Stand for climate truth.

by Dr. Ed Berry

In the late 1960s, I traveled to South Africa. I saw children with their legs bound to purposely turn them into cripples for life, presumably so they would make money from donations.

Today, I see children in America and other countries with their minds bound to purposely turn them into mental cripples for life, presumably so they will support votes for a political cause that in the end will destroy their own country. These children have suffered mind-warping child abuse. This abuse has caused them mental and physical harm.

What is worse? A crippled leg or a crippled mind?

Those born after about 1995 have been severely harmed. Their teachers, media, and government have programmed them from early ages to believe human CO2 is destroying their world. Their teachers have used fear to make them believe. Fear is known to be the most permanent way to program children’s minds to believe anything. The children are helpless against these immoral tactics.

Their teachers have molded these children into a climate alarmist cult that rejects true science. Once inside the cult, the children can no longer think for themselves. They become servants of the BORG that controls them.

The young people who have become climate alarmists have never been taught true science. For example, how many young people can understand the following simple science?

Climate alarmists make four invalid claims:

  1. Human CO2 has caused all the increase in atmospheric CO2 since 1750, or above 280 ppm.
  2. Increased atmospheric CO2 causes global warming.
  3. Global warming causes bad stuff to happen.
  4. Therefore, human CO2 causes bad stuff to happen.

Let’s focus on claim #1. Here is why it is wrong:

  • Simple physics shows that human CO2 causes about 18 ppm of today’s 410 ppm level of atmospheric CO2, while natural CO2 causes 392 ppm. Human CO2 is insignificant to climate.
  • By contrast, the IPCC claims that human CO2 causes 130 ppm of today’s 410 ppm, while natural CO2 causes 280 ppm.

IPCC is the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

It is easy to prove with high-school physics that the IPCC claim is wrong. According to the UN IPCC, the annual flow of human CO2 into the atmosphere is about 4.4 ppm per year and the natural CO2 inflow is about 98 ppm per year.

According to simple physics and common sense, the percent of human CO2 in the atmosphere equals the percent of human CO2 in the inflow. It is like a recipe. What you put into a bowl is what is in the bowl.

So, get your calculator and do the math. The total of 4.5 ppm per year and 98 ppm per year is 102.5 ppm per year inflow into the atmosphere. The human contribution is 4.5 divided by 102.5 or 4.4 percent. Therefore, the contribution of human CO2 to atmospheric CO2 is 0.044 times 410 ppm or 18 ppm.

Therefore, reducing human CO2 emissions will not reduce atmospheric CO2 enough to make any difference in the climate. Alarmism is junk science. There is no climate emergency.

The physics model also explains why continuing human CO2 emissions will not further increase atmospheric CO2 … but that is another subject.

How do the IPCC and climate alarmists justify their claim that human CO2 increased atmospheric CO2 by 130 ppm?

Answer: They reject physics. We are not talking about rocket science. We are talking about what they should have learned in high-school physics.

One IPCC argument is that natural CO2 flows freely out of the atmosphere, but human CO2 goes into 4 bins. The CO2 in the first bin flows freely out of the atmosphere. The CO2 in the second bin flows slowly out of the atmosphere. The CO2 in the third bin flows very slowly out of the atmosphere. And the CO2 in the fourth bin stays in the atmosphere forever. This claim is junk science. It is like a wee-wee-wee 4-little-piggy nursery rhyme.

Figure 1 illustrates IPCC’s 4 bins for human CO2.

Figure 1. The percent of human CO2 left in each Bern model bin after 8 years.

Everyone who believes this wee-wee-wee 4-little-piggy argument rejects science. IPCC scientists believe it. National Climate Assessment authors believe it.  Climate alarmists believe it. Too bad they are all wrong.

The truth is nature can’t tell the difference between human and nature CO2 because CO2 molecules are identical no matter what their source.

Download two new scientific papers as free PDF files.

Two recent peer-reviewed scientific publications prove the IPCC alarmist theory is wrong. Both show why human CO2 does not change atmospheric CO2 enough to change the climate. Both prove the UN IPCC climate theory is wrong.

Please click on the links and download these two papers. Every download adds to the attention a paper gets. You may be surprised that you can understand much of my scientific paper even if you are not trained in science.

Please bring these two scientific papers to the attention of your elected representatives and conservative media. You will help bring climate truth to the people. You can make a difference.

Also, notice these papers are not “opinions” because the climate alarmists will try to pass them off as such. These papers are slam-dunk proof the IPCC is wrong. They will prevail in court if a smart lawyer uses them.

Science, like legal trials, has a default position. Most law, for example, assumes an accused person is innocent until proven guilty. The same holds for science. The default position (known as the null hypothesis) is that all climate change is assumed to be natural until proven to be human-caused. Human CO2 is innocent until proven guilty.

No one has proved that human CO2 causes climate change because natural CO2 prevails over human CO2 in the atmosphere. Natural CO2 emissions increased since 1750 enough to increase atmospheric CO2 from 280 ppm to 392 ppm. The human effect is only an additional 18 ppm. The human effect on climate is completely negligible and removing it completely will not eliminate the dominant natural climate change.

The two referenced scientific papers take the additional step. They prove all the IPCC arguments, that the IPCC uses to claim a human cause, fail science. Checkmate. These papers cannot be ignored in any serious discussion of climate change.

Help me bring climate truth to the world.

Imagine a world with no climate alarmism. We would be able to focus on things that matter and not waste our time and money on climate distractions. Junk climate science would not distort politics and the economy. Colleges would not require students to join sustainability programs. Kids would not proclaim climate emergencies. Governments would save money. Power generation would be more reliable and cost less. Children and students would learn real science rather than fake science. It might help them pay off their college loans.

I am building a new website where we can work together to accomplish this goal. It will be a membership website where you can interact with other people. It will include seminars that explain in ordinary language why climate alarmists are wrong. It will provide the science and explanation necessary to win in public debate, but we will not be distracted by more science than is necessary to achieve our political goals. It will provide the simplest and most powerful arguments that you can use to counter the climate alarmists.

We have already won the science debate, but few people understand this. The alarmists have no scientific case. Now we must win the political debate.

Several people have offered to help fund my work. I thank them very much. My new website will make this possible. The work we plan to do will require money.

Already, thousands of people have signed up on my email list. If you are not already on my email list, you may sign up on edberry.com to get information about what I am doing.

Our task is great. We must show the public why human CO2 does not change the climate. Our goal is to get climate change out of politics and back into science.

The idea that we have a “climate emergency” is a product of a crippled mind.

Our job is to stand for climate truth.

8 thoughts on “Stand for climate truth.”

  1. Richard Botteri

    Dear Dr. Ed, thank you for sending this excellent analysis. Even as a retired trial lawyer, I understand what you are saying. You verify that my early opinion is right: the EVIDENCE does not support the claim.

    I look forward to reading your new website.

  2. Glad I signed up for your newsletter Dr. Berry. You are spot on and your explanations are easy for the uneducated folks such as I to understand……….

  3. With Heartland’s recent ICCC 13 just completed we have multiple examples of the acceptance of this erroneous IPCC dogma even in some of the staunchest of skeptics. Watch the videos at https://climateconference.heartland.org/ and count how many times these well founded and thoughtful speakers allude to the human cause of recent CO2 increase even as they point out that rise is not causing climate change. Wouldn’t they be much more effective if they started with the truth that The rise is largely natural? I have been hammering on this for several years in my puny way so I really appreciate this effort by Dr. Ed and look forward to helping as I can.
    I would like to see it get exposed on WUWT, JoNova, Climate Etc. and several of the other main climate sites as well as the alarmist sites.

    1. Dear DMA,
      All scientists must use the null hypothesis. It applies to all three steps of climate change theory. Human CO2 must be assumed to not cause the increase in atmospheric CO2 until proven to do so. No one has ever proved human CO2 is the cause of the increase.

      The Heartland-sponsored scientists who accept the idea that human CO2 has caused all the increase above 280 ppm, have not followed the null hypothesis. They have followed their “feelings” rather than science. It is unfortunate for climate truth that good scientists on our side do not follow the scientific method.

      They even ignore Munshi’s statistical proof that the correlation between annual human CO2 emissions and annual change in atmospheric CO2 is ZERO! Science requires that they either prove Munshi is incorrect or they accept that conclusion that human CO2 is not the cause of the rise in atmospheric CO2 above 280 ppm. But their only comment about Munshi’s result is to say, “Well, I think human CO2 is still the cause of the increase even though the correlation is zero.” That conclusion is NOT science. Anyone who denies Munshi’s result MUST provide a valid scientific argument that zero correlation does not mean there is no cause and effect.

      They have all had the opportunity to challenge me in debate emails and on this website. The few that have challenged me quickly found that their argument failed physics.

      The bottom line is, according to the scientific method, I am correct and they are wrong.

  4. I certainly agree with this statement;

    “Imagine a world with no climate alarmism. We would be able to focus on things that matter and not waste our time and money on climate distractions. Junk climate science would not distort politics and the economy.”

    One very real issue that will happen one day is another Carrington Event that will destroy a large part of the electrical grid. This is a very real threat to the nation that will happen and it is obvious that due to the time and resources being wasted on this hoax about anthropogenic climate change being caused by an essential for all life on earth trace gas, CO₂, no actions are being taken to minimize the damage that this solar storm will cause.

    Transformers can be protected with Faraday cages at very little cost. When one considers that some of these large transformers take up to 2 years to build, then they must be transported and obviously installed, it makes it all the more disappointing to see time and resources going towards defending a hoax about how CO₂ is a devil in the sky that is going to cause the planet to be incinerated instead of efforts being made to deal with actual problems that will occur, such as another Carrington Event.

    It needs to be mentioned that there are only two countries at this time that can produce these transformers and the United States is not one of them. It is Germany and South Korea that produces them and if the damage done by this solar flare is widespread, there is a slim chance that the US will get transformers before other orders are filled.

    If The National Geographic can understand this to be a problem, even though they have become a big promoter of the hoax about climate change caused by CO₂, then some of what they report should be paid some attention to.

    What If the Biggest Solar Storm on Record Happened Today?
    https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/03/110302-solar-flares-sun-storms-earth-danger-carrington-event-science/

    http://energyskeptic.com/2015/power-transformers-that-take-up-to-2-years-to-build/
    https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/Large%20Power%20Transformer%20Study%20-%20June%202012_0.pdf

  5. I am a realistic skeptic and therefore I know that what alarmist ignore is these truths. The sun makes up 99.86% of the mass of the solar system. Carbon dioxide is .03% of the earth’s atmosphere. Of the two, the sun or CO₂, which do you believe has the most influence on the earth’s climate? The people associated with the essential for the survival of modern civilization, the fossil fuel industries, also know the correct answer and will continue to supply the resources that are in demand while alarmist supply nothing of value to anyone, not even yourselves.

    “Troll-A Platform: Largest Object Ever Moved by Man March 12, 2013 
    http://www.amusingplanet.com/2013/03/troll-platform-largest-object-ever.html

    “Transocean Sets World Record for Deepwater Drilling
    http://www.rigzone.com/news/oil_gas/a/127610/Transocean_Sets_World_Record_for_Deepwater_Drilling

  6. Dr Ed
    Thank you so much for this work. It is music to my mind! I am no physicist but I do understand the scientific method and model validation so have been highly skeptical since reading Prof Bob Carters book when it came out in 2010. I have been trying to convince colleagues and friends alike that my emissions are not igniting the planet and finally I have EVIDENCE. As a previous comment said I think it would be a good idea to send it to other climate sites such as WUWT to give it max exposure if you have not already done so.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.