Valerie and me as seen by our competitors.

The American Meteorological Society posted my paper

by Ed Berry, Ph.D., Physics

The American Meteorological Society (AMS) published my paper: “Contradictions to IPCC’s Climate Change Theory”

AMS published my original abstract here with a link at the bottom of the page where you can download my full paper in 2-column pdf format. I will present my paper at the AMS annual meeting on Tuesday, January 8, in Phoenix from 4 to 6 pm.

Also, I posted my AMS paper on my website here where it is easier to read and comment. I made it a PREPRINT because I will submit it to a scientific journal. You may now quote from my AMS paper. Please use both the AMS and my post reference links, shown above.

I updated my slide presentation (not yet online) and I am giving public presentations for a fee and travel expenses. My goal is to raise money so I can tell more people that our CO2 emissions don’t change climate because they barely change atmospheric CO2. I don’t have a government job or contract and I am not supported by any group.

My slide presentation has 4 key points:

  1. CO2 flows through the atmosphere as water flows through a lake.
  2. Human CO2 adds a constant 18 ppm to atmospheric CO2.
  3. Natural CO2 adds a growing 392 ppm to atmospheric CO2
  4. The IPCC theory is wrong.

My paper explains the physics theory of CO2. I am not the first to present this theory. Hermann Harde and Murry Salby were there before me. My contribution has been to make the explanation simpler and more complete and to show how the IPCC theory fails the scientific method.

I thank everyone who commented on my posts over the past 18 months. You helped me make a better paper. I  reviewed your every challenge to the physics theory and hopefully answered them in my present paper.

The IPCC theory makes wrong predictions, so it is wrong.

By contrast, the physics theory makes no wrong predictions and many correct ones. In addition to physics, understanding systems theory is important to understand why the IPCC theory is wrong and the physics theory is valid.

Rolf Sabersky taught me systems theory in my sophomore year at Caltech in his thermodynamics course. I still remember him like it was yesterday. What an excellent teacher.

Modern software development uses systems theory to organize software into functions and subroutines. I won the People’s Choice Award at Microsoft’s Windows World Open Custom Application Contest in 1993 for my software for a famous legal trial. I mention this only to indicate that both physics and systems are part of my professional expertise.

It is time for government agencies to correct their websites that still promote the IPCC theory. Governments and universities around the world owe the people, the students, and the voters the truth.

Featured Image: Valerie and me as our competitors saw us.


  1. Thank you. It is time to end this fraud and expose the fraudsters, and their motives. We need all of those with the knowledge, courage, and integrity to stand up for the truth to be recognized for their service to humanity.

  2. Thank you for presenting the truth regarding this scam known as anthropogenic climate change, They use to call it global warming until the warming ended 20 years ago. It is of no surprise that the IPCC gets everything wrong when this is their mandate.
    IPCC mandate of human caused warming.
    Just what would you expect from an organization whose mandate is this?
    1. Scope and Approach of the Assessment 1.1. Mandate of the Assessment
    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established by World Meteorological Organization and United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) in 1988 to assess scientific, technical, and socioeconomic information that is relevant in understanding HUMAN-INDUCED [my emphases] climate change, its potential impacts, and options for mitigation and adaptation.

  3. I am not qualified to give any comment. I listened to Valentina Zharkova about climate models and the conclusion is that IPCC is wrong. Another paper was about using Buckingham pi-theorem in the climate models used by UN(EP) and it showed that IPCC is wrong; temperature on earth depends only on sun’s radiation and air pressure. As I wrote, I am not qualified but if one has ‘forgotten’ to use that theorem, the intention was quite different then it was written. Reading the definition of climate a lot of questions arises. So the thought comes up that the intention of the UN is maybe having a world government by making people angry (mostly women) and using ideas which can’t be criticized?

  4. I was waiting for someone with better credentials to say this, but I haven’t seen it.

    Most of the CO2 that we see is due to the temperature recovery from the Little Ice Age (LIA) with a lag of 300 years . Coincidentally, a much smaller amount is being added by humans. It’s an accident that warmists, the IPCC and their much-amplified propaganda machine have taken advantage of.

  5. Is there a way I could attend the Phoenix AMA meeting? I live in Southern AZ and hate that drive, but I would like to be there. Thanks.

  6. Ed Berry,

    Regarding your AMS upcoming paper, I though you might be interested in an article from the Washington Post on fast rising CO2 emissions.

    This may be in line with your ideas. It claimed that human CO2 emissions since 1959 have grown from 10 to 37 million tons of CO2, an increase of 270%. But CO2 in the atmosphere during this time has grown from about 316 to 409 ppm, only 29%, according to good data from Mauna Loa.

    If the Post’s data is correct, where is all the CO2 going?

    The Washington Post Article came out on December 5th. A search on “Washington Post rising emissions” can find it.

    Dick Petschauer

    1. Dear Richard,
      Salby uses those data to argue that human emissions do not cause the increase in atmospheric CO2. Munshi shows that the annual correlation of human emissions to the annual changes in atmospheric CO2 is zero. So no cause-effect.
      I show that the UN IPCC arguments that claim human CO2 caused 100% of the increase in atmospheric CO2 are invalid because they fail logic and physics.

Leave a Reply

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.