Climate Physics

Replace climate alarmism with climate sanity

(Edit and send this to your local newspaper. 284 words to climate sanity. – Ed)

All climate alarmism is based upon the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) invalid core theory of climate change: human CO2 emissions caused all the increase in atmospheric CO2 above 280 ppm and since 1750.

Here’s why IPCC’s core theory is invalid.

  1. IPCC claims climate events provide “extensive evidence” that human emissions caused the events. But events cannot prove their cause.
  2. IPCC assumes its own core theory is true to argue its core theory is true. This is invalid circular reasoning.
  3. The IPCC says its core theory is “incontrovertible.” But the scientific method says evidence cannot prove a theory is true. Rather, only one error can prove a theory is false.
  4. IPCC’s core theory says human and natural CO2 act differently, e.g., human CO2 sticks in the atmosphere while natural CO2 flows out of the atmosphere. This is impossible because all CO2 molecules are identical.
  5. The correlation between annual human CO2 emissions and annual atmospheric CO2 increases is zero, which proves IPCC’s core theory is false.
  6. Ice core data prove IPCC’s core theory is false.
  7. Stomata leaf data prove IPCC’s core theory is false.
  8. IPCC’s human carbon cycle is not a scientific deduction. It is merely a replication of IPCC’s core theory.
  9. IPCC’s human carbon cycle is not compatible with IPCC’s natural carbon cycle. This proves IPCC’s core theory is false.

In addition, preliminary data on the small 2020 reduction in atmospheric CO2 caused by the 2020 reduction of human emissions also proves IPCC’s core theory is false.

Preprint #3 on edberry.com explains why each of these statements proves climate alarmists are wrong. Read to learn the truth.

(284 words including title)

Bonus section

Here are 4 arguments you must not use in your climate debate.

These arguments are suicidal because they incorrectly acknowledge that the IPCC core theory is correct.

  • More CO2 is better.
  • Warmer is better.
  • Our CO2 emissions saved the planet from freezing.
  • Our CO2 emissions saved the plants from dying.

These arguments help Democrats more than they help Republicans. These arguments are why we are not winning the climate debate.

Why? If we say more CO2 and warming is better, without first showing the human effect is small, then we are trapped into agreeing that humans caused all these effects. This leads to never-ending arguments about good versus bad effects. The debate is never closed.

But, if we first show our proof that nature causes 75 percent of these effects, whatever they may be, then we defeat the IPCC in a quick checkmate. The debate is closed.

Since IPCC assumes nature is good, IPCC must agree that its effects are good. So, more CO2 is better, and more warming is better.

Since IPCC’s core theory is wrong, all IPCC supporting peer-reviewed papers that assumed IPCC’s core theory is true, are false. IPCC has lost its consensus support.

This is a severe political loss for the IPCC, the media, and political forces that have supported the IPCC. It is a wakeup call to voters that the IPCC climate claims are a fraud.

  • Dr. Ed Berry, PhD, Climate Physics
  • ed@edberry.com

8 Comments

  1. I agree with all of this and think anyone interested in “fixing” the climate ought to consider this before spending on the Green New Deal.
    Check #4–a “to” too many I think.

  2. Here are 4 arguments you must not use in your climate debate. These arguments are suicidal because they incorrectly acknowledge that the IPCC core theory is correct.

    More CO2 is better.
    Warmer is better.
    Our CO2 emissions saved the planet from freezing.
    Our CO2 emissions saved the plants from dying.

    These arguments help Democrats more than they help Republicans. These arguments are why we are not winning the climate debate.

    If these phrases are wrong to use, what are the right phrases to use.

  3. Appreciate very much your work on this.
    You may want to consider to add a sentence or two about the sun somewhere more distinctly.
    Since the sun energy output comes in waves it may help people understand ( stretch our minds somehow) why the climate varies – always have -always will. As you certainly already know – the globe now slowly approaches the end of a relative short warm period – in between the longer cooler periods.

  4. The local paper limits letters to 250 words…..my edit of your arguments:
    Replace climate alarmism with climate sanity in 236 words
    Climate alarmism is based upon the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) invalid core theory of climate change: that human CO2 emissions caused all increases in atmospheric CO2 above 280 ppm since 1750.
    Why IPCC’s core theory is invalid.
    • IPCC claims climate events provide extensive evidence that human emissions caused the events. IPCC errs believing events prove a cause.
    • IPCC invokes circular reasoning to presume its theory is true to argue its theory is true.
    • IPCC believes its theory is incontrovertible. IPCC misunderstands scientific method cannot prove a theory true but only prove it false.
    • IPCC’s core theory says human and natural CO2 act differently. This is impossible because all CO2 molecules are identical.
    • The correlation between annual human CO2 emissions and annual atmospheric CO2 increases is zero, proving IPCC’s theory false.
    • Ice core data worldwide prove IPCC’s core theory false.
    • Stomata leaf data prove IPCC’s core theory is false.
    • IPCC’s human carbon cycle is not a scientific deduction. It merely replicates IPCC’s theory.
    • IPCC’s human carbon cycle is incompatible with IPCC’s natural carbon cycle. This proves IPCC’s core theory is false.
    • Current atmospheric CO2 data caused by reduced human emissions in 2020 proves IPCC’s theory false.
    • IPCC’s organizing charter says it is not a scientific organization but a political organization.
    Preprint #3 edberry.com (CONSULTING METEOROLOGIST) explains why these statements prove climate alarmists are wrong.

  5. Some of your science ( interpretations of reproducible observations) ……I agree with based on it’s merit .
    Add ons based on politics or political preference do not add to the scientific credibility!
    When more and more political opinion is embedded in your column, your readership will be comprised more and more of those that share these opinions…the value to the general readership is thus diminished !
    My guess is that you are trying to inform the public on various aspects of an extremely important societal issue with the hope of our leaving our planet as a more livable home for our children and grandchildren.One would like to maximize their readership in order to best accomplish this mission.

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.