Why President Trump may lose Lighthiser v Trump

by Edwin X Berry, PhD, Theoretical Physics, CCM

H(1) is the hypothesis that human CO2 emissions cause all the CO2 increase.

H(1) is the core assumption of all climate alarmism, laws, taxes, grants, and incentives.

I and other scientists have published peer-reviewed papers that prove H(1) is false. The CO2 Coalition and DOE report scientists still claim H(1) is true.

President Trump must argue that H(1) is false, or he will lose the Lighthiser v Trump climate lawsuit.

Why we lost Held v Montana

WEF needed Montana to lose Held v Montana because it was a critical path to winning LvT. No price was too high. No conspiracy was too difficult to make sure Montana lost HvM. We could have defeated HvM easily.

I personally saw how the Republicans who controlled Montana in 2021-2023 made sure that Montana lost Held v Montana. All four members of Montana’s Congress support our AG’s purposeful loss of HvM.

Why Trump is on course to lose Lighthiser v Trump.

WEF is setting the witness chessboard to make sure Trump loses LvT.

WEF knows they must censor scientists who can prove H(1) is false and like me who has won a major lawsuit.

In his first term, Trump chose Fauci to lead his COVID-19 plan. Now, Trump may choose CO2 Coalition “Fauci” scientists who will argue that H(1) is true.

Unless Trump wakes up, he will lose LvT and his whole conservative plan for America.

The CO2 Coalition scientists have no idea how to defeat LvT.

By the way, Gordon Fulks excommunicated me from his Global Warming Realists (GWR) email group today because I argued that H(1) is false and he can’t understand the physics of H(1). HIs GWR is now part of the CO2 Coalition.

Trump needs a whole new science team ASAP if he wants to defeat LvT.

QUESTION

Would you choose a physicist who knows all about the physics of flight to be your pilot if he has never piloted an airplane?

Then don’t choose climate scientists who have never defeated a high-level lawsuit and who can’t prove in court that H(1) is false to be your expert witnesses.

Here are today’s emails on this issue. The most recent is at the top.

---

Re: Notice that your access to GWR is now moderated

From: Edwin Berry

​To: Gordon Fulks <gordonfulks@yahoo.com>​

Dear Gordon,

Clearly, I did not attack the members of GWR. In fact, I provided information that many GWR members would like to read. Do a survey.

You used GWR to attack my scientific publications and me personally on behalf of the CO2 Coalition. I responded to your attacks. You don’t like my response.

You should tell your members that GWR is no longer an independent group. That GWR is now an arm of the CO2 Coalition. That you are blocking discussions critical of the CO2 Coalition.

By contrast, my website is always open to contrary opinion and debate. I view the actions of the CO2 Coalition as a serious and immediate threat to President Trump’s defense of Lighthiser v Trump, and therefore a serious threat to the freedom of America and the free world. This is a very serious matter that needs serious discussion that you don’t want to host.

You have made it your higher duty protect the scientific nonsense, absence of scientific ethics, and the immorality of the CO2 Coalition.

Tell your members whose side you are on.

Where have your professional ethics and morals gone?

Sincerely,

Ed

---

From: Gordon Fulks <gordonfulks@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 9, 2025 3:11 AM
To: Edwin Berry <ed@edberry.com>
Subject: Notice that your access to GWR is now moderated

Dear Ed Berry,

I have had enough of your nonsense and am moderating all your messages to Global Warming Realists.  I will approve only those that are 100% constructive and do not attack other Realists. 

Global Warming Realists are a group that works together to provide a counter to climate alarmism.  This especially includes getting the science correct.  You seem to have no interest in doing so.  I have repeatedly shown you where you are completely wrong.  But you just ignore what I and many others say, because it interferes with your notion about winning a lawsuit.

You will no longer be able to attack the CO2 Coalition or any of our members (including me) through this Google Group.

But you will still be able to receive our messages for now.  The next step is complete termination of your access to our group, if you persist with your very bad behavior.

Gordon Fulks

Owner

---

On Monday, September 8, 2025 at 05:17:00 PM PDT, Edwin Berry <ed@edberry.com> wrote:

Dear Gordon,

Then it stands that I have proved H(1) is false because neither you nor anyone has or can show my proof is wrong.

You just learned how easily I defeated you in a simulation of how you must think and argue in a legal trial. 

I understand busy but you sure had time to unjustly criticize my scientific work without even understanding it. Had you proceeded, I would have taken you to the cleaners. 

I also am busy trying to save President Trump from scientists like you who want to lose Lighthiser v Trump when they have neither the scientific knowledge nor the necessary trial experience to defeat Lighthiser v Trump. 

You and your CO2 Coalition colleagues are the biggest threat to President Trump’s conservative plan for America because you are proceeding down a path that will lose Lighthiser v Trump. You have no appreciation of the skills of the plaintiffs’ trial attorneys, who will make anyone from the CO2 Coalition or the DOE report become stuttering fools in court.

By contrast, I am an expert at defeating lawsuits like Held v Montana and Lighthiser v Trump. I won a Microsoft award for my expert witness work in defeating the California AG in a weather-related murder trial. I lived my life in the real world where I learned how to win.

This subject is almost like a sailboat race to save America, and your team thinks they know more about how to win a sailboat race than I do.

Your side, if Trump is dumb enough to use you, will give away H(1) and H(2) to the plaintiffs, and thereby lose LvT. You can’t win on H(3) if you lose H(1) and H(2). But if you win on H(1), you defeat LvT. You are working to block Trump from winning on H(1).

I am still your friend, but I am totally against the ignorant path you are taking that will destroy President Trump’s plan to make us free.

Ed

---

From: Gordon Fulks <gordonfulks@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2025 4:01 PM
To: Global Warming Realists <global-warming-realists@googlegroups.com>; sjcvrk@reagan.com <sjcvrk@reagan.com>; Chuck Wiese <cfwiese@cs.com>; Edwin Berry <ed@edberry.com>
Subject: Re: [GWR] Naglel/CFP: Well-Done Objective Report on Climate from DOE

Dear Ed,

I am extremely busy right now and should be applying my efforts to battling the Climate Scam as opposed to replying to your never ending infighting.

You would be so much better off to follow my lead and go after our real opponents in this epic battle.  There is still much to be done to stop the hijacking of science.

Gordon

---

On Monday, September 8, 2025 at 11:19:19 AM PDT, Edwin Berry <ed@edberry.com> wrote:

Dear Gordon,

You wrote:

“Opponents are smart enough to figure out what Ed is attempting to do.  And we would lose badly supporting something we know to be completely false.”

OK. Let’s see if you are as smart as our opponents.

Ed

Let’s pretend you and I are debating this subject in a court of law.

I have taken the position that H(1) is false, where H(1) is the assumption that human CO2 emissions cause all the CO2 increase above 280 ppm.

I have explained my arguments in Berry (2019, 2021, 2023a, and 2023b).

You have taken the position that assumes H(1) that is true, which implies you have read my arguments.

Therefore, you represent the plaintiffs in LvT since you argue in support of H(1).

You implied in your quoted paragraph above that you are smart enough to prove my arguments are wrong.

In our pretend hearing, now in session, the judge read your email below as your argument and now asks me reply to your argument.

I reply as follows:

Honorable Judge, Dr. Fulks made the following arguments as I show below in quotes:

“Ed is using the Lighthiser v Trump case to push his personal agenda and his contention that the increase in atmospheric CO2 since the end of WW2 is natural in origin. Yet he fully knows that contention is based on an absurdly low lifetime for CO2 in the atmosphere. Hence, we should not make the mistake of supporting Ed’s clearly false reasoning to win a lawsuit.”

This is the argumentum ad hominem – the attack on the man rather than on his argument – fallacy, which has no bearing on the truth of H(1).

“Almost everyone on our side in the great climate battle realizes that the substantial increase in human emissions of CO2 since WW2 is driving an increase in atmospheric CO2 that is “our fault.” 

This is the argumentum ad populum or the consensus or headcount fallacy, followed by the argumentum ad verecundiam or the appeal-to-authority fallacy, followed by the argumentum ad ignorantiam or argument of ignorance fallacy, none of which has any bearing on the truth of H(1).

“Our allies in the Trump Administration are doing a very fine job combating all the climate nonsense. They are also doing very well combating all the legal nonsense thrown against them. We should cheer them on and avoid suggestions that we compromise our own integrity supporting any bad science.”

This is the argumentum ad baculum or the argument of force fallacy, which has no bearing on the truth of H(1).

Finally, Dr. Fulks makes the following three incomplete arguments that strain to refer to science:

1. If we use the C14 lifetime derived from the nuclear weapon tests up to 1963, we get a residence time of about fifteen years, and Ed loses the argument. It is that simple.
2. Every year, when we add 10 GtC as carbon dioxide to the atmosphere and only 5 GtC actually shows up, we prove that humans are the driver of the increase. 
3. If we added only 2 GtC and 5 GtC showed up, Ed could make his case.

In conclusion, Dr. Fulks has not shown there is any physics error in my arguments that H(1) is false. In fact, he has not been able to properly restate my arguments before he attempts to criticize them, which is necessary to proper debates.

Dr. Fulks has not made any complete argument that combines theory with data.

Dr Fulks must address the following issues before he can make an acceptable rebuttal to my arguments that H(1) is false:

1. My model replicates how IPCC’s natural carbon cycle is at equilibrium with atmospheric CO2 at 280 ppm. This is a critical replication that a model must make to be an alternative replication of IPCC’s carbon cycle model.
2. Dr. Fulks does not introduce an alternative carbon cycle model that replicates the natural carbon cycle at equilibrium at 280 ppm. Therefore, he has no basis to criticize my model.

Dr. Fulks and I agree that we must make arguments that are consistent with evidence. 

However, his arguments do not use evidence to show there are any physics errors in my cited papers that prove H(1) is false.

Therefore, the burden of proof is upon Dr. Fulks to make a valid rebuttal or to accept that my papers properly prove H(1) is false.

The Judge now turns to Dr. Fulks and requests him to improve his arguments that claim H(1) is true.

---

From: Gordon Fulks <gordonfulks@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 7, 2025 4:53 PM
To: Global Warming Realists <global-warming-realists@googlegroups.com>; sjcvrk@reagan.com <sjcvrk@reagan.com>; Edwin Berry <ed@edberry.com>; Chuck Wiese <cfwiese@cs.com>
Subject: Re: [GWR] Naglel/CFP: Well-Done Objective Report on Climate from DOE

Dear Chuck,

You are certainly correct that we would never have used the words that Secretary of Energy Chris Wright did in his introduction to the DOE report referenced below.  He is mildly playing into the hands of our opponents, when he acknowledges one of their deceptive talking points: “Climate change is real and deserves attention.”  But that is just a truism that he is throwing back at Alarmists.

Our climate is always changing for perfectly natural reasons, and we need to be prepared for those changes.  For instance, I would point out that Professor Fred Singer warned shortly before he died that we need to be prepared for a sudden drop into the next Ice Age.  We can slow or reverse that fall by spreading carbon black on Continental glaciers that threaten to re-form.  We are already in the depths of a Milankovitch Great Winter, when the orbital cycles make us vulnerable to such a catastrophe.  Carbon and to a lesser extent carbon dioxide might help us avoid the next 100,000 year glaciation.

Ed is using the Lighthiser v Trump case to push his personal agenda and his contention that the increase in atmospheric CO2 since the end of WW2 is natural in origin.  Yet he fully knows that contention is based on an absurdly low lifetime for CO2 in the atmosphere. 

If we use the C14 lifetime derived from the nuclear weapon tests up to 1963, we get a residence time of about fifteen years, and Ed loses the argument.  It is that simple.

Hence, we should not make the mistake of supporting Ed’s clearly false reasoning to win a lawsuit.  Opponents are smart enough to figure out what Ed is attempting to do.  And we would lose badly supporting something we know to be completely false. 

Almost everyone on our side in the great climate battle realizes that the substantial increase in human emissions of CO2 since WW2 is driving an increase in atmospheric CO2 that is “our fault.” 

Every year, when we add 10 GtC as carbon dioxide to the atmosphere and only 5 GtC actually shows up, we prove that humans are the driver of the increase.  If we added only 2 GtC and 5 GtC showed up, Ed could make his case.  But we have to follow the evidence, if we are to call ourselves scientists.  Evidence always wins in science and hopefully also in law.

Our allies in the Trump Administration are doing a very fine job combating all the climate nonsense.  They are also doing very well combating all the legal nonsense thrown against them.  We should cheer them on and avoid suggestions that we compromise our own integrity supporting any bad science.

Gordon

---

On Saturday, September 6, 2025 at 09:40:12 PM PDT, ‘Chuck Wiese’ via Global Warming Realists <global-warming-realists@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Hi Stu: Unfortunately, in paragraph two of this report is exactly where the Trump Administration is going to get into trouble fighting a legal battle with the vicious con artists in academia and entrenched in the political class with a desperate desire to turn the tide on Trump by winning the lawsuit Ed Berry has been writing about, Lighthiser v Trump. 

If you are trying to reverse all the horrific damage and bad policy caused by the phony and fraudulent “science” surrounding human emissions of CO2 supposedly causing the climate to warm, and causing all sorts of severe weather calamities, why in the world would anyone in this Administration EVER make such a foolish comment that “Climate change is real and deserves attention“?

This is Chris Wright speaking out of both sides of his mouth and giving credit to these academic phonies, running their Oz machines and scaring the bejesus out of the public with all of these fake predictions that have no place in a proper application of atmospheric science.

To date, there has been no evidence submitted by any of these people promoting this rotten “science” that their assertions from failed Oz machines have been validated or true when the records are closely scrutinized and the truth emerges from this scrutiny which would explain how the Oz machines were developed on very shaky grounds and whose results contradict the founding principles from atmospheric science when examined with all of the work that was done after those like Arrhenius, including the falsification of climate records.

If the Trump Administration wants to win this important lawsuit, they have to immediately stop this nonsense and smack the political ideology that surrounds this fake science head-on where it counts, and it looks like there is no appreciation for the fact that scoundrels who promote this sort of rot are not going to play fair in court using their crafty lawyers.

Everything they do will be based upon emotional rhetoric and such a statement like this will open the door to vicious emotional and personal attacks on any scientists on Trump’s side by taking such a position, turning it around and then against those trying to win this. They will all be labeled “oil shills” who know and admit “climate change is real and needs redress” but are covering up the seriousness of the dangerously warming climate to let oil companies continue to dump record dirty carbon into the atmosphere and destroy the Earth and environment because of it. 

A Judge or jury WILL NOT understand enough about the science to distinguish all the finer points that could be brought up if they had a jury, judge and audience that would be able to understand and appreciate them. But the truth is they do not.

So, if any doors are opened to Trump’s opposing side by these sorts of foolish comments, Trump is doomed to lose this case because it will turn viciously emotional, which will win the day when presented to scientifically ignorant judges and juries and losing this case will be a huge setback for President Trump.

Chuck Wiese

Meteorologist

---

On Saturday, September 6, 2025 at 05:52:14 AM PDT, sjcvrk via Global Warming Realists <global-warming-realists@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Well-Done Objective Report on Climate from DOE

US Department of Energy published a report debunking media hysteria over CO2, oceans rising because glaciers are melting, and extreme weather events being caused by climate change. It’s about time.

Chet Nagle

Sep 05, 2025

A US Dept of Energy climate assessment report rejects CO2 as a pollutant: CO2 does not affect local air quality and has no human toxicological implications at ambient levels. (1)

Media coverage often distorts the science

Secretary of Energy Chris Wright commissioned the report with these important introductory words: “The rise of human flourishing over the past two centuries is a story worth celebrating. Yet we are told—relentlessly—that the very energy systems that enabled this progress now pose an existential threat. Hydrocarbon-based fuels, the argument goes, must be rapidly abandoned or else we risk planetary ruin. Media coverage often distorts the science. Many people walk away with a view of climate change that is exaggerated or incomplete.”

He adds: “Climate change is real, and it deserves attention. But it is not the greatest threat facing humanity. That distinction belongs to global energy poverty. Improving the human condition depends on expanding access to reliable, affordable energy. Climate change is a challenge—not a catastrophe. But misguided policies based on fear rather than facts could truly endanger human well-being.”

Much of the information in this present article is taken directly from the report. Some references from other reports are also included.

The report reviews scientific certainties and uncertainties in how anthropogenic carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions have affected, or will affect, the Nation’s climate, extreme weather events, and selected metrics of societal well-being. Those emissions are increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere through a complex and variable carbon cycle, where some portion of the additional CO2 persists in the atmosphere for centuries.

Carbon Dioxide

Ambient outdoor air today contains about 430 ppm CO2, increasing about 2 ppm per year. The Permissible Exposure Limit is 5,000 ppm over 8 hours (OSHA). There is reported evidence of diminished performance on some cognitive tasks among workers in office cubicles when exposed to CO2 levels above 1,000-1,500 ppm. These levels are far larger than any plausible ambient outdoor value through the end of the 22nd century.

Over the past 60+ years there have been thousands of studies on the response of plants to rising CO2 levels. The overwhelming theme is that plants benefit from extra CO2.

The IPCC has only minimally discussed global greening and CO2 fertilization of agricultural crops.

Elevated concentrations of CO2 directly, enhance plant growth, globally contribute to ‘greening’ the planet and increasing agricultural productivity. They also make the oceans less alkaline (lower the pH). CO2 is possibly detrimental to coral reefs, although the recent rebound of the Great Barrier Reef suggests otherwise.

Another new study succinctly unsettles the prevailing paradigm with surgeon-like precision. In under 20 pages the authors deliver a cogent critique of the CO2-driven climate presumption. Not only does CO2 have no discernible effect on climate, but any alleged anthropogenic role within the hypothetical greenhouse effect is not detectable either. (2)

A few of the key points include:

• CO2 only contributes about 4-5% of the greenhouse effect, whereas water-vapor and clouds contribute 95%.
• Of that 4-5% greenhouse effect contribution from CO2, just 4% of that can be attributed to human activities (i.e., fossil fuel emissions). Thus, about 96% of the 4% contribution from CO2 can be attributed to natural processes. (2)

The CO2 endangerment finding is not based on science

The observed increase of the atmospheric CO2 (from 300 to 430 ppm), has not altered the atmospheric radiative effect or greenhouse effect in any discernible way. (3)

Data reveals CO2 residence time is 3-7 years, 90% of human emissions since 1750 have thus already been removed, precluding a human-CO2 driven climate. But the UN IPCC uses model assumptions to claim CO2 residence time is over 100 years. (4)

Prominent physicists Richard Lindzen and William Happer said this to the National Academies of Sciences: “The CO2 endangerment finding is not based on science. Carbon dioxide and other gases and fossil fuel will have a trivial effect on temperature.”

Ocean Acidification

Ocean life is complex and much of it evolved when the oceans were acidic relative to the present. The ancestors of modern coral first appeared about 245 million years ago. CO2 levels for more than 200 million years afterward were many times higher than they are today. Much of the public discussion of the effects of ocean ‘acidification’ on marine biota has been one-sided and exaggerated.

Sun

The IPCC has downplayed the role of the sun in climate change but there are plausible solar irradiance reconstructions that imply it contributed to recent warming.

Models

The world’s several dozen global climate models offer little guidance on how much the climate responds to elevated CO2, with the average surface warming under a doubling of the CO2 concentration ranging from 1.8C to 5.7C. Data-driven methods yield a lower and narrower range. Global climate models generally run ’hot’ in their description of the climate of the past few decades—too much warming at the surface and too much amplification of warming in the lower—and mid-troposphere. The combination of overly sensitive models and implausible extreme scenarios for future emissions yields exaggerated projections of future warming.

Not only do models diverge in their projections for the future, they are also unable to accurately replicate the recent past. Awareness of these shortcomings is essential if was are to effectively use such tools for making public policy decisions. (5)

There is growing recognition that climate models are not fit for the purpose of determining the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) of the climate to increasing CO2. The IPCC has turned to data-driven approaches including historical data and paleoclimate reconstruction, but their reliability is diminished by data inadequacies.

Climate models also produce too much recent stratospheric cooling, invalid hemispheric albedos, too much snow loss, and too much warming in the Cron Belt. The IPCC has acknowledged some of these issues but not all.

Of great concern is the fact that, after several decades of climate modeling enterprise involving approximately three dozen models operated by research centers around the world, the range of future warming they produce in response to a hypothetical doubling of atmospheric CO2 extends over a factor of three. This range of disagreement among models has not decreased for decades.

Extreme Weather

Most extreme weather events in the US do not show long-term trends. Claims of increased frequency or intensity of hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, and droughts are not supported by US historical data. Additionally, forest management practices are often overlooked in assessing changes in wildfire activity

Trends in losses from extreme weather and climate events are dominated by population increases and economic growth. Technological advances such as improved weather forecasting and early warning systems have substantially reduced losses from extreme weather events. Better building codes, flood defenses, and disaster response mechanisms have lowered economic losses relative to GDP. The US economy’s expansion has diluted the relative impact of disaster costs, as seen in the comparison of historical and modern GDP percentages. Heat-related mortality risk has dropped substantially due to adaptive measures including the adoption of air conditioning, which relies on the availability of affordable energy. US mortality risks even under extreme warming scenarios are not projected to increase if people are able to undertake adaptive responses.

The media widely asserts that extreme weather of all types is getting worse due to global emissions and climate change, yet the DOE report points to numerous expert assessments from the IPCC which prove that most extreme weather events in the US do not show long-term trends and that claims of increased frequency or intensity of hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, and droughts are not supported by US historical data. (5)

Sea Level

Since 1900, global average sea level has risen about 8 inches. Sea level change along the US coasts is highly variable, associated with local variations in processes that contribute to sinking and also with ocean circulation patterns. The largest sea level increases along US coasts are Galveston, New Orleans and the Chesapeake Bay regions—each of these locations is associated with substantial local land sinking (subsidence) unrelated to climate change.

In Canada and Alaska (and also northern Washington), sea level is decreasing, owing to uplift from glacial rebound. Most of the Pacific coast tide gauges show low rates of sea level rise, while the largest rates are on the Gulf coast (Louisiana and Texas) and in the mid-Atlantic states (Chesapeake Bay region).

Problems in the San Francisco Bay area, including threats to the airport, are caused primarily by soil compaction in landfill zones that were formerly wetlands, not by slow creep of global sea level rise.

Climate Change and US Agriculture

There has been abundant evidence going back decades that rising CO2 levels benefit plants, including agricultural crops, and that CO2 induced warming will be a net benefit to US agriculture. The increase in ambient CO2 has also boosted productivity of all major US crop types. There is reason to conclude that on balance climate change has been and will continue to be neutral or beneficial for most US agriculture.

Summary

Among other things, the report presents evidence supporting the view that:

1. Long-term warming has been weaker than expected,

2. It’s not even known how much of that warming is due to human greenhouse gas emissions,

3. There are good reasons to believe the warming and increasing effects of CO2 effects on agriculture have so far been more beneficial than harmful to humanity,

4. There have been no long-term changes in severe weather events that can be tied to human green gas emissions,

5. The few dozen climate models now being used to inform policymakers regarding energy policy are not fit for purpose.

Those models, even after decades of improvement, still produce up to a factor of 3 disagreement between those with the least warming and with the most warming (and all produce more summertime warming in the critically important US Corn Belt than has been observed). How can models that are advertised to be based upon physical principles cause such a wide range or responses to increasing CO2? (6)

Recent warming is likely mostly due to increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. But is this necessarily a bad thing? Cold weather kills far more people than hot weather. Increasing CO2 is causing global greening and contributing to increased agricultural yields.

Virtually everyone on Earth endures huge changes in weather throughout the year, with as much as 130 F swings in temperature. Can we really not adapt to 2 or 3 degrees more in the yearly average?

Today, global warming is big business. According to Grok, since 1990 the US Government has spent $120-$160 billion on climate change. (6)

German energy expert Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt has weighed in, suggesting its findings could be a crucial wake up call for Europe, especially Germany, to rethink its current climate policies. (7)

For Vahrenholt, the implications for Europe are clear. He sees the continent’s expensive climate policies as leading to de-industrialization and job losses. He is particularly critical of Germany’s decisions to exit nuclear energy and phase out internal combustion engines, labeling them as major pollution blunders. He views the US report as a catalyst for Europe to reconsider its path.

For too long, the American people have been fed an unrealistic narrative that climate change is an existential threat that only drastic reductions in fossil fuel use will solve. Secretary Wright has finally got it right, and it’s about time that the US supports unbiased and objective climate science. (5)

References

1. “A critical review of impacts of greenhouse gas emissions on the US climate,” Climate Working Group, United States Department of Energy, July 23, 2025, energy.gov
2. Demetris Koutsoyiannis and George Tsakalias, Unsettling the settled: simple musings on the complex climatic system,” frontiersin,org, August 11, 2025
3. Kenneth Richard, “New study thoroughly disassembles the CO2-driven climate assumption in one fell scoop,” climate-science.press, August 15, 2025
4. Kenneth Richard, climatedepot.com, August 22, 2025
5. Tim Gallaudet, “Finally, an unbiased and objective science report,” realclearscience.com, August 16, 2025
6. Roy Spencer, “Some thoughts on our DOE report regarding CO2 impacts on the US climate,” wattsupwiththat.com, July 27, 2025
7. Gosselin, “Wake up call for Europe—German professor, Fritz Vahrenholt, on US climate report,” notrickszone.com, August 20, 2025

This article is by Jack Dini and published by Canada Free Press.