Historic climate debate between Trump and Biden

How Trump can win the climate debate and his reelection.

This is an imaginary climate debate between Trump and Biden.

PS: This is the first chapter in my book.

I include more here that even I would use in a debate. My goal is to show a typical political candidate a larger view of a climate debate. Then the debater can choose what is needed at any time in a debate. If President Trump knew just this much, he would win his climate debates and win his reelection.

Moderator asks Biden about climate change.


More than 16,000 scientists from 184 countries published a letter in 2017, warning that “human beings and the natural world are on a collision course.”

More than 11,000 researchers from around the world have issued a grim warning of the “untold suffering” that will be caused by climate change if humanity doesn’t change its ways. These scientists say they have the “moral obligation to tell it like it is.”

They say posterity will remember them badly for dismissing climate change as a serious threat to our civilization.

The vast majority of people in the United States know climate change is real. They support aggressive climate legislation to address the crisis, according to the Pew Research Center and Reuters.

Extensive evidence shows our CO2 is causing dangerous climate change. Floods, droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes, and rising oceans are worse than ever.

The latest wildfires are new evidence of the destruction our CO2 causes. When I am president, we will implement drastic cuts in America’s CO2 emissions. We can justify all cost because if we don’t stop climate change, we will soon all perish.

Vanishing glaciers are our new reality. If we don’t work now to stop climate change, we will continue to see devastating effects.

You, Donald, continue to say climate is not a serious issue but you have not given any reasons to support your opinion.  So, why should anyone believe you?

It is simply unacceptable that we’re having a debate over whether to deal with climate change. The only acceptable debate is how to deal with it.

The planet is warming. We caused it. We must fix it.


Joe, you are promoting the biggest fraud in history.

Nature controls the climate. We are not responsible. We don’t need to fix it.

First, let’s clarify your English. Define climate change:

  • Climate change means simply that climate changes
  • Climate is a 30-year average of weather.

There are two kinds of climate change:

  • nature-caused climate change
  • human-caused climate change

Your appeals to authority have no bearing on scientific truth.

Votes do not determine scientific truth and science is never settled. Aristotle said so.

Who are your 16,000 climate scientists? Who do they work for?

If they work for the government or on government contracts or for the IPCC , then they are biased because they are paid to claim humans cause climate change.

You may be right that most voters believe human CO2 is causing the climate to change. But the problem is they are hallucinating.

Our media, government, schools, colleges, and universities have been indoctrinating our people for two generations. They have not taught the people the scientific method, logic, or how to think.

They indoctrinated them by scaring them to death. They told them their parent’s SUV was destroying the planet. They told them we have only 4 more years to stop all CO2 emissions or the Earth will go up on smoke. Some of them committed suicide they were so scared.

They made them participate in sustainability programs. They formed them into a groupthink where they reject all facts that contradict their belief, and ignore or attack those who show their belief is wrong.

That is not teaching. That is called child abuse and brainwashing. It happened right here in America.

You claim events are evidence that your theory is true.

Events do not prove their cause. A hurricane or a wildfire event does not prove we caused it to happen or to be more intense.

Suppose you have a headache. Does your headache prove what caused your headache?

Of course not. That is why you go to a medical doctor who is trained to find the cause of your headache. Then you doctor can prescribe a treatment. To not test for the cause would be medical malpractice.

But your side is guilty of climate malpractice because you assume a cause without investigating the cause.

To determine the cause of climate change, we must ask climate physicists who know how to find the cause of climate change.

You asked me to tell you why I do not support your climate fiction.

Science is based on theories, not emotions or hallucinations or sincere beliefs.

All your claims about human-caused climate change are based on these two fundamental climate theories of the IPCC.

IPCC’s core theory is “the natural CO2 level has stayed constant at 280 ppm.”

And that, of course, means “human CO2 caused all the increase in atmospheric CO2.”

The key point here is that the conclusion that your side operates on is not a fact. It is a theory.

Your climate claims are a house of cards built on the assumption that this theory is true. However, if this theory is wrong, then your climate house of cards will crash to the floor.

Your climate claims are a house of cards built on the assumptions that these two IPCC theories are true. However, if either of these IPCC theories is wrong, all your climate house of cards will crash to the floor.

That is how science works. Science does not work when people hallucinate that a theory is true. Science works when we test theories and reject theories that prove to be false.

The scientific method says no amount of evidence can prove a theory is true, but it takes only one incorrect prediction to prove a theory is false.

So, your side claims a victory that is scientifically impossible to achieve.

Albert Einstein said, many experiments may prove me right, but it takes only one to prove me wrong.

It takes only one experiment or test to show a theory is wrong. And one such test outvotes trillions of scientists who claim the theory is right.

But here’s the thing, Joe. When our best climate physicists investigate the cause of your claimed climate change, they find this core IPCC theory is wrong.

Not just a little bit wrong but blatantly wrong in a way that all good scientists should have noticed.

None of your 16,000 so-called scientists bothered to check IPCC’s core theories. None, nada, zip! They just assumed this IPCC core theory is true. That incorrect assumption nullifies their opinions.

But because it is wrong, all your peer-reviewed scientific papers are invalid. Your claim of 97 percent science support is invalid. Your climate model predictions – that you use for many of your claims – are invalid. Because they all incorrectly assume these two IPCC theories were true.

I promote true science and you promote junk science.

Theory 1 “Human CO2 sticks in the atmosphere”


Human CO2 stays in the atmosphere for thousands of years. This is much longer than natural CO2 stays in the atmosphere. That proves the natural CO2 level stayed constant at 280 ppm.


Your claim that human CO2 sticks in the atmosphere for thousands of years is a result of your incorrect assumption that the natural CO2 level stays constant at 280 ppm. You are using circular reasoning, Joe. Garbage in. Garbage out.

You assume the natural level stayed constant at 280 ppm, Then, you conclude human CO2 caused all the rise in CO2 greater than 280 ppm.

But if the total CO2 level is 410 ppm, and we subtract nature’s 280 ppm, according to your core theory, that says the human CO2 level is 130 ppm, which is 32 percent of the total.

That 32 percent conflicts with IPCC’s data that says human CO2 inflow is 5 percent and natural CO2 inflow is 95 percent of the total CO2 inflow into the atmosphere.

Joe, you obviously need a little help understanding grade-school physics.

Think of CO2 flow through the atmosphere as water flowing through a bucket with a hole in the bottom. Water is 95 percent of the inflow and milk is 5 percent of the inflow. And when they mix, they flow out of the hole at the same rate.

(Hey, I know they can’t use slides in the debate. But added them to help you follow the discussion. – Ed_

How can 5 percent milk inflow become 32 percent of the milk-water mix in the bucket? It can’t.

There will be 5 percent milk in the bucket, not 32 percent.

So, what are you going to do to save your core theory?

Easy. You claim, without evidence, that the milk takes much longer to get out of the bucket.  

So, your claim that human CO2 stays in the atmosphere longer than natural CO2 is a result of your incorrect assumption that your core theory is true.

If you had done your science correctly, you would have realized there is no mechanism that can make human CO2 flow out of the atmosphere slower than natural CO2. And this means your core theory is wrong. The natural CO2 level does not stay at 280 ppm.

Yes, I know there is a video by a sweet young girl on the NOAA website that says human CO2 has a “different composition” than natural CO2 and that is why human CO2 stays in the atmosphere longer. That video is junk science. Therefore, tomorrow, I am going to fire the NOAA director’s ass for allowing such garbage on our government website.

Here are the facts.

Human CO2 and natural CO2 molecules are identical. One carbon atom and two oxygen atoms. No one can separate human CO2 from natural CO2 in the atmosphere. It would take a magic demon to separate human CO2 from natural CO2.

Because their molecules are identical, human CO2 flows out of the atmosphere as natural CO2 flows out of the atmosphere. Their time constants are the same.

Natural CO2 is not dangerous. Therefore, human CO2 is not dangerous.


Sorry everyone. We must take a ten-minute break because about 30 people in the audience have fainted and four appear to have heart attacks. We need time to get them medical attention.

… OK, we are now ready to continue this debate. It’s your turn, Joe.

Theory “Sum of human CO2”


Here is proof that the natural CO2 level stayed constant at 280 ppm: The sum of all human CO2 emitted since 1750 is greater than the increase in CO2 above 280 ppm.


The “sum of all human CO2” is an artifact because human CO2 does not stay in the atmosphere. So, your premise is a strawman.

But let’s assume for the sake of your argument that human CO2 does stick in the atmosphere. IPCC’s own data prove your argument is wrong.

Ice core data show the CO2 level was larger than the sum of all human CO2 before 1960. So, natural CO2, not human CO2, caused the increase in CO2. This proves IPCC’s core climate theory is false.

The CO2 level is greater than the sum of human CO2. Therefore, natural CO2 cause the increase before 1960.

Here are more proofs that IPCC’s core climate theory is wrong.  

Leaf stomata data show the CO2 level in the past 1200 years was well above your assumed 280 ppm around the years 1300, 1500, 1750, and after 1900.

Leaf stomata data show higher CO2 levels that 280 ppm in last 1200 years.

More than 90,000 direct chemical measurements show the CO2 level was above 280 ppm since 1820, with very high levels in 1820, 1860, and 1940.

Direct chemical measurements of CO2 level from 1810 to 1965.

When a theory contradicts data, that theory is wrong. IPCC’s core climate theory is wrong. All your claims about human-caused climate change have just fallen to the floor like a house of cards.

Human CO2 effect


Our CO2 emission pile up in the atmosphere like garbage in a garbage dump. We must stop our CO2 emission as soon as possible no matter how much it costs us.   


Here is something you need to understand, Joe.

CO2 flows through the atmosphere as water flows through a lake.

Imagine a lake. Water from a river flows into the lake and out over a dam. If the inflow increases, the level rises. As the level rises, the outflow over the dam increases.

Water from a river flows through a lake and out over a dam.

If the inflow is steady, the level will rise until the outflow equals the inflow. Then the level will no longer change as the inflow continues.

The same is true of how CO2 flows through the atmosphere. When the inflow is constant and outflow equals the inflow, the level remains constant as inflow continues.

This is the only way the natural CO2 level can stay constant at 280 ppm is for outflow to equal inflow, which is IPCC’s core theory.

Now suppose a second river adds 5 percent to the inflow of the first river. What do you think happens?

The 5 percent new inflow increases the lake level just enough to make the new outflow over the dam equal to the total inflow of the two rivers.

Thereafter, if the new inflow stays constant, the lake level will stay constant. Water will not accumulate in the lake.

This is how CO2 flows through the atmosphere, Joe. This is not rocket science.

When human CO2 inflow is constant and the system comes to equilibrium, the human-caused level increase is constant. Human CO2 does not accumulate in the atmosphere.

Human CO2 also adds new CO2 to the carbon cycle. But this added human carbon flows to the land and deep ocean in a few years. We can explain how this works with a carbon cycle model.

In summary, human CO2 has only a small effect on atmospheric CO2. There is no climate emergency and no climate crisis.

Evidence “Similar increases”


The CO2 level has increased as human CO2 emissions increased. This proves human CO2 caused the increase.


Joe, you should read a book on how to be fooled by statistics. The CO2 data are time series data.

Did you know that the time-series trends of hemlines of New York models once correlated with the level of Lake Titicaca in the Andes? Which was the cause, and which was the effect?

There are hundreds of examples of time-series correlations that do not have any cause-effect relationship. So, what is wrong with these correlations?

Statisticians always “detrend” time series data before they calculate a correlation. Detrending eliminates the overall up or down trends of the data. Then they calculate the correlation for each period in the time series.

Statisticians have calculated the correlation of the annual values of human CO2 emissions with the annual changes in CO2. If human CO2 is a significant cause of the rise in atmospheric CO2 then we would expect atmospheric CO2 would rise more in the years then human CO2 emissions were higher, and vice-versa.

However, the correlation of these annual data is zero. This proves human CO2 has little effect on the rise in atmospheric CO2. Therefore, natural CO2 had to cause most of the increase.

Now, some smart person on your side may say, the correlation is zero because the large variable inflow of natural CO2 in the CO2 level data overwhelms the small human inflow. That would be correct but that also admits IPCC’s core theory is wrong.


OK, OK. We must take another break. We have a few more heart attacks in our audience and a breaking riot.

… OK, we are back. Do you want to try again, Joe?

The carbon cycle


When you calculate how human carbon flows through the carbon cycle, you will find that human carbon that flows out of the atmosphere flows back into the atmosphere. This backflow causes human CO2 to cause all the rise in atmospheric CO2.


I am very happy you brought up the subject of the carbon cycle, Joe, because it exposes the terrible fraud the UN IPCC has played on the people and on the US government.

The UN IPCC 2013 report illustrates its position on the natural and human carbon cycles. IPCC has four main reservoirs in its carbon cycle: land, atmosphere, surface ocean, and deep ocean.

The circled black numbers represent the natural carbon cycle. The circled red numbers represent the human carbon cycle.

If we plot the levels for each reservoir, we find the natural carbon cycle has 1.4 percent of its total carbon in the atmosphere. This represents the distribution of carbon in the carbon cycle at equilibrium.

Six percent of total carbon is in the land, 1.4 in the atmosphere, 2 in the surface ocean, and 90 percent in the deep ocean. These IPCC data are not perfect, but they are the best data we have on the natural carbon cycle.

Now, let’s plot IPCC’s data for its human carbon cycle.

The IPCC shows no human carbon in the land or surface ocean, 61 percent in the atmosphere, and 39 percent in the deep ocean.

Granted, the human carbon cycle is not at equilibrium like the natural carbon cycle. But if it were at equilibrium, it should have the same percentages in each reservoir as IPCC shows for its natural carbon cycle.

Nevertheless, the 61 percent shown for the atmosphere looks very suspicious. Where did the IPCC get its data for its human carbon cycle?

The IPCC did not calculate its human carbon cycle data and it did not measure the data because that would be impossible.

Well, it turns out the IPCC simply inserted into its atmosphere reservoir the exact amount that is required assuming its core theory is true. In other words, IPCC merely filled its atmosphere reservoir with human carbon until that human carbon caused all the rise in atmospheric CO2. Then IPCC dumped the remainder in the deep ocean.

That is fraudulent science and it is wrong because we have already shown IPCC’s core theory is false.

It is not that difficult to calculate what the human carbon cycle would look like by assuming human carbon will flow through the atmosphere with the same time constants that natural carbon flows through the atmosphere.

This is a valid assumption because the human CO2 molecules are flowing through the carbon cycle at the same time as natural CO2 is flowing through the carbon cycle. Furthermore, since the amount of human carbon introduced is very small compared to the existing natural carbon, there is no basis to assume the small amount of human carbon would change the time constants for natural carbon.

Well, Dr. Ed Berry, an atmospheric physicist, out in Bigfork, Montana, working by himself, did this calculation that all the IPCC scientists did not, or could not, do. He had no government funding like the fat-cat scientists who work for the IPCC or on government contracts have, because our government won’t pay for any work that might show the IPCC is wrong. He did not have access to the big computers the IPCC scientists have. Ed Berry did the calculations using Microsoft Excel on his desktop computer. [This is called a shameless plug. – Ed]

Then, Dr. William Happer, of Princeton University, and W.A. van Wijngaarden, of York University, Canada, proved Dr. Berry’s numerical calculations are exact.

Dr. Berry used IPCC’s numbers for its natural carbon cycle to calculate IPCC’s true human carbon cycle. This shows the amount of human carbon that remains in the atmosphere as of January 2020 is 15.5 percent, not 61 percent.

All human CO2 emitted since 1750 have added only 33 ppm to atmospheric CO2 as of January 2020. Meanwhile, nature has added over 100 ppm.

Then, Ed Berry calculated how the percentages of human carbon would change if all human CO2 emissions were to stop on January 1, 2020. The human carbon in the atmosphere dropped from 15.5 percent to 4.7 percent, equivalent to 10 ppm.

Berry’s calculations prove human CO2 emissions produce no long-term threat to the planet.

Upon reviewing the Preprint of Dr. Berry’s paper, Dr. Richard Courtney wrote that Berry’s paper:

“… quantifies the anthropogenic and natural contributions to changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration without need for knowledge of rate constants for individual mechanisms. This is a breakthrough in understanding which [other authors] including myself all failed to make.”

The bottom line is, Joe, that your side’s whole climate house of cards has fallen. You have no scientific basis for your claims of a climate emergency or a climate crisis.

You have no legitimate basis to spend any taxpayer money to support your side’s climate hallucinations.

It is time to get America back to real science and to put an end to the enormously expensive climate fraud that has set back climate science research for almost two generations.


This is the conclusion of the climate debate between President Trump and former Vice President Biden. The audience has gone wild. Trump supporters are running around jumping and waving. Extra medical personnel with ambulances are taking care of Biden supporters who have collapsed.

All news networks have informed us that their talking heads will not do any post analysis on this historic debate. So anyone who wishes to comment on this debate my do so on Ed Berry’s website here: https://edberry.com/blog/climate/climate-politics/historic-climate-debate-between-trump-and-biden/


  1. All well and good, Ed, but Trump’s replies are far too detailed for a Presidential debate. Short and simple is as far as he could go if he wants people to understand. The arguments you present are ones which should have been promulgated by others well before these debates.

    1. Dear David,

      I agree. But if I made the arguments shorter here, then people would not understand them. My goal here is to tell people a little more than they need to know. It is easy to make these arguments simpler and to fit the particular discussion or debate.

  2. Dear Dr Berry,
    Good reading, but not good enough for a debate. You have alloted much more time to Trump than to Biden. I understand, that the arguments of Trump need to be longer for people to understand them.

    However, I have participated in several debates on nuclear power, and the moderator would always provide the same amount of time to the attackers – anti nuclear people – and to the pro nuclear explanations. Now, you can make a statement “nuclear means more cancer deaths ‘ in 10 seconds, but an answer will require minutes to be convincing.

    Biden will have an easy task claiming support of IPCC and thousands of media articles, while Trump will have to show that Dr Ed Berry knows better than IPCC. It is not easy.

    So please try to shorten you statements that Trump could make. And skip all drawings – Trump will not have them at his disposal. Then we shall be able to judge who is the winner.
    But in any case – congratulations for writing this comprehensive and excellent draft.


    1. Dear Andrzej,

      You are absolutely correct. Thank you for your comment. For my book version, now in process, I will shorten Trump’s remarks significantly and put all the explanations and figures in my following chapters.

      Then I will update this post to be like my book version.

  3. The audience knows fear very well so we need to show the fears that have not happened to any extent. Sea level near constant rise. Temperature rising as it should since an ice age. Weather swings as it has for eons. Rain shifts around the world as it has done in the past mainly as a result to wind velocity changes on various cycles of ten to 100+ years. There is probably more to learn that we now know, however, the influence of the sun , other stars, and the planets are becoming more apparent.
    Take the observations and publication of scientist that have been retired and away from political and financial pressures to come to your conclusions. As Einstien said it takes only one man to prove me wrong!

  4. Excellent draft, but you left out Biden calling Trump a climate denier. This, along with the consensus argument seems to be all most of the alarmists use. Good idea to shorten Trumps answers.

    Can you let us know from where you got the drawing of leaf stomata ?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

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