red line shows the effect that a doubling (a 100% increase) of CO₂ would have on the surface temperature of Earth. As you can see, it’s negligible. It decreases radiation into space by just 1.1%.

 

 

As noted by Happer:

“Let that sink in. We’re far from doubling [CO₂] today. It’ll take a long time, [and] it only causes a 1% change. So, CO₂ is a very poor greenhouse gas. It’s not an efficient greenhouse gas.”

If you remove ALL CO₂, you end up with the green jagged curve. As you can see, the green and black jagged lines run parallel with the exception of one spot. There’s a huge effect if you go from zero CO₂ to 400 ppm (green arrow). But it’s again negligible when you go from 400 ppm to 800 ppm (black arrow). As explained by Happer:

“You get all of the effect in the first little bit of added CO₂ … So, it’s really true that doubling CO₂ only causes a 1% decrease of radiation. The IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] gets the same answer so this is not really controversial, although they will never show you the curve or tell you that it’s 1%. That would interfere with the narrative …

So, this is radiation to space. How do you change that into a temperature? They’re worried that we’ll get intolerable warming of the surface of the Earth where we live, or other parts of the atmosphere.

Here again it’s important to do the first order calculation … and it says that the warming from doubling CO₂ is … less than one degree … 0.7 [degree] C. Very small. You really can’t feel that.”

Why, Then, the Alarm Over Rising CO₂?

Needless to say, this is a huge problem for the climate science community, because a 0.7 degree C difference means there’s no climate emergency, and no matter what we do to reduce CO₂ emissions, it’s not going to impact the climate.

So, to fabricate an emergency where there really is none, the IPCC “assumes enormous positive feedbacks,” Happer says. Because CO₂ is not a potent greenhouse gas, the tiny direct warming caused by it is amplified by factors of anywhere from four to six to make it seem like it has a discernible impact.

“I like to say it’s affirmative action for CO₂,” Happer says. “It’s not very good at warming but if you assume lots of feedback, you can keep the money coming in.” The problem with that is that most who have a background in physical chemistry and physics know that most natural feedbacks are negative, not positive.

 

 

This is known as the Chatelier Principle, named after the French chemist who first discovered that “when a simple system in thermodynamic equilibrium is subjected to a change in concentration, temperature, volume or pressure … the system changes to a new equilibrium and … the change partly counteracts the applied change.”

So, the 0.7 degree C of warming you get when you double the CO₂ is “probably an overestimate,” Happer says, “because there are probably negative feedbacks operating in this very complicated climate system that we live in. The atmosphere, the oceans, everything is nonlinear.”

The key take-home from all this is that whether we’re at 400 ppm of CO₂ or 800 ppm doesn’t matter when it comes to impacting the temperature of the earth. In short, the climate hysteria is just that. It’s not based on any real threat. Only if we were able to get to absolute zero CO₂ would there be a change, but doing so also means we’d exterminate all living things on the planet. It’s nothing short of a suicide agenda.

More CO₂ Will Green the Planet

As explained by Happer, more CO₂ will green the planet, making it more hospitable to plant life. The more CO₂ there is, the better plants and trees grow, so if we want lush forests and bountiful harvests, cutting CO₂ is the last thing we’d want to do.

“All plants grow better with more CO₂ [in the air],” he says. “Plants are really starved [of] CO₂ today. We know plants need many essential nutrients. They need nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium; most important of all they need water. But they also need CO₂, and like many of the other nutrients, CO₂ today is in short supply.”

CO₂ benefits plants by reducing their water needs, hence less risk from drought. Higher CO₂ levels also reduce harmful photorespiration. According to Happer, C3-type plants lose about 25% of their photosynthesis potential due to increased photorespiration. For more in-depth information about the role of CO₂ in plant growth and photosynthesis, please view the video. This discussion begins around the 40-minute mark.

Lies, Ignorance, Stupidity or Something Else?

In closing, Happer makes an effort to explain what’s driving the climate hysteria:

“In spite of incontrovertible arguments that there is no climate emergency — CO₂ is good for the Earth — the campaign to banish CO₂, ‘net zero,’ has been very successful. So, how can that be? I’m really out of my depth here because now I’m talking about human nature. I’m really good with instruments and with solving differential equations but I’m not very good at understanding human beings.

But here are some of the drivers: noble lies, political lies, ignorance, stupidity, greed. Noble lies goes back to Plato who discusses it in ‘The Republic.’ ‘In politics, a noble lie is a myth or untruth, often, but not invariably of a religious nature, knowingly propagated by an elite to maintain social harmony or to advance an agenda.’

And here there’s a clear agenda. If you could somehow unite mankind to fight some external threat, for example CO₂ pollution, then we won’t fight each other. There won’t be wars. So, I think many sincere people have latched on to the CO₂ narrative partly for that reason. You can actually read about it in the early writings of the Club of Rome.

Then there are political lies. This is one my favorite H.L. Menken quotes: ‘The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.’”

Ignorance, of course, is widespread, and largely based on incomplete knowledge or a flawed understanding of the facts. And what of stupidity? Dietrich Bonhoeffer, one of the few German clergymen who opposed Hitler and eventually paid for his public dissent with his life, once wrote about human stupidity:

“Against stupidity we have no defense. Neither protest nor force can touch it. Reasoning is of no use. Facts that contradict personal prejudices can simply be disbelieved — indeed, the fool can counter by criticizing them, and if they are undeniable, they can just be pushed aside as trivial exceptions.

So the fool, as distinct from the scoundrel, is completely self-satisfied. In fact, they can easily become dangerous, as it does not take much to make them aggressive. For that reason, greater caution is called for than with a malicious one.”

Happer himself has experienced the danger of opposing stupidity. “I regularly get phone calls threatening me, my wife and children with death,” he says. “So, what kind of movement is this?” Lastly, greed. A.S. Pushkin once said, “If there should happen to be a trough, there will be pigs.” And climate science is currently where the big bucks are — provided your work furthers the global warming narrative and the need for net zero emissions.

Whatever the drivers are, responsible people everywhere need to push back against the false climate change narrative and the net zero agenda, as it will accomplish nothing in terms of normalizing temperatures, but will rapidly erode quality of life and the sustainability of food production, and shift wealth into the hands of the few. ##

 

 

Part II – Additional Information with More MHProNews Analysis and Commentary 

It is worth noting that Dr. Mercola is often allied with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. RFK Jr. on health and anti-censorship related issues. RFK Jr. is an apparent proponent of climate change. But it seems that Dr. Mercola – based on his analysis of Dr. Happer’s work – is not. Kennedy and Mercola are an apparent example of how people can disagree on serious topics yet can collaborate on other subjects.

As the pushback against the so-called manmade climate change agenda has grown in Europe, the U.S., and other places around the world, some prominent previous supporters have backed off somewhat.  For instance, Larry Fink at BlackRock and William “Bill” Gates III (Microsoft and other investments, including Berkshire Hathaway) have toned down their rhetoric recently. Left-leaning Fortune said on 9.20.2023 that:  “Bill Gates sees ‘a lot of climate exaggeration’ out there: ‘The climate is not the end of the planet.”

While a majority, per polling, believe that climate change is ‘real’ the majority are also not willing – per surveys – to sacrifice more than $10 a month to combat climate change. Nor should they have to sacrifice a dime if it is all an elaborate agenda-driven hoax.

There are literally thousands of scientists and scholars who have pushed back publicly against the climate change policy agenda.

 

 

 

 

“Do wind turbines and solar farms hold the keys to saving the environment? Michael Shellenberger, founder of Environmental Progress and noted climate activist, used to think so. Now he’s not so sure. He explains why in this important video.” That is from PragerU and used in conjunction with the video posted below.

 

 

This topic very much impacts affordable manufactured housing. But it also impacts literally every other policy, because those who are pushing the climate change agenda want to use public policies to influence or control agriculture, transportation, housing, education, media, and every other key aspect of society.

 

 

Cavco Industries CEO William “Bill” Boor was tapped by the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) to push back with Congress on 7.14.2023 on the ESG portion of the climate change agenda. Fair enough. But  as MHProNews has noted, Cavco is on both sides of the issue. Will Boor pushed back with Congress, his firm is still producing the very ESG related materials he was protesting against.

 

 

People of good will can be on opposite sides of all sorts of issues, climate and CO2 included. But this relatively focused report underscores the kind of duplicity that people can use to drive a wedge between groups and people of good will.  How is it possible? While there are multiple mechanisms involved, including education, public policy stances, regulations and the like, an important factor is big media and big tech.  The same people who donate to universities, political campaigns, and nonprofits are often the same people who own or have de facto control over much of big tech and big media.  Several stark examples of how propaganda can work to manipulate the population are explored in the award-winning documentary with transcript and commentary linked below.  For those who have only seen the shorter version of the documentary, the one below is the full length and thus more complete and balanced version.

 

 

Just as the public is often in the dark about the good news about manufactured housing (and the problematic forces lurking and operating in the industry), so too the public is often misled and misinformed about CO2 and climate change. MHProNews has periodically published items on this topic because the propaganda is ongoing, so too must be the pushback against the propaganda. MHProNews doesn’t have oil or coal industry money. We favor good environmental stewardship, but disagree with much of the climate change driven agenda pushed by the powers that be at the World Economic Forum‘s Corporatists who meet annually at Davos. This isn’t about advertisers and how they can drive an agenda. This is about discerning reality and then acting in accordance with reality. The truth can prevail, but it must not be allowed to be buried by an avalanche of agenda driven nonsense. Use the search tool for climate and find other articles that explore the topic. Programming note: watch for a special report on Oxfam and the 1% coming soon. ###

 

Independent Party ID Tied Record High-Democratic ID New Low per Gallup–How that Matters in Affordable Housing-Manufactured Home Advocacy and Manufactured Housing Industry Performance-Reality Checks

 

 

[cp_popup display=”inline” style_id=”139941″ step_id = “1”][/cp_popup]

 

 

Stay tuned for more of what is ‘behind the curtains’ as well as what is obvious and in your face reporting that are not found anywhere else in MHVille. It is all here, which may explain why this is the runaway largest and most-read source for authentic manufactured home “News through the lens of manufactured homes and factory-built housing” © where “We Provide, You Decide.” © ## (Affordable housing, manufactured homes, reports, fact-checks, analysis, and commentary. Third-party images or content are provided under fair use guidelines for media.) (See Related Reports, further below. Text/image boxes often are hot-linked to other reports that can be access by clicking on them.)

By L.A. “Tony” Kovach – for MHProNews.com.

Tony earned a journalism scholarship and earned numerous awards in history and in manufactured housing.

For example, he earned the prestigious Lottinville Award in history from the University of Oklahoma, where he studied history and business management. He’s a managing member and co-founder of LifeStyle Factory Homes, LLC, the parent company to MHProNews, and MHLivingNews.com.

This article reflects the LLC’s and/or the writer’s position, and may or may not reflect the views of sponsors or supporters.

http://latonykovach.com

Connect on LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/latonykovach

 

Related References:

The text/image boxes below are linked to other reports, which can be accessed by clicking on them.

The Trump Arrest – Why it Means ‘Business as Usual is Dead or Dying’ and ‘The Party is Over’ – Malcom X, AI, Orwellian Two Minutes of Hate, and Silver Linings

America and Manufactured Housing are at a Crossroads – Greenwald: ‘It’s Not Left Vs Right Anymore, It’s Anti-Establishment Versus Pro-Establishment’

Big Picture-Have Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) Leaders Defrauded Own Members? Prima Facie Case of Racketeering-Market Manipulating Allegations Based on MHI Members Published Statements

Google-Industry Issues-Trends-Behaviors-THE Witness for Contemporary MHVille Woes – Artificial Intelligence Praise for ‘Manufactured Housing Expertise’ – Experience of L. A. ‘Tony’ Kovach and Manufactured Home Pro News

‘Smoking Gun’ Deal by Gary A. Shiffman Used by Tipster to Assert Insurance Fraud Scheme Involving Dr. William “Bill” Gonte; Sun Communities, CEO Shiffman, and Manufactured Housing Institute Silent

Prof. Lee Ohanian Testimony Boost Affordable Housing Supply and Manufactured Homes, More Manufactured Housing Research – What Senator Tim Scott and ROAD to Housing Act Supporters Should Consider

‘If We Keep Doing What We’ve Been Doing We Will Keep Getting What We Got!” – MHIdea-Post-Production Trade Association(s) Status – MHI, MHARR, NAMHCO, Other Examples Considered – Full Transcript plus Analysis