Ed Berry, PhD, Theoretical Physics, CCM
Montana’s elected Republicans rearrange their deck chairs unaware their Titanic is about to hit an iceberg.
Montana’s Republicans are about to lose the Held v Montana (HvM) climate lawsuit when its trial begins on June 12.
Our Childrens’ Trust filed HvM and similar climate lawsuits in several states. They won in Hawaii and Montana is using the same dumb defense as Hawaii.
Since Montana elected a Republican Governor and Attorney General, Montana has been on a losing streak in climate lawsuits. A Montana judge cancelled the air quality permit for a natural gas powerplant. This was easily winnable, but Montana lost.
Montana lost Montana v Haaland that stopped the Signal Peak Energy plan to mine coal. Senator Steve Daines and Congressmen Matt Rosendale and Ryan Zinke wrote a letter requesting the Department of Interior to appeal the ruling. But an appeal won’t help unless Montana starts using the best science arguments in climate lawsuits. This was easily winnable, but Montana lost.
When Montana loses HvM, Montana’s energy policy and MEPA climate change exceptions will become unconstitutional, and Democrats will control Montana’s mining, energy production, economy, and education.
In 2011, on my own dime, I defeated HvM when it was a petition in Montana’s Supreme Court (MSC), saving Montana billions of dollars per year, and setting a legal precedent that “climate science is not settled.”
Our AG did not use this MSC precedent to dismiss HvM or to put the burden of proof on the plaintiffs.
He did not use OCT’s reason to petition MSC, which was that a climate disaster would occur before they could stop it if they began in a district court. Now, 12 years later, there has been no climate disaster. The scientific method says if your prediction is wrong, your theory is wrong.
Our AG is asleep at the switch. He does not freaking know how to win a climate lawsuit and he refuses to learn.
Montana’s Governor and AG have purposefully, deceitfully, and immorally rejected leading edge, peer-reviewed, published climate science that defines climate truth and would guarantee Montana wins HvM and other climate lawsuits.
Montana Radical Rights censored former Governor Racicot in the open. They censored me in secret, without giving me a fair trial or my right to know my censors and respond to their charges. They reject truth. They are today’s Pharisees.
Education is critical because HvM will legally define “climate truth” to be climate fiction that will turn all Montana’s kids into climate zombies.
A critical part of climate truth is “Nature, not human emissions, has caused the CO2 increase.” This fact will, like Toto, pull back the curtain on the big climate deception, and save America and the world.
Our Montana AG and Governor are immoral to censor this critical proof.
I am the only scientist who can present this proof in court. My published papers support this proof. My 2023 paper demolishes the argument by a U of Montana physics professor who tried to prove me wrong. My proof alone is sufficient to win HvM because MSC judges will agree with my proofs.
Richard Courtney, a UK climate scientist, wrote to the large climate science email group, “I consider Berry’s analysis to be the only breakthrough in climate science in the last four decades.”
On April 14, 2022, an ethical climate scientist returned, with a copy to me, our AG’s invitation to him to be an HvM expert witness. He wrote, “The guy you want is Ed Berry, who lives in Big Fork, Montana. Ed knows at least as much as I do, and he has written several scientific papers pertaining to the way CO2 behaves in the atmosphere, the biosphere, and the Ocean.”
No invitation came from our AG, but I followed up and helped Assistant AG Timothy Longfield in May 2022. He liked my help and had me write a BIO to be on his team. However, our AG abruptly cut off Longfield’s communications with me on June 3, 2022, after, I believe, he received a phone call from his puppet master. I mentioned HvM to the wrong person at the Pachyderm Club meeting that Friday.
So, Montana is losing its climate lawsuits because someone is controlling our Governor and AG. Why?
Our AG has censored me, will not pay me, will not allow me to fairly compete for state contracts, and stiffed payment of my invoice for my work done at Longfield’s requests. Emily Jones, the AG’s contract assistant, said she is blocked from paying me.
Our Governor is a named defendant of HvM. He can do his own defense in parallel with the AG’s defense. He can defeat HvM if he acts very quickly. But he has refused because somebody is pulling his strings.
By their works we shall know them. Those who censor me oppose climate truth. They are against your freedom.
They will reap what they sow. They are hurting you, Montana, and America.
I am Maverick. If you want to save Montana and America, let me fly.
How to win Held v Montana
At the Pachyderm meeting on March 3, 2023, I talked to AG Knudsen. He said he would like to talk to me about Held v Montana. On March 7, I sent him this outline for talking points. He never contacted me. So, he lied to me.
AG Knudsen’s rejection of my help forces me to reveal my game plan to all readers.
For discussion by AG Austin Knudsen and Dr. Ed Berry
- Shift burden of proof to plaintiffs
- In 2011, the Montana Supreme Court ruled that climate science is not sufficiently settled to support the HvM Plaintiffs’ claims.
- In 2011, the plaintiffs said they petitioned MSC directly because dangerous climate change would happen before they get from a district court to the supreme court.
- Science says if their prediction was wrong, their science is wrong.
- Prove the plaintiffs’ three key theories are false. These theories are:
- Human CO2 causes the CO2 increase since 1750, or above 280 ppm.
- This CO2 increase causes global warming.
- This global warming causes bad stuff to happen.
- All Plaintiffs’ arguments are based on their “bad stuff” claims.
- With few exceptions, we won’t waste our time challenging their “bad stuff” claims.
- We will focus on their unmentioned cause theories, their Achilles heel.
- Ask every plaintiff expert the basis of their claims. E.g.:
- Ask them if they agree with the three theories above.
- “How does human CO2 cause your bad stuff to happen?”
- “Do you agree if CO2 does not cause your bad stuff, then you have no case?”
- “If you are not an expert in the cause of your bad stuff, who is?”
- If an expert says events prove their cause, we will destroy that expert.
- Each plaintiff expert will point to Steve Running as their cause expert.
- Now we can focus on Steve Running.
- A well-prepared trial attorney can shred Steve Running in court.
- We begin by getting his explanations on why Theories (1,2,3) are true.
- We may ask him if he agrees with UM physicist Dave Andrews on Theory (1).
- Then our experts will show why Theories (1,2,3) are false and Running is wrong.
- Then, it’s back to Steve Running to prove our experts are wrong, which he can’t do.
- Plaintiffs must defend all three theories. We need only to prove one theory is wrong.
- Plaintiffs’ attorneys and experts are not prepared to debate the three key theories.
- They have spent all their time working to prove their bad stuff is bad.
- They simply assume events prove their cause, which is invalid.
- You need me to select and train our experts to prove the three theories are false.
- No one else knows how to do this.
- I will train our experts via Zoom like a coach trains his football team. We must be prepared to make our best case and never contradict each other.
- We need our key experts to be in court to hear plaintiffs’ claims and advise your defense attorney on how to respond to plaintiffs’ claims.
- Howard Hayden, a friend of mine, is correct in his physics but we must show how his testimony proves Theory (2) is wrong. Otherwise, the MSC won’t get the point.
- I am the world expert to prove Theory (1) is false.
- I know the best experts to prove Theory (2) is false (it includes Hayden).
- I know the best experts to prove Theory (3) is false.
- Plaintiffs will claim most scientists agree with them and they have more published papers.
- Votes do not count in science, and we have proved Theories (1,2,3) are false.
- Proof that a theory is false defeats all claims that a theory is true.
- We must define “climate science truth” to mean Theories (1,2,3) are false.
- When we win, our definition will change the future of education, energy, and economy in Montana and America.
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.
Mr Salby and Mr Berry are right. That’s it.
Very interesting paper by Mr Peter Stallinga regarding residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere. Please, read:
Thank you for bringing our attention to the paper by Stallinga. While his paper has a much more complicated argument than my papers use, his paper nevertheless finds the same overall conclusions as my papers do, e.g., that nature causes at least 80% of the CO2 increase above 280 ppm.
My suggestions to Stallinga would be to read my three papers, beginning with Berry (2019) that explains the difference between residence time and adjustment time, and turnover time (which is my e-time). Note especially Figure 14 of Berry (2019) that illustrates the difference between residence time and adjustment time.
The IPCC uses adjustment time when a quantity is far from its balance level and residence time when a quantity is close to its balance level. Whereas e-time accurately covers the full range.
Only my papers develop a physics model that defines balance levels and replicates IPCC’s natural carbon cycle. Had Stallinga used my model and its balance levels, he would have greatly simplified his argument. Nevertheless, I welcome his paper because he used a different way than I did to come to the same general conclusions.
As DMA noticed today, comments were gone. I checked and found that every comment in the history of my site were gone. So, I had to do a restore to the backup two days ago to recover all comments on my site.
However, two days ago removed some comments on this post.
Here are the missing comments:
Stephen P. Anderson:
Dr. Berry, I’ve never seen you speak much about Theories (2) and (3)
Hi Stephen, Theory (1) is my niche. I know people who can do (2) and (3) better than I can.
I decided to focus on (1) because few understand it, I can prove it in a lawsuit, and it affects the human component of (2) and (3).
I like your plan and intention to get Howard on the team. I agree his latest analysis shows models do not apply standard physics to come up with their expected warming, as it would require about 5 times the forcing they think is available.
I agree with you Dr. Ed. Theory (1) is your niche. However, I disagree that there are others who can do (2) and (3) better than you (once you put your mind to them).
On April 9, 2023, I had contacted our governor Greg Gianforte concerning State District Judge, Michael Moses who was responsible for vacating the air permit due to “climate change” for NorthWestern Energy’s $275 million gas fired Laurel Power Plant.
Judge Michael Moses is retiring on June 1st of this year and is part of the deep state that’s destroying the United States through their unlawful and unconstitutional acts.
I requested that Governor Greg Gianforte reinstate this permit as it has nothing to do with “climate change” and everything to do with a “tyrannical government” who will do anything to destroy this nation.
I also let him know the citizenry of Montana were becoming fed up with what’s happening in this nation and in this State and they will have hell to pay if it doesn’t stop.
I then gave him your information which should be transferred to NorthWestern Energy to stop these tyrants. Not sure how far this will go but I write to him, our Congress, and Senate constantly when I see something that needs attention within our State.
if Governor Gianforte really wanted to win all the climate-related lawsuits and decisions, all he needs to do is to let me prove to the judge that nature, not human CO2, causes the CO2 increase. I can prove that easily.
So, his refusal to do that simple thing means he is bought and paid for by someone who does not want that to happen.
I wonder if the Governor and Attorney General believe the climate change hoax? Or are they simply politicians catering to the most votes? I moved to Idaho a few years ago and am out of the loop on what motivates the current administration in Montana. Is there another avenue for you to testify other than as a State of Montana witness?
Given their political orientation, our Governor and AG believe climate change is a hoax. They don’t understand anything about the science that proves this is true.
Lawsuits are not like political bills. No one gets to testify in a lawsuit unless the plaintiff or defense asks them to testify.
However, by their works we shall know them. By censoring me, they are helping the Democrats win climate lawsuits.
The real question is why would they want to censor me since they know I would help defeat the lawsuit?
Who do they owe what?
I think they owe their puppet master for his inside help in getting them elected. Maybe he helped manufacture the votes that helped elect them. But it is very clear to me that our Governor and AG are puppets of a puppet master who wants to harm me. They are his toadies.
Sounds like your governor and AG are cut from the same cloth as Wyoming’s Liz Cheney. They may be “Republican” in name only but they’re just political whores. Find out who their financial backers are and who is filling their personal bank accounts and you have the answer as to why these traitors have betrayed the citizens of Montana……
I have researched Regina’s climate history going back to 1884. What we see is that we in South Sask. are having somewhat warmer winters and slightly cooler summers. Co2 has increased by about 50% in the past 170 years or so. That can easily be explained. Co2 comprises ONLY 1/24th of our atmosphere and methane is ONLY 1.8 parts per million. Both these amounts are MUCH too small to have any significant influence on our climate or weather. e.g. Historically July is our hottest month. Since Jan.1, 1950 we have had only 3 record highs after 1949 and 28 record highs before 1950. And i can go on and on with similar data supporting the idea that we are having somewhat warmer winters and slightly cooler summers. The supposition that co2 and methane are causing significant climate change in the world is indeed the HOAX of the 21st century. What is having some influence on our weather is the fact that the earth’s orbit is elliptical not circular and varies by about 3 million million miles (91.5-94.5) We , in the northern hemisphere, are closest to the sun in Jan. which gives us somewhat warmer winters. We are furthest away from the sun in July which gives us slightly cooler summers. The opposite is true for the southern hemisphere. I have searched the internet but cannot find one single person who deals with this significant variable. Flooding?? The single greatest cause of flooding in our rivers is the fact that farmers have been draining their lowlands and sloughs for many years. Water that used to remain on the fields now rushes to the lowlands and causes very significant flooding. I’ve seen it all with my own eyes on our farms in the Regina area. Amen. Joe.
As you know, I am not an American but I am a Brit who is supportive of America, and I have sincere desire for our two countries to maintain their differences. One reason for my liking of our differences is ability for us to learn from each other’s experiences.
As you may know, I recently requested information from members of GWR about using the law to protect from extreme propaganda of ‘climate alarmists’ in the USA. The conclusion seemed to be that our two countries have such different ‘separation’ of government powers that little can be learned of use to one of our countries by study of the other.
This conclusion was a disappointment to me because I am in the UK where ‘climate alarmists’ have usurped much of the news media notably the BBC. The alarmists achieved this control of the mass media by gaining involvement of political parties who applied – and apply – pressure to induce news media to support ‘climate alarmism’.
Fortunately, the British legal systems have been independent of the political control. This is demonstrated by the legal systems’ protection of our education systems which
(a) requires our education systems to explain political ideas to students
(b) prohibits our education systems from promoting political ideas.
Hence, for example, the English Supreme Court decreed that any school which showed Al Gore’s science fiction movie must accompany it with (i) a statement that the movie is political propaganda and (ii) explanation of several errors of fact in the movie.
But there was no demur from opinion that the opposite is true in the USA where the legal system is politically usurped but the press provides protection from the alarmists’ propaganda.
So, Ed, I would welcome any comments from you and your followers about the possibility and the value of seeking opposition to the alarmists in American courts.
I was wondering if there was a way you could join the lawsuit as a third party, or cross-claim? I’m not a lawyer or scientist but I think someone has to stand up for the tax payers when the government fails to do it’s job. Since you have been to court before, I figured you already know the answers about what you can and can not do. I was reading through Counterclaims, Cross-Claims, and Third-Party Complaints to see if there was any way you could give your information to the Court.
We need more scientist like you willing to speak the truth.
Hi Ed, sorry to hear the direction taken by Montana political leaders. It seems they are unwilling, perhaps lacking confidence to engage the scientific fallacies basing climate alarm. But it is also the case that by surrendering to alarmist claims and lawfare, they are putting themselves at odds with national Republican party leadership, and voter majorities.
They should reconsider their priorities in light of H.R.1, just passed by the House of Representatives. It’s entitled the Lower Energy Costs Act and embraces Republican Party energy plans and policies. An overview is provided at Speaker McCarthy’s website https://www.speaker.gov/hr1/, along with some explanatory news articles. The bill in its entirety is here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/1/text.
This energy policy is also a winner with the voting public, base on a recent survey, which I summarized here:
There was one (only?) time a Judge allowed a court to consider climate science, relating to alarm about global warming. That was S.F. Judge Alsop who requested a climate tutorial in the lawsuit case filed by California cities against big oil companies. William Happer, Steven E. Koonin, and Richard S. Lindzen submitted their presentation in response to the Court’s questions. The links to originals documents appear to be broken, but I did post a synopsis of the 8 questions and the professors’ responses here:
Alsop utimately ruled against the plaintif cities in June 2018, dismissing their case. He wrote:
The US District Court for the Northern District of California has issued a ruling dismissing the climate change lawsuits filed against Chevron Corporation by the cities of San Francisco and Oakland. The court dismissed the complaint as requiring foreign and domestic policy decisions that are outside the proper purview of the courts.
As the court described, “the scope of plaintiffs’ theory is breathtaking. It would reach the sale of fossil fuels anywhere in the world, including all past and otherwise lawful sales.”
“It is true,” the court continued, “that carbon dioxide released from fossil fuels has caused (and will continue to cause) global warming. But against that negative, we must weigh this positive: our industrial revolution and the development of our modern world has literally been fuelled by oil and coal. Without these fuels, virtually all of our monumental progress would have been impossible. All of us have benefitted. Having reaped the benefit of that historic progress, would it really be fair to now ignore our own responsibility in the use of fossil fuels and place the blame for global warming on those who supplied what we demanded? Is it really fair, in light of those benefits, to say that the sale of fossil fuels was unreasonable?”
The court concluded by dismissing the claims and deferring to the policy judgments of the legislative and executive branches of the federal government: “The dangers raised in the complaints are very real. But those dangers are worldwide. Their causes are worldwide. The benefits of fossil fuels are worldwide. The problem deserves a solution on a more vast scale than can be supplied by a district judge or jury in a public nuisance case. While it remains true that our federal courts have authority to fashion common law remedies for claims based on global warming, courts must also respect and defer to the other co-equal branches of government when the problem at hand clearly deserves a solution best addressed by those branches.”
My previous comment has disappeared, so I will repeat it. The position of your Montana political leaders puts them at odds with national Republican Party energy priorities and policies. They should reconsider in light of H.R.1 Lower Energy Costs Act, recently passed by the House of Representatives. An overview of H.R. 1 is at Speaker McCarthy’s website along with links to some explanatory news articles:
The Lower Energy Costs Act is also a winner with the public, based on a recent survey, which I summarized here:
Thank you for your comments and important information.