No, the GOP is NOT united
Ed Berry
Donald Trump made his position clear,
“By slashing energy costs, we will reduce the cost of transportation, manufacturing, and household goods. We have to produce massive amounts of energy.”
To prevail, America must invest more in coal, gas, oil, and nuclear energy. Green energy will not satisfy the coming electrical demand because we need low-cost reliable energy 24 x 365. But this requirement conflicts with the climate myth that claims we must limit our use of carbon fuels “to save the planet.”
The climate truth is human CO2 has trivial effect on the CO2 level, natural CO2 is already above 400 ppm, temperature changes precede CO2 changes, CO2 has no effect on global temperature, albedo controls temperature, and human CO2 does not change the climate.
The Republican problem is 20% of Republican-leaning voters believe the climate myth because Republican leaders will not tell them the climate truth.
One reason Trump lost his presidential bid in 2020 was he did not defend his climate position in his critical climate debate against Biden. Trump thereby lost the 20% of Republican voters who so believe the climate myth that they will vote Democrat “to save the planet.” Trump could have changed their minds about climate and won their vote.
Trump and Republican Congressional candidates face a repeat of 2020 unless they tell the voters the climate truth.
Attorney General Austin Knudsen PURPOSELY lost the Held v Montana climate lawsuit. On June 12, 2023, at the beginning of the trial, Knudsen’s assistant AG 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.”
After three years of preparation to defend Held v Montana, AG Knudsen threw away his pretenses of being a conservative. He never challenged a plaintiff expert witness and presented no expert witnesses to defend Held v Montana. Knudsen sabotaged Republicans.
Judge Seeley correctly ruled for the Plaintiffs based on the evidence in the trial because Knudsen presented no evidence. An ethical Democrat AG would have put up a better defense.
Senator Daines and his clone wannabe Senator Sheehy quickly claimed on “X” that the judge was wrong because she is a liberal. Daines and Sheehy inserted politics and lies into the trial that is based on logic and evidence. They are the liberals.
In April 2022, I learned about Held v Montana when Knudsen’s team invited a potential climate expert witness who recommended me instead, with an email copy to me.
When I contacted Knudsen’s Held v Montana private contractor, she made it clear that Montana Republicans had blacklisted and censored me from helping Montana. Montana could pay other experts for their work but not me.
Nevertheless, I gave them my extensive rebuttal of the lawsuit, an outline of how to defeat Held v Montana, including the questions to ask their experts, and recommended twelve expert witnesses. An assistant AG liked my suggestions and began to sign me up on June 1, 2022.
On Friday, June 3, at the Kalispell Pachyderm meeting, I mentioned to one person, whom I thought was my friend, that I was helping Knudsen defeat Held v Montana. He became visibly angry. Within an hour after the meeting, Knudsen had cut off all my communications with his assistant AG.
“They are not after me. They are after you. I’m just in their way.”
Defeating Held v Montana is about more than climate truth. It’s about stopping the unethical, immoral, fear-led indoctrination of America’s children in climate fiction. It is damaging their brains and their lives and America.
The Held v Montana child plaintiffs have not suffered any damage from human CO2. They have suffered mental damage from climate indoctrination by their parents and teachers.
Montana could have easily defeated Held v Montana, saved the children, and changed the world. But a Republican-led conspiracy PURPOSELY lost Held v Montana.
To help Montana candidates do their job, I invite them to a one-hour review of climate change science.
Edwin X Berry, PhD, Theoretical Physics, former National Science Foundation Program Manager for Weather Modification. Bigfork
I put it to you, Ed that you are falling into the trap that the nuclear industry itself has set.
Dear Graham,
You need to make a better case than simply saying the nuclear industry has set a trap.
I base my support for nuclear on the facts that nuclear is a proven energy source, the new nuclear designs are far better and safer than the older designs, and that the potential for nuclear fusion reactors real.
I have not seen any valid argument that suggests we should abandon all nuclear power.
Ed
Dear Ed,
If you are to debate with me, you have to be a straw-man-free zone. You should also expect the same of me.
When you “put” something to someone, it is a hypothesis. Not a “case for the hypothesis”. Your first point is therefore a straw-man.
Do you concede your first point there? We can then proceed to your second, and more fruitful debate. Thanks.
Hi Ed,
LOL. Oh no! Your third point is a straw man too! Who on earth told you we have to get rid of all nuclear power?
Not everyone that disagrees with you is a simpleton. My position is nuanced. Yours needs to be more so.
The second point is three fold and all unsupported:
– I agree that nuclear is proven. We have many decades of “proof”. Of what? You do not say.
– You assert the new designs are far better and safe than the older designs, but once again, new renewables are better than the old too.
– The third part, that the “potential for nuclear is real” is true, but it does not prove anything one way or the other right now.
Honestly, Ed. I expected more. Your arguments in favour of nuclear are critically similar to the unsupported, hyperbolic arguments of the climate alarmists. I reckon I could have put a better case for nuclear power myself. Genuinely.
Yet I do not agree with the conclusions in your article. How can that be?
Hi Ed,
Just to recap: That is not a strong or objective argument for nuclear power, and I don’t want to defeat that weak argument of yours. Please supply something stronger, or allow me to work with you to strengthen your case, so that we can examine it for its inherent incongruities. If you have nothing, that’s OK, I have much stronger arguments in favour of your proposal than you appear to have judging by that reply, and I will be delighted to post them with your leave.
Hi Ed,
I refer back to my original comment:
I put it to you, Ed that you are falling into the trap that the nuclear industry itself has set.
Yes, Republican should be always challenging the climate baloney – thanks Ed!
The climate hoax needs to be exposed. I cringe just thinking of all the money that has been flushed down the toilet in the name of climate change. Thank you for what you are doing to bring this into the light.
Researchers get grants to save the planet. If the planet doesn’t need saving then the grants go away. So, researchers give the government whatever it wants.
I’m doing my best. LOL
Thanks Ed for getting the word out on the climate change hoax. and hopefully Trump will challenge Kamala’s eligibility. I’d like to see this issue settled once and for all.
Remember that lies never prevail in the longer run, but often temporarily. Just in cases like this, where true science and polititics clash and many “experts” keep silent or flat out lie for personal/economic reasons.
We have a similar situation in my country, Sweden, where only one out of hundred “experts” stand up for basic economic science (and very few also in natural sciences).
Best regards,
Åke Sundström
Economist and retired civil servant, author of a book about Swedish climate and energy policy, rejecting IPCC and EU goals and regulations. In Swedish only, this far.
You are so correct; we Republicans, are not united.
Worse we science educated are not united in our understanding of very important subjects:
Global Warming, Extreme Weather, Energy Policy.
And we, the scientists, do not talk to determine what is true!!
I see data that you ignore – but you have not made time to talk with me.
You state ” humans have not changed CO2 levels”.
The attached graph has CO2 data and fuel sources – based on lots of data.
CO2 was @ 280 ppm until with Chemistry, coal gas was available, and CO2 rate went up @ .096 ppm/yr.
Then Drake learned how to drill for oil and CO2 started upward at 1880 rate went to .28 ppm/year.
Engineers started building gas turbines in 1960, instead of piston driven & jet planes filled the skies.
Now our leaders shut down coal, add 6 hours of solar/wind and 16 of hours of methane burning gas turbines.
Molecular weight of stack gases prove methane exhaust is lighter than air and rises rapidly.
Stack gas from burning coal is denser than air and settles to the ground. To figure that energy policy!
FORTUNATELY, AS WE AGREE, CO2 DOES NOT HAVE ANY EFFECT ON GLOBAL WARMING
BUT NEITHER DOES ALBEIDO!
URANIUM ORE DOES!!!!!
CAN YOU CREATE TIME TO “TALK”?? ; I CAN.
Art Krugler
125 Sparrow Circle
Grass Valley, CA 95945
530-446-6661
125 Sparrow Circle
I feel each of those changes impacted CO2
Ed Drake learned how to drill for oil
Ed might not welcome this, but I have to speak up for him, as he has others chasing him, and has come back to me more than once. I have read Ed’s work, but as I recall, he acknowledges man’s contribution to overall levels, but disputes the extent of that contribution.
I am always looking for objective debate of this subject and I can certainly accommodate you in the meantime. I would declare from the outset that, like Ed, I am sceptical about the IPCC and its stance on this, but I do not accept his assertions that nuclear power can solve the problem with or without fossils and renewables.
Maybe Ed will research some more into nuclear and find that he has been conned by the nuclear industry propaganda. If so, it is an understandable mistake to make when you are preoccupied with the IPCC propaganda problem – as Ed undoubtedly has been.
Meanwhile, I too wait patiently for a reply.
Thanks to everyone for your comments. I will join your discussion as soon as I can, but my immediate priority is to finish some critical pieces of software so I can keep my website letters going. It will take a few more days.
Oh my God! If it’s software, we’ll see you in a few months. LOL. The work you are doing is essential. Good luck!
Dear Graham,
Thank you for your concern. I finished the software.
I am now writing my first newsletter with this revision. I am back to focusing on the climate fraud.
I moved all my subscribers out of a WordPress plugin to GetResponse. This allowed me to remove over a dozen WordPress plugins, and it makes it much easier for me send newsletters. You may have noticed the new popup box for signups.
Ed
Thanks. I’ll watch out for that. There are lots of like minds even at grass roots level. You are filling a huge gap in the CO2/Climate research for them, on but it is such hard for us to get anyone to listen. I’ll keep on sharing your work and hope for the best.