The CO2 Coalition is wrong because its physics is wrong

Ed Berry, PhD, Theoretical Physics, CCM

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims these three (false) theories are true:

  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.

We are discussing IPCC’s Theory (1). The CO2 Coalition says Theory (1) is true. Berry (2021) says Theory (1) is false.

Gregory Wrightstone, a spokesman for the CO2 Coalition, made these recent public statements about Berry (2021)

This is a quite appealing theory, but also, I believe to be quite wrong. The rise of atmospheric CO2 levels is easily explained by increasing man-made emissions.

I have not spoken with all of the 110 members of the CO2 Coalition about this subject, but all of those who I have communicated with agree with me, including names held in very high regard.

The CO2 Coalition has not published on this matter as yet, as we don’t want to get into a public squabble or internecine warfare between allies.

The leadership and many of our top scientists disagree strongly with the science and conclusions presented here.

We have attempted to have meaningful scientific discussions over the last several months on this matter.

Below are some comments from a couple of our top scientists (who are respected and well-known) who may weigh in on their own, but will remain nameless here:

“A simple CO2 budget model using anthropogenic emissions does an excellent job of explaining the Mauna Loa CO2 variations during 1959-2021.”

AND

“Ed’s analysis is, in my opinion, quite wrong. He continues to confuse:

  1. the fraction of the atmospheric CO2 molecules which actually originated from fossil fuel burning (which, as he correctly says, is very small, because they are continually recycled and so ‘diluted’ with the huge amount of ‘natural’ CO2 molecules), with
  2. the excess CO2 in the atmosphere due to the human input.

 THE TUB OF WATER ANALOGY:

An example I use is a giant tub of water with large inflows and outflows which are equal (this is analogous to the natural state of flows of CO2 through the atmosphere). The water level in the tub will remain the same.

Then, add a small, additional ‘anthropogenic’ inflow. The water level will slowly rise over time, but most of the actual ‘anthropogenic’ water molecules that were added will have gone down the drain, due to the large rate of replacement of the water in the tub.

Nevertheless, the rise in the water level is entirely due to the additional anthropogenic inflow.”

AND

“Absolutely yes. Berry purposefully confuses stocks with flows. The only way “natural CO2″ in the atmosphere could increase over a short time period is if global biomass decreased by an equal amount. Human CO2 emissions are a 100% new addition whereas natural CO2 is in a cycle in and out. Unlike living photosynthetic species, fossil fuel combustion does not have a countervailing absorption of CO2 like plants do when they grow.

“Of course, over longer time periods such as the glaciation cycles in the Pleistocene, oceanic CO2 is cyclically outgassed and absorbed by the oceans, thus resulting in greater or lesser amounts in the atmosphere.

“It’s pretty simple once you make a clear delineation between stocks and flows. I compare it to a balance sheet versus a cash flow statement in finance.”

Let’s summarize Wrightstone’s claims:

  1. The rise of atmospheric CO2 levels is easily explained by increasing man-made emissions.
  2. The CO2 Coalition has not published on this matter as yet, as we don’t want to get into a public squabble or internecine warfare between allies.
  3. The leadership and many of our top scientists disagree strongly with the science and conclusions presented here [by Berry (2021)].
  4. We have attempted to have meaningful scientific discussions over the last several months on this matter.
  5. A simple CO2 budget model using anthropogenic emissions does an excellent job of explaining the Mauna Loa CO2 variations during 1959-2021.”
  6. He continues to confuse the fraction of the atmospheric CO2 molecules which actually originated from fossil fuel burning with the excess CO2 in the atmosphere due to the human input.
  7. THE TUB OF WATER ANALOGY: 
    An example I use is a giant tub of water with large inflows and outflows which are equal (this is analogous to the natural state of flows of CO2 through the atmosphere). The water level in the tub will remain the same. 
    Then, add a small, additional ‘anthropogenic’ inflow. The water level will slowly rise over time, but most of the actual ‘anthropogenic’ water molecules that were added will have gone down the drain, due to the large rate of replacement of the water in the tub.
    Nevertheless, the rise in the water level is entirely due to the additional anthropogenic inflow.”
  8. Berry purposefully confuses stocks with flows. The only way “natural CO2″ in the atmosphere could increase over a short time period is if global biomass decreased by an equal amount.
  9. Human CO2 emissions are a 100% new addition whereas natural CO2 is in a cycle in and out. Unlike living photosynthetic species, fossil fuel combustion does not have a countervailing absorption of CO2 like plants do when they grow.
  10. It’s pretty simple once you make a clear delineation between stocks and flows.

Berry replies to Wrightstone’s ten statements:

  1. The rise of atmospheric CO2 levels is NOT easily explained by increasing man-made emissions and the CO2 Coalition has not shown any such argument in a debatable form.
  2. Science discussions and debates can be productive to science. The problem is the CO2 Coalition is not be open to the possibility that it may be wrong.
  3. In science, votes don’t count. Only good scientific arguments count. But the CO2 Coalition has not provided even one good scientific argument on Berry (2021).
  4. You have NOT attempted to have meaningful scientific discussions over the last several months on this matter.
  5. No, a simple CO2 budget model using anthropogenic emissions does NOT properly explain the Mauna Loa CO2 variations during 1959-2021, and you have not provided any such explanation that we can discuss.
  6. Anyone who understands Berry (2021) will understand it does not make the confusion that CO2 Coalition claims. Berry (2021) is one of the few papers that properly explains the effects of natural and human CO2 on atmospheric CO2. This CO2 Coalition claim shows its members do not understand simple physics.
  7. THE TUB OF WATER ANALOGY: 
    The general description of your analogy matches that used by Berry (2021). However, the CO2 Coalition’s conclusion, “Nevertheless, the rise in the water level is entirely due to the additional anthropogenic inflow,” does NOT follow from its premises. The CO2 Coalition flunks physics 101 and logic 101. It does not understand the valid physics in Berry (2021).
  8. The word “purposefully” shows a strong emotional bias by the CO2 Coalition. Berry (2021) does not confuse “stocks with flows.” Rather, the CO2 Coalition does not understand how to formulate a valid systems model where levels set flows and flow set new levels. The CO2 Coalition claims, “The only way “natural CO2″ in the atmosphere could increase over a short time period is if global biomass decreased by an equal amount.” That is not a valid claim, and it shows the CO2 Coalition does not understand physics.
  9. The claim, “Human CO2 emissions are a 100% new addition whereas natural CO2 is in a cycle in and out,” matches how Berry (2021) calculates the effect of human CO2, although Berry describes this much better than the CO2 Coalition. The claim, “Unlike living photosynthetic species, fossil fuel combustion does not have a countervailing absorption of CO2 like plants do when they grow,” shows the CO2 Coalition fundamentally misunderstands how to calculate the effect of human CO2.
  10. The CO2 Coalition does not delineate between human and natural carbon. Therefore, the CO2 Coalition is wrong about Berry (2021) and science.

Berry replied as follows to Wrightstone:

Dear Greg,

Thank you for finally offering your reasons you oppose my 2021 paper.

In summary, all your reasons to disregard my 2021 paper fail and nowhere have you shown there is any significant error in my 2021 paper.

You claim

“The rise of atmospheric CO2 levels is easily explained by increasing man-made emissions.”

You have provided no such argument and I challenge you to do so.

Your argument contradicts Aristotle.

You assume votes determine science truth.

You assume the CO2 Coalition, like God, has the right to authorize and reject scientific papers that favor the group’s biased opinions. That is groupthink and groupthink is a major problem in climate science.

I am fully open to any science argument that attempts to find an error in my paper.

But you refuse to do that. Instead, you dance around making claims in thin air that have no scientific meaning.

None of your “top scientists”” have shown there is any significant error in my paper, so you have no scientific right to say my paper is not valid.

You claim,

“A simple CO2 budget model using anthropogenic emissions does an excellent job of explaining the Mauna Loa CO2 variations during 1959-2021.”

No, it does not.

And you have not described your “simple CO2 budget model” so we cannot discuss it. But if you had described it, I would show you why your model is wrong.

You claim,

“Ed’s analysis is, in my opinion, quite wrong. He continues to confuse:

  1. the fraction of the atmospheric CO2 molecules which actually originated from fossil fuel burning (which, as he correctly says, is very small, because they are continually recycled and so ‘diluted’ with the huge amount of ‘natural’ CO2 molecules), with
  2. the excess CO2 in the atmosphere due to the human input.

My 2021 paper makes no such confusion and you have not even tried to identify such a confusion in my paper. Your handwaving arguments produce no evidence to support your claims.

The confusion is on your end, not mine. You and your opinion producers simply do not understand my paper. If you understood it, you would refer to details so we could discuss it.

And finally,

Your “tub of water analogy” so far off of physics that it should embarrass you and your colleagues. Your analogy is pure junk and does not belong in a scientific discussion.

READ MY PAPER. It presents the physics of a correct “tub of water” analogy.

Attack my paper if you wish. But stop attacking your inaccurate strawman representations of my paper.

Ed

Most of the above CO2 Coalition claims come from ecologist Patrick Moore.

Ecologist Patrick Moore is the dominant alpha leader of the CO2 Coalition. His bio reads:

Dr. Patrick Moore has been a leader in the international environmental field for over 40 years. He is a director of the CO2 Coalition and a senior fellow at The Heartland Institute.

Dr. Moore is a co-founder of Greenpeace and served for nine years as President of Greenpeace Canada and seven years as a Director of Greenpeace International.

After Moore converted his belief system from Greenpeace to climate fiction, he built his reputation on his invalid assumption that human CO2 has caused all the increase in atmospheric CO2, or that IPCC’s theory (1) is true.

Moore criticizes all papers that prove IPCC’s theory (1) is wrong because these papers threaten his professional reputation. Moore has influenced the CO2 Coalition and the Heartland Institute to reject true climate science.

Patrick Moore’s final comment in his last “discussion” of Berry’s pre-publication theory in February 2021 was:

Please take a hike Ed. I am beyond tired of your gobbledegook.”

Dave Burton, a CO2 Coalition member, replied as follows to Berry’s reply to Greg:

Greg wrote, 

“I have not spoken with all of the 110 members of the CO2 Coalition about this subject, but all of those who I have communicated with agree with me, including names held in very high regard.”

“The rise of atmospheric CO2 levels is easily explained by increasing man-made emissions.”

Ed, I am a CO2 Coalition member, and I have done so. I do not speak for anyone except myself, but I am confident that at least 90% of the other CO2 Coalition members would agree what I (and Ferdinand, Richard, and others), have explained.

We have sufficiently precise data (I’m using 2021 numbers) from which we know, beyond serious dispute, that since 1958.

  • Mankind has added about 180 ppmv of CO2 to the atmosphere [from coal, oil & natural gas, and concrete].
  • The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by about 101 ppmv.
  • The difference is (1440 – 808) = 632 Gt = 79 ppmv CO2.

That’s the net sum of all the non-anthropogenic CO2 fluxes, in both directions: a net removal of 79 ppmv of CO2 from the atmosphere. (“Non-anthropogenic” is what we call “nature.”)

Mankind added 180 ppmv of CO2 to the atmosphere. But the measured increase is only 101 ppmv.

So, nature removed (180 – 101) = 79 ppmv.

Therefore, Nature has reduced (not increased!) the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by a net sum of 79 ppmv since 1958. 

That means claims – that nature is responsible for any part of the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration since 1958 – are wrong.

Berry replied to Dave Burton as follows:

Dear Dave.

Thank you for your comment because you show the CO2 Coalition’s argument that human CO2 caused all the CO2 increase.

Therefore, I can now prove this CO2 Coalition argument is wrong.

For this discussion, I agree with your numbers even though my paper used 2019 data and you used 2021 data. Also, you count from 1958 and I count from 1750. Any minor differences in the data are not relevant to this discussion.

You argue, since 1958:

  • total human carbon emissions were 180 ppmv .
  • atmospheric CO2 has increased by 101 ppmv .
  • The difference (180 – 101) is 79 ppmv.

We agree so far, but then you say,

“So, nature removed (180 – 101) = 79 ppmv”

That statement is not a logical consequence of your three bullets. Nor is it a logical consequence of physics.

Your conclusion is based on your invalid assumption that human CO2 caused all the increase in atmospheric CO2, and the equivalent invalid assumption that the level of natural CO2 remained constant.

Otherwise, there is no logical reason to subtract 101 from 180.

You used your assumption – that human CO2 caused all the increase –to “prove” human CO2 caused all the increase, which is circular reasoning.

You cannot prove your assumption is true using your data.

However, if we use IPCC’s data for its natural carbon cycle, as Berry (2021) has done, then it is easy to prove your assumption is false.

As Richard Courtney quickly saw, Berry (2021) is a significant breakthrough in climate physics. Only those who truly understand physics truly understand Berry (2021).

Thank you for providing the CO2 Coalition’s argument for how human CO2 caused all the CO2 increase, so I could prove their argument is wrong.

Your estimate that at least 90% of the CO2 Coalition members agree with you implies at least 90% of the CO2 Coalition members are not competent in physics.

It is time for the CO2 Coalition to put on their thinking caps and seriously read Berry (2021).

Thank you for your challenge,

Ed

In summary, the CO2 Coalition has not shown there is any significant error in Berry (2021).

Yet the CO2 Coalition continues to masquerade that IPCC’s’ theory (1) is true, even though Berry has proven the CO2 Coalition’s core argument is wrong.

Until someone shows there is a significant error in Berry (2021), there is no scientific basis to claim IPCC’s theory (1) is true.

47 Comments

  1. I find all of this debate regarding how the origin of CO₂ in the atmosphere to be not worth my time to consider due to the fact that CO₂ has never been shown by any empirical experiment to have anything to do with the Earth’s climate or its temperature; therefore, why waste time even discussing this when there are more serious matters to spend time trying to figure out how to deal with, what will happen, such as the next Carrington like event, that will render the electrical grids inoperable for perhaps years due to the damage done to the large transformers being ‘fried’ and only two countries make them, Germany and South Korea.

    Two University of Oslo physicists designed several variations of a tabletop experiment trying to confirm the IPCC’s claimed CO2-forcing capacity. Instead they found (a) 100% (1,000,000 ppm) CO2 “heats” air to about the same temperature that non-greenhouse gases (N2, O2 [air], Ar) do, and (b) no significant temperature difference in containers with 0.04% vs. 100% CO2.
    Observations, experiments do not support a large forcing effect for CO2
    Real-world outdoor observations indicate that even a massive variance in the CO2 concentration, from 0.1% to 75% during a 24-hour period over a mofette field, has no detectable effect in stimulating changes to the surface temperature. Instead, the CO2 concentration changes in response to the temperature.
    Indoor tabletop experiments also demonstrate there is a very small temperature difference when adding 100% CO2 to a container. And even this tiny temperature change can be attributed to the reduction in convective cooling effect of adding CO2 molecules, not the radiative or “greenhouse” effect of CO2.
    There is also no temperature difference detected when comparing CO2’s “heating” capacity to that of a non-greenhouse gas like Argon (Wagoner et al., 2010), as the “temperature rose by approximately the same amount and at the same rate as for CO2” when 100% Argon was used.
    https://notrickszone.com/2021/04/01/physicists-lab-experiment-shows-a-co2-increase-from-0-04-to-100-leads-to-no-observable-warming/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=physicists-lab-experiment-shows-a-co2-increase-from-0-04-to-100-leads-to-no-observable-warming

    1. Dear Doug,
      My approach is on how to win climate lawsuits. Therefore, I focus with what the defense must show to stop the plaintiffs.
      The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), ground zero of climate politics, claims these three (false) theories are true:
      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.

      While the defense needs only to prove one or these are wrong, it is best to prove all three are wrong because we may not be able to convince a judge or jury that all are wrong. Getting 3 strikes gives us a better chance win than if we only have one strike.

  2. Why would the world want to zero out their emissions of CO₂? There has never been any empirical evidence submitted anywhere, by any scientific organization, that CO₂ is anything other than a trace gas that is essential for all terrestrial life on the planet. Don’t these climate extremist that say that carbon dioxide emissions MUST be eliminated, realize that if the amount of CO₂ in the Earth’s atmosphere drops to 150 ppm, then plant growth stops and animals die and those are the facts surrounding carbon dioxide.
    I see no empirical evidence is presented by any one, or their scientific organizations, that in any way demonstrates that CO₂ has anything to do with the Earth’s climate or its temperature. The reason for that is that the trace gas, CO₂, that all animals exhales with each and every one of their breaths, HAS never in the past 4.5 billion year long history of the Earth’s existence had anything to do with its complex climate & it would take a climate extremist to now believe, with no proof, that at .04% of the Earth’s atmosphere today, that it can determine what the climate, or the temperature, on Earth will be like in the future. These people that allege that CO₂ is causing the Earth’s temperature to rise cannot give any reason why this record is still valid after over 109 years and has not been exceeded even though their hated CO₂ levels have gone up. We went to Death Valley to see where this all-time record was set and it is a National Park to high light the importance of the occasion that happened 109 years ago. What occurred 109 years ago when this record high temperature for the Earth was set, serves as a great real time experiment that demonstrates that CO₂ has nothing to do with what the Earth’s temperature does or with how something as complex as the Earth’s climate does.

    World Meteorological Organization Assessment of the Purported World Record 58°C Temperature Extreme at El Azizia, Libya (13 September 1922)
    “On 13 September 1922, a temperature of 58°C (136.4°F) was purportedly recorded at El Azizia (approximately 40 kilometers south-southwest of Tripoli) in what is now modern-day Libya…………. The WMO assessment is that the highest recorded surface temperature of 56.7°C (134°F) was measured on 10 July 1913 at Greenland Ranch (Death Valley) CA USA.”
    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00093.1?af=R&

    1. Dear Doug,
      Again, if you are just trying to convince yourself, choose what you wish. But if your job is convince a judge or jury, it is best to try to prove all three IPCC theories are wrong.
      Ed

      1. The plaintiffs have never been able to prove their weak case because there is nothing that they assert that has anything to do with CO₂. A warming planet is the only thing that they have to try to ‘prove’ that an increase in CO₂ is responsible for, and that is ludicrous because it discounts that bright orb in the sky that is 99.86% of all of the mass of the entire Solar System, the Sun.
        “Averaged over all land and ocean surfaces, temperatures warmed roughly 1.53°F (0.85ºC) from 1880 to 2012, according to theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (see page 3 of the IPCC’sClimate Change 2013:”
        https://www2.ucar.edu/news/how-much-has-global-temperature-risen-last-100-years

        Since 1850, the average global temperature has risen by approximately 0.76⁰C or 1.37⁰F since the start of the Industrial Revolution. 1.37⁰F in 170 years doesn’t seem like runaway warming of the planet that is not caused by any increase in that amount of the essential for all terrestrial life on Earth, the trace gas, CO₂.

        “Average global temps
        In the 1880s: 56.7 F.
        1920s to 1980s: 57.2 F.
        Circa 2000 to 2010: 58.1 F.
        These are not ‘hot’ temps. Below 60 degrees most people start putting on sweaters and jackets. At 58⁰F in your living room you’re probably gonna turn up the heat! It is a good temp for longer term wine storage”.
        https://www.iceagenow.info/temperatures-have-been-falling-for-8000-years/
        58.1⁰F – 56.7⁰F = 1.4 ⁰F in 130 years is nothing to wreak a nation’s economy over, unless that is the climate alarmist plan.

        This is a record of the Earth’s temperature compiled during the last 30 years from all over the planet and below are the results of that study—the Earth’s temperature is dropping while the amount of CO₂ in the Earth’s atmosphere is increasing.
        The Earth’s Temperature
        Currently: 56.59°F/13.66°C
        Deviation: -0.61°F/-0.34°C
        Stations processed last hour: 69051
        Last station processed: Valparaiso, United States
        Update time: 2022-08-24 08:46:27 UTC
        http://www.temperature.global/

      2. If there are those that really want to ‘believe’ that it is the trace gas CO₂, [Aug. 21, 2022 416.35 ppm] that is essential for all terrestrial life on the Earth, that causes the Earth’s climate to change or its temperature to increase, then I ask them to apply logic and explain how it could be possible for this trace gas, CO₂, that is 1.6 times heavier than the atmosphere that it is in; so, it does what heavy things do, and CO₂ sinks out of the atmosphere to be used by the plant life that MUST have CO₂ to exist and grow, or it is taken up by water. This is a system that has been in force since the Earth was formed over 4.5 billion years ago and now somehow it is being questioned, how can that be?

        How can anyone use logic to explain how this small amount of a trace gas, CO₂, can do everything that some are now trying to say that it has the power to cause; such as causing the Earth’s climate to change and the Earth’s temperature to rise in unusual manners?

        A part per million is like 1 drop of ink in a large kitchen sink.
        A large kitchen sink is about 13-14 gallons. There are 100 drops in one teaspoon, and 768 teaspoons per gallon.
        Some other things that are one part per million are…
        One drop in the fuel tank of a mid-sized car
        One inch in 16 miles
        About one minute in two years
        One car in a line of bumper-to-bumper traffic from Cleveland to San Francisco.
        One penny in $10,000.
        I know that you understand that these additional ppm of CO₂ are spread out over this 16 miles in different one inch segments and wouldn’t it be a task to be told to sort out the 416 pennies from the number that it would take to make up $10,000.
        At 416 parts per million, CO₂ is a minor constituent of earth’s atmosphere– less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth’s current atmosphere is CO₂ impoverished.

        Let’s picture this in another way to really get an idea of the scale of CO₂ compared to the total atmosphere. The Eiffel Tower in Paris is 324 meters high (1063ft). If the height of the Eiffel Tower represented the total size of the atmosphere then the natural level of CO₂ would be 8.75 centimeters of that height (3.4 inches) and the amount added by humans up until today would be an extra 3.76 centimeters (1.5 inches)

        Thus, the 3.2 trillion tons of CO₂ in today’s 5.5 quadrillion ton atmosphere represents 6.3kg of CO₂ above each square metre of Earth, which perhaps doesn’t sound a lot. If it covered the planet in a film of dry ice, it would be just 3.7mm thick.

        Quote by Klaus P. Heiss, formerly of Princeton University and Mathematica, space engineer, NASA, the US Atomic Energy Commission, Office of Naval Research, International Astronautics Academy: “The 20th Century increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere continuously. Man-made CO2 grew exponentially; however, global temperatures fell between 1940 and 1975, during the time span as the global industrial production almost exploded….The entire atmospheric carbon dioxide, of which man-made CO2 is only a fraction of, is not to blame for global warming….Carbon dioxide is not responsible for the warming of the global climate over the last 150 years. But what then? For more than 90 percent are changes in the Earth-Sun relationship to the climate fluctuations. One is the sun’s activities themselves, such as the recently discovered 22-year cycles occur and sunspots.”

  3. Fraunhofer Bands, micron re-radiation windows, albedo, thermal balance and the Melankovich Mechanism are just a few of the things that climate activists ignore. As an aside, I would also recommend Donna La Framboise’s book The Delinquent Teenager which exposes the way IPPC papers are produced.

  4. Nature has been removing CO2 from the atmosphere for the past 540 million years. We came close to a dead planet at 280ppmv. Present (more than welcome) rise is NOT caused by humans. Past decades antropogenic emissions have tripled; the steady rise as measured at Mauna Loa since 1958 did not budge. Hence, observations support the calculations by Prof.Murry Salby and Dr.Ed Berry. End of story.

  5. Dr. Ed, thank you for leaving this in my inbox. Dave Burton is a “Mass Balancer”. Anthro CO2 could be forcing itself into the ocean via henry’s law (at a ratio of 50 ocean, to 1 atmosphere) all the while that natural outgassing due to warming/ henry’s law is causing the rise. Two processes going on, but the rise would be largely natural. i think that “miltophiles” make the same sort of flawed reasoning when they claim that high gas prices cause deflation. Sure, if people spend more on gas, they spend less on other things. However, as a business expense, high gas prices cause inflation across the board in greater measure (than any resultant deflation). Two processes going on in the accounting of both the carbon budget and inflation, false attribution by the “mass balancers” & the “miltophiles”.

    1. If we captured all the anthro CO2 and piped it into a cave at the bottom of the ocean (or underground as some have actually suggested), then nature would still be a net sink for carbon — the cave being “natural”. Would the observed rise in CO2 be natural, then, or would it be anthropogenic? (dr. ed, and richard if you’re reading, these “mass-balancers” really aren’t that difficult to beat)…

  6. This comment that Ed Berry made about Patrick Moore is astounding and not true, according to what I know about Patrick Moore.
    “Most of the above CO2 Coalition claims come from ecologist Patrick Moore.
    After Moore converted his belief system from Greenpeace to climate fiction, he built his reputation on his invalid assumption that human CO2 has caused all the increase in atmospheric CO2, or that IPCC’s theory (1) is true.
    Moore criticizes all papers that prove IPCC’s theory (1) is wrong because these papers threaten his professional reputation. Moore has influenced the CO2 Coalition and the Heartland Institute to reject true climate science”.

    If folks go to this link, they will get an idea of what Dr Patrick Moore’s actual views of CO₂ are and it is not like what some are trying to get folks to believe.

    Greenpeace co-founder Dr Patrick Moore says we need much more CO2 in the atmosphere
    https://cairnsnews.org/2020/01/13/greenpeace-co-founder-dr-patrick-moore-says-we-need-much-more-co2-in-the-atmosphere/

    1. Dear Doug,

      I stand by my statement.

      You misinterpret the link you provided about Moore. Yes, Moore says we need more CO2. I agree with that statement. But that link hides Moore’s unscientific claim that human CO2 emissions have caused all the CO2 increase since 1750.

      I have had several discussions with Moore in this email group: “global-warming-realists@googlegroups.com” – Maybe you can search this email group and find these discussions. I can retrieve and publish Moore’s irrational claims the past public email discussions I have had with Moore on this issue.

      Because he is incompetent in physics, he told his many Twitter followers that I am a fraud. Nice guy. He claims the papers by Salby, Harde, Berry, and others are wrong because they disagree with his feelings. His arguments violate physics because he cannot pass physics 101.

      Stick with Eric Grimsrud, who is much more competent than Partick Moore in climate physics.

      1. Hello Dr. Ed; You wrote; “You misinterpret the link you provided about Moore. Yes, Moore says we need more CO2. I agree with that statement. But that link hides Moore’s unscientific claim that human CO2 emissions have caused all the CO2 increase since 1750”.

        If you think that somehow I misrepresented the link that I provided about Dr. Patrick Moore, then I would be interested to be shown how I did that.
        I have watched this YouTube debate that I provide the link for a couple of times and after this discussion I will probably watch it again, even if the sight of Michael Mann tends to sicken me. Both Judith Curry & Patrick Moore offer up valid points to validate their positions while the other side only presents unsubstantiated conjecture to try to prove that somehow CO₂ is devil in the sky that must be subdued and reduced if humanity is to survive.
        You obviously have your opinion about Dr. Patrick Moore that is totally different from mine; but, that is not to say that my opinion is totally flawed in any way just because I do not agree with your assessment of Patrick Moore.

        Rare Climate Debate – Dr. Judith Curry – Dr. Michael Mann – Dr. Patrick Moore – Dr. David Titley
        7,821 views Sep 19, 2018 For Judith Curry, one of the two climate science skeptics on the panel, the idea that an increase in carbon automatically increases the earth’s temperature is too simplistic. She said earth has many complex systems and there could be other factors playing into climate change that we don’t yet understand. “The madhouse that concerns me is the one that has been created by some climate scientists,” Curry said. “The madhouse is characterized by rampant overconfidence in an overly simplistic view of climate change, enforcement of a politically motivated and manufactured consensus, attempts to stifle scientific and policy debates, activism and advocacy for their preferred policies, self-promotion … and public attacks on scientists who don’t support the consensus.” Moore, the former Greenpeace official, attributed climate change to natural changes in the earth and suggested that humans should even be happy there’s more carbon dioxide in the air because it helps plants grow. http://www.climatedepot.com/2018/06/1… Scientists debate human involvement in climate change during panel https://www.wvnews.com/news/wvnews/sc
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDLucr1-SuI

        1. Dear Doug,

          In my reply to one of your comments above, I wrote:

          The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), ground zero of climate politics, claims these three (false) theories are true:

          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.

          Patrick Moore says (1) is true. He will not acknowledge that nature plays any part in causing the CO2 increase.

          I say all three IPCC theories are false. Moore will not allow that kind of view to be heard even in the Heartland Conferences.

          True scientists are always open to evidence that their claims may not be true. Not Moore. He says (in so many words) that all scientists who disagree with him on this point are frauds.

          Moore’s continued irrational support of IPCC’s false theory (1) is harming the best defense we have to stop bad climate laws, treaties, taxes, etc. So, he is on the side of those who promote the climate fraud.

          Yes, you misinterpreted your link because you assumed because he made one correct statement that he truly promotes climate truth, which he does not do.

      2. “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), ground zero of climate politics, claims these three (false) theories are true:
        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.
        Patrick Moore says (1) is true. He will not acknowledge that nature plays any part in causing the CO2 increase”.

        I refuse to enter into a discussion that insinuates that carbon dioxide has an influence on the Earth’s climate or its temperature when whoever is carrying on the discussion is unable to present any empirical evidence that CO₂ has anything, at all, to do with the Earth’s climate or its temperature; therefore, what difference does it make where something that has no bearing on the Earth’s climate or its temperature came from?

        One does not have to be a scientist to be able to use logic and good old fashioned common sense to know that a trace gas, CO₂, that constitutes 0.04% of the total mass of the earth’s atmospheric gases & CO₂ is 1.6 times more dense than the atmosphere, is not ever going to cause the Earth’s climate to change or its temperature to rise since it never did so in the past 4.5 billion years.
        I see that the alarmist, such as Michael Mann, worries about a carbon foot print and I know that he is referring to the trace gas, CO₂, that has never been demonstrated by any empirical experiment to have a detrimental effect on the Earth’s climate, or anything else, for that matter. The Earth could stand to have more of this trace gas that is the bases for all terrestrial life on Earth. Obviously any one so brainwashed regarding this devil in the sky that they have invented CO₂ to be the agent of doom for the Earth would not acknowledge that dinosaurs that roamed the Earth 66 million years ago knew a world with five times more carbon dioxide than is present on Earth today. That is 417 ppm X 5 = 2,085 ppm. The Earth and the dinosaurs lived in harmony with those levels of CO₂ until the asteroid hit the Earth in the Yucatan Peninsula and pretty well changed things and people need to know that the 2,085 ppm of CO₂ didn’t have one damn thing to do with the end of the dinosaurs.
        “Recent research shows that the level of oxygen isotopes in seawater changes seasonally and is thus far from stable. We used this knowledge in our analysis of Cretaceous Period temperatures, where we find dry summers and wet winters,” he elaborates. In fact, the researchers’ study demonstrates that there was four times as much CO2 in the atmosphere during the late Cretaceous Period compared to the 1900’s industrial era – with CO2 levels even higher than today.
        https://news.ku.dk/all_news/2021/07/dinosaurs-lived-in-a-warmer-and-more-dynamic-climate-than-previously-thought/

      3. Dear Dr. Ed; Now you surprise me with your vendetta directed at Patrick Moore. You can analyse this quote from Dr. Patrick Moore’s talk that he presented in London: [Date: 15/10/15 Patrick Moore PhD, Global Warming Policy Foundation
        PATRICK MOORE: SHOULD WE CELEBRATE CARBON DIOXIDE?
        2015 Annual GWPF Lecture
        Institution of Mechanical Engineers, London 14 London],
        and point out what he is maintaining the bothers you so much to despise him like you seem to do.

        “It is a proven fact that plants, including trees and all our food crops, are capable of growing much faster at higher levels of CO2 than present in the atmosphere today.
        Even at the today’s concentration of 400 ppm plants are relatively starved for nutrition. The optimum level of CO2 for plant growth is about 5 times higher, 2000 ppm, yet the alarmists warn it is already too high. They must be challenged every day by every person who knows the truth in this matter. CO2 is the giver of life and we should celebrate CO2 rather than denigrate it as is the fashion today.
        We are witnessing the “Greening of the Earth” as higher levels of CO2, due to human emissions from the use of fossil fuels, promote increased growth of plants around the world. This has been confirmed by scientists with CSIRO in Australia, in Germany, and in North America. Only half of the CO2 we are emitting from the use of fossil fuels is showing up in the atmosphere. The balance is going somewhere else and the best science says most of it is going into an increase in global plant biomass. And what could be wrong with that, as forests and agricultural crops become more productive?
        All the CO2 in the atmosphere has been created by outgassing from the Earth’s core during massive volcanic eruptions. This was much more prevalent in the early history of the Earth when the core was hotter than it is today. During the past 150 million years there has not been enough addition of CO2 to the atmosphere to offset the gradual losses due to burial in sediments”.
        https://benfieldgroup.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Patrick_Moore_Should_We_Celebrate_Carbon_Dioxide.pdf

        I would hope that you realise the climate alarmist such as the inventor of the hockey stick graph, Michael Mann, have folks convinced the world will end soon if one more lump of coal is burned to produce electricity with, while the object of your ire, Patrick Moore, is suggesting that; “Only half of the CO2 we are emitting from the use of fossil fuels is showing up in the atmosphere”. I had issued a comment that in my opinion that CO₂ has nothing to do with what the Earth’s climate or temperature does and until I am given empirical examples that I am mistaken in the believe, I will keep believing what I just stated.

        1. Dear Doug,
          Do you truly not understand the issue between science truth and science fiction that we are talking about? Or are you purposely taking the side of science fiction?

          As you show, Moore claims: “During the past 150 million years there has not been enough addition of CO2 to the atmosphere to offset the gradual losses due to burial in sediments”.

          Maybe that claim would make a good theme for a Hollywood movie, but it has no basis in climate truth.

          No one, not you, not Moore, not anyone in the CO2 Coalition or the Heartland Institute, has made a rational physics argument to support that claim.

          On the truth side, I, Harde, Salby, and others referenced in Berry (2021) have made a consistent, rational argument that supports the conclusion that nature, not human CO2, has been the cause of the increase in CO2 after 1750. Human CO2 emissions are much too small to have rescued Planet Earth.

          So, do you follow science truth or science fiction?

      4. Dear Dr. Ed; Who states; “Do you truly not understand the issue between science truth and science fiction that we are talking about? Or are you purposely taking the side of science fiction?”

        I am again surprised that you would take the stand that you do against a person who is on the same side of this issue of anthropogenic climate change as what I am, Dr. Patrick Moore. I thought that you were also against the ones who push this hoax about how the trace gas that is essential for all terrestrial life on the Earth, CO₂, such as Dr. Michael E. Mann and the climate modeller who makes big money working for NASA in the GISS department, Gavin A. Schmidt.
        “Dr. Michael E. Mann received his undergraduate degrees in Physics and Applied Math from the University of California at Berkeley, an M.S. degree in Physics from Yale University, and a Ph.D. in Geology & Geophysics from Yale University”.
        2020 Ten Most Influential Earth Scientists, Academic
        2020 Elected to U.S. National Academy of Sciences
        As you well know, Michael E. Mann is the charlatan that concocted the hockey stick graph after the climate alarmist correctly saw that it was hard to explain how, if it was warmer during the RWP and the MWP, how could the current period that we live in not be warmer than those two climatic periods? The Medieval Warming from 800 AD to 1300 AD that Michael Mann erased to make his “hockey stick” was several degrees warmer than anything “global warmers” fear.

        The question of climate sensitivity has nothing to do with science but with deceit and dishonesty and that describes Michael Mann & Keith Briffa and the majority of the intellectually challenged people that support the hoax about anthropogenic climate change. It was imperative that the Medieval Warm Period had to be erased because how could this documented period of Earth’s climate history been warmer than at present when the level of CO₂ was so much lower than what it is now?
        “There has been a considerable amount of speculation over the past few years about which “leading” climate scientist told David Deming that we have to “get rid of” the Medieval Warm Period, including speculation (e.g. ukweatherworld) that it was Jonathan Overpeck (recently one of two Coordinating Lead Authors of AR4 chapter 6).
        While the identity of Deming’s correspondent remains uncertain, a Climategate letter from January 13. 2005, written as an instruction from Overpeck as Coordinating Lead Author to IPCC Lead Authors Briffa and Osborn (cc Jansen, Masson-Delmotte), states that Overpeck wants to “deal a mortal blow” to the MWP (and Holocene Optimum) “myths” (480. 1105670738.txt).

        This is a study that was done in Russia near where Michael Mann got his tree that he used to construct the hockey stick graph.
        “However, conifers have not yet recolonized many areas where trees were present during the Medieval Warm period (ca AD 800–1300) or the Holocene Thermal Maximum (HTM; ca 10 000–3000 years ago). Reconstruction of tree distributions during the HTM suggests that the future position of the treeline due to global warming may approximate its former Holocene maximum position”
        “Climate change and the northern Russian treeline zone
        ABSTRACT
        The Russian treeline is a dynamic ecotone typified by steep gradients in summer temperature and regionally variable gradients in albedo and heat flux. The location of the treeline is largely controlled by summer temperatures and growing season length. Temperatures have responded strongly to twentieth-century global warming and will display a magnified response to future warming. Dendroecological studies indicate enhanced conifer recruitment during the twentieth century. However, conifers have not yet recolonized many areas where trees were present during the Medieval Warm period (ca AD 800–1300) or the Holocene Thermal Maximum (HTM; ca 10 000–3000 years ago). Reconstruction of tree distributions during the HTM suggests that the future position of the treeline due to global warming may approximate its former Holocene maximum position. An increased dominance of evergreen tree species in the northern Siberian forests may be an important difference between past and future conditions. Based on the slow rates of treeline expansion observed during the twentieth century, the presence of steep climatic gradients associated with the current Arctic coastline and the prevalence of organic soils, it is possible that rates of treeline expansion will be regionally variable and transient forest communities with species abundances different from today’s may develop.”
        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2606780/

        The essence of this is that while it is obvious that while Michael E. Mann is proven to be a despicable, lying fraud, you single out a reputable scientist, Dr. Patrick Moore, to slander and cast double about his believes. Can you explain why you do that?

        1. Dear Doug,
          Rule #1 in a debate: Never change or extend the subject.
          Your reply about climate sensitivity and Mann has no bearing on our issue of debate.

          Picking out your only two relevant sentences in your above diatribe:

          1. “who is on the same side of this issue of anthropogenic climate change as what I am, Dr. Patrick Moore.”

          As I have already explained elsewhere, there are three sides on climate change, not two.
          (a) the full alarmists who claim all three theories are true.
          (b) the partial alarmists (like Moore) who claim, without evidence, the first theory is true.
          (c) the supporters of climate truth who argue that all three theories are false.

          2. “you single out a reputable scientist, Dr. Patrick Moore, to slander and cast double about his believes. Can you explain why you do that?”

          First, I have already explained that, but you did not read it. In science, proving someone is wrong is NOT “slander”. It is called telling the truth.

          Second, in science, when there is proof that theory is wrong, all good scientists accept that proof unless they can find an error in that proof. Moore has shown he is not a good scientist.

          Third, Moore attacked me and continues to attack me without a justifiable cause. Yet, he has not shown there is any error in my 2021 paper. That is not how science works.

          Fourth, rather than change his “belief” when it is proven wrong, Moore attacks the messengers who have proven his belief is wrong, and he has continued his attacks for years.

          Finally, you never answered my question:
          “Do you truly not understand the issue between science truth and science fiction that we are talking about? Or are you purposely taking the side of science fiction?”

  7. Why do some of us feel compelled to say ‘we are not scientists’? Could it be that we are all starting to realise that not only has science been corrupted but that humans know far less than they think they do. It seems we are all prone to dogma what is important is to own up and admit that vulnerability.
    Given the freefall in trust of so called experts we plebs have to, no must, resort to plain common sense.
    Dr Ed Berry has shown very clearly the inadequacies of the CO2 Coalition’s response, their lack of common sense in very basic terms is astounding. But then the job of challenging Gregory Wrightstone’s public statement and Dave Burton’s reply is a must do and Dr Ed Berry’s patience should be applauded.
    Perhaps a further public statement should be issued by the CO2 Coalition apologising for their unscientific words.
    My guess is that none should hold their breath.

    1. Your statement above “True scientists are always open to evidence that their claims may not be true.” is perfect.
      I am disappointed about Patrick Moore as I had some faith in him but that cannot be a reason for me to not to question, nor for him to put image before science.
      We are living in a time of great disappointment.
      For me science is a search for truth. Surely truth in the humanities can be ambiguous but in nature truth is not defined by emotion. My opinion so far.
      “He need not fear its holding, if he can but tell how to lay on. Its edges will never blunt. It will cut flesh and bones and soul and spirit and all.” Valliant-for-Truth in Pilgrim’s Progress by John Bunyan

      1. Kim says: “I am disappointed about Patrick Moore as I had some faith in him but that cannot be a reason for me to not to question, nor for him to put image before science”.

        It appears that what Patrick Moore actually believes about the trace gas CO₂ has been to a large degree misrepresented. This is what Dr. Patrick Moore has stated many times about carbon dioxide and how important that it is to the Earth and all that exist on it.

        “You heard it here. “Human emissions of carbon dioxide have saved life on Earth from inevitable starvation and extinction due to lack of CO2”.

        To use the analogy of the Atomic Clock, if the Earth were 24 hours old we were at 38 seconds to midnight when we reversed the trend towards the End Times. If that isn’t good news I don’t know what is. You don’t get to stave off Armageddon every day.

        I issue a challenge to anyone to provide a compelling argument that counters my analysis of the historical record and the prediction of CO2 starvation based on the 150 million year trend. Ad hominem arguments about “deniers” need not apply.

        Does anyone deny that below 150 ppm CO2 that plants will die? Does anyone deny that the Earth has been in a 50 million-year cooling period and that this Pleistocene Ice Age is one of the coldest periods in the history of the planet?”
        https://benfieldgroup.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Patrick_Moore_Should_We_Celebrate_Carbon_Dioxide.pdf

        1. Dear Doug,

          Your 2015 quote from Patrick Moore is revealing if you read the whole quote. He has no background in physics, math, numerical modelling, engineering, probability, statistics, or the scientific method. For most of his life, he has been wrong in science, and he is still wrong. As a result, he is mucking up progress in carbon cycle physics.

          He is still an extreme environmental activist. That is the only job he knows. He rejects the physics that proves nature is the dominant cause of the rise in atmospheric CO2 since 1750. Our planet is healing itself and Patrick does not get it. He claims humans caused this healing. He promotes his own “religion” similar to the religions he complains about.

          Sure, he is right about some things, but everyone is right about some things. It’s where people are wrong that affects everyone else in the world. It’s time for Moore to get out of the way of progress in physics.

          Here is Patrick’s last email to me about my work (now in my 2021 paper) that shows nature is the dominant cause of the recent CO2 increase. He thinks my paper is wrong because it does not show how nature has caused the increase. His claim conflicts with the scientific method and he criticizes my reference to Einstein and the scientific method that I made in a previous email.

          From: Patrick Moore Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2021 10:19 AM
          To: Edwin Berry
          Cc: global-warming-realists@googlegroups.com

          Subject: Re: [GWR] Origin of Atmospheric CO2: Answer to Ed

          Please take a hike Ed. I am beyond tired of your gobbledegook. This, for example “I do not need to provide you with evidence to explain how nature caused most of the CO2 increase”.

          What is there in science beyond “evidence”, leading to deduction, leading to conclusions?

          Your invocation of Einstein is pure conceit.

          Sayonara.

          Cheers, Patrick Moore
          pmoore@ecosense.me
          pmoore4068@gmail.com
          Canada & US – 604-220-6500
          Mexico: +52-1-624-174-4433
          or Mexico free: 1-250-999-9078
          Celebrate CO2

  8. Thanks so much DR. Berry for your rentless fight for the truth on clima-science! It is’nt really about scince, it’s about politcs and lot’s of money and control. The little book of Klaus Schwab and Thierry Malleret about the fourth industriel revolution says it all. Scince falsly so called is misused to leed humanity astray and in to perdition. That mankind accept there own distruction for saving the planet and the elite, wich then can profit to the full what they want to deprive us now. So we have to be wise as serpent and harmles as doves to get a simple message understandable to all, so they can crasp it and wake up.

  9. The importance of this debate is that the alarmists claim we can fix their perceived climate crisis by stopping our CO2 emissions and their policies are devastating to humans, the environment and the economy. If more of the scientists would review and critique Dr. Ed’s paper, they would join the few of us that point out that ” There is no fix! We didn’t cause your problem!”

    I agree with nearly all of Dr. Moore’s analysis of the benefits of CO2 and the lack of evidence that it will eventually cause a problem but wouldn’t his argument be better served by adding this truth?

    Almost everyone I know realizes we cannot afford the Green New Deal but some of them feel like we should do something. No one that knows the truth in Dr.Ed’s paper thinks there is anything we can do. Those that accept Dr. Moore’s main points know there is no reason to do anything.

    1. Dear DMA,

      Thank you for your comment.

      The Dems via Our Children’s Trust of Oregon has filed climate lawsuits against several states, including Montana. How do we win these lawsuits?

      I propose the defense attacks all three assumptions these lawsuits use to make their conclusions. Moore would propose we allow the plaintiffs their first assumption that human CO2 indeed caused all the CO2 increase.

      My proposed defense has the best chance to win. Moore’s position gives away our most powerful argument against the plaintiffs. That can make all the difference in the outcome of these lawsuits.

      1. Dr. Ed
        Your point is well taken and well suited for the court room argument. That type of case should require some reckoning of damages to even gain standing to initiate the case. Also to win such a case there will be a high standard of proof required. Your work removes both of those foundational requirements.

      2. I did attempt to divert the conversation away from what seemed to be a dead end direction of where it was only to cast doubt on what Dr. Patrick Moore was maintaining about the role of CO₂ in the Earth’s climatic history.

        To quote you;

        “He [Moore] has no background in physics, math, numerical modelling, engineering, probability, statistics, or the scientific method. For most of his life, he has been wrong in science, and he is still wrong. As a result, he is mucking up progress in carbon cycle physics.
        “He is still an extreme environmental activist. That is the only job he knows. He rejects the physics that proves nature is the dominant cause of the rise in atmospheric CO2 since 1750. Our planet is healing itself and Patrick does not get it. He claims humans caused this healing. He promotes his own “religion” similar to the religions he complains about”.

        As far as I know, ad hominem attacks against an opponent has no place in scientific discussion where one should be dealing with the facts of the debate instead of targeting the person rather than their argument. It was because of this attack that you launched against Dr. Patrick Moore, where you made it so obvious that you think credentials are so important, that I mentioned the educated idiot, Michael E. Mann. I will provide you with the educational back ground of another climate change idiot for your appraisal, Gavin A. Schmidt.
        CHIEF, GODDARD INST FOR SPACE STD
        B.A. (Hons) Mathematics, Oxford University, 1988
        PhD in Applied Mathematics, University College London, 1994
        Postdoc at McGill University 1994-1996; NOAA Climate and Global Change fellow at NASA GISS in New York (1996-1998), Associate Research Scientist at Columbia University (1998-2004), NASA GISS from 2004. Director from 2014.

        As for my view of the ‘qualifications’ that Michael Mann & Gavin A. Schmidt may have in the academic world, I will go with what good common sense and experience has produced that is reflected in Dr. Patrick Moore’s views on this subject of how a trace gas, CO₂, might influence the Earths’ climate. In other words, I do not need to be subjected to any of this climate change nonsense that is the total subject everywhere one tries to read or listen to anything about the Earth and its future as a planet. No one ever answers the question; when has the Earth’s climate NOT been changing? It is only those that are so stupid that they have never looked up at the SUN, that makes up 99.86% of the mass of the solar system, that controls what the Earth’s climate does and not a trace gas, CO₂, that is only .04% of the total atmosphere.

        You tell me this;

        “First, I have already explained that, but you did not read it. In science, proving someone is wrong is NOT “slander”. It is called telling the truth.
        “Second, in science, when there is proof that theory is wrong, all good scientists accept that proof unless they can find an error in that proof. Moore has shown he is not a good scientist.”

        You can put what you are saying into practice by answer the assertions that I make below; that CO₂ has nothing to do with the Earth’s climate or its temperature and, if that is the case, then why would what anyone maintains about CO₂, other than it makes plants grow better, make any difference?

        Why would the world want to zero out their emissions of CO₂? There has never been any empirical evidence submitted anywhere, by any scientific organization, that CO₂ is anything other than a trace gas that is essential for all terrestrial life on the planet. Don’t these climate extremist that say that carbon dioxide emissions MUST be eliminated, realize that if the amount of CO₂ in the Earth’s atmosphere drops to 150 ppm, then plant growth stops and animals die and those are the facts surrounding carbon dioxide.

        I see no empirical evidence is presented by any one, or their scientific organizations, that in any way demonstrates that CO₂ has anything to do with the Earth’s climate or its temperature. The reason for that is that the trace gas, CO₂, that all animals exhales with each and every one of their breaths, HAS never in the past 4.5 billion year long history of the Earth’s existence had anything to do with its complex climate & it would take a climate extremist to now believe, with no proof, that at .04% of the Earth’s atmosphere today, that it can determine what the climate, or the temperature, on Earth will be like in the future. These people that allege that CO₂ is causing the Earth’s temperature to rise cannot give any reason why this record is still valid after over 109 years and has not been exceeded even though their hated CO₂ levels have gone up. We went to Death Valley to see where this all-time record was set and it is a National Park to high light the importance of the occasion that happened 109 years ago.

        World Meteorological Organization Assessment of the Purported World Record 58°C Temperature Extreme at El Azizia, Libya (13 September 1922)
        “On 13 September 1922, a temperature of 58°C (136.4°F) was purportedly recorded at El Azizia (approximately 40 kilometers south-southwest of Tripoli) in what is now modern-day Libya…………. The WMO assessment is that the highest recorded surface temperature of 56.7°C (134°F) was measured on 10 July 1913 at Greenland Ranch (Death Valley) CA USA.”
        http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00093.1?af=R&

        What did CO₂ have to do with this record for cold in 2021?
        October 2, 2021
        The record-breaking average temperature recorded at the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station – where the geographic South Pole is located – between April and September was -61.1°C (-78°F), the lowest since records began in 1957.
        https://www.iflscience.com/the-south-pole-just-experienced-its-coldest-winter-on-record-61199

        1. Dear Doug,

          So, you would have us believe that the time we now live in is the first time in the Earth’s 4.5-billion-year history that it would have dropped its atmospheric CO2 level below 150 ppm and thereby killed off all vegetable and animal life on the planet – and that only human CO2 emissions miraculously saved all life on Planet Earth.

          And you believe this without evidence to support your belief and in the face of the physical evidence that proves your belief is wrong.

  10. Dear Dr. Ed
    All that you need to do is to supply what I have asked for and that is the empirical evidence that carbon dioxide is what drives the Earth’s climate and cause the Earth’s temperature to change. If CO₂ has no influence on the Earth’s climate or its temperature, then what difference would it make what any one projects about what CO₂ will do in the future, or has done in the past?

    I will re-post what I had put forth previously about CO₂ and the end of the dinosaurs in the hope that it will make my point obvious.

    The Earth could stand to have more of this trace gas that is the bases for all terrestrial life on Earth. Obviously any one so brainwashed regarding this devil in the sky that they have invented CO₂ to be the agent of doom for the Earth would not acknowledge that dinosaurs that roamed the Earth 66 million years ago knew a world with five times more carbon dioxide than is present on Earth today. That is 417 ppm X 5 = 2,085 ppm. The Earth and the dinosaurs lived in harmony with those levels of CO₂ until the asteroid hit the Earth in the Yucatan Peninsula and pretty well changed things and people need to know that the 2,085 ppm of CO₂ didn’t have one damn thing to do with the end of the dinosaurs.
    “Recent research shows that the level of oxygen isotopes in seawater changes seasonally and is thus far from stable. We used this knowledge in our analysis of Cretaceous Period temperatures, where we find dry summers and wet winters,” he elaborates. In fact, the researchers’ study demonstrates that there was four times as much CO2 in the atmosphere during the late Cretaceous Period compared to the 1900’s industrial era – with CO2 levels even higher than today”.
    https://news.ku.dk/all_news/2021/07/dinosaurs-lived-in-a-warmer-and-more-dynamic-climate-than-previously-thought/

    I would have also hoped that for some one that wants for the truth to be put forth regarding this hoax of anthropogenic climate change; that is alleged to be caused by a trace gas, CO₂, that they would spend more time on disputing what charlatans such as Michael Mann & Gavin A. Schmidt continually lie about regarding the subject and not on defaming such people as Dr. Patrick Moore because he may have hurt your feelings sometime in the distant past.

    This is an example of how Michael Mann & Gavin A. Schmidt’s ‘climate science’ works in their world of deceit and misinformation.
    From: Phil Jones
    To: ray bradley ,REDACTED, REDACTED

    Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
    Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
    first thing tomorrow.
    I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
    to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
    1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual
    land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
    N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
    for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
    data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
    Thanks for the comments, Ray.
    Cheers
    Phil
    http://www.assassinationscience.com/climategate/1/FOIA/mail/0938018124.txt

  11. Dear Doug,

    Your continuing long rants do not cover up the fact that you have lost our little debate. Since you cannot deny my challenge, you have confirmed it:

    “You would have us believe that the time we now live in is the first time in the Earth’s 4.5-billion-year history that it would have dropped its atmospheric CO2 level below 150 ppm and thereby killed off all vegetable and animal life on the planet – and that only human CO2 emissions miraculously saved all life on Planet Earth.

    “And you believe this without evidence to support your belief and in the face of the physical evidence that proves your belief is wrong.”

    Sorry, Dave. You lost.

    1. Dear Dr. Ed;
      Your claiming that I have lost our debate is only your opinion. Since you have not supplied what I have asked for and that is the empirical evidence that carbon dioxide is what drives the Earth’s climate and causes the Earth’s temperature to change it is you who has lost our little debate.
      Please remember, that if CO₂ has no influence on the Earth’s climate or its temperature, then what difference would it make what any one projects about what CO₂ will do in the future, or has done in the past?
      We Live in Cold Times
      6,221 views
      Apr 26, 2021
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WE0zHZPQJzA

      1. Dear Doug,

        You wrote:

        “All that you need to do is to supply what I have asked for and that is the empirical evidence that carbon dioxide is what drives the Earth’s climate and cause the Earth’s temperature to change.”

        You are describing Theory (2) and I have already said Theory (2) is incorrect.

        Now, you demand that I supply evidence that Theory (2) is correct. Where have you been in our whole debate?

    2. You are being very suppositious to assume that you know what I believe, about basically anything, when you write this to me;
      “You would have us believe that the time we now live in is the first time in the Earth’s 4.5-billion-year history that it would have dropped its atmospheric CO2 level below 150 ppm and thereby killed off all vegetable and animal life on the planet – and that only human CO2 emissions miraculously saved all life on Planet Earth.
      “And you believe this without evidence to support your belief and in the face of the physical evidence that proves your belief is wrong.”

      I believe that there is evidence that the Earth was several times a ‘snowball’ and in that condition life as we know it would not have been possible; so how in hell would “only human CO2 emissions miraculously saved all life on Planet Earth”?

      Below is my evidence that supports my believe that the Earth was a ‘snowball’.
      “Because BIFs are the geologic signature of an anoxic ocean, their reappearance after a long absence is cited as strong evidence that sea ice over of Earth’s oceans was indeed global. That is, they were entirely or almost-entirely sealed off from interacting with the oxygenated atmosphere. Any dissolved oxygen in the oceans was consumed through chemical reactions, but was not replaced by diffusion from the atmosphere. This allowed deep sea black smokers to again permeate ocean water with dissolved iron”.
      https://opengeology.org/historicalgeology/case-studies/snowball-earth/

      The Red Dog Mine above the Arctic Circle where I was employed for over 14 years mined zinc and lead that was deposited by deep sea black smokers.

      1. Dear Doug,

        In case you have forgotten, we are debating IPCC Theory (1) – that says human CO2 emissions have caused all the CO2 increase above 280 ppm – and these two facts:
        (a) I and other scientists have proved Theory (1) is false.
        (b) Patrick Moore claims Theory (1) is true and that my proof “is a fraud.”

        You have argued that Patrick Moore is correct, and you have provided endless data and information in your attempt to support your argument. But none of your data or information show that (a) is wrong.

        You support Patrick Moore because you are swayed by his storybook claim that human CO2 saved planet Earth from dropping its atmospheric CO2 level below 150 ppm for long enough to kill all life on Earth.

        Rather than taking your arguments apart limb by limb, which would take another book (and it appears you have not read Climate Miracle), I simply restated Patrick Moore’s claim in a way that shows his argument is irrational. I wrote:

        “You would have us believe that the time we now live in is the first time in the Earth’s 4.5-billion-year history that it would have dropped its atmospheric CO2 level below 150 ppm and thereby killed off all vegetable and animal life on the planet – and that only human CO2 emissions miraculously saved all life on Planet Earth.
        “And you believe this without evidence to support your belief and in the face of the physical evidence that proves your belief is wrong.”

        That is Patrick Moore’s argument that you have supported. But now you will neither confirm nor deny my above statement, which is Patrick Moore’s core argument.

        Because, if you confirm my statement, you will be a nutcase like Partick Moore. If you deny my statement, you will deny Patrick Moore’s claim that Theory (1) is true and lose your argument in this debate.

        Either way, you lose. You are in checkmate, and you will not admit it.

        1. There has been mass subversion and infiltration of institutions and groups undermining our societies. There is no reason to believe that the CO2 Coalition is an exception to this.
          Who knows what the answer is.
          By dismissing the first of Dr Ed Berry’s three objectives they thwart his passionate effort and the presentation of his work. If someone’s work is dismissed without sound reason we are all in serious trouble as science becomes dogma. We live between magic and science, they are both needed, have their place, and neither should be neglected.
          J Doug Swallow is quite right, “Ad hominem arguments about “deniers” need not apply.” It seems that this is what debate has been reduced to, an outcome that should be resisted by good people when realised.
          The public statement by the CO2 Coalition is not a professional response going by the presentation published in this article. It seems to me to be an attack without principled science.
          Whether prejudiced or not, my common sense tells me that every action has a reaction. The natural CO2 balance and interconnected systems would react to human emissions which precludes any simplistic assumptions made by the untrustworthy IPCC or anyone else.

        2. Dear Dr. Ed;

          Ed tells me that; “In case you have forgotten, we are debating IPCC Theory (1) – that says human CO2 emissions have caused all the CO2 increase above 280 ppm – and these two facts:
          (a) I and other scientists have proved Theory (1) is false.
          (b) Patrick Moore claims Theory (1) is true and that my proof “is a fraud.” ”

          Since Ed is going to continue to say things about Patrick Moore that are not factual; perhaps it is fitting that we look into what Patrick Moore actually wrote about CO₂.
          “All the CO2 in the atmosphere has been created by outgassing from the Earth’s core during massive volcanic eruptions. This was much more prevalent in the early history of the Earth when the core was hotter than it is today. During the past 150 million years there has not been enough addition of CO2 to the atmosphere to offset the gradual losses due to burial in sediments. Let’s look at where all the carbon is in the world, and how it is moving around. Today, at just over 400 ppm, there are 850 billion tons of carbon as CO2 in the atmosphere. By comparison, when modern life-forms evolved over 500 million years ago there was nearly 15,000 billion tons of carbon in the atmosphere, 17 times today’s level. Plants and soils combined contain more than 2,000 billion tons of carbon, more than twice as much as the entire global atmosphere. The oceans contain 38,000 billion tons of carbon, as dissolved CO2, 45 times as much as in the atmosphere. Fossil fuels, which are made from plants that pulled CO2 from the atmosphere account for 5,000 – 10,000 billion tons of carbon, 6 – 12 times as much carbon as is in the atmosphere. But the truly stunning number is the amount of carbon that has been sequestered from the atmosphere and turned into carbonaceous rocks. 100,000,000 billion tons, that’s one quadrillion tons of carbon, have been turned into stone by marine species that learned to make armour-plating for themselves by combining calcium and carbon into calcium carbonate. Limestone, chalk, and marble are all of life origin and amount to 99.9% of all the carbon ever present in the global atmosphere. The white cliffs of Dover are made of the calcium carbonate skeletons of coccolithophores, tiny marine phytoplankton. The vast majority of the carbon dioxide that originated in the atmosphere has been sequestered and stored quite permanently in carbonaceous rocks where it cannot be used as food by plants”.

          https://benfieldgroup.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Patrick_Moore_Should_We_Celebrate_Carbon_Dioxide.pdf

  12. CO2 Coalition’s statement of disagreement with Dr. Ed is akin to Kohler’s attempted refutation of Harde. Their reason can be approximated with “He is wrong because I would have done it differently”. They, both CO2 Coalition and Kohler, should state where the object of their disagreement is in error and possibly even suggest actions that would correct the error and enhance the contested paper. If they cannot refute it reasonably they should incorporate its truth into their work. That is science where disagreeing on process is just argument.

  13. Dear Doug,

    Thanks for noting that I wrote,

    “In case you have forgotten, we are debating IPCC Theory (1) – that says human CO2 emissions have caused all the CO2 increase above 280 ppm – and these two facts:

    (a) I and other scientists have proved Theory (1) is false.
    (b) Patrick Moore claims Theory (1) is true and that my proof “is a fraud.”

    But then, you say,

    “Since Ed is going to continue to say things about Patrick Moore that are not factual; perhaps it is fitting that we look into what Patrick Moore actually wrote about CO₂.”

    So, what did I say about Moore that is not factual?

    You never answered that, and you owe me an answer.

    You twist logic.

    You argue that because someone has said correct things, therefore, this someone has never said any incorrect things.

    Science is not about hyperventilating data and then thinking you are correct about something.

    Science is about using data to construct theories and about testing the theories. When you prove a theory is wrong, you must dump that theory.

    You quoted my statement of these facts:

    (a) I and other scientists have proved Theory (1) is false.
    (b) Patrick Moore claims Theory (1) is true and that my proof “is a fraud.”

    So, let’s try one more time. Please answer these 4 questions with a Yes or No:

    (a) Is Theory (1) true or false?
    (b) Is Patrick Moore correct when he claims Theory (1) is true”
    (c) Is Patrick Moore correct when he claims Berry’s work on Theory (1) is a fraud.
    (d) Is my proof that Theory (1) is false, valid?

    Then, if you can, please provide logical reasons for your answers.

  14. Dear Dr Ed;

    Ed Berry asked questions of me without ever answering this very pertinent question that I have asked him to explain to me; why has there never been any empirical evidence that carbon dioxide has anything to do with the Earth’s climate or what its temperature is, presented for all to see?
    If CO₂ has nothing to do with the Earth’s climate or its temperature, then what difference does it make where it comes from?

    [Doug: I deleted the rest of your comment because it is irrelevant to our debate, and you refuse to answer the questions I asked. I will continue to delete your comments until you learn how to debate a subject. – Ed]

    1. Dear Doug,

      You asked, “Why has there never been any empirical evidence that carbon dioxide has anything to do with the Earth’s climate or what its temperature is, presented for all to see?

      You are describing Theory (2) and I have already said Theory (2) is false. Theory (2) is not part of our debate. Yet, you claim I must show you evidence that Theory (2) is true. Your demand is irrational.

      You have criticized my proof that Theory (1) is false, but you have not provided any evidence to support your position. Now, you will not answer YES or NO to my four relevant questions above. Rather you change the subject to Theory (2).

      You already lost your debate several days ago, but you won’t accept that fact. You lost because you do not focus on the argument. You just continue to hyperventilate without focusing on the points your opponent makes.

      1. Dear Ed; When you did this with my comments and then wrote this to me: “[Doug: I deleted the rest of your comment because it is irrelevant to our debate, and you refuse to answer the questions I asked. I will continue to delete your comments until you learn how to debate a subject. – Ed]”. I now assure you that you need not worry about having to delete any more of my comments because this is the last comment that you will ever receive from me. You now appear to follow the comment policy established by such climate alarmist as what Eric Grimsrud and Gavin A. Schmidt have established whenever the truth regarding an issue that is being discussed is presented, and that is to delete it.

        1. Dear Doug,
          I deleted the irrelevant parts of your comment as an attempt to teach you how to think. Obviously, I did not succeed in that goal.

          You have not grasped the simple fact that hyperventilating does not prove you are correct. Data alone prove nothing. Data are useful only when connected to a theory. Yet, you blather on about data as if the data alone proves your point. You do not understand how science works.

          In one of my first replies to your comments, I wrote:

          The IPCC claims these three (false) theories are true:
          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. “

          You challenged me on (1) but you never showed that (1) is true. So, I asked you to state your position on (1) and you refused to do so. Now, even in your closing comment, you have still not stated your position on (1), so you really don’t get it.

          Your claimed (incorrectly) that I must first give you reasons that (2) is true. But I already said that (2) is false.

          Given your arguments, it is clear you believe (1) is true.

          No problem. I don’t mind disagreements. I only mind it when a commenter cannot make an argument to support his position and still thinks he is correct, which is what you have done.

          But your worst error of all is your refusal to clearly state your position in your argument. That is unacceptable and shows you are dishonest and hiding something.

          It is interesting that you mentioned Eric Grimsrud and Gavin A. Schmidt because you debate like they do, never clarifying your point, thinking hyperventilating is an argument, and changing the subject when you lose a debate. You have learned well from them.

        2. You [Doug Swallow] will just return using a different name to troll again, always the same MO with this guy ED, he uses one faction of ”deniers” against another, always quoting gatekeeping-luke-warmers etc, his whole game is distraction, to spoil, and he is relentless with the copy and paste walls of text, but I suppose you already know this.

        3. Dear Gary,

          Doug Swallow, whom I once thought was a climate patriot, has revealed himself as the stupidest person who has ever commented on this website, and as a true undercover flaming communist liberal climate change pusher.

          His private emails to me after he quit commenting here (and I subsequently blocked him), continue to show he cannot keep track of which side i am on. His mind is stuck on one track like a broken record as he continues to claim that I say the three IPCC theories are true when I clearly state that I say these three theories are false.

          Like, how can anyone debate a guy who can’t keep track of what you say?

          He has turned out to be a nutcase. So, I think I will quickly recognize him if he returns under a different name.

  15. Dr. Ed: Just a thought from a layman: If IPCC folks are right wrt their BERN model, wouldn’t the consequence be that those who are dreaming about capturing CO2 directly from the atmosphere need to invent a filter that only capture those CO2 molecules coming from the combustion of fossil fuel? If it is so that “natural” carbon with a residence time governed by the natural carbon cycle is removed, then this will be fruitless all the time it is “our” CO2 molecules that builds up in the atmosphere and has sort of no way to go within the natural cycle?
    If you remove “natural” CO2 from the atmosphere, this will lead to an imbalance which will lead to increased inflow from natural reservoirs ref. Henrys law etc.

    If I have a point, then those who support such projects has to tell the investors about the BERN model and ask for a such filter. Here is an example. https://www.1pointfive.com/dac-technology?gclid=Cj0KCQjwguGYBhDRARIsAHgRm48BmoNg1csvNJo9Dl__WR5_pshpsxPAvikjekyDwKi545W1DcQ4bVEaAud1EALw_wcB

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

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