by Ed Berry, PhD, Physics, AMS CCM #180
Here is the brief email discussion where the Executive Director of the American Meteorological Society told an AMS director to not publish a short article I wrote at the AMS invitation.
On Tuesday, September 8, 2020, AMS wrote:
To: Edwin Berry <email@example.com>
Subject: Call for Articles: Fall 2020 CCM Newsletter
This is a reminder that if you would like to write an article or submit content for the Fall 2020 issue of the CCM newsletter, please email it to —— and —— no later than September 15th. You may view past CCM Newsletters online.
We look forward to your contribution!
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 10:40 AM Ed Berry wrote:
Attached is my letter for publication in the AMS CCM Newsletter.
On Thursday, Sep 10, 2020, AMS wrote:
To: Edwin Berry <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: Keith Seitter <—@ametsoc.org>
Subject: Re: Call for Articles: Fall 2020 CCM Newsletter
Given the way this piece is at odds with the AMS position on climate change, I checked with AMS Executive Director Keith Seitter and he instructed me to not run the article in the CCM newsletter. If you have questions, please feel free to contact Dr. Seitter directly at —@ametsoc.org.
On Thursday, September 10, Ed Berry wrote:
Cc: Keith Seitter <—@ametsoc.org>
Subject: RE: Call for Articles: Fall 2020 CCM Newsletter
Thank you for your email.
I am sorry the American Meteorological Society prohibits scientific discussions that conflict with its position on climate change.
Here is the article I sent to the AMS:
Why does the AMS promote the idea that human carbon dioxide emissions cause dangerous climate change?
Let’s talk science for a moment. The scientific method says we cannot prove a theory is true, but we can prove a theory is false. This means, if we follow science, we should understand that any theory we believe is true may turn out to be false.
The science and politics of climate change rest on the core theory described by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). IPCC’s core theory says nature stayed constant after 1750 and, therefore, human carbon dioxide emissions caused all the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide above 280 ppm.
IPCC claims “extensive evidence” proves its core theory is true. What is this “extensive evidence”?
IPCC argues that ice-core data show the natural CO2 level was always about 280 ppm before 1750. But stomata data proves the natural CO2 level was much higher than 280 ppm several times in the last 1200 years. So, data contradict this IPCC argument.
IPCC argues that the sum of human CO2 emissions has been greater than the increase of atmospheric CO2 above 280 ppm. But IPCC data show the sum of human CO2 emissions was much lower than the CO2 increase above 280 ppm before 1960. Therefore, natural CO2 much more than human CO2 caused the rise in atmospheric CO2. This proves IPCC’s core theory is false.
Statistical calculations show the correlation of annual human CO2 emissions with the annual increase in CO2 is zero. The correlation is still zero for intervals of 2, 3, 4, and 5 years. If the correlation is zero, there is no cause-effect.
Some counter argue that natural CO2 variations overwhelm the effect of human CO2 in the statistics. But this counter argument admits that nature did not stay constant at 280 ppm. So, either way, the statistics prove IPCC’s core theory is false.
Finally, look at IPCC’s data in its Figure 6.1 (IPCC, 2013). IPCC’s natural carbon cycle has 1.4 percent of total carbon in the atmosphere. But IPCC’s human carbon cycle has 60 percent of its total carbon in the atmosphere. Simple observation indicates something is wrong with this picture.
Where did this 60 percent come from? It was not measured. It was not calculated from a model. It is merely the number required if we assume IPCC’s core theory is true.
What about the peer-reviewed papers that say IPCC’s core theory is true? All the key papers assume IPCC’s core theory is true before they analyze their data. That is circular reasoning and not evidence that IPCC’s core theory is true.
In summary, there is no “extensive evidence” that IPCCs core theory is true and there is solid evidence that it is false. The scientific method says it takes only one contradiction to prove a theory is false. One contradiction outvotes all “evidence” that a theory is true.
IPCC has another problem. To support its claim that 60 percent of human carbon remains in the atmosphere, IPCC claims human CO2 takes thousands of years to flow out of the atmosphere while natural CO2 flows out of the atmosphere with a time constant of about 5 years.
But human and natural CO2 molecules are identical. Therefore, human CO2 must flow out of the atmosphere as natural CO2 flows out of the atmosphere. So, IPCC’s core theory contradicts physics.
If you wish to read a more complete discussion of the above, read my Preprint #3 (Berry, 2020). It also shows how IPCC’s natural carbon cycle data conclude natural CO2 has caused about 75 percent of the increase in atmospheric CO2 as of 2020.
Since IPCC’s core theory is wrong, all scientific papers that assume the core theory is true, are wrong. Since IPCC’s climate models assume the core theory is true, the climate models and their conclusions are wrong.
IPCC’s invalid core theory is the basis of all climate change politics. Is it not time that we check what we believe to be true about climate change?
Ed Berry, PhD, Physics, CCM #180
Berry, E. X (2020): Preprint #3. https://edberry.com/blog/climate/climate-physics/preprint3/
IPCC (2013): Carbon and other biogeochemical cycles. IPCC Fig. 6.1, p 471. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter06_FINAL.pdf
Now you can see how groups like the American Meteorological Society control scientific discussions. They put politics before science. They keep their members brainwashed. They keep sending their members emails that promote the climate change fraud but they will not allow any views that disagree with their political position (for the Democrats) to be published in any of their publications.
At least it did not take long to get their response. I for one will be very interested to see if your succinct reply CCed to Dr. Seitter elicits any further response from him. It is appalling to me that this “prestigious” group are such ideologues that they reject because of a position without any reference to error in your work. I hope you continue to submit this letter to other groups and let us know how it is received.
Alarmists use radiative transfer equations as their mainstay in promoting the ridiculous AGW theory, the difference between energy inflow and outflow will always average zero, which results in equilibrium. Disequilibrium is impossible, at night air cools, it’s impossible for heat to be trapped in some air while the rest cools.
CO2 lags rising temperature averages.
Regarding the CCM, maybe it’s time for a DDM (Data Dependent Meteorologist) affiliation.
Pathetic the society is so blindly fixated on the IPCC. Keep up your good work .
The latest episode of group-think maneuvering to protect itself. Previous episodes, some of which have appeared here, include:
Dr. Berry should forward this exchange to relevant members of Congress, like Cruz, and to the WH, like Wheeler of the EPA and now Legates of NOAA. This unscrupulous nonsense will end only when those who block scientific discourse are deprived of federal funds, the receipt of tax dollars that such offenses are designed to protect.
Banning the flow of federal money is just what Trump is now doing to eliminate Marxist indoctrination in schools and government agencies. It’s time the same correction was imposed on “professional” societies, parties who rely on the same flow of tax dollars yet obstruct the basic mission they claim to advance.
“The science and politics of climate change rest on the core theory described by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). IPCC’s core theory says nature stayed constant after 1750 and, therefore, human carbon dioxide emissions caused all the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide above 280 ppm”. That is what the core theory described by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is, as their mandate makes clear.
I also know about science and it is generally considered to be a discipline that has at its core the desire to search for the truth requiring many things in nature and it should be the desire of those involved in climatology. Sadly, since the subject of climate has become politicized, that desire to find the truth has been overtaken by the knowledge that it can be used as a way to exert control over many aspects of life. I use this UN mandate to explain my contention about the political aspect of the IPCC.
1. Scope and Approach of the Assessment 1.1. Mandate of the Assessment
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established by World Meteorological Organization and United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) in 1988 to assess scientific, technical, and socioeconomic information that is relevant in understanding human-induced climate change, its potential impacts, and options for mitigation and adaptation. The IPCC currently is organized into three Working Groups: Working Group I (WGI) addresses observed and projected changes in climate; Working Group II (WGII) addresses vulnerability, impacts, and adaptation related to climate change; and Working Group III (WGIII) addresses options for mitigation of climate change.
“Alarmists ‘Want To Control Every Aspect Of Your Life’: ‘What you eat, what you drive, where you drive, what you believe, what you say, what you can own, how many children you can have…’
‘how much you can travel, how much money you have, what your kids are taught, how big your house is, the temperature of your house, how your house is heated, how far you live from your work, what kind of light bulbs and other appliances you have ……… Global warmers make Lenin’s Bolsheviks look like libertarians. In Soviet Russia, polar bears eat Bolsheviks’”
“IPCC argues that ice-core data show the natural CO2 level was always about 280 ppm before 1750. But stomata data proves the natural CO2 level was much higher than 280 ppm several times in the last 1200 years. So, data contradict this IPCC argument”. Does the IPCC have any interest in what the facts are?
“Plants are wonderfully in tune with their environments, so there are many proxies or signals that we can obtain from fossil plants. We can work out the temperature they lived in, the atmospheric environment, and the carbon dioxide concentration.”
“It works like this. Stomata control a tradeoff for the plant: they allow carbon dioxide in, but they also let precious water escape. A plant that could get enough carbon dioxide with fewer stomata would have an advantage since it would be better able to conserve its water. Levels of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere change over time — so at times when the atmosphere is carbon-dioxide-rich, plants can get away with having fewer stomata since each individual stoma will be able to bring in more carbon dioxide. During those high-carbon-dioxide times, plants with fewer stomata will have an advantage and will be common. On the other hand, when carbon dioxide levels are low, plants need many stomata in order to scrape together enough carbon dioxide to survive. During low-carbon-dioxide times, plants with more stomata will have an advantage and will be common.”
Recent stomata studies show that CO2 was more variable and the average CO2 concentrations have been significantly higher during our Holocene interglacial period (last 11,000 years) than are indicated by the ice core record.
“What about the peer-reviewed papers that say IPCC’s core theory is true? All the key papers assume IPCC’s core theory is true before they analyze their data. That is circular reasoning and not evidence that IPCC’s core theory is true”.
When one studies the ‘peer-reviewed papers’ that the IPCC claims makes their case for them that it is humans and the CO₂ that is created due to the use of fossil fuels that causes the forest fires on the West coast of America or the flooding of the Yangtze Basin in China, that one will believe basically nothing that the IPCC puts forth; such as their ‘hockey stick graph’ to get rid of the pesky Medieval Warm Period after having shown the MWP in the 1990 1st Assessment Report.
In October 2011 the investigative journalist Donna Laframboise published her “Delinquent Teenager” expose of the IPCC’s reliance on grey-lit and its wholesale infiltration by Greenpeace-style activist authors. Other tidbits included documentation about graduate students and sub-PhDs mysteriously doubling as “world-leading” scientists to become IPCC authors, lead authors and even top-rung “co-ordinating lead authors”. She also revealed how quality-assurance rules supposedly binding on IPCC writers and reviewers were routinely flouted. Within weeks Professor Ross McKitrick, a prominent sceptic, issued his own documentation of why the IPCC should either shape up or be replaced by a non-political scientific body.
Loved your response to the AMS leadership. Professional societies so frequently repress opposing views and publish position statements supporting CAGW without permission of its members.
Here’s a couple of examples: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/06/15/fellows-of-the-royal-geological-society-pushback-over-climate-position/
Hope you don’t mind but I added the reference to your encounter with the AMS leadership to my 500+ page treatise on CAGW skepticism.