They agree: Human CO2 makes little difference to Atmospheric CO2

by Ed Berry, Ph.D., Physics, CCM

On January 8, I left home at 4:10 am and arrived at the Glacier International Airport at 4:40 am. Delta Airlines flew me to Salt Lake City and then to Phoenix, Arizona. After unwinding at my hotel, I took a taxi to the Phoenix Convention Center and the American Meteorological Society (AMS) annual meeting.

It was about 2:00 pm. The AMS poster presentations would begin at 4:00 pm and end at 6:00 pm. So, I walked through the commercial exhibits.

At 3:00 pm, it was getting near show time. So, I took my cloth poster out of my briefcase, unfolded it, and pinned it to the 4 ft by 8 ft board the AMS supplied for my booth #494. Then I had time to walk through the other poster presentations. At about 3:30, people began showing up to see the posters.

A few days before, the AMS emailed that many government employees might not show up for the meeting due to the shutdown. Indeed, almost half of the planned poster boards remained empty, representing the government employee contribution to the AMS meeting. That means most of the people who attended the AMS meeting were from universities, or private companies, or were people who, like me, are sincere enough about climate science to pay our own way.

The AMS assigned me an excellent poster location. My poster began a row that had great visibility for all who entered the poster area. My poster was 4 ft by 8 ft to fit the available board space and all my lettering was easy to read from a distance. However, almost all the other posters were about 3 ft by 4 ft and looked like an enlarged page of a scientific journal with small print. You can see the pdf of my poster here.

Now for some estimated statistics.

About 50 percent of those who walked by my booth stopped to seriously study it. About 50 people in all stopped long enough to have a serious conversation with me. Of those, only 2 blew me off with a snide comment and hurried away.

I talked to about 30 people for more than 5 minutes. Sometimes it was one on one. Sometimes is was a group of about 4 people. There were always another 6 or more people who watched my conversations without engaging in the conversation.

When people stopped to read my poster, I quickly learned that my best opening was, “This poster asks “What caused atmospheric CO2 to increase since 1750? Was it human CO2 or natural CO2?”

Everyone who talked to me took time to discuss this question seriously (except for the 2 who blew me of). We talked about science. There were no politics. This was, after all, a science meeting. The most discussed of my poster slides were The Problem Defined, The Physics Model Replicates the 14CO2 Data, Physics Theory system, Physics theory equations, and Natural and Human CO2 set Balance Levels.

I emphasized that the continuity equation plus only one assumption – that outflow equals level divided by a reference time – exactly reproduces the 14C data after 1970, which is something the UN IPCC climate theory cannot do. And this physics theory easily concludes that human CO2 adds only about 18 ppm to atmospheric CO2.

I did not attempt to push anyone to agree with me. I simply explained my case and answered their questions. About 80 percent of those who talked to me said they agree. About 10 percent said they would think seriously about it.

One noted the “Ph.D., Physics” after my name and remarked,

“The problem with too many meteorologists is they do not know enough physics. That is why they think human CO2 causes climate change.”

Many congratulated me on my work and on my “nerve” to present my case at the AMS meeting. (Little did they know that I thrive on competition and challenges.)

Over half of those who seriously talked to me were Chinese. They were university people, not government people.

At 6:00 pm, they turned out the main lights and it was time to pack up and leave.

In conclusion

The AMS meeting showed that a large percentage of real scientists in the meteorological field seriously question the UN IPCC claims about climate change.

Where have you ever heard that before?

These data suggest there is a significant scientific audience interested in hearing and learning about theories that show human CO2 emissions are not the primary cause of climate change.

It’s no secret that the Republican Party must seriously address the liberal view of climate change. There are three different political approaches made by Republicans. Only the last one will work. The first two are like running away from the challenge with our tails between our legs.

  1. Try to convince the people that warming is good for them. – This approach is a political disaster because it agrees with the liberal fiction that human CO2 causes global warming. It undermines scientific truth. Might as well kiss science truth goodbye.
  2. Develop Republican versions of liberal climate fiction. Propose a different carbon tax. Don’t question the UN IPCC climate fiction. – This is also a political disaster because it reinforces the ongoing liberal agenda, it does not save our carbon-fuel energy companies, and it offers no reason for the millennials to support the Republican Party. Might as well be a Democrat.
  3. Learn and defend climate truth, which is human CO2 emissions make no essential difference to atmospheric CO2 and atmospheric CO2 makes no essential difference to global warming. – This is the only solution that will save the Republican Party in 2020. It is the simplest climate science truth to teach to the public. The public gets this and will support this.

There is a place for compromise in politics. There is no place for compromise in scientific truth. The Chinese and Russian people will not fall for climate fiction. If we forge climate fiction into our people, China and Russia will clean America’s clock in energy efficiency, space exploration, national IQ, and national defense.

Seek the truth because ONLY the truth will make us free. 


  1. Thank you for the update and you continued action in this struggle to get the truth out. Here is hoping your new paper will find a courageous publisher and it gets lots of exposure.

  2. Thank you, most interesting. I have been saying for a long time that the real properties of CO2 are what it is all about. It’s the key card in the whole “House of Cards” that is now the multi-billion climate scam. Its reached the point just like Enron where the politicians have in effect said, “That it’s too big to let fall over, so we must support it”.

    Prove that CO2 does not and never has “Stored” heat, and we will be on the way to bringing this monster crashing down.

    MJE iiii

  3. Very exciting and great work. Thank you! I’m sure “we” all hope that you forge ahead, hammering this on as many platforms and organizations of the world that you can on behalf of 2020 and beyond. Like you said, the truth will set us free. I would love to get back to living a ‘normal’ life with less people around us living in fear over imaginary boogy monsters.

    Do you have strategic plans laid out for further widespread exposure even prior to publishing? Any strategic coalitions in the works or should be built? We need your firepower!

    Would sending this to Andrew Wheeler, EPA be a viable option? WUWT, CFACT, Climate Change Dispatch, etc.?

  4. I am wondering if you might make more use of the term “unphysical” or “un-physical”. You might have to explain the term. I offer two approaches.

    1. Mirriam-Webster: “not according with the doctrines or methods of physics”

    2. Unphysical terms appearing in mathematics applied to physics
    “Sometimes in physics, the mathematics leads to “un-physical solutions or terms”, that are readily tossed by the physicist. For example, when deriving absorption and emission rates for via quantized light-atom interactions in quantum optics class, we toss out 2 terms from the Hamiltonian, on the grounds that they don’t correspond to any observed physical process…”

    Source: StackExchange: Philosophy

  5. Trying to get this message out is very difficult. The sheep don’t want to know and the powers that be don’t want you to know.


  6. Well written and argued. Likely right. I had one minor issue. By my math the atmosphere has a mass of 5.146e18 Kg and one ppm is 5.146 Gt. (I can still divide by factors of 10). If Avogadro is right (I presume he is) 1 ppm by mass = 1 ppm by volume so it is unnecessary to deal with moles to come up with 1 ppmv. Section 2.2 converts 210 Gt to 98 ppm but I think it is more like 41 ppm. Some adjustments to the calculations will be needed if I am right, but the theory seems sound nonetheless. I think politics rather than science underlay the refusal to publish which is consistent with the CO2 hysteria rife in the community today.

  7. I am not a scientist but found your paper very interesting.

    Not clear on the peer reviewed process, has this paper been published in a recognized journal?

    I have continual arguments with my sons on A.G.W and they just throw in back in my face by asking for
    peer reviewed published evidence.

    thanking you in anticipation.

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.