Why climate change is a fraud
by Ed Berry, PhD
The journal, Science of Climate Change, published my landmark scientific paper on December 14, 2021.
My paper, and papers by Murry Salby and Hermann Harde, are checkmate proof that natural CO2, not human CO2, causes most of the increase in atmospheric CO2. Physics proves our CO2 does not change our climate.
President Bush began the climate change fraud.
The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) makes this core assumption:
- Natural CO2 remained constant after 1750 and human CO2 causes all the observed increase in atmospheric CO2.
IPCC’s core assumption is the basis of all climate laws, regulations, treaties, taxes, and education. It has cost us dearly in our energy sources, our economy, our national defense, our lives, our minds, and our freedom.
My paper shows why this assumption is wrong. But more important, my paper shows this assumption is not the result of a simple error by the IPCC. This assumption is an obvious fraud of global proportions.
President GHW Bush was the main force in forming and funding the IPCC in 1988. There is nothing in IPCC’s Charter about investigating the cause of climate change. The IPCC merely assumes our CO2 causes climate change.
In June 1992, President G.H.W. Bush and 107 other world leaders attended the U.N. Conference on Environment and Development, or the “Earth Summit” in Rio de Janeiro.
Secretary General Maurice Strong chaired the conference that 20,000 climate activists and green lobby members attended. The UN and the US government paid all attendees’ expenses.
Strong declared in his Summit speech,
“A shift is necessary toward lifestyles less geared to environmentally damaging consumption patterns. We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrialized civilization to collapse. Isn’t it our responsibility to bring this about?”
Strong declared,
“the real goal of the Earth Charter is that it will in fact become like the Ten Commandments.”
Strong long supported global governance at the expense of national sovereignty. He said environmental mandates require the eventual dismantling of the power of the nation state:
“It is simply not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation-states, however powerful. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the imperatives of global environmental cooperation.”
“We need a system of global governance through which nations can cooperate and deal with issues they cannot deal with alone. The ultimate example is climate change.”
In 1992, Al Gore claimed,
“Only an insignificant fraction of scientists deny the global warming crisis. The time for debate is over. The science is settled.”
I attended the meeting in the San Francisco Bay area where Bush’s toady told some 100 climate physicists like me that we were out of a job. They did not want physicists to tell them our CO2 does not cause climate change. They wanted and would fund only ecologists to write reports on the damage humans do by burning carbon fuels.
We must stop the climate fraud.
I am sorry to see Frosty Wooldridge has fallen for the climate fraud (NWV Dec 30, 2022). I like many things Frosty does, but his promotion of the climate fraud is wrong.
Frosty wrote:
“The fact remains: adding population adds to catastrophic climate destabilization with millions of more people burning millions of barrels of oil 24/7.
“That means more wildfires in the 6th year of an “exceptional drought” in the West. That means more extraordinary tornadoes in Kentucky, Tennessee, Oklahoma ad nauseum.
“It means massive hurricanes sweeping up our coasts. It means raising the temperatures at the poles to a point where all glaciers melt into the oceans.
“It means dropping more acidic carbon molecules into our oceans to kill more than 100 species daily across the planet.”
“Well, now, we’ve got catastrophic climate destabilization breathing down our throats.”
Frosty’s climate claims are not science.
The dark side propagates its climate fraud by trying to scare you with its claimed consequences if you do not do what they tell you to do. Fear causes us to abandon our logic and common sense. Likely, the witch doctors of old used the same techniques.
How to understand the climate fraud.
Almost Eevery day, the news media tells us about a new “climate catastrophe.” The subliminal message is “because it’s bad, you caused it.”
The climate fraud may be the mother of all frauds. Belief in IPCC’s core assumption dumbs us down and makes us susceptible to other frauds, like gun control and COVID mandates.
They say, “natural CO2 emissions stayed constant and human CO2 caused the problem.” This is the ecological nonsense of “Nature is Good, Human is Bad.”
My book Climate Miracle explains in a short read the logic you need to defend yourself against climate alarmism.
The proof is important.
According to the scientific method, it is impossible to prove a theory is true (as climate alarmists try to do) but it takes only one contradiction to prove a theory is false. My paper supplies that contradiction.
According to the scientific method, my paper overturns the “consensus” claim that IPCC’s core assumption is true, and it “outvotes” the thousands of IPCC papers that claim IPCC’s core assumption is true.
Now, the only scientific way for them to justify their climate alarmism is to show there is a major error in my paper. Many have tried but no one has succeeded.
Human CO2 does not “accumulate” in the atmosphere.
CO2 flows through the atmosphere like water flows through a lake. Imagine a lake where a river sends water into a lake and lake water flows out over a dam. Pretend we arrive when the inflow is small but constant and the water flowing over the dam is equally small and constant.
The lake level is at equilibrium. Its outflow equals its inflow. The lake level is constant. Suddenly, the inflow increases. It raises the lake level. This rise in the lake level makes more water flow over the dam. The lake level rises just enough to make its new outflow equal its new inflow.
That illustrates now human and natural CO2 that flow into the atmosphere change the CO2 level in the atmosphere. Nothing accumulates. The level rises only enough to make CO2 outflow equal to the CO2 inflow.
Let’s do a first approximation.
The IPCC says annual human CO2 emissions are about 5% of natural CO2 emissions. This is like a recipe. What you put in is what you get. The only difference here is your recipe is flowing out of a hole in the bottom of your bowl as you pour things in.
Because human CO2 inflow is 5% the human CO2 level in the bowl is also 5%. The natural CO2 level in the bowl is 95%.
Same for CO2 in the atmosphere. This first approximation says human CO2 is only 5%.
But the IPCC theory is that human CO2 is at 30%. This shows IPCC’s core assumption is wrong.
Let’s do more accurate calculations.
My paper uses IPCC’s natural carbon cycle data and annual human CO2 emissions data to calculate the true effect of human CO2 emissions. Notice I use IPCC’s own data to prove its assumption about human CO2 is false.
Human and natural CO2 do not react with each other. So, we can calculate their effects independently, which simplifies the calculations.
My calculations include human CO2 that recycles back into the atmosphere and the transfer of human carbon from the slow carbon cycle to the fast carbon cycle. The whole banana.
The result, as of 2020, is human CO2 has increased to only 8% of all atmospheric CO2. This is still nowhere near the 30% required by IPCC’s core assumption. Therefore, IPCC’s core assumption is wrong. Not even close. In fact, a fraud.
The IPCC attempts to explain this problem.
The IPCC tries to get around this problem by claiming human CO2, but not natural CO2 stays in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. And by staying around longer, the human CO2 goes up to 30%.
Thus, the IPCC digs its own grave.
This IPCC claim is absurd because human and natural CO2 molecules are identical, so they flow out of the atmosphere at the same rate.
IPCC’s story (and it is a story) would require a magic demon in the atmosphere that can separate human CO2 from natural CO2 molecules, and then detain the human molecules. It can’t happen. No one should fall for this baloney.
IPCC’s climate fiction is so absurd that it proves the IPCC committed a fraud of global proportions.
The COVID shutdown did not reduce the increase in the CO2 level.
The 2021 emissions reduction due to COVID did not stop the inevitable CO2 increase caused by natural CO2. This proves climate treaties and green energy are useless because they ignore that unstoppable nature is the dominant cause of the CO2 increase.
Carbon dating data prove nature dominates the CO2 increase.
Carbon dating measures the percent of carbon-14 in a quantity of carbon-12. Carbon daters call these measurements δ14C (delta 14C).
We can use δ14C data to prove nature dominates the CO2 increase.
The natural level of δ14C is zero. That does not mean there is no carbon-14. It means the amount of carbon-14 compared to carbon-12 is exactly what nature has produced for millions of years.
But from 1950 to 1965, the atomic bomb tests almost doubled the δ14C level. After 1965, the δ14C level gradually decreased and today the δ14C is back to zero.
Here’s the thing.
Human CO2 from burning carbon fuels has zero carbon-14. Therefore, human δ14C is negative 1000. So, if human CO2 caused the CO2 increase, it would have lowered the δ14C equilibrium level below zero.
Look at it this way. Suppose you have a drink that has 8% alcohol, and you pour in an equal quantity of water. What happens to the 8% alcohol level? It drops to 4%.
Similarly, if human carbon causes all the CO2 increase, it would have lowered the equilibrium level of δ14C below zero. Data show human emission have had no effect on the δ14C equilibrium level of zero. Also, the increase in atmospheric CO2 has had no effect on the equilibrium level of δ14C.
Therefore, natural CO2 dominates the increase in atmospheric CO2.
Conclusions
The only scientific way for alarmists to argue that human CO2 dominates the increase is to prove there is a major error in my paper. No one has done that.
I will make videos to help you understand my paper.
My paper shows if human CO2 emissions were to stop, the small human-caused CO2 increase would quickly fall, meaning there is no scientific basis to claim there is a climate emergency or worry about our grandkids.
My paper overturns IPCC’s climate fraud with a clarity that can win in a court of law. Good high school students can understand my paper. Now, we need lawyers willing to overturn climate laws, regulations, and taxes.
The climate alarmists don’t use science. They use computer modeling to predict the future. They say the the future will bring bad storms, extreme heat, floods, and drought. Then they use circular logic whenever there are bad storms, extreme heat, floods, and drought, “See we told you so. This is proof of climate change.” Then they insist that is science and the science is settled so you had better do everything they say we need to do to avoid an existential threat. “The sky is falling!” No, it’s not, Chicken Little.
There is nothing wrong with models that work. Models predicting within a set of datum values can be very useful. Models that extrapolate beyond the observed datum values are the problem.
The C-14 discussion is one I have not heard before. It is quite convincing since C-14 levels can be accurately measured. Two questions:
1. How do you establish the baseline C-14 level? You state that: “the amount of carbon-14 compared to carbon-12 is exactly what nature has produced for millions of years.” How do we know that? I thought some radioisotopes were influenced by cosmic ray levels and other factors.
2. The C-14 levels in fossil fuels are lower than in carbon in the biosphere because the C-14 has decayed. But aren’t the C-14 levels in fossil fuels non-zero? i.e. they are adding some C-14, but just not as much C-14 as in the atmosphere. The dilution of the C-14 in the atmosphere by human addition of fossil CO2 is a dilution problem that depends on both C-14 concentrations, atmosphere and fossil fuel.
The AGW people use C14 to coverup the shell game that they have been engaged in for 60 plus yrs. They must know that at least 50 percent of atmospheric O2 and CO2 come from the oceans. There is an ecosystem in the oceans that depends on O2 and CO2. We were recently told of a massive undersea volcano that went off in the south pacific. It must have released a lot of CO2 but no C14.
Geologically high CO2 epochs caused carbonate to precipitate in the world ocean. This infers that there is an upper limit to CO2 at which point oolite precipitation starts again. Currently, only 3 places on earth precipitate oolite in shallow lagoons. We have one mile thick limestone in Victorville, CA and that CO2 came from the atmosphere.
The notion that a science model cannot be proven true is clearly incorrect, and is a false assertion that itself had no proof of being true. How so? Simple. You make predictions with it and see if they occur. If you have a model that predicts things accurately then you can presume it is correct until such time as it makes an incorrect prediction. That does not prove the model is false. It can also mean that your model is not expansive enough and that new discovery is indicated by the outlier data. If you have a strong model, outliers show you more. That is, other things can interact with your model.
Dear Donald,
You should read my book, Climate Miracle. Several reviewers say it has the best description of the scientific method they have read.
Unfortunately, your version is incorrect. It is impossible to prove a theory is true but only one contradiction with data proves a theory is false.
You may wish to watch Feynman’s presentation of the scientific method:
https://edberry.com/blog/authors/feynman/feynman-the-key-to-science-1964/
CO2 has nothing to do with temperature. The Noble Gas law controls atmospheric temperature, and is predictive for every planet for which we have data. Venus isn’t hot because its atmosphere is mostly CO2; it’s hot because its atmosphere is six times denser than Earth’s, and density plus gravity equals friction produces heat. (I can’t find it again offhand but two physics guys did a really good presentation, with actual data, lost somewhere in the depths of Youtube.)
This is first-year physical chemistry, but seems to have entirely escaped notice in the rush to blame plant food for global warming. I guess they don’t like breathing much.
Reziac,
You said “it’s hot because its atmosphere is six times denser than Earth’s, and density plus gravity equals friction produces heat.”
When compressing air, it heats up because of the work done by the piston on the air in the compressor cylinder. Once it is compressed in a tank, it cools to the ambient temperature and even though it is at 100 psi or more it doesn’t sit there generating heat. So I don’t understand your claim that pressure governs the temperature of the atmosphere.
Alex
Why would the world want to zero out their emissions of CO₂? There has never been any empirical evidence submitted anywhere, by any scientific organization, that CO₂ is anything other than a trace gas that is essential for all terrestrial life on the planet. Don’t these foaming at the mouth climate extremist that say that carbon dioxide emissions MUST be eliminated, realize that if the amount of CO₂ in the Earth’s atmosphere drops to 150 ppm, then plant growth stops and animals die and those are the facts surrounding carbon dioxide.
I see no empirical evidence is presented by any one, or their scientific organizations, that in any way demonstrates that CO₂ has anything to do with the Earth’s climate or its temperature. The reason for that is that the trace gas, CO₂, that all animals exhales with each and every one of their breaths, HAS never in the past 4.5 billion year long history of the Earth’s existence had anything to do with its complex climate & it would take a total idiot to now believe, with no proof, that at .04% of the Earth’s atmosphere today, that it can determine what the climate, or temperature, on Earth will be like in the future. These poor fools who stupidly allege that CO₂ is causing the Earth’s temperature to rise cannot give any reason why this record is still valid after over108 years and has not been exceeded even though their hated CO₂ levels have gone up. We went to Death Valley to see where this all-time record was set and it is a National Park to high light the importance of the occasion that happened 108 years ago.
World Meteorological Organization Assessment of the Purported World Record 58°C Temperature Extreme at El Azizia, Libya (13 September 1922)
“On 13 September 1922, a temperature of 58°C (136.4°F) was purportedly recorded at El Azizia (approximately 40 kilometers south-southwest of Tripoli) in what is now modern-day Libya…………. The WMO assessment is that the highest recorded surface temperature of 56.7°C (134°F) was measured on 10 July 1913 at Greenland Ranch (Death Valley) CA USA.”
Doug,
You are most likely far more educated on climate than myself. I noted your question and asked it of the people that post on skepticalscience.com. They are pro AGW, for sure. I tend to believe from all the articles and papers I’ve read that the warming is all natural. See my site at ourwoods.org (no ads) for a list of what I’ve read.
Let me know if they are full of it and why if you could please. I would love to read what you and others have to say about their posts.
See https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm
I also asked prior to finding the above page, where is the empirical evidence that CO2 causes the atmosphere to warm. Their answer is as follows:
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=27&t=653&&a=82#comments
MA Rodger at 20:12 PM on 30 August, 2022
“Likeitwarm @654&655,
My comment @639 was specifically tailored and indeed a little nuanced to keep discussion within the thread’s topic. So straying beyond that topic in a response would not be unsurprising.
One point to make is that the pressure at the tropopause is usually given as a fifth of surface pressure (200 hPa) and certainly not a tenth. And its altitude commonly given as 12km.
But more exactly, the tropopause changes in height and pressure a lot by latitude and also a bit by the seasons. It can be as high as 17km with pressures down to 110 hPa over the tropics and as low as 8km over the poles with pressures up to 310 hPa.
Chart here: Tropopause height&pressure by latitude&season
CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere up to the top of the stratosphere at 50km altitude. (The bulk of atmospheric water vapour rains out low down in the troposphere, as demonstraed by the moderator-appended graphic @654.)
You still seem concerned that high up in the atmosphere, the CO2 at altitude is well spread out as the pressure falls (so about a fifth the density at the tropopause) and also colder so there would be less thermal energy.
And it is fundamentally this reduction in energy with altitude that drives the greenhouse effect.
The greenhouse effect is all about the altitude at which upward-emitted IR can find holes in between the greenhouse gases above**, allowing the IR to escape from the atmosphere and exit into space.
If that altitude were low down, the atmosphere will indeed be relatively warm and thus thermally energetic. This energy means the CO2 gets a lot of the thumping from air mollecules that sends it into the flap that can emit IR in the 15 micron wave band. And warmer air at this emissions altitude means there is a lot of the flapping CO2 at the emission altitude and thus a lot of IR pouring through the holes into space, cooling the planet.
Note this emission altitude will always have the same amount of CO2 above. It is this physical presence determines the altitude where those holes appear to allow IR into space.
When you then add CO2, the altitude with holes out to space becomes higher. And as the troposphere cools with altitude, and the air higher up is less energetic, it gives the CO2 less of a thumping, so with this dropping temperature there is less CO2 flapping and so there is less IR pourng out into space because of that additional CO2. That means less cooling so the planet will have to warm to find a new hotter equilibrium temperature.
And don’t think of this reduction as a small effect. There is 3,000,000,000,000 tons of CO2 in tha atmosphere and ~20% of it (so 600 billion tons) is up there playing a planet-warming game of ‘catch the photon’ high in the upper troposphere and today shooting something like 5,000TW out into space. (By comparison, today mankind’s global primary energy use is 18TW.)
Add more CO2 and it will still be the top 600 billion tons of it playing that game of catch, but being now higher and thus colder, playing it with a little less vigour and so shooting a little less out into space.
(** The emission altitude isn’t constant across the 15 micron wave band. The very centre of it, a narrow band on 15 microns, emits into space from way up in the stratosphere while the outer edges of the wave band still allow IR into space low down in the troposphere. These all move upwards with extra atmospheric CO2.)”
Best,
Alex