1. Ed: I am sorry about Republicans not supporting you and your wisdom on climate change. If I would have run for the Senate or the House I would support you in a heart-beat. I also use your name all of the time in any conversations about the climate. I keep recommending you to the Fox News folks as well. You should be on their programs often.

    Gary and Joan

  2. Dr. Ed Berry is right about climate science and right about many American politicians not serving the interests of our country..

    If we go along with the false claims of the World Economic Forum and the United Nations that man-made carbon dioxide causes catastrophic global warming – If we follow the Alarmist Pied Piper down the road to abandoning fossil fuels and the by-products – the United States will become a third world backwater instead of the beacon of world leadership our Founding Fathers worked so hard for.

    Best wishes to all of Ed’s friends!

    John A. Shanahan, Dr. of Engineering
    Marquis Who’s Who – 2024
    Website: allaboutenergy.net

  3. I have worked in the automotive industry for over 28 years before being laid-off by a major corporation and studied automotive pollution for most of those years with the company I worked for since emissions are a form of regulation on the industry. Since the 1990’s when Global Warming, was presented to the public due to CO2 became an issue while Al Gore was VP for the Clinton Administration I knew it was a scam. Your detailed explanation of the CO2 argument puts everything into proper perspective and I really appreciate what you are doing to expose this Climate Change Scam for what it really is. I am a life-long conservative Republican in N.C. and will continue to share your findings of facts with others who are questioning the validity of the leftists agenda on Climate science and for those who need to be properly informed of the specifics on this debate that not allowed by the main stream media. Thank you for all you do sir!

  4. Living in Australia , I am not aware of these names. However. I know all about the WEF , UN , NATO , the Swamp , DC , Soros and even the WHO. All rouges and rouge states.
    I will have to get Ed’s book. But prefer to avoid Amazon.

  5. When I went to school we didn’t believe in magic. TH Huxley said an unscientific people will not survive in a scientific world. We used to have a rational curriculum that taught the scientific method and hopefully why the scientific method was the best hope of human survival.

  6. Having followed Dr. Ed Berry’s perspective on CO2 and gobal warming for many years, I would like to direct attention to that of Alex Epstein. It is very much related to that Dr. Berry’s, but it is different in that Epstein’s perspective does not require specialized knowledge or training. Instead, mere willingness to apply one’s rational faculty is sufficient. Along these lines, I direct to an unprecedented recent resolution by the RNC which he has reported at

    1. Dear Urlich,

      Thank you for your link to Epstein’s work. He does a good job.

      However, I think my argument that human CO2 does not stay in the atmosphere longer than natural CO2, because they are identical, is much simpler than all of Epstein’s arguments. My argument destroys the climate scam in a way that 12-year-olds can understand it.

      I show very simply why the whole claim that human CO2 changes the climate is a one big fraud that we should dismiss outright.

      1. Tom V. Segalstad worked out the residency time of CO2 emissions into the atmosphere to be 5.4 years (~5 years). Applying that to the figures available for Gt of CO2 emitted each year, it works out that between 16 and 18 ppm of the current (~420 ppm) atmospheric CO2 are the result of the entirety of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel use throughout human history.

        So on the basis of a mere 4% of total emissions that are the result of the net emissions over the entire history of fossil fuel usage, we are expected to turn the modern world on its head? For what purpose?

        And of course the IPCC ignores (or mangles) the fact that each additional increment of atmospheric CO2 growth has less capability of warming the atmosphere than the previous increment (the law of “diminishing effect”).

        As it turns out, most radiant heat (IR) given off by Earth is “invisible” to CO2. The portion of the radiant IR spectra given off by Earth where CO2 might be significantly reactive is partially shared with the reactivity of water vapor (H2O), the dominant “greenhouse gas” (though that expression is incorrect since the atmosphere does not warm the way a greenhouse does… by preventing the convective release of warmed air).

        Earth’s atmosphere does not “trap” heat. The atmosphere has a temperature that is subject to fluctuations from a variety of causes (day/night, seasonal change, solar changes, etc.).

        The IPCC says growing atmospheric CO2 from fossil fuel usage is a “principal cause” of warming climate. Reduced to its essence, the IPCC claims changing CO2 is a principal cause of changing global average surface temperature (GAST).

        I’ve examined what might be the most reliable data for CO2 and GAST since the early Industrial Age (1880) and discovered the following 130 years if changing CO2 and GAST (four “climate change” samples):

        1881-1911 (30 years): CO2 grew 9.2 ppm; Temperature cooled -0.37˚C
        1911-1944 (33 years): CO2 grew 9.6 ppm; Temperature warmed +0.73˚C
        1944-1976 (32 years): CO2 grew 21.8 ppm; Temperature cooled -0.38˚C
        1976-2011 (35 years): CO2 grew 59.8 ppm; Temperature warmed +0.66˚C


        During the 33 years of 1911-1944 temperature warmed 11% more than during the 35 years of 1976-2011 when atmospheric CO2 grew nearly 6¼ times more than during the earlier period!

        During the 30 years of 1881-1911 when atmospheric CO2 increased just 9.2 ppm, temperatures cooled by -0.37˚C, yet virtually the same atmospheric CO2 increase (9.8 ppm) during the 33 years of 1911-1944, produced the strongest warming +0.73˚C of the four “climate” periods examined.

        Clearly, the observed evidence refutes any theory that claims changing atmospheric CO2 is the principal cause of changing climate (global average surface temperatures).

        Unless someone has repealed the laws of science and the scientific method that requires every theory to agree with the observed evidence in nature.

  7. When we look at the explanation it always comes back to the mythical green house effect.

    Well green houses work by restricting convection. Green house gases are claimed to work by back radiation. This is where they go wrong in using incorrect terms confusing radiation and convection? CO2 has a resonant frequency, just like a wine glass. if the glass is subjected to its resonant frequency energy is transferred to the glass breaking it. It CO2 is exposed to its frequency it agitates molecules getting warmer. Now in either case off frequency nothing happens, the glass is intact and co2 stays cool. This is a well known phenomena used in micro wave cookers on water molecules.

    There is no back radiation of suitable frequency from the Earth, only direct photons have this energy, not reflected from the moon or earth. Clouds are water vapour and do react to longer wave length infrared hence we have frost free nights under a cloudy night sky. A blanket effect is mis named as the greenhouse effect. This is emotive misleading and not possible as described. The deception is possible as few understand radiation and photons.

    At just 20ppm CO2 reacts to the Suns Photons and gets warmer. In experiments over 340ppm there was no measurable het detected. That is a quote from the Pen Uni demonstration experiment as written. Heating declines on a log base after the first 20ppm that happened millions of years ago. Reducing CO2 can have negligible effect now so net zero is a nonsense solution to a non crisis. I use my own words to descibe as simply as possible how I understand the mechanism involved, If others are more able please pile in.

    1. Dear Brinsley,

      Your comment is valid. However, as I commented above, I think my argument that human CO2 does not stay in the atmosphere longer than natural CO2, because they are identical, destroys the climate scam in a way that 12-year-olds can understand it.


  8. Thank you for discrediting this climate hoax! I know more people are realizing what a scam this is, but it is still long road to putting this bogus theory to bed. Stay strong!

  9. Contact Tucker Carlson and Joe Rogan for getting onto their podcasts. They reach more Americans than anybody else in any type of media.

  10. Supporting you from Down Under where our Government is crucifying our economy in the misconception that this will save the planet.

  11. The opinions of people are formed by marketing.

    “Each man’s rubber stamps are the duplicates of millions of others, so that when those millions are exposed to the same stimuli, all receive identical imprints.” Edward Bernays.

    Where what is happening makes no sense to those who are using their common sense and doing research by looking at all arguments, many leave ‘thinking’ to others.
    Science has been corrupted by propaganda but those who should know better have largely been compromised by greed, security, scandal, power or status, and so will not speak up. Some are just blinded.

    The term ‘Greenhouse Gas’ is a marketing term as is the hype of ‘Global Warming’ and ‘Climate Emergency’. Conflicts are created, lies are dosed with a little truth, and fear is cultivated. These tactics are fuel for the human condition and play on weaknesses fulfilling the desired ‘agenda’.

    The trick would be to break the spell. This could be done by explaining the science but, alas, generally people are not prepared or capable to listen or debate. They rely on others to think for them.

    Fighting fire with fire may be an approach when discussing the ‘Gas of Life’ or a rise in temperature will ‘Save Lives’.

    Unless we all speak out at every opportunity, or people start suffering in their pocket or their stomachs there may be no improvement. If alternative media becomes more popular then we may get some movement. Education defeats fear and ignorance but technology is not working as people have become lazy and the digital world is owned by the evil perpetrators. It really comes down to politics and psychology, not science.

    That’s my opinion and possibly the best way I can describe the problem as I see it.

    Thank you for your work, Ed Berry

  12. Especially during this election year is it necessary to counter the climate change misinformation. Climate changes, always has, always will. I recommend sharing four talking points. 1) Present day temperatures may well be within the historical norm. Cite the multi-millennial data. 2) No one really knows what exactly caused the current high global temperature average. Model evidence is unsubstantiated and verifiably flawed. 3) As Dr. Ed’s papers show, the human contribution is relatively small compared to natural sources of CO2. Even if it were proven that CO2 was causing global temperatures to increase, there is nothing to stop its atmospheric rise short of eliminating 8 billion people from the planet. That’s because of non-fossil fuel sources of CO2 arising from population growth. 4) The US has no control over CO2, as long as China and India are burning coal like there’s no tomorrow.

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.