President Trump has embarked on political path that needs climate truth for its justification. By contrast, Montana has rejected climate truth and has agreed with the Democrats on climate in Held v Montana.
The Montana 2025 legislature has one opportunity to show that Montana supports what Trump is doing. That is to approve LC2205.
Montana’s Republican Attorney General Austin Knudsen purposely lost the Held v Montana climate change lawsuit in June 2023 under the orders of the World Economic Forum.
Some Republican attorneys think AG Knudsen lost because he is too stupid to defend against Held v Montana. Maybe, but that’s not the reason he lost Held v Montana. I was there. I was helping Assistant AG Timothy Longfield formulate the defense plan for two weeks in May 2022. At his request, we worked through holidays and weekends. Longfield was in the process of signing me up to be an expert witness on June 2, 2022.
At the noon Pachyderm meeting in Kalispell on Friday, June 3, 2022, I innocently told a important gentleman, whom I thought was my friend, that I was helping Knudsen defend Held v Montana. I quickly learned that he was not my friend when he became visibly very angry that I was helping AG Knudsen defend Held v Montana. At the end of the meeting, he uncharacteristically rushed out of the room.
When I got back to my office an hour later, I found that AG Knudsen had cut off my communications with Longfield.
Later, I sent an invoice for my work for Longfield to AG Knudsen but he would not respond or pay me. The State of Montana stiffed me for my work. Assistant AG Longfield had not gotten the “memo” that the State of Montana had censored and blocked me from helping the State of Montana defeat Held v Montana. He got the “memo” on June 3, 2022, shortly after 1:00 pm.
In fact, I did not get the memo either. The State of Montana censored me without telling me. Why?
- (Montana did me more personal damage when it used over $100,000 of taxpayer money to try to put Ed Berry LLC out of business when the most Montana would have gained if it had won was $4600. I did my own defense and won in the Montana Department of Revenue Mediation Court. But Montana’s attack cost me nine months of my work time from July 2020 through July 2022 that I will never get back. Those were my age years of 85 to 86. Montana would have spent less by giving me a contract to help Montana with climate truth. Montana begin its attack soon after I announced I would publish my book, Climate Miracle, in June 2020 and they did delay my publication until October 2020. But I digress because I am pissed at Montana’s leaders who censor me when my only message is the truth about climate.)
I have seen the face of the evil that controls the Montana Republican Party. It extends to our representatives in Congress. I have seen how they reject climate truth while they pretend to be Republicans.
We could have easily defeated Held v Montana by defending climate truth.
How many millions of taxpayer dollars will the State of Montana pay the plaintiffs’ attorneys? Montana could have saved these millions but instead followed WEF’s orders to lose Held v Montana.
Montana Governor Greg Gianforte was a named defendant in Held v Montana. I personally warned him in May 2022 that AG Knudsen was on course to throw Held v Montana, and I asked him to let me help his to do his own defense. He refused. He supports sensless carbon capture and wind energy and he tells the press that he is a “scientist” which he is not. He does not support the climate truth that President Trump supports.
Montana’s 2025 legislature is now in session for a few months. They are overloaded with bills because their session is short.
The Montana Supreme Court did not review the climate part of Held v Montana, or consider our Amicus Brief with its parties who are elected representatives in Montana. The Montana Supreme Court simply rubber stamped the “Findings of Fact” of the Circuit Court.
These court “Findings of Fact” are now climate law in Montana that our legislature could correct by passing LC2205. The question is whether the Montana’s elected “leadership” will allow the legislature to vote on LC2205.
Below is the LC2205 climate bill led by Rep. Tom Millett. It overturns the “Findings of Fact.”
Rep. Millett asked me to help him draft LC2205.
The 2025 legislature has four other bills related to the Held v Montana climate lawsuit:
- HB 270: Revise remedies to MEPA
- HB 285: Generally revise Montana environmental policy act
- HB 291: Revise laws related to air quality standards
- LC4171: Generally revise the Montana environmental policy act
They are all good bills but they all assume the Democrat version of climate science is true.
Maybe I have different core values than my Republican friends who represent us. Here are my core values that the other four bills will not accomplish:
- Free Montana to use of its natural resources of coal, oil, and natural gas.
- Clarify to the public that human carbon emissions do not cause climate change.
- Stop Montana’s schools, colleges, and universities from indoctrinating students to believe climate fiction.
- Stop the abusing children by forcing them to believe in the climate fiction religion.
- Stop carbon capture because
- (a) it is based on climate science fiction rather than climate truth,
- (b) CO2 is plant food that we need to survive,
- (c) it will not lower the CO2 in the atmosphere because we cannot overpower natural CO2 emissions, and
- (d) it would cost more than America’s annual budget just to capture all human CO2 emissions.
- Stop all wind energy projects that tie to the electrical grid.
- Support President Trump’s effort to stop the green energy and net zero scams.
Only LC2205 will counter the so-called “facts” about climate that the District Court and Montana’s Supreme Court concluded in their evaluation of Held v Montana.
Here is the text of LC2205 that counters the court’s “Findings of Fact” about climate.
Please tell me your opinion about this.
How important do you think it is for the Montana legislature to pass LC2205?
Dr. Ed: I am not sophisticated as you. I am a Trump supporter that does not believe the left woke positions of today. i also do not believe in the global warming ideas. I am an ignorant truck driver living in a simple world. I’m glad not to be an elitist one world proponent like Gates and all the other globalists. God made me simple so I could keep my head on straight and not be caught up in the melarky of the day. I applaud you for fighting like a tiger for what you think is right. I wish I had your ambition at your tender young age, but I don”t. Keep on keeping on !
I think it is well written and correct in all the points I am familiar with. It certainly should be passed to clear up the mess from Held V Montana and give direction that is either completely lacking of misinformed for future legislatures.
Good legal argument. I see one possible typo. Should “property” in line 20 of p4 not be “properly”?
Cheers!
All that is stated in the text of LC2205 is correct. However, it doesn’t address the basal underlying reason why CO2 is not the driver of temperature, why none of the prognostications of the climatologists have come true, why AGW / CAGW is provably nothing more than a complex mathematical scam.
You are free to use any of what I write however you wish. Attribution is neither required nor desired. The data and the maths stand on their own.
We can prove that AGW / CAGW is nothing more than a complex mathematical scam… utilizing bog-standard radiative theory, cavity theory, entropy theory, quantum field theory, thermodynamics, dimensional analysis and the fundamental physical laws… all taken straight from physics tomes and all hewing completely to the fundamental physical laws.
AGW / CAGW describes a physical process which is physically impossible.
https://www.patriotaction.us/showthread.php?tid=2711
It starts with the climatologists confusing idealized blackbody objects and real-world graybody objects, which causes them to cling (knowingly or unknowingly) to the long-debunked Prevost Principle from 1791, which postulates that an object’s radiant exitance is determined solely by that object’s absolute temperature, therefore that all objects > 0 K emit, therefore that energy flows willy-nilly without regard to the energy density gradient.
Because of this, they misuse the Stefan-Boltzmann (S-B) equation in their Energy Balance Climate Models (EBCMs) (which I prove using the Kiehl-Trenberth ‘Earth Energy Balance’ graphic, which is a graphical representation of the mathematical results in their EBCM).
There are two forms of the S-B equation:
https://i.imgur.com/QErszYW.gif
[1] Idealized Blackbody Object form (assumes emission to 0 K and ε = 1 by definition):
q_bb = ε σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4)
= 1 σ (T_h^4 – 0 K)
= σ T^4
[2] Graybody Object form (assumes emission to > 0 K and ε 0 K), and they’ve forgotten about entropy… if the objects (and the environment) are furiously emitting and absorbing radiation at thermodynamic equilibrium as their incorrect take on reality must claim, why does entropy not change?
The second law states that there exists a state variable called entropy S. The change in entropy (ΔS) is equal to the energy transferred (ΔQ) divided by the temperature (T).
ΔS = ΔQ / T
Only for reversible processes does entropy remain constant. Reversible processes are idealizations. They don’t actually exist. All real-world processes are irreversible.
The climatologists claim that energy can flow from cooler to warmer because they cling to the long-debunked Prevost Principle, which states that an object’s radiant exitance is dependent only upon that object’s internal state, and thus they treat real-world graybody objects as though they’re idealized blackbody objects via: q = σ T^4. Sometimes they slap emissivity onto that, often not.
… thus the climate alarmists claim that all objects emit radiation if they are above 0 K. In reality, idealized blackbody objects emit radiation if they are above 0 K, whereas graybody objects emit radiation if their temperature is greater than 0 K above the ambient.
But their claim means that in an environment at thermodynamic equilibrium, all objects (and the ambient) would be furiously emitting and absorbing radiation, but since entropy doesn’t change at thermodynamic equilibrium, the climatologists must claim that radiative energy transfer is a reversible process. Except radiative energy transfer is an irreversible process, which destroys their claim.
In reality, at thermodynamic equilibrium, no energy flows, the system reaches a quiescent state (the definition of thermodynamic equilibrium), which is why entropy doesn’t change. A standing wave is set up by the photons remaining in the intervening space between two objects at thermodynamic equilibrium, with the standing wave nodes at the surface of the objects by dint of the boundary constraints (and being wave nodes (nodes being the zero crossing points, anti-nodes being the positive and negative peaks), no energy can be transferred into or out of the objects). Should one object change temperature, the standing wave becomes a traveling wave, with the group velocity proportional to the radiation energy density differential (the energy flux is the energy density differential times the group velocity), and in the direction toward the cooler object. This is standard cavity theory, applied to objects.
All idealized blackbody objects above absolute zero emit radiation, assume emission to 0 K and don’t actually exist, they’re idealizations.
Real-world graybody objects with a temperature greater than zero degrees above their ambient emit radiation. Graybody objects emit (and absorb) according to the radiation energy density gradient.
———-
It’s right there in the S-B equation, which the climate alarmists fundamentally misunderstand:
https://i.imgur.com/QErszYW.gif
All real-world processes are irreversible processes, including radiative energy transfer, because radiative energy transfer is an entropic temporal process.
Their mathematical fraudery is what led to their ‘energy can flow willy-nilly without regard to radiation energy density gradient‘ narrative (in their keeping with the long-debunked Prevost Principle), which led to their ‘backradiation‘ narrative, which led to their ‘CAGW‘ narrative, all of it definitively, mathematically, scientifically proven to be fallacious.
Now, they use that wholly-fictive “backradiation” to claim that this causes the “greenhouse effect (due to backradiation)”, which they use to designate polyatomics (and it’s always polyatomics… they had to use radiative molecules to get their “backradiation” scam to work… monoatomics have no vibrational mode quantum states and thus cannot emit (nor absorb) IR in any case; and homonuclear diatomics have a net-zero electric dipole which must be perturbed via collision in order to emit (or absorb) IR, except collisions occur exponentially less frequently as altitude increases due to air density exponentially decreasing with altitude) as “greenhouse gases (due to the greenhouse effect (due to backradiation))”.
They then use that to claim certain of those polyatomics cause AGW / CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, due to CO2), from which springs all the offshoots of AGW / CAGW: net zero, carbon footprint, carbon credit trading, carbon capture and sequestration, degrowth, total electrification, banning ICE vehicles, replacing reliable baseload generation with intermittent renewables, etc.
Except “backradiation” is physically impossible. Energy does not and cannot spontaneously flow up an energy density gradient.
Thus the “greenhouse effect (due to backradiation)” is physically impossible.
Thus “greenhouse gases (due to the greenhouse effect (due to backradiation))” are physically impossible.
Thus AGW / CAGW is physically impossible.
Thus all of the offshoots of AGW / CAGW are based upon a physical impossibility.
———-
The climatologists know that “backradiation” is physically impossible, thus their “greenhouse effect (due to backradiation)” is physically impossible… but they had to show it was having an effect, so they hijacked the Average Humid Adiabatic Lapse Rate.
We know the planet’s emission curve is roughly analogous to that of an idealized blackbody object emitting at 255 K. And we know the ‘effective emission height’ at that temperature is ~5.105 km.
6.5 K km-1 * 5.105 km = 33.1815 K temperature gradient + 255 K = 288.1815 K surface temperature
That 6.5 K km-1 is the Average Humid Adiabatic Lapse Rate. That 33.1815 K temperature gradient and 288.1815 surface temperature is what the climatologists try to claim is caused by their “greenhouse effect (due to backradiation)”… except it’s not. It’s caused by the Average Humid Adiabatic Lapse Rate, and that has nothing to do with any “backradiation”, nor any “greenhouse effect (due to backradiation)”, nor any “greenhouse gases (due to the greenhouse effect (due to backradiation))”.
The Adiabatic Lapse Rate is caused by the atmosphere converting z-axis DOF (Degree of Freedom) translational mode (kinetic) energy to gravitational potential energy with altitude (and vice versa), that change in z-axis kinetic energy equipartitioning with the other 2 linearly-independent DOF upon subsequent collisions, per the Equipartition Theorem. This is why temperature falls as altitude increases (and vice versa).
==========
So as one can see, it’s all nothing more than a complex mathematical scam. I’ve unwound that scam above.
If you’re curious about what actually occurs for any given change in concentration of any given constituent atmospheric atomic or molecular species, see the PatriotAction URL above. I’ve reverse-engineered the Adiabatic Lapse Rate, and calculated the Specific Lapse Rate for 17 atmospheric gases (and include the equations, so you can do the same for any other gases). You’ll note the summation of the Specific Lapse Rate for each gas, multiplied by the concentration for each gas, equates to the Adiabatic Lapse Rate.
Thus we can calculate with exceeding precision exactly what temperature change will come about due to a change in CO2 concentration… in fact, I’ve done those calculations at the PatriotAction URL above.
Mheh… your auto-formatting clipped the text at:
“[2] Graybody Object form (assumes emission to > 0 K and ε 0 K)”
… so there’s a bit missing.
If you want the full text, let me know, Ed. It drives climatologists and warmist physicists bonkers trying to defend their narrative in light of the data above.