Climate Miracle

In the USA, about 10 percent of Republicans are about to vote Democrat to save the planet from climate change. 

Climate Miracle will bring back those Republican votes. 

If President Trump gets the Climate Miracle message soon enough, I guarantee he and other Republicans will win their elections. 

Climate Miracle is more about how to think than about science. 

Climate Miracle is the cheapest insurance Republicans can buy to assure they win in their Presidential and Congressional elections.

Get your copy now. Available in Kindle and Paperback.

Go to the same link to add your “Customer Review” for Climate Miracle.

Use the Book menu above to read the Enthusiastic Endorsements, Foreword, Table of Contents, References, and Acknowledgements.

45 Comments

  1. Quick and consise read. Enjoyed it. Good info that I sort of knew but couldn’t explain it like you did. Thanks.

  2. Great Dr Ed. I think it would be useful to also have a more “politically neutral” version making no reference to the Trump vs Biden debate. Here in Europe media are presenting Trump as a sort of devil. Therefore readers may think this is more a political thing than a scientific debate. We should keep it strictly science based rather than politics based. Anyway great job indeed !

  3. A lone, self-funded scientist in a small Montana town does research that bright high schoolers can duplicate, proving the carbon cycle is a massive fact of nature and we humans are a tiny part of that natural pattern.

    Long term, our earth’s climate has not been stable for the last 2.5 million years. Before that, we had 2.5 million years of climate stability. I wish The good doctor had discussed if we want to return to the warmer stability of the past or remain in our era of cold instability. He doesn’t. But he does effectively show that, with our current technology, we are along for the ride and it is only human hubris to think we are more important than we are.

  4. Dr. Ed Berry is a great American climate physicist, educator, and citizen. Everything he does, he does well. His October 2020 book, “Climate Miracle” starts out with a great title and photo of the sky, land and water in Montana. This book addresses climate science, scientific errors and sinister intentions of the United Nations and their Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the Scientific Method versus Religion, how the man-made global warming myth was born, and straight-forward conclusions. Most important is to understand that man-made climate change alarmism intends to deny people access to fossil fuels and all their benefits. It is also to establish a one-world dictatorship government that will impoverish billions of people. Everyone should read this book and educate their elected officials.

  5. Your effort in publishing data concerning matters that many of us believe but don’t have the credibility to publish is most welcome! Good luck! Will promote your book widely.

  6. With only a BS degree, and being more in tune with public/media/education relations than hard-core academic facts, the fundamental chemistry of C02 convinces me that our earth’s atmosphere does not and cannot distinguish between natural or human-expelled C02; it’s all the same chemical wherever you find it.

    Consequently, it is sobering, scientifically and spiritually, to realize that our intelligently-designed atmosphere has a built-in method for balancing C02 to the levels both needed and tolerable for earth’s living organisms, just as it has been since “the beginning.”

    It is equally impressive that all things in nature verify their intelligent design, and reject the absurd pseudo-theories of Big Bang, evolution, mutations, survival of the fittest and the fraudulent Geologic Time Table, with its equally-fraudulent carbon dating and fossil formations, climaxing with the scandalously exposed Smithsonian’s pre-man bust sequences.

  7. A very well reasoned document. You get over the point that there needs to be solid evidence to back up a guess. The climate models are a joke. I would like to make the point that CO2 is only 1 molecule in 2500. Consider this brave (May 12th, 2012) admission by German Physicist and meteorologist Klaus-Eckart Plus: ‘’Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data—first I started with a sense of doubt but then I became outraged, when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense, and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements. To this day I still feel shame that as a scientist, I made presentations of their science without first checking it. …scientifically it is sheer absurdity to think we can get a nice climate by turning a CO2 adjustment knob”.
    Congratulations, and best of luck on Amazon.

  8. Thank you Dr. Berry for writing this book on climate. It takes one of the monumental confusions of our day and puts in terms we can all understand.
    It gives us hope at a space in time when climate alarmists bring us none.

  9. It’s so interesting that the same theme is used both in the promotion of the ‘climate change’ fraud and also presently in the COVID-19 situation, and that same theme can be summed up in one word: ‘FEAR’! Fear is the ingredient that has influenced politics going way back in human history where someone who is intent on mastery influences the generally-unthinking masses to follow their lead. (And there are several classic examples of this in the 20th Century – Adolf and Josef come to mind! – and look where that got us all.

    Ed, well done with your basic explanations of physics, and the idea of a ‘debate’ is a good one.

    It is so difficult to communicate with most people because as soon as a subject becomes even slightly technical eyes glaze over and the average attention span of about ten seconds cuts in. So the more humour, the better. (Note correct spelling of ‘humour’ – we spell correctly in Australia!)

    Just a thought: In order to make this all the more attractive to many non-technical, non-scientifically-minded people, perhaps an appropriate cartoon to epitomise (Note correct spelling of ‘epitomise’!) each chapter might be a good idea. E.g.: Wild claims about ‘wildfires’ (they’re ‘bushfires’ in Australia, but what’s in a name?) could be made humourous (Note correct spelling!) with a cartoon – this one from ‘The Australian’ newspaper could be an example:

    (Oops! I can’t post it – send me an email address and I’ll send to to you” michaelspencer2@bigpond.com)

    So, all the very best with this book. Anything that helps to get basic truths through to people deserves support.

    P.S. I’ve spent more than a decade amusing myself by assembling a number of interactive bits of software about the climate fraud: a PowerPoint and three PDFs and I will certainly link your book in. One never knows what particular thing might penetrate the effects of the massive propaganda campaign that’s been waged against civilisation (Note correct spelling!) for years …..

  10. Dr. Berry,
    The seventh section is most enlightening on the creation of the political movement, and it exposes the underlying intent of the sham.
    Thank you

  11. Ed:

    Fantastic work. Please find my testimonial, if you wish to include it. Thanks for inviting me.

    Testimonial for Climate Miracle

    Ed Berry has performed an extraordinary service to the climate community, science in general, America, and the world by identifying the underlying errors the IPCC has made in it’s fraudulent claim that human-caused climate change is an existential threat to life on this planet.
    Climate Miracle is a popular treatise on the deceptive use of science, so called, to bring about political change in a world fearful of an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide. The title of his book highlights one critical error the climate alarmists themselves don’t realize – the presence of a supernatural agent required to separate natural carbon dioxide molecules from human-created molecules in the atmosphere needed in their theory.
    Without this ficticious agent that Berry calls a demon, the IPCC calculations are just so much gibberish. James Clerk Maxwell in 1867 suggested a similar such demon to refute the idea in thermodynamics that a perpetual motion machine was possible. With similar logic Berry refutes the IPCC prediction that catastrophic climate change is imminent if such a demon isn’t present.
    Berry has done his homework using theoretical and data-based analyses to demonstrate the fallacies and the shear lack of proper scientific protocol used in their reports on global climate change to be published in peer-reviewed journals elsewhere. This book is a well-written attempt to summarize the conclusions and consequences of misusing the scientific method for frightening the public into submission to an authoritarian political agenda.

    Larry Vardiman, PhD
    Colorado State University
    Cloud Physicist
    Paleoclimatologist

  12. Ed, I’ve followed your development of the physics you used to show the flawed assumptions made about atmospheric CO2 from the IPCC that attribute all of it to human emissions. The development of your arguments have been nothing less than phenomenal to their conclusion that now include all of the carbon reservoirs on the earth.

    This book is a beautiful summary of these developments and should be read by all to avoid the disastrous public policy mistakes that climate hysterics are making and want to force upon the public due to the flawed science that is being used by the IPCC.

    Congratulations on your efforts and hard work, Ed. I hope this book heads for a best seller category to properly educate the citizens of this country about climate and the true non problem human CO2 emissions really are to it and richly rewards you for your efforts to publish sound science.

  13. Dear Ed,

    I like your book but for one exception.

    I fully understand your desire to emphasise the political motivations of climate alarmists, but those motivations exist across the entire political spectrum. I note that on its page 34 your text quotes a socialist ( i.e. me) in support of your excellent scientific analysis. And do you really think e.g. the climate-alarmist Boris Johnson (who is the UK’s Conservative Party Leader and Prime Minister) is a socialist ?!

    Your book’s Introduction clearly – and repeatedly – states your anti-socialist views and there is no need to belabour those views throughout its text. This is especially true because the Introduction follows those views by declaring about the purpose of your book,
    “This is not a treatise on climate science. I don’t want to waste your time. This book shows why the alarmists’ claim that human CO2 emissions cause dangerous climate change is a lie and a fraud.”

    So, you say the purpose of your book is to explain what you say “is a lie and a fraud”. Socialists are likely to be deterred from accepting your explanation by calling those who share your scientific conclusions (which I strongly support) “Wisdom Wally” and those who oppose your conclusions “Socialist Sam”. Therefore, I suggest the two imaginary representatives be called “Wisdom Wally” and “Silly Sam”.

    I hope this is helpful.

    Richard

    1. Dear Richard,
      Thank you very much for your comment. You are correct, my book is not against socialism itself. My book is against those who promote the UN IPCC environmental agenda, which just happens to be the socialists in America. So, I need to change the relevant parts of my book to make this clear.

      As before, I will enlist the opinions of the readers on my ideas. Here are some names that associate with the UN IPCC agenda:

      Environmentalist Sam, Sustainable Sam, Alarmist Al, Green Greta, Globalist Gates, Globalist Gore, Gullible Gates, Gullible Gore.

      This is not science, so votes count.

      In the interim, I updated Socialist Sam to Gullible Gore, and changed socialist to globalist everywhere.

  14. I don’t think using Trump / Biden as the vehicle to get this message across is the most effective, the polarisation in the US political environment will turn supporters of either away on seeing those toxic names … it might be better if it were a court room scenario with Prosecuting Lawyer and Defendants with the clear logic you bring to the discourse

  15. This is clear, logical and easy to understand. I would give this book to anyone who is worried about the climate scam. My only reservation is that most of the people I know who believe in human caused climate change are so indoctrinated that they would not be willing to read it. I particularly appreciated the warning in the last chapter about the slow encroachment of communism in the take over of our institutions.

  16. This is my humble opinion, as a non-scientist.

    To use language to express ourselves requires an understanding of the words we use. There exists a confusion and fear, which I suspect to some degree has been cultivated and is at the core of the conflict that exists when we talk about certain aspects of nature such as climate.

    We must understand the difference between science, truth, belief and trust. Where science is the search for truth, that which we cannot prove is open to belief, which in turn requires trust. Theories and hypotheses are the mechanism we use to move towards truth, they are not the truth and must be open to scrutiny and accountability by science.

    A layman such as me has to trust. When scientists call theory ‘settled science’ or call a hypothesis ‘the truth’ and then restrict debate, then trust is lost. When trust in science is lost, the science is already corrupted and the means to cast light on our journey into understanding is dulled or lost.

    If people can put aside their differences and understand the meanings of these words then the journey can continue and science can fulfill its meaning free from political and financial corruption.

    I cannot fault your book Dr Ed Berry but wanted to thank you for your tenacity and courage.

  17. A big fear that climate scaremongerers like to talk about is sea-level rise due to the melting polar ice caps. They like to use the picture of that emaciated polar bear to tug at our heartstrings. You could add a chapter discussing Arctic and Antarctic ice, the differences between the two, the effects of their respective melting, and the causes of their recession or thickening.

  18. Your book is excellent. Since it is directed largely at the scientifically-challenged among us, I recommend adding an argument that I have used which is not scientific at all but just common sense, an approach is very effective for those without scientific background:

    If the people urging laws to reduce CO2 really think the situation is so desperate, why is the only solution they are promoting one that even they themselves agree will only reduce world temperatures by .02 degrees in 50 years? (A fact most people are unaware of, since it is carefully ignored in mainstream media.

    You could show the math and list the authorities who have admitted to the .02 degrees figure.) Why don’t they urge other solutions easily implemented right now, such as not rebuilding on flooded lands and restricting further development along ocean shores, solutions that would be effective whether global warming is happening or not?

    And why are they silent about the immanent issue (within 20 years) of future recycling for the millions of solar panels and wind turbines they want to blanket across our land, equipment made of highly poisonous “rare earth” materials?

  19. Carbon dioxide is not the only greenhouse gas. Climate alarmists like to talk about the methane from cow flatulence, and they have devised interesting ways to try to control it. Water vapor is also a greenhouse gas, but it receives very little attention. I can understand your wanting to keep the discussion simple and on-track by limiting it to carbon dioxide. You should also mention that carbon dioxide emissions are easy to calculate, easy to measure, and therefore easy to tax.

  20. Climate alarmists like to point to hurricanes and wildfires as evidence that climate change has gotten out of control. You may want to add a chapter on this because it’s talked about every time there’s another storm or fire. Without getting into a treatise on the thermodynamics of cyclonic storm formation, you could probably explain this concisely as a physicist. Western wildfires can be explained easily by discussing forest mismanagement.

  21. Chapter 8 would be a good place to talk about failed predictions. I first became aware of the possible disastrous effects of global warming when I studied radiative heat transfer during the late 1970s. I began closely following the political aspect of this in the early 1990s. According to the climate scaremongerers, we should be all dead by now.

  22. This may be expanding the scope a little, but a big determinant of the Earth’s climate is solar activity. A physicist is best able to explain the effect of sunspots. Big changes in solar activity may dwarf the effects of our carbon emissions. Volcanic activity is also an influencer.
    Overall, I like this book. In particular, it puts the carbon dioxide aspect of the IPCC proclamations in perspective. Thank you.

    1. Robert Bugiada,

      I would not wish Ed Berry to dilute his clear message with addition of too many side points.

      You make the valid case for effects of solar behaviour on climate. But there are many effects on climate – both known and unknown – and some are measured to be more powerful than alterations to atmospheric CO2 concentration. For example, cloud effects are measured to have greater effect than changes to the CO2 in the air.

      Clouds reflect solar heat and so prevent that reflected heat from reaching the Earth’s surface (as every sunbather has noticed when a cloud passed in front of the Sun). A mere 2% increase to cloud cover would more than compensate for the maximum possible predicted warming due to a doubling of carbon dioxide in the air. Good records of cloud cover are very short because cloud cover is measured by satellites that were not launched until the mid 1980s. But it appears that cloudiness decreased markedly between the mid 1980s and late 1990s so over that short period (~15 years) the Earth’s reflectivity decreased to the extent that if there were a constant solar irradiance then the reduced cloudiness provided an extra surface warming of 5 to 10 W/sq metre. This is a lot of warming: it is between two and four times the entire warming estimated to have been caused by the build-up of human-caused greenhouse gases in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution. (The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, says that since the industrial revolution, the build-up of human-caused greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has had a warming effect of only 2.4 W/sq metre).

      Ed says his book is not intended to be a scientific treatise but intends to inform that climate alarmism is “a lie and a fraud”. In my opinion the book does that, and I think its clear message would be diluted by discussions of solar effects, cloud effects and etc. But it is his book so it is up to him to decide if he prefers your or my opinion.

      Richard

      1. Dear Richard,
        Thank you. You are correct (as always). I purposely omitted discussion of the solar effects, as interesting as they are, because if I cover too much of the science, I will lose some of my target audience. I may do a second book to address these subjects.

        However, what I may do in this book is to mention these subjects. I will think about that.

        Meanwhile, I am still on the fence about these optional names for the debate:
        Globalist Gates, Globalist Gore, Gullible Gates, Gullible Gore.

        I temporarily choose the last one. But the most important issue is whether our opponent is more of a globalist than a gullible. The globalists are leading the IPCC cause but the gullible folks are buying it. I am beginning to think I should focus on the globalists. After all, it was President GHW Bush (a Republican) who formally began the IPCC movement in the US. I think he was more globalist than gullible.

        Maybe I should use Globalist George.

  23. Dr. Berry,
    Your work is extremely important and enlightening. My Chemical engineering training helps me understand your material balances and I agree that your science is simple, profound and must be used to guide future policies responding to climate change. Especially, to avoid overusing natural gas for power generation and possibly causing the starvation of hundreds of millions of humans because natural gas is a critical driver of food production.
    I have studied climate data as a curious engineer and found that I disagree with two IPCC narratives.
    IPCC’s narrative is “observed seasonal variations of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are caused by vegetation seasonal growth and decay”. I believe that seasonal variations of carbon dioxide are better explained by “global/seasonal changes in absorption of atmospheric carbon dioxide by sea water.”
    IPCC’s narrative is that “non-GHG factors from human activity on earth’s surface is so small that these effects can be ignored in climate models”. I and Chinese climate scientists see data and logic that indicates “non-GHG factors may be a very large part of any recent warming trends”.
    Dr Berry’s conclusion that human carbon dioxide emissions is not an important driver of climate change is a game changer. My work/findings are of minor importance.
    All of these findings that invalidate IPCC’s narratives have something in common. They are ALL IGNORED (Not disputed!) by main stream climate scientists. You would think that IF they were WRONG, climate scientists would simply point out the errors in science, data and logic.
    I believe that the US should create a climate change commission made up of thinking engineers and scientists that have NO self interest in the climate change business/politics to evaluate important theories/work such as Dr. Berry’s that challenges IPCC narratives to make sure that future policies are based on sound science. I believe that relying solely on the IPCC narratives to guide US policy on climate change would be like relying solely on the W.H.O. for our response to the coronavirus.
    Ed Sebesta

    1. Ed Sebesta,

      I think you would like to read this item http://allaboutenergy.net/environment/item/2208-letter-to-senator-james-inhofe-about-relying-on-ipcc-richard-courtney-uk .

      It is my reply to a request to me for information on climate change from US Senator James Inhoffe, Chair of the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, that I provided in 2008. No information requiring any alteration to that letter has subsequently been found (but additional supporting evidence for its contents has been found). This demonstrates
      (a) there is stasis in climate science,
      and
      (b) there was no imminent climate crisis in 2008 and there is no reason to think such an imminent crisis has developed since then
      and
      (c) the IPCC promotes a cause by misrepresenting selected data.

      Richard

  24. You certainly have a large number of very intelligent people who are interested in the success of your book. Clearly respecting their inputs, no doubt your published work will be much improved, and I look forward to purchasing a copy. Aren’t you the originator of the phrase “It’s the Sun, stupid!”

  25. Ed,
    This is a wonderful book, technically correct, lucidly presented, and easily understood by all. It fills a great need to counter socialist environmental brainwashing the world is receiving from the mass media today. I will buy it from Amazon and give it to as many people as I can.
    Cecil Joe Tomlinson
    Retired Boeing Senior Principle Engineer

  26. Thanks Dr Ed, your logic and simplicity in explaining such complex matters are outstanding. Thanks for debunking lies and pseudoscience of bureaucrats and fake scientists.
    Time for truth & honesty to take the lead in climate science !
    Max Polo
    Technical Manager, Energy Division, Cimolai SpA – Italy

  27. Dear Dr. Ed,
    I would like to suggest that you replace “Wisdom Wally” with “Wisdom Walter” or any other name (Willie, Winston . . . etc.). On this side of the pond it is common practice to refer to someone you consider an idiot as a “Wally.”

    Concerning carbon dioxide, I wonder whether the concept of dynamic equilibrium of CO2 between the atmosphere and oceans (controlled by ocean temperature), would be a simple, concise description of the determination of the atmospheric CO2 level. i.e. a negative feedback mechanism to dampen any changes.

    Congratulations and best wishes with your brilliant book.

    David Whitmore
    Waterlooville UK.

  28. I have known Ed (Dr. Berry) for more than a decade and have found him to be one of the more informed individuals on climate cause and effect than anyone I have come in contact with. His straightforward, non-nonsense approach has always been a breath of fresh air in a world where political correctness permeates the very fabric of science instead of the logic and reasoning is deserves. Another well laid out publication that should be well received in the community of his peers. Bravo!!

  29. Dear Dr. Berry,
    Your Figure 3.1 is excellent. I know a similar graph, but bad:
    https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-amount-of-carbon-dioxide-in-the-atmosphere-raspberry-line-has-increased-along-with_fig2_344122716
    There’s “Annual CO2 emission” and that’s the scam. Because you have “Sum of human CO2 emissions” there and that’s right, because “CO2 Level Data” are “Sum” too.
    You could also put this wrong graph there so that people can see how some scientists work falsely.
    Paul Dudr

  30. A guy I know presented me with the following argument and I would appreciate your thoughts on it since I didn’t know how to answer it:
    “Some natural CO2 is the same as fossil CO2 that we get from burning fossil fuel with depleted 14C. But most natural CO2 is like the air we exhale, with CO2 containing the ambient amount of 14C. So biogenic CO2 is not identical to fossil CO2. “

    1. Dear Don,
      The guy must have an environmental alarmists education because he does not know chemistry.
      Carbon 14 is about 1 atom in 10^12 atoms in the atmosphere. It is a good tracer. But it does not change the CO2 molecules composed of 12C.
      Human 12CO2 is identical to natural 12CO2.

  31. Again, this is an excellent read with pure and concise data. Climate science has always been about globalization and the New World Order, hopefully when the word gets out this nonsense can be put to rest.

  32. I received and read the paperback version of Climate Miracle. It is a great addition to the literature about fossil fuels and man-made global warming.

    Chapter 1 – Globalist Gore (that is a very kind description of him) and Wisdom Will with comments by the Moderator. It is a great and entertaining story that tells a lot. Chapters 2 through 8 – cover the other major topics without getting lost in details.

    Those who refuse to accept Ed Berry’s well thought out reasoning will reject this book, notably scientists who have a firm, closed conviction and the public with content closed minds. They will demand wind and solar energy (wrong energy source) or nuclear power (right energy source but it will not be implemented worldwide any time soon). Fossil fuels will be the predominant energy source for the next hundred years and longer. Appreciate it.

    Thanks to physicist Ed Berry for writing this very informative book at a level the public will find memorable.

    John Shanahan
    http://www.allaboutenergy.net
    Civil Engineer

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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