by Edwin X Berry, PhD, Theoretical Physics, CCM
Ed Berry LLC, Bigfork, Montana
Please suggest ways to improve. Thanks, Ed
To read key referenced papers:
- CO2 Coalition paper
- Dia Ato paper
- Bernard Robbins paper
- Eike Roth paper
by Edwin X Berry, PhD, Theoretical Physics, CCM
Ed Berry LLC, Bigfork, Montana
Please suggest ways to improve. Thanks, Ed
To read key referenced papers:
Two quick suggestions, before getting to the content at a later time:
1. Make sure the cover page is labelled as “First Draft”, so that it will be easy to distinguish from subsequent versions.
2. Include in the Introduction a URL link to the document you are countering, so your readers can compare it side-by-side with your own paper as they read your arguments.
Thanks for all your good work!
Hi Peter,
Thank you very much. You can see that this draft includes your suggestions.
Ed
I could care less about sinks. The measurement of C14 is absolute. If the 50% increase in CO2 was man made, the C14 concentration should be 33% lower today than it was in 1800. Sinks do not matter.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspa.1958.0021
Has not been proven wrong. Pre hydrogen bomb the total CO2 emitted was 14% and it was measured at 2.03%+/-0.15%
Since then the atmopspheric testing of hydrogen bombs in 1965 doubled (atmospheric) C14. With a half life of 5740 years this has all gone in 2025. So all the CO2 from 1965 and before 1965 has gone.
And a perfect e-kt curve proves the Bern model is wrong . C14 cannot hide in 60 years, so there is only once place, the ocean. Dilution 50x.
As confirmation the current C14 level is now -2.03%+1/50 =0.0%.
https://i0.wp.com/eos.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/bomb-pulse-carbon-curve.png?w=1200&ssl=1
This is open and shut direct measurement. No models required.
(Not argument from coincidence from firn results in ice cores as used by Prof Happer)
The entire history of C14 from 1800 to 2025 is plain. And the horizontal asymptote at 0.0% dilution was expected.
As for C13, the dilution of -8 from the standard of -6 is only explained by ocean CO2 at -12 and not by fossil fuel CO2 at -24. I don’t like these indirect methods. Absolute measurement by radio(active) carbon dating is open and shut.
And the interesting result from Ferguson in 1958 is the question of whether the -2.03% was the static value has been settled. It is still -2.0% in 2025.
Another confirmation is the average age of sea water at -600years, debunking the attempt to argue a surface ocean. 600 years is very close to 50x the e-kt half life of 10 years as agreed in the 36 papers in table 1 of this recent document
https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/25/2/384#:~:text=The%20residence%20time%20in%20the,dioxide%20mass%20of%203403%20Gt.
In which he concludes
(1) The adjustment time is never larger than the residence time and is less than 5 years.
(2) The idea of the atmosphere being stable at 280 ppm in pre-industrial times is untenable.
(3) Nearly 90% of all anthropogenic carbon dioxide has already been removed from the atmosphere.
but I would correct (3) to 98%. Only this explains and perfectly explains the fact that C14 levels today are exactly what they were in 1800.
Matthew,
You are not distinguishing between atmospheric C14 measured as a ratio to C12 (“delta C14”), and atmospheric C14 concentration. The former has returned to near pre-bomb test values; the latter most certainly has not. See https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/193CDF1F705B269BC975AF178CEF1AC3/S0033822224000274a.pdf/discussion-presentation-of-atmospheric-14co2-data.pdf. You will be able to understand the detailed behavior of the two measures in Figure 1 (before bomb tests) and Figure 2 (after), only if you appreciate that when an isotopic gradient exists between two reservoirs that are exchanging carbon, the mixing tends to reduce the gradient and leads to a net transfer of C14 towards the reservoir with the lower delta C14 value. Nature is subtle. Even before the bomb tests, C14 free CO2 added to the atmosphere by fossil fuel burning ended up INCREASING the C14 concentration in the atmosphere by this mechanism! Of course, at the same time it lowered the delta C14 value.
Because of this mixing, the present composition of the atmosphere is an unreliable indicator of the source of the CO2 increase.
I met Will Happer in Melbourne and made these arguments. He did not counter them, except to refer to ice cores. When pressed he said his view that the CO2 increase was man made was ‘personal’.
I thought it was political, a debate technique of concession and onto this area of expertise, proving the increase was inconsequential, limited and entirely beneficial. All well made and true points.
So I was surprised when he supported an attempt to prove the CO2 was man made. This was rubbish. And a negative on his overall wonderful contribution with the CO2 coalition to argue the massive benefits of CO2.
Another point he misses is the NASA greening. That firstly the CO2 14% increase between 1988 and 2014 was not only related to tree coverage, it exactly matched it. What this means is that the entire cash grab based on legislated carbon credits is nonsense. More CO2 means more trees.
But it was a big effort to make his world tour promoting his excellent work. I was just disappointed that the conceded the idea that CO2 was man made when that is so easily proven untrue in an open and shut C14 measurement. I can only conclude that even good physicists do not understand radio carbon dating. Or they are too anxious to show off their own fields of expertise.
I met with him too at his Melbourne talk. I concur.
2 typos–Pg 4 1st paragraph, Pg16 2nd to last paragraph.
Thanks for continuing to defend and explain your work. Until others point out logic or math flaws in your work it has to be reckoned with. I think your explanation of equations A,B,C,D could stand some work. I think CO2C correctly state that change in atmospheric CO2 equals inflow(N)+Inflow(H) – outflow(total) but uses N instead of total because there are no human sinks. Their error is thinking of them as sources and sinks and not flows . There are 2 sources (N) and (H) but there is no sink (H) so they leave it out and get it wrong.
Dear DMA,
Thank you for your point that I must improve my explanation of ABCD, etc. I will do that in my next draft.
Meanwhile, please help me find the two typos you found. (My addition of the Table of Contents inserted about one new page, so page numbers changed.)
Ed
Sorry I can’t spot them again. You probably got them in your review.
All this is very interesting however;
I am an Applied Physicist not a Theoretical one, I suggest that a much simpler approach is needed to convince the non-science population.
To disprove that CO2 caused warming all you need to do is look at the Ice core data and ask one very simple question.
If CO2 causes warming why on all cycles prior to the present; does temperature drop when CO2 is at its highest at the top of each curve?
The answer is also very simple; temperature rise causes CO2 rise by the heating of the oceans, where most of the world’s CO2 is dissolved. If that is true then manmade CO2 emissions are irrelevant.
When the oceans heat they also give off water vapour which increases cloud cover and that causes the cooling cycle. As the cooling progresses cloud cover decreases and eventually that causes another heating cycle.
Also CO2 contributes an insignificant amount to the Green House effect as the mechanism of absorption of radiation is via Atomic absorption (not thermal) this energy is re radiated by the CO2 atom again in a random direction, unless there is water vapour present the scattered radiation is not absorbed as thermal energy.
“To disprove that CO2 caused warming all you need to do is look at the”- many papers documenting a reduction in clouds during the modern warm period. Three of those papers concluded that all of modern warming can be explained by the increase in solar energy reaching the surface and heating the oceans to depth. All sky down welling IR has trended down also. Some negative feedback is preventing the clear sky increase in CO2’s 15 micron band from producing an enhanced greenhouse effect.
The ice core record is clear proof that CO2 doesn’t correlate to temperature other than as lagging indicator. That it is always at peak values when global cooling begins is proof it doesn’t have enough juice to overcome natural variability.
You asked for input.
1. Don’t spend so much time on Einstein etc. Those who will ever believe that a negative disproves the theory don’t need this.
2. Make your point about the source of CO2 but a. it grows food b. warmth is good for humans c. we’re coming out of an ice age and d. adapting and preparing is more effective than trying to change the whole climate. Don’t give up on these points in your preamble. Otherwise, to use your track team analogy, it’s like a horse race team giving up a jockey because they thinkbthey have a winning horse.
Didn’t Einstein’s Relativity prove that only natural causes and effects influence reality? The German romantics and their successors are attempting to impose the dialectic on empirical science. Locke et al disproved magic as an influence on reality and virtue signalling has no basis in fact. Einstein’s physics is the basis of the peer review process but computer modelling has lowered the standard of proof drastically.
Sorry to sound Luddite but observational physics doesn’t depend on an audience or a consensus.
Abstract
Some folks at a group called the CO2 Coalition (2024) say that the extra carbon dioxide (CO2) in the air comes mostly from human activities, like burning fuel. They call this idea Hypothesis 1, or H(1), and claim they have proof it’s true. But their argument doesn’t hold up because they messed up their math on how carbon moves around in nature, ignored studies that show their idea is wrong, and didn’t follow the basic rules of science. They also used shaky evidence.
A lot of people, including the UN’s climate group and many scientists, agree with the CO2 Coalition that humans are the main cause of rising CO2. They’ve got data and big names backing them up. But science isn’t about who’s loudest or has the most support—it’s about testing ideas to see if they’re wrong. And there’s evidence out there that shows H(1) isn’t correct.
This matters because a group called Our Children’s Trust is fighting in court to challenge President Trump’s climate decisions. They’re using the idea that humans cause most CO2 to push their case. If you support Trump’s climate policies, it’s good to know why this human-caused CO2 idea might not be right, so everyone can be on the same page defending his choices.
Dear Dr Berry,
Thank you for the opportunity to read your draft paper “CO₂ Coalition’s Not-So-Golden Science.” Your rigorous derivation and challenge to Hypothesis H1 present a valuable and much-needed correction to prevailing carbon cycle narratives. In the spirit of strengthening your already compelling argument, I would like to offer the following suggestions for improvement:
1. Clarify Derivations: Some of the core equations could benefit from step-by-step explanatory text or diagrams showing how the terms correspond to physical flows. A flowchart of reservoir dynamics would enhance accessibility for technically literate readers less familiar with differential models.
2. Include Empirical Comparisons: Integrating graphs that compare your model’s output to empirical records (such as the Mauna Loa CO₂ series) would help validate the model visually and reinforce the conclusion that human contributions are minor.
3. Address Isotopic Counterarguments: Given the frequent citation of δ¹³C and ¹⁴C evidence to support anthropogenic dominance, a short, direct rebuttal to these points within the main paper would anticipate criticism and strengthen the self-contained nature of the argument.
4. Neutral Language Tone: While the core message is strong, softening the tone of phrases such as “not-so-golden science” and “fatal error” in select areas could broaden your reach to readers who are open to your analysis but wary of rhetorical framing.
5. Define Key Terms Early: Introducing technical terms such as e-time, Hypothesis H1/H2, and inflow-outflow dynamics upfront would improve flow and prevent confusion as the argument progresses.
6. Strengthen Policy Relevance: The legal and regulatory implications, especially regarding the EPA’s findings and the Lighthizer case, are of high importance. Expanding this section to clearly show how disproving H1 undermines regulatory authority could add significant weight to your conclusions.
7. Offer Reproducibility Tools: Including a supplementary Python or Excel simulation would allow others to run the model themselves, increasing transparency and academic reach.
These suggestions are offered in support of your work and its contribution to restoring correct physical principles in climate-related modelling. I hope they are helpful as you refine and publish this important piece.
Kind regards,
Jack Miller
Hi Jack,
Thank you. I am now going through your suggestions, and I will update this draft accordingly.
Ed
CO2 did not remain at 280ppm until the early 1900s. CO2 rose to 450ppm and 500ppm on many occasions during the Holocene.
We concur with every scientific point made here by Dr Ed Berry, In addition we show from delta 13C measured data that the vast majority of CO2 emissions into the atmosphere have an ocean origin.
Additionally the Pinatubo experiment conducted by Bromley & Tamarkin published in their paper Bromley & Tamarkin 2022 demonstrated quite categorically that human emissions of CO2 are miniscule.
In separate papers Bromley also shows that it is Henry’s Law that controls atmospheric CO2 concentrations and that it is impossible for humans to control atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
All of this along with the 37 pages of references can be obtained in our recently published book:
Climate Truths
Dr Robert Ian Holmes and Brendan Godwin
http://www.climate-truths.com
We cite all of this good work of Dr Ed Berry in this book.
you should get a debate going on this on Whats up with That.
Hi Don,
Thanks, but I am not interested.
A year or so ago, the CO2 Coalition started such a “debate” on WUWT. The discussion became so crowded with nutcase comments that it was impossible to have a rational debate.
The only way to have a focused debate is here.
Ed,
1. I understand your intent with your equations (A) and (B), but your notation is poor. There are two different L (level) functions of time which you label through their arguments. It would be clearer to use different names for the functions, perhaps utilizing subscripts instead of inappropriately giving what is apparently the same function two different arguments. Clearer notation might have prevented your further confusion discussed below.
2. There are no errors in the CO2C’s bookkeeping or in that of mainstream climate science. They track total carbon levels, not “human” and “natural” carbon separately as you do, and they do so accurately. They do not say or imply that “human carbon” gets stuck in the atmosphere. The science is dead simple: when we put 100 units of carbon into the atmosphere it gains about 45 units and the rest flows into land/sea reservoirs. That is shown by the uncontroversial empirical fact that human emissions exceed the atmospheric accumulation rate.
3. Neither I nor any reputable scientist contests your conclusion that only a small fraction of the carbon atoms in the current atmosphere were once part of fossil fuel. But so what? The large two-way exchanges between the atmosphere and land/sea reservoirs mix the inventories in about a decade. Therefore you can’t tell the cause of the atmospheric carbon increase from its current composition. You can tell the cause by noting that land/sea carbon inventories have increased as well. The inventories that have decreased are the fossil fuel reserves.
Dear David,
Thank you for your comment.
1. I certainly agree that I must improve my explanation of CO2C’s carbon cycle error. I am working on that.
2. Indeed, CO2C, you, and others track the total carbon level. I am sure we agree that the total carbon level does not measure the individual human and natural carbon levels.
But we disagree on your claim,
“when we put 100 units of carbon into the atmosphere it gains about 45 units and the rest flows into land/sea reservoirs. That is shown by the uncontroversial empirical fact that human emissions exceed the atmospheric accumulation rate.”
That is where this debate must focus. I will revise my draft to address this issue I raise in 1.7 immediately thereafter 1.7.
3. The reason I mentioned the difference between IPCC’s fast and slow carbon cycles is because CO2C seem to have a difficult time trying to explain this difference.
3a. You bring up a second point in your claim “can’t tell the cause of the atmospheric carbon increase from its current composition.” I assume you are referring to my use of Delta14C to derive the relative amounts of human carbon in the atmosphere.
This is a point worth discussing, because I claim today’s Delta14C level is a result of the continuing inflow (and resulting outflow) of human and natural carbon, and these inflows set the balance levels of each component.
I see you raised the same issue with Matthew.
Ed
“The science is dead simple: when we put 100 units of carbon into the atmosphere it gains about 45 units and the rest flows into land/sea reservoirs. That is shown by the uncontroversial empirical fact that human emissions exceed the atmospheric accumulation rate.”
Emissions from many sources (termites, tropical ocean) exceed the annual accumulation. Your statement sits on an assumption that all natural emissions are constant and sinks are growing at a rate less than human emissions. That assumption is false. CO2 flow through the atmosphere is independent of its source. The quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere is controlled by natural forces, largely temperature, and the standard gas laws. Curtailing or increasing one minor source will induce an offset reaction in other sources. It is reasonable to treat any source by itself with flow characteristics the same as the total. Dr.Ed has done just that and his work shows that human emissions are only a small part of the rising CO2. The causes of the increase in atmospheric CO2 are changes in nature that allow the atmosphere to hold more.
DMA,
The sum of all natural CO2 emissions (including termites, tropical oceans, volcanoes, freshwater ponds, decaying vegetation…) is not well known. The sum of all natural CO2 absorption (vegetation growth, dissolution into seawater as dictated by Henry’s Law, ..) is also poorly known. Nevertheless we can rigorously and accurately compute the DIFFERENCE between all natural absorptions and all natural emissions, a quantity called “Net global uptake” in the literature. By carbon conservation, that difference must equal the quantity of “missing carbon”, the carbon that didn’t stay in the atmosphere after we put it there by burning fossil fuels. That carbon had to have gone somewhere, into one of the natural sinks. See for example Ballantyne, A. P. Alden, C.B., Miller, J.B., Tans, P.P. ,2012: Increase in observed net carbon dioxide uptake by land and oceans during the past 50 years, Nature, vol 488 pp 70-72. doi:10.1038/nature11299. They find that between 1960 and 2010:
Human emissions totaled 350 +or – Pg of carbon
Atmospheric accumulation was 158 + or – 2 PgC
Therefore by subtraction, ocean and terrestrial sinks took in 192 + or – 29 Pg of carbon.
(1 Pg = 1 billion metric tonnes. Note that the analysis applies to the carbon in CO2, not CO2 itself, because it is carbon that is conserved, not CO2.)
Ballantyne et al divide the data into decades and find that, like human emissions, net global uptake increased during those 50 years. You are correct that “increasing one minor source will induce an offset reaction in other sources.” You are also correct that natural forces have an effect. Net global uptake, while definitely positive in the 1990’s, was a bit lower than in neighboring decades. Ballantyne et al attribute that to the cooling effects of the Pinatubo eruption.
There is no assumption in this analysis that emissions are constant. There is no assumption that carbon from one source behaves differently than carbon from another. The only asymmetry in the analysis is that “human absorption” is taken as 0. That would change if Direct Air Capture technology was deployed on a large scale. For Ed’s sake let me emphasize that “human absorption” by Direct Air Capture has nothing to do with what he calls “human carbon”.
You argue “It is reasonable to treat any source by itself with flow characteristics the same as the total.” I think you are saying, as Demetris Koutsoyiannis has, why not pin the blame for the growth on decaying vegetation, whose emissions are growing as the stock of vegetation grows? But the growth in vegetation that the CO2 Coalition praises implies that there is more carbon in vegetation in 2010 than there was in 1960. Similarly the ph decrease of the oceans tells us that there is more carbon in the oceans in 2010 than in 1960. Where is there LESS carbon? There is less carbon in the fossil fuel reserves. Doesn’t that tell you that removing carbon from those reserves is the cause of the increases elsewhere?
Hi David,
I just finished updating my point about CO2C’s carbon mass balance error, now in 3.1.
In my view, “Net global uptake” is just plain bad physics. The “Net global uptake” boys have no carbon cycle model to support their conclusions. They assume H(1) is true before they make their calculations.
They don’t get it that there are independent human and natural carbon cycles.
The idea that there is “missing carbon” that they can measure, and the “carbon that didn’t stay in the atmosphere” assumes H(1) is true.
Ed,
As Dave Andrews correctly points out, it’s an empirical fact that human CO2 emissions are greater than the amount of CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere. You don’t need a carbon cycle model to compute the global mass balance of CO2.
The annual increase in atmospheric CO2, which is known with a high degree of certainty, is less than the global annual emissions from fossil fuel burning and cement production alone. The latter two things are more likely than not underestimates because they depend on countries accurately reporting their consumption of fossil fuels.
The difference between CO2 rise and CO2 emissions from fossil burning and cement production is referred to as the so-called “missing CO2”. The scale of engineered CO2 removal from the atmosphere by humans is too small to account for the “missing CO2”. Thus, common sense should tell you that if there is no significant human CO2 sink and the annual increase in atmospheric CO2 is less than that emitted by human activities alone, nature – the oceans and land — must be a net global sink of atmospheric CO2, not a source. I don’t see how it’s plausible to infer anything different.
The mass balance result is partly the basis for IPCC’s conclusion that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is largely due to human emissions rather than from natural sources. There is a substantial body of other evidence that shows both the oceans and land are net sinks of atmospheric CO2.
Your statement that Delta 14C is decreasing because it is returning to
its balance level.” Is a tautology. You are essentially saying Delta 14C is decreasing because it’s decreasing.
You seem not to fully understand the causes of the post-bomb decline in Delta 14C of atmospheric CO2. This is reflected in your incorrect statement that “If human CO2 caused all the CO2 increase, it would have reduced the Delta 14C balance level by 33 percent.”
And you also state that “Berry’s accurate curve fit shows no measurable effect of human CO2 emissions or of a “Suess effect dilution”.” If so, then are you suggesting that net uptake of 14CO2 alone accounts for the post-bomb decline of Delta 14CO2? Your curve fit is to the post-bomb decline of Delta 14C of atmospheric CO2. But it doesn’t account for the isotopic dilution effect on atmospheric Delta 14CO2. It’s simply a curve fit.
And your 33 percent calculation firstly assumes that all of the 14C produced from atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons remains in the atmosphere and becomes isotopically diluted by 14C-free CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning. This is a false assumption. Moreover, your assumption is at odds with your claim that isotopic dilution was not the cause of post-bomb decline of atmospheric Delta 14CO2.
You overlook the fact that both 12CO2 and 14CO2 are cycled and exchanged between the atmosphere and ocean and land. The magnitude of this CO2 cycling and exchange, which you appear to accept and use in one of your other arguments, is clearly shown in your Figure 3 – IPCC’s natural and human global carbon cycle figure. This carbon cycling and exchange between reservoirs has the effect of lowering the Delta 14C of atmospheric CO2 and increasing the Delta 14C of CO2 in the ocean and of exchangeable/recyclable CO2 in soil and plants in the terrestrial biosphere.
Empirical data clearly show the Delta 14C of CO2 in ocean surface water and in recycled soil and plant carbon in the terrestrial biosphere increased during the post-bomb period as the Delta 14C of atmospheric CO2 declined. I can provide a figure showing this if you would like to see it.
The exchanges of CO2 between the atmosphere and the ocean and terrestrial biosphere that has a lower Delta 14C than the atmosphere partially contributed to the decline of Delta 14C of atmospheric CO2 before isotopic equilibrium was reached between the atmosphere and the ocean and land. The net effect of this recycled CO2 on the isotopic dilution of atmospheric 14CO2 is less than what would have occurred if all of the bomb 14C had remained in the atmosphere. It is the reason why the Delta 14C of atmospheric CO2 has not declined to 33 percent below the pre-bomb level. But the post-bomb decline of atmospheric Delta 14CO2 is still largely due to isotopic dilution. Net uptake of CO2 would not be expected to have a major effect on the Delta 14C of CO2 remaining in the atmosphere because there is only a small isotope effect on uptake of the two isotopes – 12C and 14C.
Because of isotopic dilution, the Delta 14C of atmospheric CO2 is now less than that of ocean surface water. The resulting isotopic disequilibrium of 14C between the atmosphere and ocean surface water is the reason why the concentration of 14CO2 in the atmosphere is now increasing. This was predicted to occur. Dave Andrews has provided empirical data in one his published papers, showing this has happened. Thus, the oceans are now a net global source of atmospheric 14CO2 and a net global sink of atmospheric 12CO2.
The CO2 in ocean surface water and the atmosphere reached isotopic equilibrium in the early 90s, but the Delta 14C of atmospheric CO2 has continued to decline to slightly below its pre-bomb level, most likely due to continued isotopic dilution from emissions of 14C-free CO2 from fossil fuel burning. There is every reason to expect it will continue to decline with continued emissions of 14C-free CO2 from fossil fuel burning.
Dear Jerry,
As always, I appreciate your comment, which is excellent because it provides a base for a rational debate.
I will get back to you soon.
For the next few days, I will be distracted because all my kids and grandkids are in town for my 90th birthday and this will delay my reply to your excellent comment.
Best wishes,
Ed
Thanks for your excellent workings, Ed.
Additional thought: we have been given a very robust self-repairing planet.
IPCC tell us there are 39,000GT of CO2 in the oceans.
There are also 1,386,000,000 cu kms of water = 1386 x 10 to the 15 cu m
Sea water weighs 1024kg/cu m
Total weight of oceans is 1419 x 1 with 18 zeros
Divide the CO2, 39,000 GT, or 39 with 15 zeros, by the size of the oceans and you get 27ppm
Humans produce 38GT p.a. so 100 years of it would increase the CO2 by 2.6ppm.
I was working in the 1970’s when the National Geographic was prophesying the next ice age was about to begin, but CO2 had increased for the previous 30 years! Folks are gullible. God has given us a great planet! (which of course we must not pollute with plastic)
Ed,
It’s time to give it up. You know as well as I do that our positive net global uptake is a consequence of applying dL/dt = Inflow – Outflow to total carbon. There are no mistakes, circular reasoning, or extraneous unwarranted assumptions involved. It can also be deduced from common sense.
Years ago you posted that a bad argument is better than none at all. But the CO2 Coalition, who make plenty of bad arguments themselves, thought otherwise. They knew that between you, Harde and Salby, and Koutsoyiannis, climate skepticism was weakened by obviously bad arguments. Last winter you tried to get bad science into Montana law. Now you want bad science to influence federal science policy. There is enough chaos in Washington DC without your help.
Find another hobby, Ed
New and interesting information which may add to your paper ?
The text below i a copy from a recent article by Charles Rotter in WUWT with following title and introduction ;
Settled Science Springs a Leak: Rivers Reveal the Carbon Cycle’s Dirty Secret.
The recent Nature study titled “Old carbon routed from land to the atmosphere by global river systems” is not only a rigorous piece of scientific work—it’s also a spectacular indictment of the so-called “settled science” of climate change. This 2025 paper is a flaming arrow into the heart of carbon cycle certainty, unearthing yet another inconvenient truth: over half of the CO2 emitted from rivers comes from carbon sources that are hundreds to thousands of years old—not from recent fossil fuel emissions or current biological activity.