Ed Berry, PhD, Theoretical Physics, CCM
On August 14, 2023, Montana Republicans lost the Held v Montana (HvM) climate lawsuit, as I said they would since June 2022, based upon how AG Knudsen was failing to prepare to defend HvM.
The judge did not make a biased decision, as AG Knudsen now clams. The judge properly used the evidence presented in the trial. The Supreme Court will agree with the judge.
The trial was NOT a “clown show” as several Republicans have claimed, unless we are talking about AG Austin Knudsen. Montana lost because Knudsen did not defend against the plaintiffs’ climate claims.
Worse, before the trial began on June 12, 2023, Assistant AG Michael Russell stipulated,
“for the purposes of trial, there is a scientific consensus that earth is warming as a direct result of human GHG emissions, primarily from the burning of fossil fuels.”
Knudsen gave away the farm. He caved on climate and gave the Democrats control of Montana’s mining, energy, economy, and education.
Knudsen’s stipulation reduced the trial to the issue of whether the Montana Constitution prevails over the legislature. But he presented no evidence that the legislature prevails over the Constitution. He could have asked a constitution expert to argue that point.
Knudsen used two witnesses from the State to describe how they processed applications for mining and energy production. But “how” Montana processes these applications does not prove the Constitution authorizes the process.
HvM makes unconstitutional the 2023 Republican bills SB 557 and HB 971 that the legislature intended to assure the legislature had power over the Constitution.
We won Held v Montana in 2011
In 2011, I won this exact same lawsuit in 10 days on climate alone in Montana’s Supreme Court. The court’s decision set a Montana precedent that “climate science is not settled” enough to support the plaintiffs’ claims.
Knudsen did not reference this 2011 Montana Supreme Court decision and precedent to dismiss or defeat HvM as he should have. My 2011 win saved Montana billions of dollars per year. AG Knudsen reversed these savings.
For Held v Montana, I would have organized a dozen true climate experts who would have destroyed the plaintiffs’ pseudoscience, and saved Montana and America from the climate fraud.
As an example, the plaintiffs assume human CO2 emissions cause all the CO2 increase.
To justify that assumption, they claim the half-life for human CO2 in the atmosphere is hundreds or thousands of years while the half-life for natural CO2 is 2.4 years.
So, we ask the plaintiffs’ experts, “How is this possible when human and natural CO2 molecules are identical?”
Both human and natural CO2 have a half-life of 2.4 years according to the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). And IPCC’s carbon cycle says human CO2 is only 8% of today’s atmosphere, not 33% as the plaintiffs’ experts assume.
The COVID pandemic reduced human CO2 emissions by about 20% for a year. But the CO2 level continued to increase undisturbed by the dramatic decrease in human CO2 emissions.
Carbon-14 data show the percent of human CO2 in the atmosphere is about zero.
The bottom line is IPCC’s own data show nature, not human CO2, causes the CO2 increase. This negates all the plaintiffs damage claims. Checkmate.
There is much more evidence that the plaintiffs’ climate beliefs are delusions. This illustrates my point that HvM was easy to defeat on the science alone.
Knudsen should lose his law license because he did not ethically represent the defendants who are the people who voted for him.
HvM will go down in history as the trial where Montana Republicans censored climate truth and gave Democrats control of Montana’s mining, energy, economy, and education.
How Montana’s AG betrayed conservatives
Our Children’s Trust (OCT) argued Montana’s CO2 emissions from its coal, oil, and gas, contribute to a climate crisis that has harmed the child plaintiffs. Montana did not dispute this OCT claim, or challenge any OCT expert witness on climate, or present any climate expert.
OCT argued MEPA laws violate Montana’s Constitution, Article IX, Environmental and Natural Resources, Section 1, Protection and Improvement:
- The state and each person shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations,
- The legislature shall provide for the administration and enforcement of this duty,
- The legislature shall provide adequate remedies for the protection of the environmental life support system from degradation and provide adequate remedies to prevent unreasonable depletion and degradation of natural resources.
Montana admitted its MEPA laws do not allow DEQ to consider GHG emissions when giving mining or energy production permits.
OCT claims a scientific consensus proves them right. But consensus does not set science truth. Only proofs that theories are wrong set science truth. AG Knudsen rejected the top climate scientists who have proved OCT’s science is false.
How I beat HvM on the science in 2011.
HvM is a copy of OCT’s 2011 Petition to the Montana Supreme Court (MSC). I and attorney Quentin Rhoades had only ten days to develop and file our Intervention of OCT’s climate Petition. We accomplished in ten days what AG Knudsen did not accomplish in two and a half years. We defended climate truth and we defeated HvM.
Our Intervention caused MSC to dismiss OCT’s Petition and set a Montana legal precedent that “climate science is not settled.”
AG Knudsen rejected this MSC precedent and the scientific method that says if your prediction is wrong, your science is wrong. Knudsen caved to the Democrats on climate.
In 2011, OCT said it petitioned MSC directly because a climate disaster would occur before it had time to begin in a lower court. OCT’s climate disaster never happened. OCT’s prediction failed, which proves OCT’s climate science is wrong.
OCT’s key science claim is absurd:
“Leading climate scientists have determined with scientific certainty that we must reduce CO2 to below 350 ppm to stabilize our climate.”
First, any scientist who claims a theory is true when another scientist has proven it false is NOT a “leading climate scientist.” Leading scientists are those who prove theories are false.
Second, there is no such thing as “scientific certainty.” The scientific method says it is impossible to prove a theory is true but only one contradiction proves a theory is false.
Third, data used by OCT prove the NATURAL CO2 level is now about 390 ppm, making it impossible to achieve 350 ppm by restricting human CO2.
AG Knudsen rejected top climate scientists and prevented true climate science from having its day in court.
AG Knudsen betrayed Montanans who voted for him. He helped Democrats win future elections, promote green energy, expand carbon capture, increase taxes, and damage children’s brains with science fiction.
Montana’s AG censored the science he needed to defeat Held v Montana
June 11, 2023
Montana’s radical right’s (RRs) quest to censor “imperfect” Republicans caused them to censor the climate physics they needed to defeat Held v Montana (HvM). So, Our Childrens Trust (OCT) will very likely win HvM on June 23, Montana will pay OCT’s legal fees, and Democrats will control Montana’s economy, energy, and education forever. And people will think, incorrectly, that human CO2 causes the damages alleged by the plaintiffs.
HvM is a carbon copy of OCT’s 2011 Petition to the Montana Supreme Court (MSC). HvM still has AG Bullock’s name in it. I and my 2011 attorney Quentin Rhoades had only ten days to develop our winning argument and file our successful Intervention of OCT’s Petition. MSC dismissed the Petition and set a Montana legal precedent that “climate science is not settled” enough to support HvM.
Understanding Held v Montana
June 8, 2023
The Montana Supreme Court just rejected AG Knudsen’s desperate last-minute plea to stop Held v Montana.
Don’t blame the judges for the outcome.
Judges rule on the logic and data that each side presents to them. Judge Seeley and the Montana Supreme Court judges understand logic. If Judge Seely rules against Montana, the Supreme Court judges will arrive at the same conclusion.
In 2011, I led the Intervention of the original “HvM” when it was a Petition to Montana’s Supreme Court. Based on the arguments I and my attorney Quentin Rhoades presented, the court dismissed the original “HvM” Petition and thereby set a precedent that climate science is not settled in Montana.
In 2023, the scientific case for the defense is much stronger than it was in 2011. In fact, the scientific case now is irrefutable.
There is no excuse for AG Knudsen to have such a poor defense. He purposely rejected the science that would have defeated HvM.
Who has the burden of proof?
My book Climate Miracle shows how a climate lawsuit is like a criminal trial.
In its fundamental form, HvM plaintiffs accuse human CO2 of damaging the plaintiffs. The prosecution should have the burden of proof, which means human CO2 will be considered innocent until proven guilty.
Therefore, the defense only needs to prove the prosecution’s argument fails. In pretrial, the defense should have secured that the plaintiffs have the burden of proof.
The court should say who has the burden of proof at the beginning of the trial.
The defense should list and then attack the prosecution’s core theories.
In May 2022, I advised Montana’s AG to list the prosecution’s core theories. The plaintiffs require these three theories to be true to support their claims:
- Human CO2 causes all the CO2 increase above 280 ppm.
- This CO2 increase causes global warming.
- This global warming causes bad stuff to happen.
We call these the “three theories.”
If the defense can prove any of these “three theories” false, the defense wins. It’s that easy.
This step is so important, it is Biblical. The prosecution’s claim that human CO2 damaged the child plaintiffs is the “head of gold” in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream. The “three theories” that support the “head of gold” are the “feet of iron and clay.”
I advised Montana’s AG to attack the “feet of iron and clay” rather than the “head of gold.” Montana’s AG Knudsen ignored my advice.
The defense should ask each prosecution expert:
- Do your claimed damages assume the “three theories” are true?
- If any of these “three theories” is not true, does that negate your testimony?
- Who among your expert witnesses will argue these “three theories” are true?
They should answer as follows (if the defense trial attorney is competent):
- Steve Running
There are two reasons to ask the experts these questions:
- To show the prosecution requires these “three theories” to be true.
- To force Steve Running to defend these three theories.
I have studied Running’s arguments and he cannot defend any of these three theories.
He argues the damages prove human CO2 cause the damages. He assumes, incorrectly, that events prove their cause.
The prosecution’s failure to recognize their assumptions is the Archilles heel of their case. AG’s defense will likely ignore this opportunity to defeat HvM.
U of Montana physics professor David Andrews understands climate physics better than Steve Running, and I defeated Andrews in a 2023 published debate about Theory-1.
The defense should use the scientific method to defeat HvM.
Reviewers of Climate Miracle say its explanation of the scientific method is the best they have ever read.
To summarize, the scientific method says it is impossible to prove a theory is true but it takes only one contradiction to prove a theory is false.
Therefore, the defense should argue that the prosecution cannot prove its “three theories” are true. Then, the defense should prove the “three theories” are false.
The defense must challenge the plaintiffs’ core argument.
The prosecution’s core argument is:
Leading climate scientists have determined with scientific certainty that we must reduce CO2 to below 350 ppm to stabilize our climate.
The defense must challenge this core argument because:
- “Leading climate scientists” refers to some unnumbered, unidentified “scientists” who are not present to testify and be cross examined. “Leading” should not be allowed because it is only used to emotionally influence the judge.
- The argument uses “authority” which is invalid in science. All science claims must rest on scientific arguments without appeal to authority.
- The argument uses “consensus” which is invalid in science.
- The argument claims “scientific certainty” which is impossible according to the scientific method.
- The argument assumes human CO2 causes all the CO2 increase (Theory-1). But if Theory-1 is false, then we cannot lower the CO2 level below 350 ppm by reducing human CO2 emissions.
The defense must challenge unscientific comments by the judge.
According to one report of a pretrial session, Judge Seeley commented that Montana’s permitting oil, gas and coal activities seems to be correlated with the plaintiff’s alleged injuries is meaningful.
The defense should have immediately challenged the judge’s comment and argued that correlation does not prove causation. The AG’s defense attorneys failed to do this because AG Knudsen refused to let me teach them how science works.
The defense must prove one or more of the “three theories” is false.
Compare the teams.
Montana’s 2023 defense does not compare to the defense I and my attorney Quentin Rhoades used in 2011 to defeat the same HvM when it was a Petition in Montana’s Supreme Court.
Montana’s defense is the most incompetent and irresponsible defense I have ever seen in a legal trial. AG Knudsen rejected the scientific proofs that would have defeated HvM.
As a Certified Consulting Meteorologist (CCM) of the American Meteorological Society, I have been a key expert witness in many legal trials, including one huge trial, and I have never been on the losing side.
I led the Intervention that defeated HvM when it was a Petition in Montana’s Supreme Court in 2011.
I wrote Climate Miracle, the only book that explains, simply, how to win or lose a climate lawsuit.
Montana is set to lose the first-ever constitutional climate trial in America
Edwin X Berry, PhD, Theoretical Physics, CCM
June 2, 2023+
Attorney General Knudsen’s defense against plaintiff Our Children’s Trust (OCT) in Held v Montana (HvM) climate lawsuit begins on June 12. But the defense does not represent today’s climate science and is not prepared to win.
HvM is a carbon copy of the 2011 Petition that OCT filed in Montana’s Supreme Court. I organized the Intervention that defeated OCT’s Petition. The court’s decision set a legal precedent for Montana that “climate science is decidedly not settled” to support OCT’s Petition or the science in HvM.
AG Knudsen did not use this Montana’s Supreme Court precedent to dismiss or defeat HvM.
In 2011, OCT argued it had to take its case directly to the Montana Supreme Court because a climate disaster was about to occur that did not give them enough time to begin in a lower court. This climate disaster never happened.
AG Knudsen should have argued that the scientific method says if your prediction is wrong, your science is wrong. Therefore, the HvM plaintiffs’ science is wrong.
AG Knudsen did not correct Judge Seeley’s incorrect view that the seeming positive correlation between the state’s permitting of oil, gas and coal activities with the plaintiff’s alleged injuries is relevant. AG Knudsen should have argued that correlation does not prove causation.
OCT has 16 expert witnesses.
The only way Montana can defeat HvM is to prove human CO2 emissions do not change the climate, e.g., prove Running and Trenberth are wrong.
AG Knudsen’s only climate expert is Judith Curry. Her deposition shows she does not know about the publications that prove the plaintiffs’ core claims are false, and she cannot represent these proofs in court.
So, AG Knudsen has no case.
The expert witness team I recommended to AG Knudsen in May 2022 would easily destroy both Running and Trenberth and would have put the plaintiffs in checkmate. But on June 3, 2022, Knudsen got a call from his puppet master telling him to stop talking to me.
Knudsen’s defense does not even address the key issue of HvM.
Leading climate scientists have determined with scientific certainty that we must reduce CO2 to below 350 ppm to stabilize our climate.
Several peer-reviewed publications, including my own, prove nature is the dominant cause of the CO2 increase and the human effect on the CO2 increase is negligible.
Any scientist who claims a theory is true when another scientist has proven it false is NOT a “leading climate scientist.” Leading scientists are the ones who prove theories are false . Other scientists follow.
The proofs that the plaintiffs’ core theory is false outvote all scientists who claim it is true.
There is no such thing as “scientific certainty.” The scientific method says it is impossible to prove a theory is true but only one contradiction proves a theory is false. The defense does not make that point or use that argument.
My papers show how the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) data prove natural CO2 is already near 390 ppm, making it impossible to “reduce CO2 to below 350 ppm” by restricting human CO2. My work has been called “the only breakthrough in climate science in the last four decades.”
My published papers show four proofs that human CO2 has insignificant effect on the CO2 level, proving the HvM plaintiffs’ claim of human-caused climate change is delusional.
Thanks to AG Knudsen, the HvM trial will incorrectly assume (a) human CO2 causes all Plaintiffs’ claimed damages and (b) controlling human CO2 emissions will control the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. Yet HvM will define climate science for Montana and its students.
AG Knudsen censored and rejected the science that proves the plaintiffs’ science is false, making his defense a sham and a betrayal of those who elected him.
PPS: Knudsen’s team would not even read my book, Climate Miracle, the only book that shows how to defeat a climate lawsuit. It is easy to read and much more valuable than books that try to teach you all about climate.