1. The experiment done by the Penn university concluded that over 350ppm of dry CO2 no measurable heating was found. This supports Prof Happer that CO2 is not capable of any climate emergency. Any significant heating has already happened.

    1. Brinsley, excellent points about Professor Happer who is clearly the go to expert on anything related to Carbon Dioxide (CO2)! Here is a bit more information on Dr. Happer’s position on CO2 and its role in “Climate Change”.

      The distinguished and highly-qualified Professor Happer of Princeton acknowledges that the Earth is currently a CO2-Starved planet and that CO2 is not a serious threat to the climate. Dr. Happer has a wonderful explanation for how the atmospheric Greenhouse heating capacity of CO2 (i.e., via its Infrared Radiation property) is Diminished as it becomes “Saturated” with each doubling of its concentration because of its diminishing “Logarithmic Effect” as CO2 atmospheric concentrations increase.

      “Think of Painting an Old Barn Red: As you apply the first couple of coats or so of Red Paint the Barn gets
      somewhat more Red, but adding more and more coats of Red Paint doesn’t increase its Redness!”. This is a simple analogy that illustrates this Carbon-Dioxide Saturation and Logarithmic Effect of Diminished Results as more CO2 is added to our atmosphere to saturation its ability to produce additional Infrared-Radiative Heating is impossible!”

      Professor Happer is a renowned scientist , physicist and expert on Carbon Dioxide and he along with thousands of other scientists agree that: Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not a Problem and the Environmentalist & Political focus on CO2 unfortunately DISTRACTS from real environmental problems that we should be actually focusing on.

      1. Thank you Byron, I truly believe the one experiment needed to nullify the carbon footprints argument happened and its destroyed it.

        Of course saturation can never be completed theoretically, but no detectable heating finished any prospect completely. Funny they claim its essential to reduce CO2 to 340ppm or less? That could just start to reduce heating and will also starve us.

      2. That might all be true, but it doesn’t matter because nature drives CO2 increase, not man.

        1. Our problem Stephen is impossible claims have been made for carbon footprints and climate. Unless we do counter these claims, and can show exactly why they are wrong we will lose by default. Never give a inch on rubbish science they take a mile.

      3. Dear Bryon,
        I agree with your comment, but go one further step to address the problem: I prove the IPCC theory is wrong. That, I believe, is the only way to win.
        We can talk forever and they can talk forever, and nothing is accomplished.
        Only when we can prove them wrong, can we win.

    2. Temperature has always risen after each periodical ‘little ice age’
      They were ice skating on the Thames River London in the 1800’s.
      USA: Galveston Bay froze over from Houston to Galveston Island in the 1800s; the ground in Dallas was frozen on Mayday then too, the settlement “La Reunion” had to quit and move into town.

  2. I’ve read your book along with a 100 others and I agree with all the way. Thanks for making it so clear to the average laymen. I’m no scientist but I have a BA degree with a strong math and science background. I am also a electrician. I am passionately interested in this subject and am amazed the ignorance on global warming and man’s contribution to co2..

    1. Ben, I too have read and studied Ed’s excellent book “Climate Miracle” as well as 30+ other authors that generally agree with Ed.

      Likewise, 31,478 highly-qualified Scientists have officially Certified in the “2015 Oregon Petition” , risking persecution as ‘Skeptics’, that they Do Not Believe the unscientific political claims of Man-Made origins for Climate Change as well as many thousands of others which tolerate GWA claims since they may not be able to endure the political intimidation and withholding of grants and subsidies to them or their member organization/colleges/labs. Recently, another 11,000+ scientists and engineers had just done the same.

      Despite Government & Leftist Censorship and pressure: Professors and Scientists may be fired and blackballed for publishing factual scientific results that conflict with the Leftist Global-Warming Alarmist positions [It has happened all too frequently!].

      The eminent Dr. Lindzen correctly said about the phony & falsified Progressive / Democrat AGW Global Warming / Climate Change Theory & their non-existent Global Warming Crisis is:

      “What historians will definitely wonder about in future centuries is how deeply-flawed logic, obscured by shrewd and unrelenting propaganda, actually enabled a coalition of powerful special interests to convince nearly everyone in the world that CO2 from human industry was a dangerous, planet-destroying toxin.
      It will be remembered as the greatest Mass Delusion in the history of the world — That CO2, the life of plants, was considered for a time to be a deadly poison.”

  3. Rather surprising to learn that US state politicians are as stupid as their European counterparts. How do we understand that US Science community is unable to contain such deep misunderstandings?? Despite the good work of Dr Berry and many more.

    1. I take no exception that our current Democrat US State Politicians are, as you say, “Stupid as their European Counterparts” — However, as far as their leftist and phony “Man-Made Global Warming due to CO2 Climate Hoax” their leader know that they are lying and the rest of their Global Warming Alarmists, like stupid sheep, simply echo and repeat their Alarmist Party Line to Scare Voters and Children into believing in their ideology and aiding in their quest for complete power & control!

      “Yes, Virginia” there is No Santa Clause and there is No Imminent Man-Made Global Warming Crisis!

      In fact since the end of the prior “Little Ice Age” Global Cooling period in 1850 AD, the Earth’s climate temperatures peaked in 1998, then dropped 1.08 degrees Fahrenheit and has remained flat which scientists call moderate “Natural Variability” in temperatures. In fact, there has been very little “Global Warming” for the last 25 years now — Despite all the phony and exaggerated claims of an imminent Global Warming / Climate Change Crisis!

  4. Here is a section to the lawsuit:


    201. The best available science today prescribes that global atmospheric CO 2
    concentrations must be restored to no more than 350 ppm by 2100 (with further reductions
    thereafter) in order to stabilize Earth’s energy balance and restore the climate system on
    which human life depends. A global emission reduction and sequestration pathway back to
    350 ppm by 2100 would stabilize long-term global heating at no more than 1° C above pre-
    industrial temperatures, with a short-term peak of approximately 1.3° C as a global average.
    Each government has an obligation to contribute to the requisite CO 2 emission reductions
    and CO 2 sequestration.

    202. More than 45 eminent scientists from over 40 different institutions have published
    in peer-reviewed journals finding that the maximum level of atmospheric CO 2 consistent
    with protecting humanity and other species is 350 ppm and no one, including the
    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”), has published any scientific
    evidence to counter that 350 ppm is the maximum safe concentration of CO 2 .172”

    Both paragraphs are lies. I hope Knudsen gets at the erroneous basics this lawsuit promotes.

    The other thing I find astonishing is this lawsuit spends pages delineating the harms the plaintiffs have observed, without giving us a definition of CLIMATE or CLIMATE CRISIS. Climate cannot be observed. It is long term averages of atmospheric conditions. None of these kids have lived through one climate data point.

    Their data presentations are misleading due to cherry picking starting or ending points. I have not yet reviewed any response to the initial complaint.

    1. Dear DMA,
      Thank you for your excellent comment.

      Tomorrow, I will add to this post my detailed review of Held v Montana and the advice I gave to AG Knudsen’s assistant attorneys.

    2. DMA, you in your astute & informed comment and Ed Berry in his book are Correct BOTH Paragraphs quoted are indeed totally false and lies with no valid scientific basis!

      The following is a concise Nutshell Summary of Why CO2 is Definitely Not a Problem or Danger to the Earth as well as Not a Valid Basis for this ridiculous lawsuit which displays a complete ignorance of valid and proven science! It is simply a statement of Progressive Political Propaganda and gross ignorance of scientific principles!

      It is a Summary in a ‘Nut Shell’ of the facts related to Carbon Dioxide (CO2) and Climate Change:
      Climate is fully Natural — Man has had an insignificant Influence upon our climate.
      Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is a Trace Gas in our atmosphere at a mere ~400 ppm (i.e., 0.04%) that is NOT a
      Pollutant since it is a Colorless and Odorless, Beneficial & Essential Gas – Only the Particulates present in
      emissions are pollutants unrelated to CO2 which are easy to remove and have been successfully addressed in
      the USA.

      Our Climate has Naturally cycled between Warmer Periods and Colder Periods since the Earth and its
      atmosphere was formed. It was just as warm in the Medieval Warming Period as today, then its global
      warming ended leading to the Little Ice Age Cooling Period” ; followed by our present Modern Warming

      Both of the Warming periods: the Renaissance period (900 AD – 1300 AD) and our mid-19th – 21st
      Century period have advanced knowledge, prosperity and the human condition.
      Our current ‘Modern Warming Period’ (1850 AD – Present) is one of the Mildest and Most Prosperous
      Climates in the history of our planet.

      Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not a Problem for our Climate and there is No scientific Basis for the many False
      Claims of a 20th or 21st Century Climate Crisis due to increases in atmospheric CO2-Concentrations, as Al
      Gore, AOC and the other Climate Alarmists have falsely claimed.
      Carbon Dioxide is not only Extremely Beneficial, but CO2 is also Essential to All Life on Earth since plants need
      CO2 to grow and produce the Food and Oxygen all animals, including humans, need to survive.

      Today, at a mere 400 ppm CO2 concentration, our Earth is CO2-Starved and more CO2 would produce even
      greater crop yields and greening with No significant CO2-based Greenhouse Gas Warming threat.
      Below 150 ppm CO2 concentration, all plants on earth will die! Then All Animal Life, including Humans, will
      Die of suffocation & starvation. In the past CO2 concentrations have been as high as 10- to 18-times our
      current levels (i.e., 4,000 ppm – ~7,000 ppm during both warm periods as well as very cold Ice Age periods in
      the past). This is clear indication that high-levels of CO2 Do Not Produce “Run Away Global Warming”!
      OSHA approves workers for 8-hour shifts up to 5,000 ppm and up to 10,000 ppm CO2 is not harmful to people
      and animals. The Earth can better feed its large population with better Crop Yields and Greening from
      significant increases in atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (i.e., CO2).

      Net-Net: CO2 is NOT A PROBLEM: Our Very-Long Climate History shows that our climate is Insensitive &
      Fundamentally Unaffected by CO2 concentration levels because increasing levels of CO2 and other
      Greenhouse Gases quickly “Saturate”; Thus, reducing to Zero any additional amount of Infrared Radiation that
      contributes atmospheric heat with each doubling of CO2 and other Greenhouse Gases levels making “Run
      Away” Increases in “Greenhouse Effect Warming” Impossible – This “Saturation Phenomena” is produced by
      a limited logarithmic and diminishing heating-relationship; Unlike the linear expanding relationship between
      climate temperatures and CO2 which Al Gore and the invalid UN IPCC Climate Models incorrectly assume!

      As a Result: The Claim by the Global Warming Alarmists blaming Man’s Use of Fossil Fuels that produce CO2-
      Atmospheric Emissions and the Claim of an Imminent Global Warming Catastrophe are both Scientifically

      In Other Words, the Use of efficient Fossil Fuels is Not Affecting the Earth’s Climate Significantly and the
      USA now has the World’s Largest Supplies! Making the USA the #1 Energy Source and Supplier in the World
      creating long-sought USA Energy Independence and fostering our Economic Prosperity!

      1. You are 100% correct. I watch satellite weather all the time. The earth is greening at an incredible rate and it’s completely ignored by the “Science”. It’s as if we stopped teaching children about photosynthesis, nitrogen, CO2 and water. The bases for plant life and ours. The ecofascists have taken something that’s as close to magical or a miracle and turning it into something ugly and bad. It’s basic farming science. Maybe that’s the problem, we’re too far removed from the dirt.

  5. Ed Berry, you are to be commended for your excellent book “Climate Miracle” and your efforts to expose this incredible lie by the leftist politicians in the USA and around the world, especially the disgraced UN IPCC (i.e., Climate Gate and their posing as a “Pseudo-Scientific Climate Authority”) which does not follow solid Scientific Method and Principles having pre-determined that CO2 which is essential and the basis for all life on earth is the principle driver of the Earth’s Climate and Dangerous … Despite All Empirical Evidence to the Contrary!!!

    We all need to keep up this good work and reverse the serious damage that has been done by Politicians on the Left to the “Once Honorable Field of Climate Science”!

    FYI: Here are some of the things I have lectured, promoted, published and blogged about.
     7.3 Rev. “Man-Made Climate Change? The Science on the Other Side of the Coin” PDF, Link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1v1p03h4dlalK01kaj0QK4FXTMPBSyeIH/view?usp=sharing

    Note: I have compiled a 5-part series of articles I authored as well as an Appendix filled with Links to Videos, written abstracts and references to Books by honest and highly-qualified scientists and organizations which also support the facts and positions in my paper.
     2021 Climate Science Presentation (By Byron Claghorn w/ PragerU Charts) PDF Link:

     2021 Climate Science Presentation with Chart Animation as PowerPoint Show (ppsx): https://drive.google.com/file/d/1W2sOE5u_-uwhUzcRz3m_hG7pWNVVRkHc/view?usp=sharing
    Note: Use the options “Open with Google Slides” & the “Present” Buttons for Animated Display.

    Keep up your good work!

    Byron Claghorn

  6. The comments combined with the remarks by Dr. Ed Berry are a cogent argument against the false cataclysmic climate change protestations of the climate-change mafia that does not seek scientific confirmation of their ruse. They seek only the power that is to be gained for their cause. Theirs is the Alinsky approach laid out in “Rules for Radicals:” Anything that furthers their cause is acceptable in their minds, regardless of the lies and deceit required.

    One of many excellent references that I use often is “Unsettled?” by Steven E. Koonin and one of his important conclusions is that “…the science is insufficient to make useful projections about how the climate will change over the coming decades , much less what effect our actions will have on it. (p4)”

    My biggest concern at this point is how will you get Knudsen to react at this late date and strengthen his feeble arguments. If he has not responded before, what does it take to get him to respond now?

    Do we need to flood his office with comments from those who understand the risk and the extent of the deception being perpetrated by their legal opponents? Do we need to do the same to the Governor’s office? A precedent such as a loss in this case would surely be used by the “cataclysmics” around the country in additional legal proceedings.

    1. Dear Marc,
      It is too late for Knudsen to change his defense. He can’t add expert witnesses. He can’t learn what he needs to do to defend Held v Montana.

      In May 2022, I made many suggestions to Knudsen and his attorneys what they needed to do to win. One assistant attorney signed me up to be an expert witness. However, after the June 3, 2022, phone call from Knudsen’s puppet master, they shut down that opportunity and have never responded to my suggestions since then. The attorney that signed me up is no longer working on Held v Montana and seems to be no longer working for the AG.

  7. Such a tragedy that a more robust defense of truth has not been organized. What is the reason for this??

  8. However the trial goes the left will use it as precedence, another rock to smash reality into submission.

  9. Dr. Berry,
    Don’t you find it a strange coincidence that a lawsuit like this was filed in the state where the physicist who falsified AGW resides? I think they are scared of your physics.

    1. Dear Stephen,
      OCT filed its climate lawsuit in all 50 states and the US.
      The tragedy is that Montana RRs censored me from saving Montana.

      1. Dear Ed,
        The Court case purports to be about the science of climate change.
        You say, “The tragedy is that Montana RRs censored me from saving Montana.”
        Politics, ideologies and political allegiances are not relevant to any real science and, therefore, I wonder if you know the reason why “Montana RRs censored” you. I ask because the knowledge may be useful to stopping the censorship in Montana and perhaps preventing it from happening in other US States.
        PS I point out to onlookers that you and I demonstrate adherence to real science by my being convinced by your work on the carbon cycle when you and I have different political allegiances (i.e. you are an American Republican and I am a traditional British socialist).

      2. It sure would have been courageous for the Attorney General to ask you to testify. Most politicians have no courage.

  10. We are living in a time where deceit is in the open. Recent political, medical and educational deceit has opened many eyes. This deceit seems akin to evil where there is repetitive, conscious, and knowing awareness of wrongdoing to the environment and to the human race.
    Unfortunately, and it is clear to many, that the justice systems in many western countries have fallen foul of this pervading evil.
    Governments, business corporations and the civil society are corrupted. The justice system, educational institutions, debate (freedom of expression), media, and science all are soured.
    “We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men (and women) are afraid of the light.” Attributed to Plato
    In my opinion you are a hero for rational thinking.

  11. Congrats Dr Berry, to useful and convincing lessons, but a surprise that basic science it challenged in US courts. Less surprising that so happens in a more corrupt Europe all the time. This implies that your good work would be even more useful on the other side of the Atlantic.

  12. As a follow up on my previous comment I think it would be interesting and possibly productive for the defense to ask Running and Trenberth for their working definitions of “Climate” and “climate crisis” as a way to attack some of the inaccuracies and outright lies in the complaint.

    These kids believe we are killing them because they hear nothing but potential disasters coming out of SUV tailpipes. They could not reasonably get that frightened if they were introduced to the realities of the data instead of the possible results of hypothetical changes projected by falsified models and neither should the “experts”.

    I agree with Dr. Ed that Knudsen has chosen the wrong avenue to fight this but the plaintiffs have precious little to work with and Dr. Curry and other defense experts have the data, physics, common sense, and the law on there side.

    If the plaintiffs cannot define their terms in a manner that allows their complaints to stand or they can not prove the harms they claim they should lose. I hope they do and look forward the Dr. Ed’s comments as the trial progresses.

  13. I am an Engineer with over 25 years experience in the field of environmental measurements While I am in agreement with position that atmospheric CO2 is not a problem, I do not think anyone should cite atmospheric concentrations when there is no way they can be measured. Actual concentrations could be much higher, we just do not know. Also the AGW proponents have never proposed a concentration goal because their goal is to destroy our free market economy.

    1. Dear James,

      I guess I don’t understand your comment. The CO2 level measured at Mauna Loa is considered the standard. It is now between 415 and 420 ppmv.

      The AGW Proponents and HvM says they want to lower the CO2 level to 350 ppmv.

  14. I’m not familiar with the particulars of this case, but living in Oregon I can only imagine, it’s some out of state funded eco group trying to bilk the system based on junk science that passes for the real thing, because equity and everything.

    All I can say is I’m sorry you’re getting hosed again by the eco terrorists. I read an article last week that was talking about the real cost of using fire to solve our forest troubles in the west. It mentioned the fact that the smoke from the fires in North America, was countering all the reductions in CO2 we’ve supposed to have made. So all those dollars spent on Solar, Wind and carbon credits are meaningless as long as we continue to burn vs cut.

    But it’s holy smoke don’t you know? Yes, I’ve listened to some of those convinced we’re doomed say “the smoke from the woods burning isn’t a problem.” I chuckled and said trees are sequestered carbon. They looked at me like I was from another planet.

    Obviously they never had a serious science class in grade school. CO2 = trees and plants. Burning trees = CO2 and several other harmful compounds. Can we stop playing stupid games yet?

  15. So Dr. Running just testified that “The climate change impacts he will discuss and the result of anthropogenic climate change”. Will someone please get his proof of causation. I hope that is adequately attacked by the defense.

    1. This is a gift to the defense IF the defense knows what to do. I have a list of questions I would ask Running but I will wait until his testimony is compete.

      I believe my questions would end the trial immediately.

  16. The defense just lost Held v Montana. I did not say the plaintiffs won. I said the defense lost. The defense is toast.

    On Monday, June 12, Steve Running testified for the plaintiffs and certified that the IPCC reports include and represent the best climate data, theories, and predictions. During his two hours of testimony, Running issued many warnings that we must “drive” the CO2 level back below 350 ppm or we will face imminent climate disaster.

    The defense cross-examination asked only a few insignificant irrelevant questions, completely blowing their opportunity to take Running’s testimony apart limb by limb. Now the judge is required to assume everything Running said and claimed.

    Now, the defense has no opportunity to win. It doesn’t matter what Judith Curry says for the defense because the defense did not object to any of Steve Running’s invalid claims.

    The defense cross-examination was the most useless, pathetic, irresponsible, cross examination I have ever witnessed or can even imagine.

    The real question is WHY did the defense lose?

    The defense behaved like a boxer throwing a fight by standing with his arms at his side and letting his opponent knock him out.

    Can the defense be that incompetent? Or is someone in the radical right making money by having Montana lose Held v Montana?

    All AG Knudsen had to do to win was to ask for my help. I would have told the defense exactly what to ask Running and I would have prepared the slides they needed to ask the correct questions.

    Knudsen unethically, immorally, and purposely misrepresented Montana conservative voters when he censored and rejected my professional climate science help that would have easily defeated Held v Montana.

    Now I will put together a paper and a video for the public that shows what the defense should have asked Running to how easily Montana could have won the defense.

  17. Still no definition of terms. This last lady seems to think CO2 is a real pollutant that causes all sorts of disease. She blames “climate events” for many harms and states without equivocation that “anthropogenic climate change is harmful to the plaintiffs”. I am having trouble watching this because it is so biased and so wrong. It reminds me of trying to read the blog Skeptical Science.

    1. Indeed, I think the plaintiffs went too far with Lori Byron. As she talked about how a little warming in Montana is harming the kids, I’m thinking of how I played baseball in Sacramento when the temperature was over 105 F and the humidity was high. I survived, probably because no one told me the heat was harming me.

      It’s even worse in Atlanta GA or on the Florida Keys. But Montana? No way is the heat endangering the kids.

      But let’s see tomorrow if the defense is smart enough to do a good cross exam. I don’t know the names of the defense attorneys but the fat guy is not worth his pay. Whereas the guy who cross examined Cathy Witlock was good. It’s only too bad that he missed the most important questions.

      The most important questions that the defense is not asking are “Do you agree that your conclusions depend upon your theories (or assumptions) that (a) human CO2 causes all the CO2 increase, (b) the CO2 increase causes global warming, and (c) global warming cause the damages the you allege are happening.

      I wrote many times to AG Knudsen and his attorneys that they must ask these questions because they must show at the end of the trial that everything the plaintiffs alleged, assumes these three theories are true.

      Also, note how the plaintiffs attorneys are planning to destroy Judith Curry. She made a serious mistake by claiming to be an expert in everything, and the defense made a serious mistake by letting her make claims outside her area of focus.

  18. So Dr. Stanford says that the way to control runoff to fall within the “normal range of variation” to to reduce greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. The defense should determine his data and analysis method to determine this conclusion. Still no definition of of terms that are used over and over.

    1. Dear DMA,
      The plaintiffs went into for too much detail with Stanford. No one can follow these details. But in the end, it all comes down to he believes the damages are caused by human CO2.

      And the defense has NEVER asked a witness,
      “How do you know the described climate change has been caused by human CO2?”
      “How do you know the source of this claim is valid?

  19. The defense is completely science incompetent. Of course, some of the lawyers were recently hired and never told about the science they should know. So, I blame the whole incompetence on AG Knudsen.
    If he simply asked his lawyers to read my Climate Miracle, they would have picked up some basic information that would have helped them.
    No defense lawyer, or plaintiff witness, understands that the only way anyone can make predictions is to have a theory, and that all theories can be tested. So, they all fall for the myth that their predictions are true.
    It is obvious from the proceedings so far that the defense is not going to challenge the claim that human CO2 has caused all the alleged damages. So, how can the defense hope to win?

  20. I think every witness used the term “climate event” or responded to it being used in a question. I think it is a meaningless term as climate is an average of weather parameters and cannot be an event. I don’t think even the experts are working with the right definition of Climate.

    1. Good point.

      Cathy Whitlock said climate is the average of weather during CW-19, but she still talked about climate events.
      All the plaintiffs said they were damaged by a climate event, like a wildfire, fast river, slow river, smoke, fear, too hot, etc.

      No plaintiff claimed to be damaged by climate. In fact, climate wise, they all benefited from Montana’s climate.

  21. This Jacobson believes it is feasible to replace every tractor, combine, haul truck, dozer, scraper, crane automobile,and semi to electric by 2050 and it will increase our productivity and reduce our cost. I think he is nearly certifiable. His papers have been widely falsified if I remember correctly. The defense should press that.

  22. Ron Clutz, your posted link was too brief for readers to fully understand how important and relevant to this conversation that the link to your book actually is! I quote it and your link below:
    “I did a post on this today with simple, basic argument.”

    This is a Factual and Amazing book explaining, in simple terms, the incessantly-repeated claimed and leftist-fabricated “Imminent Man-Made Global Warming Climate Crisis due to CO2 Emissions” that has absolutely No Factual or Validated Basis in True Science — Only Dishonest Political-Science of Leftist Ideology!

    This book is brief, scientifically accurate to a fault and provides a quick way for both Children and Adults being constantly bombarded with Scary and Phony Political Science propaganda to understand the valid science of our Climate and there is absolutely no need to be scared or for our government to do anything about it!

    In reality, neither our Government, the pseudoscientific UN IPCC or anyone including scientist knows enough about our fully-natural Climate to responsibly Change or Control it significantly — Simply prepare for the next fully-natural Global Cooling (e.g., Little-Ice Age Like) period (likely very soon) and subsequent similar Global Warming periods during the current Interglacial Period which has lasted ~11,700 years so far until our Earth’s fully-natural-next Extremely Cold Ice-Age Glacial period like the prior one with Extreme Cold, Snow and Ice that stood over North America miles thick over: Montreal >2 miles, Toronto >1 mile, Boston >3/4 mile & Chicago >1/2 mile only 20,000 years ago.

    Ps. Considering the fact that many scientists have said that typically, Interglacial periods, last about 10,000 to 12,000+ years and we are currently ~11,700 years into our current Interglacial period. … Might just be a good reason to reconsider our governments’ and societies’ preoccupation with “Global Warming” — After all, there has been very little global warming for the last 25 years, since 1998 when temperatures peaked by ~1-degree F and then dropped back 1.08-degrees F and remained generally flat demonstrating only “Natural Variability”!

  23. In the book entitled “The Psychology of Totalitarianism, the professor of clinical psychology presents his study of the thinking of the enemies of legitimate science.

    Group think leads a large group of them to believe there is no such thing as a “complex system” and thus that Earth’s climate system exhibits the property that is called The Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity” (TECS).

    Siding with the members of this group, climatologists assign a numerical value to TECS by an application of Bayes’ inverse probability theorem. This value is high enough to create fear among the members of this group of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.

    In reality these “probabilities” are not actually probabilities as they violate the axiom of probability theory called “unit measure.”

    Violation of “unit measure is observable as the absence of a partition of time, each element of which is an event that is certain to occur. The result is for 0 to be the value of the measure of an event that is certain to occur rather than the value of 1 that is required for satisfaction of “unit measure.”

  24. Dr. Berry,

    You have already proven how to win this court case with scientific based truth, but the history of our government has shown that the truth is last thing people are supposed to know.

    Almost all propaganda focuses on the emotional conditioning of people, not truth. People can easily be herded by implanted fear and government promises that focus on security from the fear. To propagandists the truth only matters when it supports their propaganda.

    Unfortunately, our government has a history of lying, with that lie becoming the next “Truth” in our history books. The “Truth” of climate change doom and gloom will be followed by the next set of scientifically based lies that will become the next “Truth” in our history books. Totalitarianism is people believing they have an all caring truthful scientifically based government (and media) that can resolve all of their emotionally planted fears.

    Unfortunately, most people will never understand how “controlled opposition” is used in propaganda, where the illusion of two sides debating/fighting each other is maintained, such as in politics (war, investigations, court cases, etc.), where it’s already decided for both sides what the outcome will be. Maintaining the illusion of two opposing sides (with people believing they have a choice) allows for government to do whatever it wants to accomplish its goals.

    Hopefully the real “Truth” prevails in this court case and it’s not just another case of controlled opposition.

  25. It is a dumb lawsuit based on biased feelings, not observation. The virtue signaling judge will be overturned on appeal. There is no man-made climate change. CO2 levels will continue to increase over the next 50 years no matter what the USA does anyway, because China is now the world’s largest CO2 producer, and is increasing coal production and power plants…to make the environmentally destructive solar panels, wind turbines, and lithium batteries that actually do destroy the environment.

    1. Dear Roger,
      Thank you for your kind reference to my post.

      We must be a lone two of a kind because virtually all Republicans I talk to think I should give AG Knudsen a gold star for purposely losing Held v Montana because, hey, “we Republicans gotta stick together.”

      The fact is AG Knudsen betrayed all his voters. How would anyone feel if their lawyer, who signed up to defend them against a criminal accusation, then stipulated to the court that they are guilty?

      So far, no news media, Montana or USA, will cover this outrageous story. The Daily Inter Lake, so far, will not publish my opinion letter on this subject. Montana Radio is broadcasting legal fiction by attacking the judge, who is only the messenger of what happened in court.

      In 2011, I led the Intervention that defeated “Held v Montana” when it was a Petition to the Montana Supreme Court. Based upon my argument, the MSC decision set the Montana precedent that human carbon dioxide does NOT cause global warming.

      Now comes AG Knudsen, who should have used this MSC precedent to dismiss Held v Montana, or at least to win Held v Montana. But he stipulated, in opposition the favorable MSC precedent, that human carbon dioxide DOES cause global warming.

      A Republican insider admitted to me on August 18, their MTGOP and Knudsen censored and blacklisted me from helping Montana defeat Held v Montana. They censored me in secret, never explained their reason, and never offered me the opportunity to reply to whatever their problem is.

      But their censorship of me caused Montana to lose Held v Montana because, as I guarantee, I would have easily defeated Held v Montana if they had allowed me to do so.


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.