Republicans win by challenging climate demagogues

Edwin X Berry, PhD, Theoretical Physics

September 23, 2022

Climate change politics.

A shocking new poll from Politico shows Democrats are more likely than Republicans to vote in this year’s elections. Republican candidates say they are falling behind and they need more money to defeat the Democrats. To make it worse for Republicans, far-right voters may vote Libertarian, robbing Republican candidates of the votes they need to win.

Nevertheless, Republicans can win.

Climate change is the most divisive, misunderstood, critical issue in the 2022 election.

Republicans are losing votes because they have no (zip, nada) message on climate change. Republicans let Democrats win the climate issue by default. The absence of a Republican challenge has allowed Democrats to gain more voters with their climate issue every year.

Climate truth is a core Republican issue because it affects the supply and cost of our energy and food, and negatively affects our education, economy, taxes, and freedom.

According to Pew Research, in 2022, 60% of all American voters say climate change is a major threat.

Among Democrats, 88% say climate is a major threat. Among Republicans, 31% say climate is a major threat, 45% say it is a minor threat, and 24% say it is not a threat.

Your climate belief influences your vote.

If you strongly believe there is a climate emergency, you will vote Democrat, even if you are a Republican. If you strongly believe climate change is a fraud, you will vote Republican, even if you are a Democrat.

2020 polls showed almost 20% of Republicans, mostly younger Republicans, voted Democrat because these voters believed we must stop CO2 emissions to save the planet.

President Trump lost his election in 2020 not only because of vote fraud but also because he lost his climate debate against Biden. His debate loss disillusioned Republicans who were waiting for him to beat Biden on climate. Climate-concerned Republicans thought, if Trump wins his climate debate, then maybe Republicans are right about climate. Otherwise, the Democrats must be right.

President Trump could have won his climate debate if Montana’s GOP Director had given Donald Trump, Jr., a copy of my book, Climate Miracle, as I asked. If President Trump read just the first chapter, he would have won his climate debate and changed the world.

How Democrats promote climate fiction to get more votes.

On September 13, Seth Borenstein, AP Science Writer, referenced a prediction in the 2012 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) special report,

A changing climate leads to changes in the frequency, intensity, spatial extent, duration, and timing of extreme weather and climate events, and can result in unprecedented extreme weather and climate events.”

Then, after listing weather-caused damages since 2012, he says this IPCC report is the warning and forecast “by top United Nations climate scientists more than 10 years ago.” Then he quotes Michael Oppenheimer of Princeton University,

The report was clairvoyant. The report was exactly what a climate report should do: Warn us about the future in time for us to adapt before the worst stuff happens.”

Borenstein and Oppenheimer incorrectly assume if a prediction is true then the theory is true. The only thing they proved is that Associated Press science writers and alarmist scientists who warm university chairs simply do not understand true science, which is based on the philosophy of science and the scientific method.

Events do not prove their cause.

Events do not prove human CO2, or even natural CO2, caused the events. Furthermore, climate is a 30-year average of weather, so the use of weather events to argue a human cause for climate change is unscientific. The fundamental scientific principle – that events do not prove their cause – should end all claims that events prove human CO2 is guilty.

The scientific method.

If a prediction is false then the theory is false. It is impossible to prove a theory is true. Science progresses by proving theories are false, not by claiming theories are true. Proof that a theory is false supersedes all claims that the theory is true. Neither votes nor opinions can overturn proofs that a theory is false.

But the public does not know that, so the public believes junk science and votes Democrat. Republicans do not know that either, so they do not challenge the Democrats on climate. Too bad because Republicans can win on the climate change issue.

Climate alarmism is based on three false theories.

We must look to the few “cause” scientists to find the cause of climate change. “Cause” scientists focus on theories because if we can prove a theory is false, then we have made progress in science. All climate alarmism is based these three IPCC theories:

  1. Human CO2 causes all the increase in atmospheric CO2 above 280 ppm.
  2. The CO2 increase above 280 ppm causes global warming.
  3. This global warming causes dangerous climate change.

The IPCC says these three theories are true, but it cannot prove these theories are true. However, we can prove these theories are false. And when we prove only one is false, we overturn all climate alarmism.

Let us look at Theory (1) as an example.

The figure shows three scenarios for Natural and Human CO2.

The first bar is the IPCC assumption for 1750. The natural CO2 level is at 280 ppm. It is at equilibrium, which means the CO2 outflow equals the CO2 inflow. CO2 is always flowing in and out of the atmosphere.

The second bar is the IPCC claim for 2020. The IPCC assumes human CO2 causes all the CO2 increase. All climate alarmism is based the second bar.

The third bar uses IPCC’s own data to calculate that human CO2 has added only 35 ppm as of 2020, which proves IPCC’s Theory (1) is false. Human CO2 is insignificant. Natural CO2 controls the CO2 increase.

This proof (by Berry, 2021) ends the basis of climate alarmism and, with a little more explanation than shown here, it is simple to prove Theory (1) is false in a court of law. Other scientists have proved IPCC’s theories (2) and (3) are false. In summary, there is no scientific basis to support the claim that human CO2 causes dangerous climate change.

Democrats have “scientists” who claim the second bar is true. But their “proofs” are circular. They first assume Theory (1) is true without even realizing they made this assumption, and this assumption invalidates their argument.

Their goal is the Great Reset

The Great Reset depends on the climate fraud and its climate laws and regulations. The only way to stop the Great Reset is to undermine its Democrat-supported climate foundation by voting Republican in the 2022 election.

The Great Reset, if achieved, will impose a world government with a two-tiered economy where the superrich will control their profitable monopoly and everyone else will live as a serf in perpetual socialism.

You will own little or nothing. You will rent what you need from the monopoly. You will jump when they tell you to jump, eat the insects they tell you to eat, and take every vax jab they tell you to take until your shoulder or butt is full of little holes.

They will control the miseducation and medication of your next generation so they will never again regain the power to be free.

The Message is more important than money.

This Republican climate message will get free publicity because it is controversial:

  1. Nature controls the climate.
  2. Our CO2 does not change the climate and is not a pollutant.
  3. Global temperature controls the CO2 level.
  4. We need more CO2 because more CO2 grows more food with less water.

Our national energy plan should include:

  1. Making natural gas our primary energy source.
  2. Making nuclear energy our growing primary energy source.
  3. Drill, baby, drill, with added incentives to keep our offshore oil rigs in top condition.
  4. Make high-tech coal our secondary energy source.
  5. Teach our children the truth about climate change in our schools.

Our national CO2 plan should include:

  1. Eliminate all climate laws, regulations, incentives, and treaties.
  2. Eliminate all subsidies for EV’s, heat pumps, wind, and solar energy, thereby forcing them compete on a level economic playing field.

Stop net zero politics. says, “Net zero refers to a state in which greenhouse gases going into the atmosphere are balanced by removal from the atmosphere.”  

Berry (2021) describes how CO2 always moves toward a net zero state where outflow equals inflow. It’s high-school physics.

Carbon capture may be the most insane and counter-productive peacetime undertaking in human history. Don’t waste good energy to put atmospheric CO2 in the ground.

Republicans must support a revolution for climate truth.

The science exists to take down the Democrats on climate. But Republicans cannot do it by themselves. So, here is my plan. In the next few weeks, I will create video presentations on how to prove IPCC’s three theories are wrong. I will ask my Climate Team 6 to be on my Zoom videos.

I will write articles for publication in popular magazines and speak on climate truth.

But I will need your help in marketing.

I will do my best to get the snowball rolling but I will need your help to grow the snowball big enough fast enough to help Republicans win their elections on November 8.

My book, Climate Miracle, is already on Amazon and it will help Republicans win elections.

If Republicans accept this challenge, they will win in November and change the world.

To help with this project, click here.


  1. Why would anyone think, or believe that the earth’s climate is a steady state. There are a myriad of variables which affect the climate, some which we most likely are not even aware of. The tub argument relies upon a steady state which is impossible to prove but is disproven by millions of years of climate history.

  2. The majority of Western World politicians refuse to do their own homework and rely on “the experts” for advice.

    If you don’t do all of your own research you will finish up with a half baked solution.

    Look at the climate average temperature of the last 5,000 years and you will see a steady gradual cooling.

    Official government and many well respected authoured books support this and do not support those who

    agreed with the Paris Accord, mostly unread political heavy weights.

  3. Dr Berry has a sound argument, It’s wrong in Logic reversing the cause with it’s effect, CO2 rises after heating, so it may not be the cause. Tree rings show this historically. The glasses of tap water, keep one cold, and warm the other will release CO2 as bubbles inside the glass, the cold one has no bubbles. Heat ejects CO2, it may not also be the cause.

    Radiative principles of resonance apply, the rare infra red photon at higher energy resonates with CO2 on being absorbed, losing a little energy on the conversion and re-admittance as a photon. This now has a longer wavelength and no longer resonates. A once only event. The Pen University experiment confirms this point there was no detectable heating above 350ppm.
    ref Prof William Happer for the mechanism.

  4. There are so many good ‘take-home’ meanings in this article.
    Rightly in my opinion the author goes beyond the science.
    Science is being trampled on. This is not a political or prejudiced statement. The evidence is there before everyone’s eyes. Contradictions, false predictions, censorship, vested interests and abuse of those who question, where questioning is the one of the very tenets of true science.
    My experience, with clear evidence, is that mature and experienced teachers and GPs (NHS) are leaving or have already left the medical and educational professions as soon as they can, and in their droves. What does that tell one? Do they see the corruption but are frightened to speak out?
    In trying to understand what is going on there are two conclusions that are standing for me.
    The first is that many do not believe that there are others that mean to do them harm. It seems that people just cannot or will not accept this basic reality. This is not about a difference in political persuasion or religious belief. There is about an almost tangible force of evil damaging our societies our children, our very existence and our environment, now and right before our eyes. There will be no ‘winners’, wealth and status will mean nothing.
    The second is the inability of many to question their beliefs their conditioning and what has been presented to them as truth. This is not a persuasion to adopt a particular perspective but just a call for people to question to do the research and to challenge the blindly accepted, not an imposition of belief, but just a request to ‘wake up’ or ‘open eyes’ to what is happening everywhere.
    Thank you for your brilliant article.

  5. Rational analysis concludes that climate is INsensitive to recent observed increases in atmospheric CO2. The false assumption of high climate sensitivities to CO2 is essential to the IPCC’s bogus modelling of catastrophic human-made global warming (CAGW), a decades-old fraud that is clearly NOT happening, and the false and disastrous demonization of fossil fuels.

    This paper by Ed Berry is the leading edge of the science. Unlike the IPCC’s models, it is consistent with the observation that CO2 changes lag temperature changes (Kuo 1990, MacRae 2008, Humlum 2013). Ed concludes that the majority of the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 is in fact natural, not human-made – another argument against the IPCC’s blatant climate fraud.

    The smartest people I know believe that Ed Berry is essentially correct. I am confident that “The future cannot cause the past” (MacRae, 2008).

    The impact of human CO2 on atmospheric CO2 – SCC (
    Dr Edwin X Berry, December 14, 2021
    A basic assumption of climate change made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is natural CO2 stayed constant after 1750 and human CO2 dominated the CO2 increase. IPCC’s basic assumption requires human CO2 to stay in the atmosphere longer than natural CO2. But human CO2 and natural CO2 molecules are identical. So, human CO2 and natural CO2 must flow out of the atmosphere at the same rate, or e-time. The 14CO2 e-time, derived from δ14C data, is 10.0 years, making the 12CO2 e-time less than 10 years. The IPCC says the 12CO2 e-time is about 4 years and IPCC’s carbon cycle uses 3.5 years. A new physics carbon cycle model replicates IPCC’s natural carbon cycle. Then, using IPCC’s natural carbon cycle data, it calculates human carbon has added only 33 [24-48] ppmv to the atmosphere as of 2020, which means natural carbon has added 100 ppmv. The physics model calculates if human CO2 emissions had stopped at the end of 2020, the human CO2 level of 33 ppmv would fall to 10 ppmv in 2100. After the bomb tests, δ14C returned to its original balance level of zero even as 12CO2 increased, which suggests a natural source dominates the 12CO2 increase.

  6. “A consensus of opinions aligned with the preferred narrative. No debate or challenge is permitted and no research is allowed that might uncover uncomfortable or inconvenient facts. Research results which go against the preferred narrative will be suppressed and the perpetrator vilified, ridiculed, and punished.”

  7. Dr. Berry, several of us who follow your postings here also comment at sites like and love to post links to your articles there to drive the CAGW alarmists crazy. I challenge them to come here and debate you, but I doubt they have the self assurance in their junk pseudoscience to challenge you with it. Together we are winning.

  8. Here’s the Key,

    Sue Al Gore for lying to the public and kids for personal gain. Drive the topic out to the people once and for all. Thank you for all that you are doing.

    All the best,


  9. I know there are good honest scientists, but no one is listening to them. William Happer, a former Jason wrote a paper proving CO2 does not cause global warming. It is available on line but again, no one is listening. I think you need the help that only a professional engineer can provide and I propose to provide that help.

    I have had 50+ experience in the field of environmental health and safety, and 25 years as a licensed PE. I worked for a State environmental protection department which covered all areas of practice. When they needed an employee trained in radiation protection they sent me to Oak Ridge for the 10 wk course in health physics. I think I would qualify to provide expert testimony in court. Are you interested?

  10. Well done, Ed! I agree with the entire premise of this article. The climate change scam is a huge part of the global reset the global elite wants to collapse the economy with and regulate our lives completely under their directive.

    This must be stopped, but for starters, we must fix the broken election system first or these very same lawless socialists and Marxists in Biden’s illegitimate regime will attempt another stolen election in the upcoming midterms this November.

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.