1. Nature has been removing CO2 from the atmosphere for the past 540 million years. We came close to a dead planet at 280ppmv. Present (more than welcome) rise is NOT caused by humans. Past decades antropogenic emissions have tripled; the steady rise as measured at Mauna Loa since 1958 did not budge. Hence, observations support the calculations by Prof. Murry Salby and Dr.Ed Berry. End of story.
    Mr Salby and Mr Berry are right. That’s it.

    1. Dear Jose,
      Thank you for bringing our attention to the paper by Stallinga. While his paper has a much more complicated argument than my papers use, his paper nevertheless finds the same overall conclusions as my papers do, e.g., that nature causes at least 80% of the CO2 increase above 280 ppm.

      My suggestions to Stallinga would be to read my three papers, beginning with Berry (2019) that explains the difference between residence time and adjustment time, and turnover time (which is my e-time). Note especially Figure 14 of Berry (2019) that illustrates the difference between residence time and adjustment time.

      The IPCC uses adjustment time when a quantity is far from its balance level and residence time when a quantity is close to its balance level. Whereas e-time accurately covers the full range.

      Only my papers develop a physics model that defines balance levels and replicates IPCC’s natural carbon cycle. Had Stallinga used my model and its balance levels, he would have greatly simplified his argument. Nevertheless, I welcome his paper because he used a different way than I did to come to the same general conclusions.

  2. Dear Everyone,
    As DMA noticed today, comments were gone. I checked and found that every comment in the history of my site were gone. So, I had to do a restore to the backup two days ago to recover all comments on my site.
    However, two days ago removed some comments on this post.
    Here are the missing comments:

    Stephen P. Anderson:
    Dr. Berry, I’ve never seen you speak much about Theories (2) and (3)

    Dr. Ed:
    Hi Stephen, Theory (1) is my niche. I know people who can do (2) and (3) better than I can.
    I decided to focus on (1) because few understand it, I can prove it in a lawsuit, and it affects the human component of (2) and (3).

    I like your plan and intention to get Howard on the team. I agree his latest analysis shows models do not apply standard physics to come up with their expected warming, as it would require about 5 times the forcing they think is available.

    1. I agree with you Dr. Ed. Theory (1) is your niche. However, I disagree that there are others who can do (2) and (3) better than you (once you put your mind to them).

  3. On April 9, 2023, I had contacted our governor Greg Gianforte concerning State District Judge, Michael Moses who was responsible for vacating the air permit due to “climate change” for NorthWestern Energy’s $275 million gas fired Laurel Power Plant.
    Judge Michael Moses is retiring on June 1st of this year and is part of the deep state that’s destroying the United States through their unlawful and unconstitutional acts.
    I requested that Governor Greg Gianforte reinstate this permit as it has nothing to do with “climate change” and everything to do with a “tyrannical government” who will do anything to destroy this nation.
    I also let him know the citizenry of Montana were becoming fed up with what’s happening in this nation and in this State and they will have hell to pay if it doesn’t stop.
    I then gave him your information which should be transferred to NorthWestern Energy to stop these tyrants. Not sure how far this will go but I write to him, our Congress, and Senate constantly when I see something that needs attention within our State.

    1. Dear John,
      if Governor Gianforte really wanted to win all the climate-related lawsuits and decisions, all he needs to do is to let me prove to the judge that nature, not human CO2, causes the CO2 increase. I can prove that easily.
      So, his refusal to do that simple thing means he is bought and paid for by someone who does not want that to happen.

  4. I wonder if the Governor and Attorney General believe the climate change hoax? Or are they simply politicians catering to the most votes? I moved to Idaho a few years ago and am out of the loop on what motivates the current administration in Montana. Is there another avenue for you to testify other than as a State of Montana witness?

    1. Dear Mike,
      Given their political orientation, our Governor and AG believe climate change is a hoax. They don’t understand anything about the science that proves this is true.

      Lawsuits are not like political bills. No one gets to testify in a lawsuit unless the plaintiff or defense asks them to testify.

      However, by their works we shall know them. By censoring me, they are helping the Democrats win climate lawsuits.

      The real question is why would they want to censor me since they know I would help defeat the lawsuit?

      Who do they owe what?

      I think they owe their puppet master for his inside help in getting them elected. Maybe he helped manufacture the votes that helped elect them. But it is very clear to me that our Governor and AG are puppets of a puppet master who wants to harm me. They are his toadies.

  5. Sounds like your governor and AG are cut from the same cloth as Wyoming’s Liz Cheney. They may be “Republican” in name only but they’re just political whores. Find out who their financial backers are and who is filling their personal bank accounts and you have the answer as to why these traitors have betrayed the citizens of Montana……

  6. I have researched Regina’s climate history going back to 1884. What we see is that we in South Sask. are having somewhat warmer winters and slightly cooler summers. Co2 has increased by about 50% in the past 170 years or so. That can easily be explained. Co2 comprises ONLY 1/24th of our atmosphere and methane is ONLY 1.8 parts per million. Both these amounts are MUCH too small to have any significant influence on our climate or weather. e.g. Historically July is our hottest month. Since Jan.1, 1950 we have had only 3 record highs after 1949 and 28 record highs before 1950. And i can go on and on with similar data supporting the idea that we are having somewhat warmer winters and slightly cooler summers. The supposition that co2 and methane are causing significant climate change in the world is indeed the HOAX of the 21st century. What is having some influence on our weather is the fact that the earth’s orbit is elliptical not circular and varies by about 3 million million miles (91.5-94.5) We , in the northern hemisphere, are closest to the sun in Jan. which gives us somewhat warmer winters. We are furthest away from the sun in July which gives us slightly cooler summers. The opposite is true for the southern hemisphere. I have searched the internet but cannot find one single person who deals with this significant variable. Flooding?? The single greatest cause of flooding in our rivers is the fact that farmers have been draining their lowlands and sloughs for many years. Water that used to remain on the fields now rushes to the lowlands and causes very significant flooding. I’ve seen it all with my own eyes on our farms in the Regina area. Amen. Joe.

  7. Dear Ed,

    As you know, I am not an American but I am a Brit who is supportive of America, and I have sincere desire for our two countries to maintain their differences. One reason for my liking of our differences is ability for us to learn from each other’s experiences.

    As you may know, I recently requested information from members of GWR about using the law to protect from extreme propaganda of ‘climate alarmists’ in the USA. The conclusion seemed to be that our two countries have such different ‘separation’ of government powers that little can be learned of use to one of our countries by study of the other.

    This conclusion was a disappointment to me because I am in the UK where ‘climate alarmists’ have usurped much of the news media notably the BBC. The alarmists achieved this control of the mass media by gaining involvement of political parties who applied – and apply – pressure to induce news media to support ‘climate alarmism’.

    Fortunately, the British legal systems have been independent of the political control. This is demonstrated by the legal systems’ protection of our education systems which
    (a) requires our education systems to explain political ideas to students
    (b) prohibits our education systems from promoting political ideas.

    Hence, for example, the English Supreme Court decreed that any school which showed Al Gore’s science fiction movie must accompany it with (i) a statement that the movie is political propaganda and (ii) explanation of several errors of fact in the movie.

    But there was no demur from opinion that the opposite is true in the USA where the legal system is politically usurped but the press provides protection from the alarmists’ propaganda.

    So, Ed, I would welcome any comments from you and your followers about the possibility and the value of seeking opposition to the alarmists in American courts.


  8. Dr. Ed,
    I was wondering if there was a way you could join the lawsuit as a third party, or cross-claim? I’m not a lawyer or scientist but I think someone has to stand up for the tax payers when the government fails to do it’s job. Since you have been to court before, I figured you already know the answers about what you can and can not do. I was reading through Counterclaims, Cross-Claims, and Third-Party Complaints to see if there was any way you could give your information to the Court.

    We need more scientist like you willing to speak the truth.

  9. Hi Ed, sorry to hear the direction taken by Montana political leaders. It seems they are unwilling, perhaps lacking confidence to engage the scientific fallacies basing climate alarm. But it is also the case that by surrendering to alarmist claims and lawfare, they are putting themselves at odds with national Republican party leadership, and voter majorities.

    They should reconsider their priorities in light of H.R.1, just passed by the House of Representatives. It’s entitled the Lower Energy Costs Act and embraces Republican Party energy plans and policies. An overview is provided at Speaker McCarthy’s website https://www.speaker.gov/hr1/, along with some explanatory news articles. The bill in its entirety is here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/1/text.

    This energy policy is also a winner with the voting public, base on a recent survey, which I summarized here:

  10. There was one (only?) time a Judge allowed a court to consider climate science, relating to alarm about global warming. That was S.F. Judge Alsop who requested a climate tutorial in the lawsuit case filed by California cities against big oil companies. William Happer, Steven E. Koonin, and Richard S. Lindzen submitted their presentation in response to the Court’s questions. The links to originals documents appear to be broken, but I did post a synopsis of the 8 questions and the professors’ responses here:
    Alsop utimately ruled against the plaintif cities in June 2018, dismissing their case. He wrote:

    The US District Court for the Northern District of California has issued a ruling dismissing the climate change lawsuits filed against Chevron Corporation by the cities of San Francisco and Oakland. The court dismissed the complaint as requiring foreign and domestic policy decisions that are outside the proper purview of the courts.

    As the court described, “the scope of plaintiffs’ theory is breathtaking. It would reach the sale of fossil fuels anywhere in the world, including all past and otherwise lawful sales.”

    “It is true,” the court continued, “that carbon dioxide released from fossil fuels has caused (and will continue to cause) global warming. But against that negative, we must weigh this positive: our industrial revolution and the development of our modern world has literally been fuelled by oil and coal. Without these fuels, virtually all of our monumental progress would have been impossible. All of us have benefitted. Having reaped the benefit of that historic progress, would it really be fair to now ignore our own responsibility in the use of fossil fuels and place the blame for global warming on those who supplied what we demanded? Is it really fair, in light of those benefits, to say that the sale of fossil fuels was unreasonable?”

    The court concluded by dismissing the claims and deferring to the policy judgments of the legislative and executive branches of the federal government: “The dangers raised in the complaints are very real. But those dangers are worldwide. Their causes are worldwide. The benefits of fossil fuels are worldwide. The problem deserves a solution on a more vast scale than can be supplied by a district judge or jury in a public nuisance case. While it remains true that our federal courts have authority to fashion common law remedies for claims based on global warming, courts must also respect and defer to the other co-equal branches of government when the problem at hand clearly deserves a solution best addressed by those branches.”

  11. My previous comment has disappeared, so I will repeat it. The position of your Montana political leaders puts them at odds with national Republican Party energy priorities and policies. They should reconsider in light of H.R.1 Lower Energy Costs Act, recently passed by the House of Representatives. An overview of H.R. 1 is at Speaker McCarthy’s website along with links to some explanatory news articles:
    The Lower Energy Costs Act is also a winner with the public, based on a recent survey, which I summarized here:

  12. Pingback: Held V Montana

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.