by Ed Berry, PhD, Theoretical Physics, CCM
Trump needs a climate team that has published proof that human CO2 is insignificant.
The good scientists who have published proofs that human CO2 is insignificant, I call “my team.” My team is the only team that can defeat the Lighthiser v Trump climate lawsuit.
By contrast, the CO2 Coalition and its DOE climate team, argue that human CO2 causes the CO2 increase and global warming.
They censor my team’s papers. They support the IPCC and Dems.
They do not identify IPCC’s three core assumptions that support IPCC’s invalid climate claims. Therefore, they cannot prove IPCC’s claims are false because they AGREE with IPCC’s assumptions.
They cannot defeat Lighthiser v Trump because this defense requires a courtroom team that will prove IPCC’s three assumptions are false.
The CO2 Coalition’s Special Report claims human CO2 causes all the CO2 increase, which supports the Dems and IPCC’s false claims.
The CO2 Coalition’s inability to defend its “Special Report” — now on edberry.com with 4639 views and 673 comments — proves they do not understand basic physics and mathematical modelling.
Are they working for the Deep State or simply physics deprived?
Have they so long worn the mental masks required by their university jobs that their mental views now resemble their masks?
President Trump’s DOE choose them to write the DOE report that censors the physics that Trump needs to defeat Lighthiser v Trump.
That was a mistake by President Trump. His people simply do not understand the real climate debate that matters.
If President Trump uses the CO2 Coalition as his “climate experts” they will lose Lighthiser v Trump and destroy his energy and climate plans for America … like Fauci destroyed his plans in 2016.
Read the CO2 Coalition debate here.
Your claims are correct, not only because of the technical issues you are focusing on, but also according to basic economics: the rule that any damages to the environment should be payed for by the polluter, NOBODY ELSE. Never by the consumers or tax payers, as is the rule in most countries. It is all a big scam!
The actual political purpose of so called green policies is not to save the environment but to support the nuclear industry. Olof Palme, the first chairman of IPCC, was keen to give his own oversized nuclear program at home a helping hand.
Dr. Ed,
Is there any use organizing another coalition that shares your team’s views? Say, for example, individuals from the Heartland Institute or the Heritage Foundation.
The theory of Co2 heating by radiation is nulled by Prof William Happer of Princetown. In a nut shell such heating was mainly in the first 20ppm when atmosphere was first forming. as CO2 increased this reaction declined heating less and less as CO2 increased. In fact the University of Pennsylvania wrote it up . at 340ppm that no measurable heat was discovered. If cooling is the aim then stopping that which was not a cause is illogical and ineffective. Most scientists accept Professor Happer’s paper as correct so why are activists still fear mongering?
Jim Siverly August 16, 2025 at 2:04 pm
Hi Jim,
Yes, I think it is time to form a group that will support the position that human CO2 is insignificant. No group has taken this position.
I have been thinking about this for over a year. I am ready to form a Montana LLC.
An LLC is the easiest form of business to begin and to manage. A non-profit is too expensive to manage and less flexible. I am familiar with starting and running c-corporations. LLCs are easier to manage. Besides, I think there is a place in the world to make a profit by defeating climate lawsuits and helping organizations adjust to climate truth.
I already have a good bookkeeper and accountant. I can piggyback the new LLC on my website to eliminate the significant costs of starting and maintaining a new website.
The key to an LLC is to have an appropriate operating agreement that allows investors to share in any profits.
The place to start is to select a diverse management team capable of meeting all business demands, and a drafting business plan.
Since you brought up this subject here, this is a good place to open a discussion of this possibility.
To my understanding, a hypothesis that agrees with prior scientific evidence and can demonstrate the physical proof by repeatable experiment and can predict future events is treated as an accepted theory. Unless my teachers lied 70 years ago, no computer program or mathematical model can become a theory without proof of concept.
Of course if the alarmist faction could show a process whereby a trace gas could reverse entropy without leaving any evidence by commercializing the incredible putative energy in atmospheric CO2, the sane faction would be forced to accept narrative (aka political) science.
DR Ed,
The administration is hampered by political considerations until the midterms. A strong majority of Americans believe the incessant propaganda media promotes about CO2 as a pollutant. They have to bring the public along slowly because at least 70% can’t accept they have been duped. They are doing that with the DOE report that opens the door a crack. If Republicans can hold congress the administration will complete the take down of the phony climate establishment. Patience!
Brin Jenkins August 16, 2025 at 5:12 pm
Dear Brin,
Happer did a good job with his radiation calculations. The technical problem in a court, however, is that he concedes CO2 causes some warming. While scientists understand that “small” is “small” the plaintiffs’ attorneys will still make it a big thing.
I prefer the argument of Ferenc Miskolczi who showed that water vapor adjusts itself counter CO2 changes, thereby showing added CO2 has no effect on warming at all.
Pete August 16, 2025 at 8:50 pm
Dear Pete,
The reason I don’t buy that argument is because the Republicans made a similar argument before the Held v Montana trial, and they ended up losing Held v Montana.
Worse, the reason Montana lost is because the Deep State and WEF has its operators inside the Republican Party who set little things up to assure Montana lost. The result was our AG purposely lost the lawsuit.
First, I interpret the chosen DOE team to be an inside setup, using Koonin, to assure Trump uses this same team in his defense of Lighthiser v Trump. That team will lose the lawsuit for Trump.
Second, Trump has no time to waste in forming his defense team. He should be interviewing potential defense experts NOW, but he has not contacted me or anyone I know. This is bad news. This is the reason I wrote this post.
There is no time to “bring the public along slowly.” Trump’s defense must start now and plan to prove wrong all three hypotheses of the plaintiffs. If Trump does not do this fast, he will lose.
I see the CO2 Coalition as a threat to Trump’s defense.
Hi Dr Ed,
3 points:
1 CO2 is not a pollutant, it is plant food.
2 You and others have proved by Science (physics and mathematics) that using coal, oil and gas for energy has no adverse effect on the climate.
3 A recent book, ‘GEOLOGICAL IMPACTS ON CLIMATE’ by James E. Kamis shows that the overwhelming heat source (also CO2) is from geological structures such as volcanoes and major fracture zones in the earth’s crust.