How to make AI intelligent and save America $2 trillion

by Dr. Ed Berry

My goal in this article is to help Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy make America more efficient. Americas largest unnecessary cost is due to the climate scam. I also to apply for Elon’s reward for the most cost-effective carbon capture method. My method costs zero because nature controls the CO2 level.

Making AI intelligent and saving America $2 trillion requires using the scientific method and rejecting the false idea that consensus determines scientific truth.

Consensus determines opinion, not truth.

Today’s AI is good at deduction, but it incorrectly assumes consensus determines truth. To be intelligent, AI must use the scientific method to decide truth.

Worldwide, a handful of climate physicists who use the scientific method have proved in published peer-reviewed literature that human CO2 emissions do not change the climate. In fact, they show human CO2 emissions have an insignificant effect on the level of atmospheric CO2.

America, the World Economic Forum, and the deep state censor these scientists because don’t want scientific truth. WEF promotes the climate consensus to control America by 2030.

America’s biggest, useless expense derives from the incorrect assumption that human CO2 causes dangerous climate change. This incorrect assumption, easily disproved, costs America more than its national defense, and all of America’s annual deficit.

Climate politics today incorrectly ASSUMES human CO2 causes dangerous climate change and spends no time and no money to determine if this assumption is true.

As a consequence, the dominant political climate arguments are opinions about how much money to spend to try to lower human CO2 emissions, while ignoring the truth that human CO2 emissions do not even control the CO2 level, much less cause climate change.

The Democrats want to spend more money, and Republicans want to spend less money. But both sides waste money because they reject scientific truth.

Would it not make more sense to spend a small amount of time and money to evaluate these proofs that human CO2 does not control the climate?

The COVID panic a few years ago lowered human CO2 emissions by about 20% for a year. However, the CO2 level continued to rise without any effect from lowered human CO2 emissions.

That should be a wake-up call to check the alarmist consensus assumption that human CO2 controls the CO2 level.

2400 years ago, Aristotle showed the consensus argument fails. Wikipedia (2023) says,

argumentum ad populum is a fallacious argument which is based on claiming a truth because the majority thinks it is true.

Argumentum ad populum is similar to an argument from authority (argumentum ad verecundiam). It uses an appeal to the beliefs of a group of people, stating that because a certain opinion is held by a majority, it is therefore correct.

The scientific method

No one automatically knows how to think. We must learn how to think. That’s why good schools are critical to America’s survival.

Our Homo Sapiens’ brains saved us in the wild but fail us in science. We think we know the scientific method, but we don’t.

Aristotle developed the scientific method 2400 years ago. Sir Francis Bacon expanded on the scientific method 500 years ago.

Today, the scientific method is part of the Philosophy of Science. It is not an arbitrary set of rules. It is the only way to find truth in science. But fewer than about two percent of all PhD scientists have learned the scientific method.

The scientific method is simple, but it takes some thinking.

At Caltech, I learned science, but Caltech did not formally teach the scientific method while I was there from 1953 to 1957.

Dartmouth College offered me a teaching fellowship in physics. There, I learned the scientific method from Dr. John Kemeny, who learned it when he was a special mathematical assistant to Albert Einstein.

Kemeny’s courses in the Philosophy of Science, including the scientific method, and his course in Probability and Markov Chains, changed my life.

Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureat in Physics, later taught the same Scientific Method at Cornel and Caltech.

The scientific method begins and ends with data.

Using data, we formulate a theory (or hypothesis, assumption, or idea) that connects a cause to an effect. This step is induction.

Then we insert data into our assumption to make a testable prediction. This step is deduction.

Then we compare the prediction with new data.

If our prediction is correct, our hypothesis may be correct, but successful predictions do not prove a hypothesis is true because the next experiment may prove it is false.

Albert Einstein said, “many experiments may prove me right, but it takes only one to prove me wrong.”

It is impossible to prove an assumption is true. We can only prove an assumption is false.

The key to science is, if any prediction disagrees with data, the hypothesis is false.

Proof that an assumption is false overrides all claims and scientific consensus that the assumption is true. Votes do not count in science.

The scientific method applies only to things we can measure. It does not apply to things we cannot measure.

We cannot measure God or heaven or the spirit world. That’s why our Constitution gives us freedom of religion. No one has any scientific basis to tell us our belief about God is wrong.

You can have any opinion you want about something we cannot measure. But when religion steps into areas that we can measure, science wins.

For example, measurements prove the Earth is a lot more than 6000 years old.

Climate change is about science, not feelings or wishes or beliefs or virtue or religion.

A legal trial example of using the scientific method

In a trial where a prosecution accuses Smith of shooting Jones, the prosecution will try to show a connection between Smith having a gun, aiming his gun at Jones, pulling the trigger, and shooting a bullet at Jones.

The defense does not need to prove all the prosecutions claims are false. The defense needs only to prove that one of the prosecution’s assumptions is false. The unstated assumption was that Smith was near the crime.

The defense proves Smith was three thousand miles away at the time of the shooting. That simple proof outvotes all arguments that Smith is guilty.

A climate change example of using the scientific method.

Climate change science is a subset of climate science. All political decisions and legal trials related to climate are about climate change science and not about climate science.

We do not need to involve all known climate science to resolve the climate change debate. We should keep the arguments simple.

The only things that matter in climate change are the assumptions made by the plaintiffs and the proof by the defense that one or more of the plaintiffs’ assumptions are wrong.

The first task of intelligent AI would be to identify these assumptions. If AI cannot do this then Ai needs experts to identify unstated assumptions in every argument.

Held v Montana shows how alarmists “prove” their climate change claims.

Held v Montana (HvM) was the first key climate lawsuit in America that set a precedent for other climate lawsuits. The plaintiffs started in Montana because Montana Republican candidates are for sale at a lower price than in other states.

Montana could have easily defeated Held v Montana.

Montana lost because the evil Republican Party Boss forced AG Knudsen to purposely lose the lawsuit. So, Knudsen stipulated his agreement with the plaintiffs and put up NO defense of climate change in Held v Montana.

The State of Montana censored and blacklisted me to be sure they lost Held v Montana. I have a long story to tell that is not relevant to this article.

Held v Montana plaintiffs make three invalid assumptions.

To win a lawsuit, we must first identify all our opponent’s assumptions. Then we prove their key assumptions are false. Keep it simple.

Our Children’s Trust filed Held v Montana in July 2020. The trial took place from June 12 to 20, 2023.

The Held v Montana plaintiffs used the same three assumptions that the IPCC and climate alarmists make to support their climate change claims. But they never list their assumptions and never call them assumptions.

Their whole case depended upon these three assumptions:

1. The natural CO2 level remained at 280 ppm since 1750. Consequently, human CO2 emissions caused all the CO2 increase above 280 ppm.
2. This human-caused CO2 increase causes global warming.
3. This human-caused global warming causes bad stuff to happen.

What evidence do climate alarmists have to prove its three assumptions are true?

Can they measure the amount of human CO2 versus natural CO2 in the air?

• No. That is impossible because human and natural CO2 molecules are identical. We can only measure the total CO2 in the air.

Can they measure the amount of global warming caused by increased CO2?

• No. That is impossible because we cannot directly connect warming with increases in CO2.

Can they measure how much bad stuff is caused by global warming?

• No. That is impossible because bad stuff happens whether or not the global temperature is warming or cooling or staying the same.

So, climate alarmist’ core assumptions are not directly provable.

Ten expert witnesses testified that weather and climate “bad stuff” harmed the child plaintiffs.

Two expert witnesses, Steve Running and Cathy Whitlock, argued that human CO2 emissions caused the “bad stuff.”

Plaintiffs’ Expert Report by Steve Running and Cathy Whitlock argued as follows:

There is a scientific consensus that the rise in atmospheric CO₂ that we are witnessing is attributable to human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels.

The vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most leading science organizations around the world have issued public statements expressing this, including international and U.S. science academies, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and a whole host of reputable scientific bodies around the world.

Recall Aristotle’s argument (above) that consensus is not truth.

First, they argued that assumptions #1 and #2 are true because a “scientific consensus” of people who never appear in court for cross-examination, believe these assumptions are true.

Second, they argued, the existence of “bad stuff” in assumption #3 proves assumptions #1 and #2 are true. Of course, they did not call these assumptions “assumptions.”

Their second argument is that effects prove their cause, which is fundamentally not true.

That’s it! All climate alarmism is based on the above invalid arguments.

Killing their climate arguments in a legal trial is a piece of cake. They win by assuring no public entity makes a good defense. I am a witness to how they did that in Montana.

They even blow their own case with additional claims.

In support of assumption #1, they claim human CO2 stays in the atmosphere much longer than natural CO2. In fact, they need to make that claim to justify their assumption #1.

But this claim is impossible because human and natural CO2 molecules are identical, so they will behave exactly the same and will flow out of the atmosphere at exactly the same rate. This is the Climate Equivalence Principle.

Therefore, their assumption #1 is false because it requires human CO2 to behave differently than natural CO2.

They also claim that we must reduce human CO2 enough to lower the CO2 level to 350 ppm, to save the planet. But IPCC’s own data (Berry, 2019, 2021, 2023) show the natural CO2 level is already about 400 ppm, and human CO2 about 20 ppm. Therefore, we can’t “save the planet” by restricting human CO2 emissions.

Here’s a summary of what some good scientists wrote about climate change.

Scientific references and details are on https://edberry.com.

We do not use the argument that “warmer is better” because it does not prove any key assumption is false, and it inherently agrees with the plaintiffs’ assumptions #1 and #2. This argument does not belong in a climate lawsuit.

Harold Lewis, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, wrote in his resignation letter to the American Physical Society, on October 8, 2010,

IPCC’s climate theory “is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.”

Edwin X Berry, PhD, Theoretical Physics, CCM (2020 – 2023):

Get over it. You are not causing global warming. Those who tell you otherwise are lying to you. Human-caused climate change is a mass delusion.

The IPCC assumes the natural CO2 level remained constant after 1750, and human carbon emissions caused ALL the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide above 280 ppm. IPCC’s own data and the Climate Equivalence Principle prove this assumption is wrong. Natural carbon emissions control the CO2 level.

Carbon-14 data, properly interpreted, proves human carbon emissions have no significant effect on the CO2 level. Nature, not human emissions, controls the CO₂ level and climate change.

Richard Courtney, UK climate scientist and professional reviewer (2021 -2024):

Berry’s work is a breakthrough in understanding which I and all others failed to make. It indicates that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 contribute a negligible proportion of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration. (2021)

If Berry’s interpretation is correct, then we may never need to do anything to stop the rise of atmospheric CO2. (2021)

Berry’s analysis is the only breakthrough in climate science in the last four decades. (2023, 2024)

Richard Courtney died on September 30, 2024, the day before his 78^th birthday.

Howard “Cork” Hayden, PhD, Theoretical Physics (2023):

IPCC’s calculation for the temperature increase caused by doubling CO2 is 4.5 times greater than properly calculated by the Stephan-Boltzman radiation law.

Chuck Wiese, Meteorologist (2023):

Change in the Earth’s reflectivity (albedo) explains all temperature increase since 1984. The increased CO2 level has no effect on temperature.

Humlum et al. (2012) and Koutsoyiannis et al. (2023):

CO2 changes follow temperature changes with a delay of about 12 months.

Ferenc Miskolczi, Foreign Associate Member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (2023):

 Global mean cloud cover fully explains the observed mean surface temperature.

John Clauser, 2022 Physics Nobel Prize Winner (2024):

As much as it may upset many people, my message is the planet is NOT in peril. … atmospheric CO₂ and methane have negligible effect on the climate. The policies the government has been implementing are unnecessary and should be eliminated.

The IPCC has misidentified the dominant process that controls the climate. Its models are based on incomplete and incorrect physics.

The dominant climate process is cloud coverage over the oceans. When cloud cover decreases, sunlight evaporates more water that causes more clouds that in turn cool the Earth, and vice-versa.

I can very confidently assert, there is NO climate emergency.