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:
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.