Climate change is NOT a public health issue
Dr. Ed Berry
First, here is the Opinion Letter in the Daily Inter Lake on Oct 11, 2024. Below this is my rebuttal to this letter.
Climate change is a public health issue – 630 words
BY HILLERY DAILY, JEN ROBOHM AND COLETTE KIRCHOFF
At a time when climate change has barely been acknowledged in the presidential debates and most political conversations leading up to this consequential election season, it can be hard to believe we have the collective will to address our shared predicament. When we’re not feeling hopeful, it can be hard to muster the resolve to keep fighting.
Ecophilosopher Joanna Macy and her colleague Chris Johnstone have coined the term “active hope” as a way to address this challenge. They explain that “hope” is not a noun but a verb, something we do rather than have. When we envision a future, we hope to see and align our actions with our deepest values, we engage in active hope.
Our changed climate feels like an overwhelming problem, beyond the scope of any one of us, yet depends on all of us. One thing every U.S. citizen can do is vote. Vote as if our lives, our children and grandchildren’s lives depend on it — because it does. Vote as if our planet depends on it — because it does. Don’t underestimate the power of one vote.
The earth’s climate has changed and the livability of the planet is being threatened. Last year was the world’s hottest; this July was the hottest month with July 22 the hottest day ever recorded. Our oceans are record hot, and sea surface temperatures worldwide continue to increase. These warm waters fuel extreme hurricanes like Helene.
Climate-driven heat waves, severe rains and floods, extended droughts, extreme wildfires, and flooding during hurricanes are all becoming more frequent and more intense, according to NASA.
The effects of climate change and extreme weather have direct impacts on human health, affecting food and water, the air we breathe, and habitability of the places we call home. Anna Jones-Crabtree from Vilicus Farms, says, because of five years of dry conditions, “Trying to grow food and take care of the land in the Northern Great Plains is becoming increasingly difficult on a planet with an unstable climate.”
Despite crop losses during these years, she remains hopeful and committed to “supporting land stewardship practices.”
There is hope. Texas, an oil and gas state, is leading the country in wind energy and batteries. Renewable energy has given Texans some of the lowest power bills in the country.
Two new, massive wind power projects are being built in Montana and should be operational in 2025. The American Wind Energy Association states that wind energy could provide more energy than what is needed in the entire state by 2030.
The U.S. has solved seemingly impossible problems before, and politicians played a critical part. During the 1970s energy crisis, President Richard Nixon created science-based organizations such as the EPA and the Department of Energy to solve and study environmental problems, leading to the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts.
Nations came together to solve the ozone hole.
We have the technology to solve this climate crisis, we just need to implement it to scale. Elected officials remain in office for two to six years; who we elect on Nov. 5 is critically important.
We are members of Montana Health Professionals for a Healthy Climate, an organization of health professionals in the state, working together to address climate change as a public health issue, because the climate crisis threatens the health and future of our communities.
Engage in active hope by choosing and supporting candidates who acknowledge the climate crisis and are working toward a future that protects the health of our planet and those you care about.
With a few exceptions, you can register and vote up until Nov. 5, 8 p.m. at your election office.
Hillery Daily, ND. LAc, Hamilton; Jen Robohm, Clinical Psychologist, PhD, Missoula; Colette Kirchoff, MD, FAAFP, Bozeman.
Second, here is my reply
Climate change is NOT a public health issue. (292 words)
Climate change is a climate physics issue. As a climate physicist, I don’t practice medicine. Montana Health Professionals and others should stop climate physics malpractice.
Our Homo Sapiens’ brains that helped us survive in the wild, fail us in modern science. Our brains have a blind spot like the blind spot in our eyes. We think we know the scientific method, but we don’t.
Aristotle and Sir Francis Bacon developed the scientific method and showed it is the key to science. Let’s apply it to climate change.
The belief that human CO2 emissions cause climate change has three hypotheses:
- (1) Our CO2 emissions cause the CO2 increase.
- (2) The CO2 increase causes temperature increase.
- (3) Temperature increase causes bad stuff to happen.
Climate alarmists ASSUME these three hypotheses are true, and incorrectly conclude that bad stuff proves their belief is true. Their logic is circular. Effects do NOT prove their cause.
The scientific method says it is impossible to prove a hypothesis is true, but only one false prediction proves a hypothesis is false.
It matters not if 99.99 percent of “scientists” claim a hypothesis is true. Votes don’t count in science. Proof that a hypothesis is false prevails over all claims that it is true.
Peer reviewed scientific papers prove the three climate change hypotheses are false, proving our CO2 emissions DO NOT cause climate change.
VP candidates Vance and Walz agree that censorship is democracy’s biggest problem.
But Montana’s top Republicans censor climate truth. They support AG Knudsen’s deliberate, criminal loss of Held v Montana. They support America’s climate delusion, which causes all our national deficit and helps the World Economic Forum enslave us by 2030.
This is a critical issue in these elections and the media won’t touch it.
Ed Berry, PhD, Theoretical Physics, Bigfork
It occurs to me that the “weather attribution process” that keeps telling us that we are causing the bad weather would be just as accurate at telling us how the last few outstanding fall weeks in Montana is our doing.
Geez Ed where do they get these morons?
“Good” thing there is free speech in the US!
Which allows people to lie thru their teeth.
Follow the money and see how many shares they have in “ruinable” energy
Dear Rik,
I have a concern that is more serious than their appearance to be morons.
I am concerned that they are now agents of the World Economic Forum, and I say that with good evidence.
WEF needed to win Held v Montana because WEF needs the climate myth to continue to support its plan to control America by 2030. It was easy for them to recruit unelected Jet-set people who in turn forced AG Knudsen to purposely lose Held v Montana.
Then, shortly after that loss, Montana Sen. Daines, Rep. Zinke, Senate candidate Sheehy, and Governor Gianforte (who were formerly my friends) now support Knudsen’s criminal loss, support the Democrats’ climate fraud, and censor me because I am the messenger of climate truth in Montana.
It looks to me that WEF now controls the Montana Republican Party.
CAGW is predicated upon many assumed premises:
1) It assumes that all objects above 0 K emit, thus that energy flows willy-nilly without regard to the energy density gradient. This is brought about in Energy Balance Climate Models (and reflected in the graphical representations of those EBCMs in the ‘Earth Energy Balance’ graphics) via a misuse of the Stefan-Boltzmann (S-B) equation… they use the idealized blackbody form of the equation:
q_bb = ε σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4)
= 1 σ (T_h^4 – 0 K)
= σ T^4
… upon graybody objects.
2) That misuse of the S-B equation assumes emission to 0 K. That artificially inflates radiant exitance of all calculated-upon objects, equivalent to measuring the amperage of a 1 V battery and a 1.5 V battery shorted to ground, seeing that the 1 V battery outputs 1 amp to ground and the 1.5 V battery outputs 1.5 amps to ground, then claiming that by connecting the batteries (+)-to-(+) and (-)-to-(-), the 1 V battery will send 1 amp into the 1.5 V battery, and the 1.5 V battery will send 1.5 amps into the 1 V battery, for a net current flow of 0.5 amps into the 1 V battery. This conjures “backradiation” out of thin air. That current flow from the 1 V to the 1.5 V battery (which we all know does not occur) is the equivalent to “backradiation”.
Likewise, they must also claim that a 1.5 V battery connected (+)-to-(+) and (-)-to-(-) to another 1.5 V battery would send 1.5 amps from Battery A to Battery B, and 1.5 amps from Battery B to Battery A, for a net zero current flow (because remember, they claim all objects greater than 0 K emit, just as they must then claim that all batteries > 0 V ’emit’ regardless of the voltage they’re ’emitting’ into)… but if that were true, we could put diodes into the circuit to segregate that dual current flow, put it to work, and never run the batteries down. The climatologists thus claim their brand of climate ‘science’ is a perpetuum mobile. They claim a dual energy flow.
3) That “backradiation” is claimed to cause the “greenhouse effect (due to backradiation)”.
4) That “greenhouse effect (due to backradiation)” is used to designate polyatomics as “greenhouse gases (due to the greenhouse effect (due to backradiation))”.
5) That is used to claim certain of those polyatomics will cause CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, due to CO2).
6) That is used to claim that we must reduce CO2 emission.
7) From that springs all the offshoots of CAGW (Global Warming Potential, carbon footprint, net zero, degrowth, carbon credit trading, carbon capture and sequestration, forcing EVs upon the populace, replacing reliable baseload electrical generation with renewables, etc.).
It is all predicated upon that mathematical misuse of the S-B equation in EBCMs, it is all predicated upon the fallacious claim that energy flows without regard to the energy density gradient.
Here’s the proper way of doing it:
https://www.patriotaction.us/showthread.php?tid=2711
You’ll note that in that post, I’ve reduced the S-B equation to an energy density form, which I like to use because it makes it very clear that energy is one way (down the energy density gradient), not two-way.
You’ll also note that I prove in that post that energy does not and cannot spontaneously flow up an energy density gradient… just as a ball cannot spontaneously roll uphill, just as water cannot spontaneously flow up a pressure gradient, just as electrical current cannot spontaneously flow up a voltage gradient, etc., etc., etc… different forms of energy, but all energy must obey the same fundamental physical laws.
That’s why I emphatically state that CAGW is nothing more than a complex mathematical scam. Because I can prove it is.
Dear Morpheus,
Thank you for your comment and explanation, and for including the link to your website.
If election politics were not taking all my time, I would reply to the science in your comment.
Suffice it to say for now, I think your comment is worthy of discussion. In my view, your work addresses what I call the climate alarmist hypothesis #2.
Well said Dr Berry. I’m proud of you for speaking the truth, though a lone voice in the wilderness. I have a B.S. in premed Biology from way back in 1970 , so many things are over my head , however I try to understand the science.
The elephant in the board room is the sun .
It became obvious, early on in the propaganda,that the Marxist idealogues
screwed up by leaving out the driver of climate/weather in their push.
It’s impossible not to see this error on their part ,I believe.
Thank you so much.
Grandfather from southeast PA.
John
Dear John,
Seems you are about as old as I am.
You are certainly correct that the sun dominates our climate. If we could turn it off, we would be in deep trouble.
Yes, climate alarmism has no basis in science. It is difficult make headway to challenge it because Republicans as well as Democrats support the climate myth and censor all who dare to challenge them.