They took the dark side’s money, and the money shaped their faces

The climate change delusion is a real-life rerun of this Twilight Zone story.

Do you remember the Twilight Zone story where the distributor of a fortune made the recipients wear grotesque masks until the clock struck midnight?

… When they took their masks off, they found their faces became the same as their masks.

The most basic assumption of climate change made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is

  • False: Natural CO2 stayed constant after 1750 while human CO2 dominated the CO2increase.

All climate politics, laws, regulations, treaties, taxes, education, and alarmist beliefs rest upon one fundamental, incorrect ASSUMPTION.

On December 14, 2021, the journal Science of Climate Change published my peer-reviewed paper, “The Impact of human CO2 on atmospheric CO2.” My paper reveals why this assumption is a fraud.

My paper proves what good scientists have known for decades, which is this most basic assumption of climate change is false. The truth is

  • True: Nature, not human CO2, controls atmospheric CO2.

Yet, the scientists who took money from the IPCC, governments, and universities to support this assumption …. Now truly belief this assumption. They now have a scientific blind spot.

They took the dark side’s money, and the money shaped their faces.

The fact that natural CO2 emissions are 20 times larger than human CO2 emissions proves human CO2 cannot, to the first approximation, cause more than 5 percent of the total CO2 level, or about 20 ppm out of 400 ppm.

Human CO2 simply cannot cause the 120-ppm increase that this assumption blames on human emissions.

But my paper takes it much further than this first approximation. My paper goes much further than the IPCC with its billions of dollars in funding, which should be shameful to the IPCC. My paper takes this all the way to a slam dunk, checkmate proof that this IPCC blatant assumption is a fraud.

The “climate emergency” is not about the climate. It is about the dark side’s plan to pull you into their BORG where they will control your mind with false data so you cannot escape.

Once you fall for the climate change fraud where you think you are following “the scientists,” they can more easily get you to fall for their other frauds (COVID? Communism?).

Without the truth, resistance is futile.

Here’s what my paper does for you:

It summarizes the work of other scientists, preceding me, who have shown this assumption is wrong.

It includes an extensive introduction (encouraged by the journal’s reviewers) before it gets into my carbon cycle model math in Section 4, which you can skip over.

The physics carbon cycle model replicates IPCC’s natural carbon cycle, which is the best data on the carbon cycle.

Then it uses IPCC’s natural carbon cycle data to calculate a true human carbon cycle (as the IPCC should have done a long time ago). The result proves IPCC’s claimed human carbon cycle is a fraud.

It uses IPCC’s data (including delta 14C data, 12CO2 data, human emissions data) and basic physics to prove nature is the dominant cause of the CO2 increase.


Even ELON fell for this fraudulent climate change assumption.

Elon Musk – the smartest guy on the planet – should have figured this out before I did but, of course, that is not his job. There is no presentation of my paper on the big screen (yet), so the climate change noise from the alarmists overwhelmed even Elon.

Elon tweeted at 4:08 PM on January 2021, “am donating $100M towards a prize for best carbon capture technology,”

Elon should give me the prize money because my paper reduces the human CO2 footprint by over 75%, which is much greater than any technology can do.

Hey, I will settle for $1 million to cover my personal costs to do this paper and Elon can keep his $99 million.

Elon should not waste his money on his plan to remove CO2 from the atmosphere because nature will quickly put it back. It would be like pumping water from a lake to its upstream river.

Of course, I did not use technology to reduce the human footprint. I simply solved the science problem that should always precede a technological effort. The solution to the “CO2 problem” is that the alarmists lie and nature controls CO2.

Tell Elon about my paper. It will save him a lot of money.

My paper shows the true human carbon footprint is too small to worry about.

Leaders of the free world, and Greta, should stop their climate alarmism before Bill Gates does something crazy like irreversibly cooling the Earth.

You can purchase my paper for $10.00 here.

My paper is worth much more than $10 because it gives you the truth and the truth can make us free.

My paper is also the scientific backing and references for my popular book, Climate Miracle.

I invite you to join my crusade to bring climate truth to the people.

I will tell you more about my crusade in my next letter.


  1. The real question is, why would anyone try to remove the trace gas, CO₂, that is only .038% of the total mass of the Earth’s atmosphere and, most importantly, is essential for all terrestrial life on the Earth?
    There is no greenhouse effect caused by CO₂. The Earth is warmed due to the life giving rays of the sun. It remains warmed in the temperate zones and tropics 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 .038% 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 the 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

    Vacuum Implosion

    Greenhouse Effect is Invalidated

  2. Ed, As you would know Climate Science was hi-jacked by Club of Rome member Maurice Strong’s 1988 IPCC and their global warming fear Charade. To give their unelected unaccountable global elite CoR/United Nations New World Order momentum for the 21st Century! Signed by most Countries as Strong’s IPCC, 800page UNFCCC Agenda21 in 1992! The extension of the United Nations Lima Declaration, voted for by most countries in 1975 as the United Nations Industry Development Organization, Committing all Industrialized Countries to at least a 25% reduction in Industry the year 2000, to developing countries! Signed by Australia by Senator John Button in 1986 as the UN Lima Declaration! In 1992 Australian PM Paul Keating signed the UNFCCC Agenda21, now reprinted 355page UNIPCC Agenda21 Sustainable Development! Ratified by Rudd in 2007. Ratified again by Turnbull in 2015!!!!!

    1. Those who do not know what the UN’s Agenda 21 is about need to read this below. We can be sure that if it is bad for the nation then the far left “progressives” are all for it.

      Here is the main point of all of this harmful nonsense: “….in the United States more than 80 percent of the population has some post-secondary education, and about 25 percent of the population has a four-year degree from a university. Statistics also show that per-capita energy use and waste generation in the United States are nearly the highest in the world. In the case of the United States, more education has not led to sustainability. Clearly, simply educating citizenry to higher levels is not sufficient for creating sustainable societies.”

  3. How strange last evening at about 16.30 UK time I was thinking of the Twilight Zone. What is happening now we could not make up. I haven’t had a chance to go through this article but will. Yesterday also I was discussing the three invisible elements Nitrogen, Hydrogen and Oxygen (The Trilogy) and when Carbon is added there is life. There is evil in the effort to produce zero carbon. Thank you for your work.

  4. I hope that this explanation of why there is no atmospheric greenhouse effect is better received than the one that I submitted in my own words.
    Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within the Frame of Physics
    Show affiliations
    • Gerlich, Gerhard ;

    • Tscheuschner, Ralf D.
    The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics, such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature, it is taken for granted that such a mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper, the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33° is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.
    Publication: International Journal of Modern Physics B, Volume 23, Issue 03, pp. 275-364 (2009).
    Pub Date: 2009

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

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