Don’t buy Climate Alarmism

By Ed Berry, PhD, Physics

In March 2022, the Los Angeles Times published an editorial that was 100% misinformation about what it called climate “misinformation.”

Climate change alarmism is not based on science. It is based on money, politics, brainwashing, groupthink, and conditioned reflex as Pavlov did with his dogs.

Far too many people, including scientists, incorrectly assume the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is correct about climate change. They incorrectly think undesirable climate events prove our CO2 caused these events, which is not only nonsense but also logically invalid because events do not prove their cause.

All claims that human CO2 emissions cause climate change begin with IPCC’s invalid theory that says human CO2 emissions have caused all the increase in atmospheric CO2 since 1750 (or above 280 ppm). All climate treaties, laws, regulations, taxes, green energy tax credits, and carbon capture, assume this false IPCC theory is true.

Peer-reviewed publications, that the IPCC ignores, prove this IPCC theory is false and that IPCC’s own data prove nature, not human CO2, controls the CO2 level.

These publications show human CO2 emissions are insignificant to atmospheric CO2. Therefore, efforts to reduce human CO2 emissions waste considerable time, money, and productivity.

The few scientists (remarkably absent from government payrolls) who study the true causes of climate change find that nature, not human CO2, controls the climate. And since our CO2 does not control the climate, we can’t “solve” or “address” climate change by turning off our CO2.

The so-called “solutions” to global warming make the poor poorer and the rich richer, and do not reduce CO2 emissions.

The scientific method says we cannot prove a theory is true, but only one contradiction proves a theory is false and this one contradiction outvotes all claims that the theory is true. Scientific consensus is irrelevant in science.

Science progresses by negating theories. Science becomes pseudoscience when people reject evidence that proves a theory is false, as they have done in climate science. IPCC’s pseudoscientists ignore evidence that proves IPCC’s theory is false.

The 20% drop in human CO2 emissions during the pandemic did not slow nature’s CO2 increase. If we removed all trace of humans on the planet, we would not stop nature’s unrelenting CO2 increase.

If climate alarmists would stop long enough to think and study, here is what they would learn.

CO2 flows into and out of the atmosphere as water flows into a lake and out over a dam. The higher the level (of CO2 or water), the faster the outflow. The level adjusts to make outflow equal to inflow. Thereafter, continued constant inflow does not further change the level. CO2 does not accumulate in the atmosphere. The CO2 level increases only enough to make outflow equal to inflow.

The IPCC agrees CO2 inflow into the atmosphere is 95% natural and 5% human. Physics shows each inflow produces a level where outflow equals inflow, making the (first order) human contribution to the CO2 level only 5% (or 20 ppm), using IPCC’s own data.

But the IPCC claims human CO2 is 30% (or 120 ppm) of the CO2 in the atmosphere. They do this because IPCC’s theory requires 30% and to say otherwise would admit IPCC’s theory is false. So, IPCC scientists adjust data to match their theory rather than use data to test their theory, as they should.

To support its sleight of hand, the IPCC claims human CO2 stays in the atmosphere longer than natural CO2, like for thousands of years. Indeed, if this happened, it would increase the human CO2 in the atmosphere. But the IPCC thereby violates physics.

Neglecting isotopes, human and natural CO2 molecules are identical. So, human CO2 and natural CO2 flow out of the atmosphere at the same rate. IPCC’s own data show the half-life of atmospheric CO2 is less than 3 years, which contradicts IPCC’s claim that human CO2 stays in the atmosphere for thousands of years.

In December 2021, the publications of my and others’ peer-reviewed scientific papers prove IPCC’s core theory is false. Yet, the alarmist teachers in schools, colleges, and universities continue to teach their students climate fiction. In Montana, such teaching violates a 2011 Montana Supreme Court ruling.

Your and your children’s minds are too valuable to lose to alarmism.

Your future depends on whether your government follows climate truth or climate fiction.

Climate truth will give you freedom. Climate fiction will make you a slave. The road you choose makes all the difference.

I teach the science of the people who will not be slaves.

36 Comments

  1. Appreciate your knowledge and the way you are trying to educate the zombies that do not to research to get the facts.
    Thank you for your efforts.

    1. Hi Nina,
      Thanks. The zombies’ refusal to acknowledge the published papers by Hermann Harde, Murry Salby, me, and others that prove their science is wrong, proves they are not true scientists… and this is further proof their science is wrong.

  2. So, are natural Co2 inflows constantly increasing to explain the constant increase in the level and if so why and how? Is this cause for concern?

    1. Hi G,
      Since IPCC’s own data limit the human-caused CO2 increase to about 33 ppm as of 2020, this means natural CO2 has added the other 100 ppm.
      The only way to increase the CO2 level is to increase the inflow of CO2. This means nature increased its CO2 emissions from land and oceans into the atmosphere.
      This is not a cause for concern because temperature rise leads, not follows, CO2 rise. We should be happy that nature has increased global temperature because this has made our lives better than if we had lived when it was much colder than now.

      1. Dr Ed,
        Thanks for your answer. From what date does the added 33ppm(human) and 100ppm(nature) begin? I want to be sure I have the info correct so I can tell my “climate catastrophe” believing friends and family what’s going on. Also, am I to disbelieve the “lukewarmists” such as Dr Lindsen who say doubling Co2 will cause a moderate 1-2c temp rise?

        1. Hi G,

          I derive the 33 ppm in my 2021 paper, “The Impact of human CO2 on Atmospheric CO2.”

          My calculations use human CO2 data from 1750 to 2020. They let human CO2 flow out of the atmosphere as natural CO2 flows out of the atmosphere, according to IPCC’s data. The outflow is fast enough that only 33 ppm of human CO2 is still in the atmosphere by 2020.

          Richard Lindzen is an excellent atmospheric physicist (as am I). But climate physics is as complicated as medical biology, so no one knows even close to everything in the field of climate physics. So, atmospheric physicists focus on different parts of climate physics.

          Since about 2000, I chose to focus on proving IPCC’s theories are wrong because that is the only way we can stop the insane climate politics. That means I tend to avoid discussions that are irrelevant to proving IPCC’s theories are wrong.

          My focus has allowed me to prove IPCC’s core theory is wrong. All disagreements with the conclusions of my 2021 paper are pseudo-science because no one has shown there is any error in my conclusion.

          In other words, my 2021 paper (and I will add papers by Hermann Hardy, Murry Salby, and others) puts the IPCC in check and the IPCC will remain in check until someone proves my paper is wrong.

          According to the scientific method, I win because proving a theory is wrong outvotes all the claims that the theory is true.

          Climate change is no longer a matter of opinion. Climate change is now a matter of science.

  3. Glad you settled with the state and are back on your site.
    It occurred to me the other day that these alarmists never give a working definition of their term “climate change”. Without a definition it becomes chimera capable of all things bad, nothing good, purely political and anti scientific not just pseudo scientific. How can we demand a scientific approach to this subject?

    1. Hi DMA,
      The alarmist definition of climate change is “human-caused climate change.” That means anytime the climate changes, it is, by their definition, caused by human CO2 or other actions.
      All major media use this definition.
      Yes, it is pseudoscience, but it is also an effective way to hook most of the public into believing we caused it.
      I think the only way to fight it is to do what I am doing. Namely, to show in simple ways how the climate alarmists, both public and claimed scientists, use anti-physics arguments to support their cause.

  4. When 1000’s of oil well fires burned out of control for about 10 months in Kuwait in 1991, why did the atmospheric CO2 measuring device in Hawaii show no noticeable change in the Keeling curve, even with a lag effect? No spike, not even a blip, none whatsoever. I have asked this question on various forums in the past but have never received a reasonable answer. It was a huge environmental catastrophe on the ground and would have equated to 10’s of millions of cars driving at that time.

    1. Hi Ricoman,
      I remember that event. The conclusion is that nature rapidly absorbs excess CO2. This corresponds to the IPCC data that show the half-life of CO2 in the atmosphere is less than 3 years.

      Also, an instrumented aircraft (maybe U. of Washington’s) flew downwind of the fires and could not detect any evidence of the fires after 100 miles downwind.

  5. Curiosity turned up a graph of both C02 (PPM) and Average Temperature since the Cambrian Life Explosion , some 600 million years ago. It appears that we are actually living in one of the 2 coldest periods since the late carboniferous, with C02 measurable in the 1500 -2000 PPM range or higher. Is this correct?

    1. Hi Richard,
      You are correct. On the 600-million-year scale, there are 4 places where global temperature drops from 22C to 12C for a few hundred thousand years: 450 mya, 300 mya, and now, and down to 16C 150 mya.
      Talk about global warming, try 22C. Well that happened and there were no “runaway effects,” or we would not be here.

      Also, there is a paper (I have to look it up) that shows these decreased temperatures occurred when our solar system travelled through one of the spiral arms of our Milky Way galaxy.

      The explanation for these cooling periods is the spiral arms contain more cosmic rays that increase the Earth’s cloud cover and cool the Earth.

      1. Dr Ed,

        Any idea what is causing the current ice age, of which our interglacial period is a part, considering we are not in a spiral arm at this time?

        1. Hi G,
          A quick search shows:
          “Earth is located in the Orion-Cygnus Arm, one of the four spiral arms of the Milky Way.”

  6. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is a function of temperature, not the reverse. If it gets warmer, the amount of CO2 increases and vice versa. Also, the whole idea of a greenhouse effect is based on a false premise.
    It is taught that the glass in a greenhouse blocks reradiated heat from escaping, so heating the greenhouse. But, if you replace the glass with plastic that is transparent to IR radiation, the greenhouse gets warmer.
    This is because the greenhouse glass blocked more incoming heat than outgoing. The same applies to CO2.

    1. Hi David,

      Thank you for your explanation. I would expand on your last paragraph to add that CO2 does not intercept incoming solar radiation as greenhouse glass does.

      However, the experiment you describe uses greenhouses that block convection from transporting surface heat upward. That is why we get about the same result with plastic as with glass.

      Therefore, the greenhouse analogy does not properly represent how the atmosphere works.

  7. Thanks Dr Ed. I would like to remind you of facts that predate the present era corruption. {1} we were informed by scientists that we receive 50 to 80 percent 0f our oxygen from the oceans. That oxygen is produced by undersea volcanic vents that also produce CO2, and they both end up in the atmosphere because the oceans cannot absorb more than solubility allows.
    Also, would not carbon from the vents look like FF carbon?

    1. Hi James,
      Those were the days when we could study climate physics without the burden of politics. Today, there is a famous ecologist who blatantly claims my calculations (certified by Will Happer) using IPCC data cannot be true because there is no known source of natural CO2. Go figure.

      But I don’t know the answer to your question that concerns the concentration of 14C in the volcano vents. Maybe someone has an answer to that question. I suppose both above sea level and below sea level volcanoes would have similar 14C concentrations.

      1. Dr Ed: “…Maybe someone has an answer to that question….”
        Murry Salby, Will Happer… etc

  8. Dr. Ed… Glad the Montana issue is settled. Too bad, you had to waste time & money fighting bureaucratic nonsense.
    It appears the fight for convincing the activists, bureaucrats, politicians and fools is only beginning. This fool John Kerry has a bigger and louder bullhorn than we scientists can ever get. However, I intend to continue my efforts to get out the real evidence on not just CO2; but climate in general. I just wish I could get the YTRCS group more active in working on the uniformed public.
    Ed, you are doing a great service … keep it up.

  9. “Peer-reviewed publications, that the IPCC ignores”
    Can you provide references or links a few of these publications?

    1. Hi Poiter,
      Glad you asked.
      Please see the list of “Key Papers” near the top of the right sidebar.

      Of course, there are even more such papers that the IPCC ignores. You will find many of them in the references of these “Key Papers.”

  10. There is no greenhouse effect caused by CO₂. The Earth is warmed by the Sun and kept warm due to the pressure of the gases in its atmosphere that is reflected in how much mercury that pressure will displace which amounts to the barometric pressure at various altitudes and that is directly reflected in the temperature range at that altitude.

    I know much about this relationship between altitude and temperature from having went over the 17,769 ft Tharong-La pass on the Annapurna circuit in Nepal and also on my hike to Everest Base camp in Nepal & also when on Kilimanjaro in Tanzania.

    Then we have alarmist maintaining that; “This research has improved our understanding of how much the world will eventually warm if the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is maintained at double the level of pre-industrial times”. Plus, this nonsense; “There is much greater certainty that, if left unchecked, global warming would be high enough to bring very severe impacts and risks worldwide”, when in fact there is no evidence that CO₂ has anything to do with the Earth’s temperature or its climate.

    I enjoy seeing what other fable that someone who is so illogical and gullible to believe that the trace gas, CO₂, that is only .03-.04% of the total atmosphere of the Earth has the unbelievable ability to now do to the planet since it became a tool of the unscrupulous people to use to try to control the citizens of the world. In today’s world, who controls energy, controls the world’s population.

    Altitude Above Sea Level Temperature Barometer In. Hg. Abs. Atmospheric Pressure
    500 feet 57⁰F 14⁰C 29.38 17.48 PSI
    15,000 feet 6⁰F -14⁰C 16.89 8.29 PSI
    http://meteorologytraining.tpub.com/14269/css/14269_75.htm

    Greenhouse Effect is Invalidated
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfuafZbpyII

    Vacuum Implosion
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VS6IckF1CM0

  11. When is anyone ever going to submit for me a link that would take me to the repeatable empirical experiment that offers the evidence that it is indeed the trace gas, CO₂, that comprises between .038% of the Earth’s total atmosphere, that is causing the Earth’s climate to change and its temperature to increase to perhaps to devastating highs? The reason that no one has ever supplied that information to me is because it does not exist. That makes those that believe in this hoax about anthropogenic climate change nothing more than a bogus religious like experience for poor uninformed folks such as what the alarmists have successfully proven themselves to be.
    “Global warming is the central tenet of this new belief system in much the same way that the Resurrection is the central tenet of Christianity. Al Gore has taken a role corresponding to that of St Paul in proselytizing the new faith…My skepticism about AGW arises from the fact that as a physicist who has worked in closely related areas, I know how poor the underlying science is. In effect the scientific method has been abandoned in this field.” — Atmospheric Physicist Dr. John Reid, who worked with Australia’s CSIRO’s (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization) Division of Oceanography and worked in surface gravity waves (ocean waves) research.

    If this experiment was done, why not one that demonstrates that CO₂ is the devil in the sky that some want us to ‘believe’ that it is?
    Albert Einstein addressed the theory of quantum entanglement. In Dec. of 2011 this experiment was carried out:
    Quantum Entanglement Links 2 Diamonds
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/room-temperature-entanglement/

    Why is what follows so hard for folks to understand?
    “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong”. Richard P. Feynman

    1. I’m not going to go search for it, but in the fifties it was demonstrated that the experiment purported to prove that atmospheric carbon dioxide absorbs and retains heat radiated from the earth was done in a controlled environment that did not reflect atmospheric carbon dioxide heat absorption and was therefore not a valid proof. Not that the presumption is or isn’t true, just that the experiment claimed to prove it does not prove it.

      1. Here is some science that explains why the greenhouse effect is bogus and also how NASA’s climate department are nothing but shills for this global warming hoax.

        “Venus’ atmosphere consists mainly of carbon dioxide, with clouds of sulfuric acid droplets. The thick atmosphere traps the Sun’s heat, resulting in surface temperatures higher than 880 degrees Fahrenheit (470 degrees Celsius). The atmosphere has many layers with different temperatures. At the level where the clouds are, about 30 miles up from the surface, it’s about the same temperature as on the surface of the Earth”.

        Then NASA, not realizing that they sound like the global warming fools that we know them to be, said this;
        “From space, Venus is bright white because it is covered with clouds that reflect and scatter sunlight. At the surface, the rocks are different shades of grey, like rocks on Earth, but the thick atmosphere filters the sunlight so that everything would look orange if you were standing on Venus.
        The landscape is dusty, and surface temperatures reach a scalding 880 degrees Fahrenheit (471 degrees Celsius).
        https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/venus/in-depth/

        If Venus is, “covered with clouds that reflect and scatter sunlight”, then how can the thick atmosphere trap the Sun’s heat that results in surface temperatures higher than 880 degrees Fahrenheit (470 degrees Celsius) if the sun’s rays are reflected and scattered by clouds; “about 30 miles up from the surface, it’s about the same temperature as on the surface of the Earth”?

        “Although Venus and Earth are similar in size, someone standing on the ground on Venus would experience air about 90 times heavier than Earth’s atmosphere; pressures are similar to diving 3,000 feet beneath the ocean. The most Earth-like atmosphere in the solar system occurs 30 to 40 miles (50 to 60 kilometers) above the surface of Venus. Both oxygen and hydrogen rise above the heavier gas layer covering the ground, and the pressures are similar to our planet.”
        https://www.space.com/18527-venus-atmosphere.html

        This is the kind of science that NASA produces with my hard earned tax dollars reminds me or what Thomas Jefferson said;
        “To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical”. Thomas Jefferson

    2. In just 1 m3 of air outside your house there are more molecules of CO2 than sand grains in the whole world. Does that sound as an insignificantly small amount of CO2 to you?

      1. Does 4 parts in 1,000,000 parts sound like a lot to you? How about 18 parts in 1,000,000 parts? No, it doesn’t.

        Not even 418 parts in 1,000,000 seems significant.

        But, in any case, CO2 does not drive the Climate, nor cause any “Greenhouse” effect, whatsoever. None.

        In fact, NO GAS in our Atmosphere acts like a pane of glass in a greenhouse…at all. All those cartoons of Sun radiation bouncing up and down off the surface of the Earth…and some imaginary LINE drawn round it…are totally fraudulent and nothing but deliberate propaganda.

        CO2 is basically a harmless, and quite necessary gas, without which we all die. Any attempt to limit it..or reduce it..is absolute insanity.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

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