Dr. Edwin Berry: Nature Controls Climate, Not Humans
The Atmospheric Physicist With 1600+ Citations Proves Human CO2 Accounts for Only 33 ppm While Natural Sources Added 100+ ppm
Dr. Edwin X. Berry brings a unique perspective to the climate debate. With over 1,600 citations in atmospheric physics, a PhD in theoretical physics, and decades of real-world experience flying research missions through ice storms and studying cloud formation, Berry possesses the scientific credentials that climate establishment figures often lack. Yet his conclusions directly contradict everything we’re told about human CO2 and climate change. In the comprehensive analysis that follows, Berry presents what he calls the most important breakthrough in climate science since 1980—one that completely dismantles the foundation of climate alarmism.
At the heart of Berry’s argument lies the Climate Equivalence Principle, which states that human and natural CO2 molecules are identical and therefore must behave identically in the atmosphere. This simple physics principle, Berry demonstrates, invalidates the entire basis for climate policies costing trillions of dollars worldwide. Using the IPCC’s own data and established atmospheric physics, he proves that human CO2 emissions account for only about 33 parts per million of the 140 ppm increase since 1750—meaning nature, not human activity, controls atmospheric CO2 levels.
Berry’s work extends far beyond theoretical calculations. His piece reveals the political capture of climate science beginning in 1992, documents how even conservative organizations have been infiltrated by climate orthodoxy, and exposes the deliberate legal sabotage he witnessed firsthand in Montana’s climate lawsuit. Most disturbing of all, he details how this scientific fraud is being used to indoctrinate children, creating what he calls “climate zombies” who believe human CO2 emissions are personally harming them. What follows is both a scientific refutation and a call to action—a roadmap for understanding how we’ve been deceived and what we can do about it.
With thanks to Dr. Edwin X. Berry.
Dr. Edwin Berry: Nature Controls Climate, Not Humans - edberry.com
Support Independent Investigative Journalism and Research
This work remains free because paid subscribers make it possible. If you find value here, consider joining them.
What paid subscribers get: 1-2 free books per month. e.g. The PSA Trap, Breast Cancer, Chlorine Dioxide, and Drilling for Profit.
Plus: Access to the Deep Dive Audio Library — 180+ in-depth discussions (30-50 min each) exploring the books behind these essays. New discussions regularly added. That’s 100+ hours of content for less than the price of a single audiobook.
[Upgrade to Paid – $5/month or $50/year AUD]
Two quick things please.
Unbekoming is featured on Sidestack this week for Substack of the Week. If you have a moment, please head over and give me an upvote: https://sidestack.io/week
I’ve also been relisted on the Reality of Illness site, and an upvote there would be much appreciated too.
That’s it. Thank you.
The Climate Equivalence Principle
Edwin X Berry, PhD, Theoretical Physics, CCM
Bigfork, Montana, USA
1. The Climate Equivalence Principle (CEP) proves human CO2 does not change the climate.
On September 7, 2018, Edwin X Berry, PhD, presented the Climate Equivalence Principle (CEP) at the International Climate Conference in Porto, Portugal, in his “A fatal flaw in global warming science.”
The late Richard Courtney, UK climate scientist and professional reviewer, wrote that Berry’s discovery and use of the CEP are the ONLY true breakthroughs in climate science since 1980.
Here’s Berry’s Porto slide #10 that shows how climate alarmists need a magical demon to trap human CO2 while allowing natural CO2 to flow freely out of the air.
Berry’s book Climate Miracle (October 2020, page 19) explains the CEP. His 2019, 2021, and 2023 papers use CEP to calculate IPCC’s true human carbon cycle.
The Achilles heel of climate science.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assumes the natural CO2 level in 1750 was 280 ppm. Data show the CO2 level today is about 420 ppm. So, the CO2 increase is 140 ppm or 33% of today’s total CO2.
Data also show that human CO2 emissions account for about 3%, and natural CO2 emissions account for about 97% of the CO2 that flows into the atmosphere every year.
This raises the obvious question: How can 3% of the CO2 inflow become 33% of the CO2 in the atmosphere?
Answer: It can’t.
Even the IPCC recognised this problem. So, the IPCC solves this “problem” by claiming that natural CO2 has a half-life of about 2.4 years, while human CO2 has a half-life of hundreds of years.
But the IPCC forgot one thing: the Climate Equivalence Principle (CEP). The CEP says that human and natural 12-CO2 molecules are identical, so they have the same half-lives and flow through the carbon cycle at the same rate.
The CEP overturns all climate laws and regulations, including the Endangerment Finding that President Trump has properly repealed. A court cannot overturn CEP because the CEP is an undeniable principle of physics.
This IPCC fraud, which the CEP proves false, is still the basis of all climate laws, regulations, and alarmism.
All climate laws and regulations are based on these three assumptions:
1. Human CO2 emissions cause the CO2 increase above 280 ppm.
2. This human-caused CO2 increase causes all global warming.
3. This human-caused global warming causes bad stuff to happen.
The CEP proves Assumption (1) is false. This proof will overturn all climate laws and regulations, including the Endangerment Finding, if Trump’s defense uses the CEP.
Assumption (2) is also false.
If President Trump uses the CEP to defend his repeal of the EPA’s Endangerment Finding (EF), he will also overturn all climate laws and regulations.
The American Meteorological Society (AMS) will file a lawsuit that it thinks will “prove” Trump is wrong, but the AMS is also wrong on climate science.
Here is the AMS summary argument on the EF (quote):
The scientific evidence for these broad conclusions is extensive, robust, and thoroughly vetted.
· Climate change is among the most comprehensively investigated topics in the history of science.
· For decades, thousands of scientists from dozens of fields of science have investigated the climate system and the impact people have on it.
· The scientific evidence has been assessed comprehensively by independent scientific institutions and independent experts that consider all evidence. Crucially, scientific accuracy is central to the standing and credibility of scientific institutions that have examined and validated climate science.
· No broadly contradictory assessments from credible scientific organizations exist.
The repeal of the Endangerment Finding does not alter the central, unambiguous scientific conclusion: the climate change people are causing threatens human lives and well-being.
The CEP neuters the AMS “the central scientific conclusion” that human CO2 “threatens human lives and well-being.’
The AMS says extensive scientific evidence proves Assumptions (1) and (2) are true. But the scientific method (described in Section 4) proves that this AMS claim violates it.
The scientific method is clear: it is impossible to prove an assumption is true, but a single false prediction by an assumption proves it is false.
The CEP falsifies the AMS assumption that human CO2 remains in the atmosphere longer than natural CO2. Checkmate!
The AMS further claims that only a certified “credible scientific organization” can dispute the AMS assumptions. This is an invalid “authority” argument that also conflicts with the scientific method. The proof is what matters, not its source.
How the CEP proves Assumption (1) is false:
1. IPCC says human CO2 has a half-life much greater than natural CO2.
2. IPCC uses this claim to support its claim that Assumption (1) is true.
3. CEP proves human and natural CO2 must have the same half-lives.
4. Therefore, Assumption (1) is false.
Other advantages of the CEP are:
1. Proves human CO2 emissions add little to the CO2 level.
2. Cannot be proven wrong in court because it is a principle.
3. Requires no data, math, or high-level education to understand.
4. Overturns the DOE climate report.
5. Overturns the Endangerment Finding.
6. Overturns the false science of the American Meteorological Society.
7. Overturns the climate policies of President GHW Bush.
8. Overturns scientific publications, case law, and climate beliefs.
9. Supports all of President Trump’s executive orders on energy and climate.
10. Proves restricting CO2 emissions will not slow the natural CO2 increase.
11. Proves carbon capture is a waste of money and engineering talent.
12. May convert some Democrats to vote Republican.
The key point is that the CEP proof that Assumption (1) is false will prevail in court.
2. DOE’s climate report betrays President Trump.
This table shows the positions of IPCC, CO2X, and CO2 Coalition on the three key assumptions of climate change.
The CO2 Coalition says of Assumption (2) that CO2 causes less warming than the IPCC claims, but less warming is still warming.
CO2X is the only group that supports true climate change science.
Trump’s DOE chose Steven E. Koonin to lead DOE’s 2025 climate report. Koonin was Obama’s DOE Under Secretary for Science.
That alone should have prevented Trump’s DOE from choosing him. But it’s worse.
The DOE climate report assumes incorrectly that Assumptions (1) and (2) are true and the CEP is false.
That DOE position will crucify Trump’s climate policy in court. The authors of the DOE climate report cannot change their scientific opinions in court.
To save his actions on climate, President Trump must use the Climate Equivalence Principle (CEP) and scientists who support CEP and can prove Assumptions (1) and (2) are false.
President Trump is fighting an uphill battle on climate change because he does not understand the climate science chessboard. Few people do.
Trump’s close friends are WEF puppets and warm Republican seats in Congress.
Steven Koonin’s 2022 book, Unsettled (page 68), says the following about human CO2:
Carbon dioxide is the single human-caused greenhouse gas with the largest influence on the climate. But it is of greatest concern also because it persists in the atmosphere/surface cycle for a very long time. About 60 percent of any CO2 emitted today will remain in the atmosphere twenty years from now, between 30 and 55 percent will still be there after a century, and between 15 and 30 percent will remain after one thousand years.
The simple fact that carbon dioxide lasts a long time in the atmosphere is a fundamental impediment to reducing human influences on the climate. Any emission adds to the concentration, which keeps increasing as long as emissions continue. In other words, CO2 is not like smog, which disappears a few days after you stop emissions; it takes centuries for the excess carbon dioxide to vanish from the atmosphere. So modest reductions in CO2 emissions would only slow the increase in concentration but not prevent it. Just to stabilize the CO2 concentration, and hence its warming influence, global emissions would have to vanish.
Koonin does not talk about the physics of inflows, outflows, or balance levels. He talks about IPCC’s politics of “persists,” “remains,” and “lasts a long time.”
Koonin and the DOE climate report say Assumption (1) is true and CEP is false.
Here is a quote from the DOE report (below its Fig. 3.1.3 on p 13) that shows it agrees with IPCC’s Assumption (1) and violates the CEP:
The annual increase in concentration is only about half of the CO2 emitted because land and ocean processes currently absorb “excess” CO2 at a rate approximately 50 percent of the human emissions. Future concentrations, and hence future human influences on the climate, therefore, depend upon two components: (1) future rates of global human CO2 emissions, and (2) how fast the land and ocean remove extra CO2 from the atmosphere. We discuss each of these in turn.
The DOE report claims Assumptions (1) and (2) are true, and Trump cannot win by arguing Assumption (3) is false.
Trump’s choice of Koonin to lead his DOE climate report is as dangerous to Trump’s plans as his choice of Fauci was in Trump’s first term.
Will Happer and Richard Lindzen of the CO2 Coalition are friends of Steve Koonin.
The key point is that the CO2 Coalition is led by over-the-hill scientists who support IPCC’s climate fraud, deny CEP, and trash the scientific method.
3. Greenpeace now owns the CO2 Coalition and the Heartland Institute.
In what may be the most significant takeover of conservative climate leadership in America, the CO2 Coalition and the Heartland Institute chose a former Greenpeace professional to help lead them.
The CO2 Coalition and the Heartland Institute stupidly gave control of their organizations to Patrick Moore, a far-left Trojan Horse, who has wasted no time in deballing these once conservative organizations and turning them into liberal WEF puppet groups who no longer stand for climate truth.
Patrick Moore,
PhD, Ecology, Institute of Resource Ecology, University of British Columbia, 1974, co-founder and 15-year leader of Greenpeace, nine years President of Greenpeace Canada, seven years Director of Greenpeace International, 15-year Greenpeace policy leader who helped make Greenpeace the world’s largest environmental activist organization, leader of the “Principles of Sustainable Forestry” adopted by a majority of the industry, Chair of Environmental Studies at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy in 2014, an independent ecologist/environmentalist with Ecosense Environmental Inc. etc., etc…
became Chairman of the Board of Directors of the CO2 Coalition in May 2019 and also a leader of the Heartland Institute.
A tiger like Moore does not change his stripes. He is an alpha who controls the CO2 Coalition and Heartland Institute and intimidates university types. He will never agree that Assumptions (1) and (2) are false and the CEP is true because those truths contradict Moore’s beliefs, which Moore thinks prevail over the scientific method.
The CO2 Coalition and the Heartland Institute now promote climate policies that resemble the climate policies of the IPCC, Our Children’s Trust, and WEF.
President Trump must quickly realize that this significant takeover is an imminent threat to his climate actions.
Trump’s hidden enemies will seek to undermine him in court. (I saw this happen in Montana.) WEF has already taken the first step to undermine Trump by making sure the DOE selected Koonin to lead the DOE climate report.
Moore built his reputation on his claim that human CO2 saved planet Earth and all living creatures from CO2 starvation. While this is a good story for a disaster movie, Moore is not about to let the truth about climate science damage his reputation or business. In 2019, he told his Twitter followers that Berry was a fraud.
Patrick Moore made the following public proclamation referring to Berry’s publications that threaten Moore’s beliefs:
(a) I am sorry to see this fraudulent argument continuing. Humans are responsible for most of the CO2 increase since large-scale use of fossil fuel began.
(b) In a bit more than 100 years human emissions have bumped it back up to 400+ ppm, restoring a balance the global carbon cycle.
(c) The vast majority of new carbon going into the atmosphere as CO2 is from fossil fuel combustion and cement production, with other minor components. Very little new CO2 is added from natural sources.
(d) Human CO2 emissions are entirely beneficial and in fact have saved life on Earth from any untimely demise due to declining CO2 which would eventually have dropped to levels that were below the threshold for plant survival.
(e) One thing we do know is that only about 50% of our annual emissions, all of which go into the atmosphere, remain in the atmosphere as measured by the annual increase in atmospheric CO2.
(f) What I know is there is no other new source of CO2 being added to the atmosphere anywhere near as large as human emissions.
Here’s my rebuttal to Moore’s proclamations:
(a) Berry and others have already proved humans are not responsible for most of the CO2 increase, and no one has shown that proof is wrong. It’s time for the CO2 Coalition to wake up to the true physics of climate.
(b) Berry and others proved that human CO2 emissions have not caused most of the CO2 increase. Moore is 8 years out-of-date.
(c) Data show the inflow of natural CO2 into the atmosphere is almost 33 times the human CO2 inflow.
(d) Beneficial, yes, but Moore has presented no evidence that human CO2 saved life on Earth, except in his lectures, where he violates the scientific method.
(e) The CEP proves human CO2 flows out of the atmosphere as fast as natural CO2, but Moore denies the CEP.
(f) Natural CO2 emissions increase with temperature. Freshwater is a new source.
Patrick Moore is wrong on all six of his claims.
Here’s Patrick Moore’s arrogant, authoritarian (all emotions, no science) 2021 email against Berry’s proof that CEP is true and Assumption (1) is false in a well-attended email debate:
From: Patrick Moore <pmoore@ecosense.me>
Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2021, 10:19 AM
Subject: Re: [GWR] Origin of Atmospheric CO2: Answer to Ed
Please take a hike Ed. I am beyond tired of your gobbledegook. This, for example “I do not need to provide you with evidence to explain how nature caused most of the CO2 increase”.
What is there in science beyond “evidence”, leading to deduction, leading to conclusions?
Your invocation of Einstein is pure conceit.
Sayonara.
Cheers, Patrick Moore
Moore argues that Berry can’t prove an assumption is false without providing an alternative assumption, which shows Moore disagrees with the scientific method.
Moore calls that “pure conceit” the fact that Berry mentioned that Kemeny learned the scientific method when he worked as a mathematician for Albert Einstein.
Berry agrees with Marilyn vos Savant: What is surprising is not that most scientists are wrong, but in how fiercely they defend being wrong.
Below are comments by three CO2 Coalition members in a 2022 email debate about Berry (2021), followed by my rebuttals.
The CO2 Coalition has people who try to prove Berry’s work is wrong when they are flat out not competent enough in physics to follow Berry’s work.
Greg Wrightstone:
The water level in a tub of water with equal large inflows and outflows will remain the same (analogous to the natural CO2).
If we add a small, additional anthropogenic inflow, the rise in the water level will be entirely due to the additional anthropogenic inflow.
Congratulations, Greg. You understand my definition of the balance level, but if we add inflow numbers to your argument, we would find that the human inflow is too small to account for the 33% increase in CO2.
Roy Spencer:
I can’t believe there are still people who don’t realize that humans can theoretically be responsible for 100% of the CO2 rise, while the fraction of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere remains quite small.
It’s because of the huge surface reservoir combined with very large natural fluxes in and out of the surface.
The residence time of a single CO2 molecule can be very short, yet all of the rise of total atmospheric CO2 be due to anthropogenic emissions.
If you have a very large tub of water with water flowing in and out at exactly the same rate, the water level remains the same. But if then you add another, much weaker source of inflow, the water level will rise, even though over the long term most of the actual molecules of water you added went down the drain. It’s not rocket science.
Sorry, Roy, you are way off on your physics when you claim human CO2 can be responsible for 100% of the increase. You simply do not understand a numerical model that proves this cannot happen.
David Wojick:
The huge natural CO2 flux causes roughly 25% of the atmospheric molecules to be replaced every year, including our emitted molecules. Thus, the percentage and mass of our molecules is indeed small compared to that of the total CO2 increase since 1750.
However, it does not follow that our emissions have not caused that increase, especially since the annual increase is considerably smaller than our annual emissions. It could just be that our molecules first cause the increase then are replaced by natural molecules in the great flux.
I am not saying we have caused the increase, just that it is possible, and this study does not change that.
David, you say human CO2 can cause all the CO2 increase, since the total annual increase is smaller than our annual emissions. That is not a logical argument because you are mixing human CO2 with natural CO2.
Dave Burton wrote in 2022 (summarized because Burton’s details change nothing):
Human inflow since 1958 = 180 ppm. Total CO2 increase is 80 ppm.
Nature removed 80 ppm. Therefore, nature could not have caused the CO2 increase, because it was busy removing CO2 from the atmosphere.
Dave, this is an old argument that fails physics because it does not separate the human carbon cycle from the natural carbon cycle. The total CO2 increase and total removal, you refer to, include both human and natural carbon. Yet you assign all the increase to human carbon and all the decrease to natural carbon. There is nothing in your argument that proves anything.
In December 2024, the CO2 Coalition published its special report, “The human contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide,” by Engelbeen, Hannon, and Burton (hereinafter EHB).
EHB is not a peer-reviewed publication. It is a CO2 Coalition publication.
Gordon Fulks, a Coalition board member, informed Berry in 2025 that EHB is the CO2 Coalition’s formal critique of his papers (of 2019, 2021, and 2023) and his Climate Equivalence Principle (CEP).
Fulks later criticized Berry’s work on his Global Warming Realists (GWR) email group. When Berry responded, Fulks blocked Berry’s comments. GWR, like the CO2 Coalition, censors scientists who disagree with Patrick Moore and the CO2 Coalition.
EHB does not mention Berry, quote Berry, or reference Berry’s publications. Normally, when you write a rebuttal to a scientific article or claim, you reference the article or claim. This CO2 Coalition omission is so unusual that it is obviously done on purpose to censor any mention of Berry’s name and professional papers.
The CO2 Coalition approves EHB’s junk climate science.
Berry reviewed EHB, wrote a draft rebuttal, published it on his website, and allowed the EHB authors full freedom to defend their arguments. The debate has over 4000 comments.
We learned in this debate that the CO2 Coalition’s Board of Directors, including Patrick Moore, Will Happer, and Richard Lindzen, support EHB’s junk science.
This is an amazing revelation because it shows that the Coalition is eight years out of date on climate science and unable to defend itself against Berry’s papers.
EHB’s arguments violate basic science.
EHB says there is a high correlation between annual human CO2 emissions and the CO2 increase, which EHB says “proves” human CO2 causes all the CO2 increase.
But EHB does not detrend the time-series data before doing its correlation, making its claim meaningless. They also violate the scientific method by claiming they can prove an assumption is true. Properly detrending the data shows the correlation is near zero. When there is no correlation, there is no cause-and-effect relationship.
EHB argues that “multiple lines” of “extensive evidence” “conclusively” prove Assumption (1) is true – thereby violating the scientific method.
EHB claims it proves Assumption (1) is true, but that is impossible according to the scientific method.
EHB supports IPCC’s claim that human CO2 flows out of the atmosphere more slowly than natural CO2 and therefore causes the CO2 increase, a claim that contradicts the CEP
EHB formulates human and natural carbon inflows and outflows in a single equation, then claims its calculations conserve carbon mass for human and natural carbon separately. But to conserve carbon mass separately for human and natural carbon, you need to write separate equations for each.
EHB changes a human carbon atom into a natural carbon atom when human carbon moves from the air to land or oceans. This loses track of human carbon mass.
EHB argues that a new CO2 molecule has a 2.4-year half-life, then changes to a 30-year half-life, and later returns to a 2.4-year half-life if it remains in the atmosphere.
This claim says that CO2 molecules of different ages, at the same time and place, flow out of the atmosphere with different half-lives, which is impossible.
EHB proves the CO2 Coalition pushes junk physics.
By Contrast, here are comments by the late Richard Courtney, UK professional reviewer and climate scientist, to well-attended email conversations.
Richard Courtney wrote on June 22, 2020,
Please note that the importance of the “physics model” of Ed Berry is that it removes the need for knowledge of the rate constants operating in the carbon cycle. I again say I think this is a breakthrough in understanding, which other workers and I failed to make.
Richard Courtney wrote on February 26, 2021,
The attribution model study we reported in 2005 is a caution to all IPCC recommendations because it demonstrates the rise in atmospheric CO2 may be entirely natural and suggests it is mostly natural.
We and others failed to confirm the conclusion above because we did not know the rate constants governing the carbon cycle.
The ‘Physics Model’ by Ed Berry overcomes the need for knowledge of the rate constants in the carbon cycle, and this is a breakthrough in understanding of the cause of the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Richard Courtney wrote on September 13, 2021,
Importantly, Ed Berry builds on a finding in my paper to make a breakthrough in understanding (which I and others failed to make).
This has enabled him to assess the data in a way that quantifies the natural and anthropogenic contributions to the cause of the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration measured at Mauna Loa since 1958.
The key point is that Berry’s CEP and resulting carbon-cycle model are the most important climate-science breakthroughs since 1980.
4. The scientific method is the basis of all science, and 97% of scientists don’t know what it is.
Scientists who don’t know the scientific method have described it as follows:
In physical science, the scientific method can be summarized by one question: Is it consistent with the physical evidence?
The scientific method involves painstaking and honest investigation of a hypothesis by gathering data to evaluate it.
These scientists are like drivers who don’t know driving laws and can’t read road signs. Their descriptions do NOT describe the scientific method because:
· They incorrectly assume good predictions prove an assumption is true.
· They incorrectly omit that it is impossible to prove an assumption is true.
· They incorrectly omit that one bad prediction proves an assumption is false.
The whole climate fraud exists because scientists and people don’t understand the scientific method.
John Kemeny and Richard Feynman described the scientific method.
John Kemeny was a mathematics assistant to Albert Einstein and became Chairman of both the Mathematics and the Philosophy Departments at Dartmouth College.
Kemeny and Feynman described the scientific method as follows:
Using data, we formulate an idea or assumption that (A) causes (B). We use our idea to make a testable prediction. If our idea can’t make a testable prediction, our idea is not a valid assumption.
We insert data into our assumption to predict an effect. Then we compare our prediction with new data.
If our prediction is true, this does not prove our assumption, because a future test may prove it false.
Aristotle taught us not to rely on data that reinforces our ideas. We must focus on data that disproves our ideas.
The key to science
If even one prediction is false, our assumption is false. We must discard our assumption. This is the key to science.
Einstein summarized the scientific method like this:
Many experiments may prove me right, but it takes only one to prove me wrong.
Nobel laureate physicist Feynman emphasized (paraphrased):
It doesn’t matter how beautiful your idea is, or how smart you are. If your prediction disagrees with the data, your idea is WRONG.
The IPCC abandons the scientific method with this claim,
“There is an abundant source of published literature that shows, with considerable certainty, that the natural environment has acted as a net carbon sink throughout the industrial era, taking in significantly more carbon than it has emitted, and so the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 cannot be a natural phenomenon.”
There is no such thing as “considerable certainty” that an assumption is true.
Most people, including scientists, do not realize that the scientific method is directional. It can disprove an assumption, but it cannot prove an assumption is true.
Nothing can prove an assumption is true.
Those who do not understand this think they can “prove” an assumption is true. The scientific method says this is impossible.
“Extensive scientific evidence” is simply evidence piled higher and deeper.
The scientific method says “evidence” – even if piled higher or deeper – cannot prove an assumption is true.
Incompetent scientists think “evidence” piled higher and deeper overpowers the scientific method. Nothing overpowers the scientific method.
The IPCC claims, “extensive evidence proves” Assumptions (1), (2), and (3) are true.
The CO2 Coalition’s special report (EHB), which we discussed in Section 3, claims “multiple lines” of “extensive evidence” “conclusively” prove Assumption (1) is true. The scientific method says this is an invalid argument.
Consensus cannot prove an assumption is true.
When a climate assumption makes a bad prediction, alarmists argue, “a consensus of scientists proves the assumption is true.”
Alarmists argue we must “follow the scientists” because they think votes determine whether an assumption is true or false. Votes count in politics, but not in science.
Authority cannot prove an assumption is true.
Alarmists (and incompetent attorneys) incorrectly think scientists who have the most “publications” or who have warmed a university seat for the most years should decide whether an assumption is true. The scientific method rejects this argument.
Attorneys make this logical error when they ask the court to believe an expert witness based upon the irrelevant claim that the expert is deemed an “authority.” The truth is, the only thing that should matter in court is what the expert says.
CO2 Coalition makes this logical error when it claims its scientists are “top scientists.” The only thing that matters in court or debate is how good an argument a scientist can make to prove an assumption is false.
Science is not about how much you know. Science is about how well you can think.
Affirming the Consequent cannot prove an assumption is true.
Alarmists focus on the bad stuff they claim happens in their Assumption (3). They argue that because (3) is true, (1) and (2) are true.
Here’s their illogic:
“If our CO2 changes the climate, then bad stuff happens.
Bad stuff happens. Therefore, our CO2 changes the climate.”
One easy rebuttal to their argument is to show a parallel argument:
If Bill Gates owns Fort Knox, then Bill Gates is rich.
Bill Gates is rich. Therefore, Bill Gates owns Fort Knox.
This invalid argument is called Affirming the Consequent because the second part assumes the consequent of the first part is true.
Events do not prove their cause.
Another invalid argument claims events prove their cause. But an event can have more than one cause. If the CO2 level increases, that does not prove that human CO2 caused the increase, because natural CO2 could have.
Montana’s AG, in Held v Montana, stipulated that the plaintiffs proved Assumption (3) is true, and therefore (1) and (2) are true, and therefore human CO2 caused all the CO2 increase.
Evidence cannot prove an assumption is true.
Arguments that claim “evidence” proves an assumption is true contradict the scientific method.
The rules of the scientific method are like the rules in US criminal law, e.g., the accused is “innocent until proven guilty.”
Climate lawsuits accuse human CO2 of causing harmful climate change. A valid climate trial must begin by assuming human CO2 is innocent until proven guilty. In science, this is the required “null hypothesis.”
The null hypothesis requires that Assumptions (1), (2), and (3) are presumed to be false until proven otherwise. The null hypothesis places the burden of proof on those who claim that human CO2 causes the claimed damages.
Good attorneys use the scientific method. Bad attorneys do not.
Suppose you paid your attorney to defend you against an accusation that you shot and killed Jones, but you are innocent.
In the trial, the plaintiff presents “extensive data” and “multiple lines of evidence” that imply you shot Jones.
Your attorney stipulates that all the plaintiff’s evidence is true.
Then the plaintiff’s attorney argues:
“If you shot Jones, then Jones is dead. Jones is dead. Therefore, you shot Jones.”
Your attorney did not object to this logical error in the plaintiff’s attorney’s argument.
Thanks to your attorney, you’re off to prison.
(I use this example because Montana Attorney General Knudsen made a similar stipulation at the beginning of the Held v Montana climate trial and did not object to the plaintiffs’ “Affirming the Consequent” arguments during the trial.)
How to defend Smith.
My book, Climate Miracle, uses this murder trial example to make this important point. The prosecution accuses Smith of murdering Jones. They present “extensive evidence” and “multiple lines of evidence” to support their argument. But that is not sufficient evidence if it is countered.
Smith’s defense does NOT need to dispute all the prosecution’s evidence if they can prove Smith was 3000 miles away at the time of the murder. That’s because the hidden assumption in the prosecution’s argument is that Smith was nearby when someone shot Jones.
Climate lawsuits have assumed that the three key climate assumptions are true. No defense has properly challenged the three key assumptions, so there has never been a valid climate lawsuit.
Why? Because WEF likely controlled the outcome of all climate lawsuits, as WEF clearly did in Held v Montana.
How to defeat a climate lawsuit.
First, if it is relevant, like it is in the Our Children’s Trust lawsuits, the defense must challenge the plaintiffs’ damage claims. The plaintiffs are thoroughly indoctrinated children who believe human CO2 has damaged them, when the truth is that their indoctrinators have damaged them.
Second, the defense must force the plaintiff’s experts to agree that their testimonies depend upon their assumptions that (1) and (2) are true. They will agree, or else they will testify that (1) and (2) are false and lose their lawsuit.
Third, the defense must argue that the plaintiffs’ arguments for Assumption (3) are irrelevant because events do not prove their cause.
The defense does not need to prove that the Plaintiff’s arguments for Assumption (3) are false. The defense should focus on proving that (1) and (2) are false.
Fourth, the defense must prove that Assumptions (1) and (2) are false and make it short. The defense will need a second rebuttal to show how the plaintiff’s expert rebuttals fail.
The defense must use only experts who can prove that Assumptions (1) and (2) are false. This requirement eliminates 97% of climate scientists.
Arguments over Assumption (3) favor the plaintiffs because any judge and jury is preconditioned to believe (3) is true. Although evidence shows warming is good rather than bad, these arguments are squishy because they depend upon opinions.
Therefore, the defense should not address Assumption (3) other than to say it is irrelevant. Arguing (3) takes longer and will cause the judge or jury to lose focus on the clean arguments that (1) and (2) are false.
Kemeny taught that the scientific method does not apply to what cannot be measured.
For example, science cannot prove God because we can’t measure what is outside our physical world. Science cannot tell us what to believe or not to believe outside our physical world. Therefore, we may believe what we wish to believe about God and other things we cannot measure without violating the scientific method.
However, if we extend our belief in God to our beliefs about the physical world, we can prove our physical beliefs false when they conflict with data. For example, we can prove false the belief that the Earth is 6000 years old.
The key point is that it is impossible to prove an assumption is true, but a single false prediction proves it is false.
5. The lake and bucket carbon flow analogies
The IPCC says human CO2 “accumulates” in the atmosphere.
This IPCC claim violates both physics and common sense.
A lake analogy
CO2 flows through the atmosphere like water flows into a lake and then flows out over a dam.
Water does not “accumulate” in the lake because, as the lake level rises, the water outflow over the dam increases.
Similarly, CO2 does not “accumulate” in the atmosphere because, as the CO2 level rises, the CO2 outflow increases.
When the inflow is constant, the level will increase or decrease until outflow equals inflow. Then the level remains constant as long as the inflow remains constant.
That level is the “balance level,” which is set by the inflow, where outflow equals inflow.
Human CO2 does not “add” carbon to the atmosphere. It adds to the CO2 inflow and, therefore, to the CO2 balance level, where continued inflow does not change the level.
Carbon capture does not “remove” carbon from the atmosphere. Carbon capture merely subtracts from the total CO2 inflow and slightly lowers the CO2 balance level.
These analogies and the definition of balance level are derived from Berry’s carbon cycle model of IPCC’s carbon cycle.
A bucket analogy
Water flows into the top of the bucket that has a hole in the bottom.
As the water level rises, the outflow through the hole increases because the water pressure at the hole increases.
If the inflow is constant and the bucket is tall enough, the outflow will increase (or decrease) until it equals the inflow. Then the level will remain constant if the inflow remains constant.
CO2 does not accumulate in the atmosphere. It flows out as fast as it flows in when outflow equals inflow.
The key point is that carbon does not “accumulate” because inflows set the balance level so that outflows equal inflows, and the level stays constant.
6. Formulation of IPCC’s carbon cycle.
Let’s do some simple high school physics to understand how carbon flows through the carbon cycle. If we formulate a flow model of IPCC’s carbon cycle, our discussion of climate change becomes mere hand-waving.
The climate change fraud that costs America and the world trillions of dollars every year exists because people do not understand the scientific method and simple physics.
Now, we will formulate a simple mathematical model of IPCC’s carbon cycle.
Berry’s carbon cycle model uses only two assumptions, both of which are universally accepted as valid.
Don’t let equations scare you. Just read the descriptions if you wish. These equations, however, are necessary to describe and defend the simple physics that underlie the politics of climate change.
The first equation is the continuity equation that conserves carbon mass:
dL / dt = Inflow – Outflow (1)
Equation (1) says the rate of change in the level equals the inflow minus the outflow.
The rate of change of water in your bathtub equals the inflow (that increases the level) minus the outflow (that decreases the level). When they are the same, the level stays constant.
L is the carbon level in GtC or PgC, which are the same. t is time in years. Outflow and Inflow are in GtC or PgC per year.
The second equation sets the outflow.
The IPCC itself defines Outflow from a carbon reservoir to equal the level of carbon in the reservoir divided by the e-time for the outflow.
Outflow = Level / e-time (2)
Equation (2) says the higher the level, the faster the outflow. It also says that a time constant, e-time, is needed to fully describe how outflow relates to level.
The third equation defines the balance level.
When Inflow equals Outflow, the level is constant. This is the balance level. Inflow sets the balance level. If the level is not at its balance level, the level will move to the balance level where outflow equals inflow.
To get the equation for the balance level, we use equation (2), and substitute Inflow for Outflow and balance level for level, to get:
Balance Level = Inflow * e-time (3)
Everything in Berry’s carbon cycle model is deductive from (1) and (2).
That means there are only two ways to prove Berry’s carbon cycle model is wrong. First, prove that one of the equations (1) or (2) is wrong. Second, find an error in Berry’s formulation or calculations. No one has yet found an error in Berry’s formulation.
IPCC’s carbon cycle
IPCC’s carbon cycle has four major reservoirs – Land, Atmosphere, Surface Ocean, and Deep Ocean – connected in that order by carbon flows in both directions.
IPCC’s carbon cycle has six major outflows. Each outflow has its own e-time.
IPCC’s natural carbon cycle
IPCC data show the natural carbon cycle at equilibrium in 1750, when IPCC assumes the natural CO2 level was 280 ppm.
The IPCC shows the natural carbon levels for each reservoir and the outflows that maintain the reservoirs’ natural carbon cycles in equilibrium.
Berry found the six e-times (in red) for IPCC’s six outflows by using equation (2). Then he applied these IPCC natural-carbon e-times to the IPCC’s human-carbon cycle based on the CEP.
The CEP requires that human and natural carbon have the same e-times.
Human carbon flows do not change the e-times because they are much smaller than natural carbon flows. Human carbon just goes along for the ride.
IPCC’s “true” human carbon cycle
Berry calculated IPCC’s “true” human carbon cycle by using the same physics as IPCC’s natural carbon cycle.
Berry’s calculations show that human CO2 cannot account for all of the CO2 increase. Rather, it accounts for only a very small part of the CO2 increase, which proves that natural CO2 causes most of it.
Berry (2021) shows that human CO2 increased CO2 levels by about 33 ppm as of 2020, while natural CO2 accounted for the remaining 107 ppm, bringing CO2 to 420 ppm.
Any good engineer or physicist can repeat Berry’s calculations, and some have. No one has found any error in Berry’s carbon cycle formulation or calculations.
Notice that Berry’s calculations use IPCC’s data for the natural carbon cycle. Even the IPCC says its data are accurate to only about 20%. Berry’s calculations are no more accurate than IPCC’s data, and Berry’s result will change if IPCC changes its data.
Nevertheless, Berry’s calculations show that human CO2 emissions account for only a small share of the CO2 increase, according to the IPCC’s own data.
Therefore, according to IPCC’s own data, Assumption (1) is false.
In Section 12, we use carbon-14 data to show that human CO2 adds less carbon to the atmosphere than IPCC’s natural carbon-cycle data indicate.
The key point is that the false claim – that human CO2 causes all the CO2 increase – is made by incompetent scientists who violate the CEP
7. How e-time relates to half-life.
The cool thing about e-time is it relates to half-life that the public understands. Here are the formulas:
e-time = half-life * 1.4428 (4)
half-life = e-time * 0.6931 (5)
Now, let’s describe how to measure half-life.
Recall the bucket analogy we talked about above.
Put a cork in the hole in the bucket, then fill it with water. Mark the water level and half the water level. Get out your stopwatch. Pull the cork out and record the time it takes for the water level to reach the half-level mark. That’s half-life.
The bucket of water is an analogy to help you understand the concept of half-life. But I must warn you not to carry this analogy too far because water that flows out of a hole in the bottom of a bucket does not follow equation (1). But it’s visually close enough to use for teaching in a written document like this one.
Here’s what we learn from this analogy.
If we increase the hole size at the bottom of the bucket, water flows out faster, decreasing the half-life, e-time, and balance level, and vice versa.
This is enough to understand the meaning of CO2’s atmospheric half-life.
IPCC says the e-time for CO2 to flow out of the atmosphere “is about 4 years.”
IPCC’s natural carbon cycle data shows this e-time is 3.5 years. Equation (5) shows that this e-time equals the atmospheric half-life of CO2, about 2.4 years.
The key point is IPCC’s own data say the half-life of all CO2 in the atmosphere is about 2.4 years.
8. Human CO2 is only 3 percent of the CO2 that flows into the atmosphere.
Peter Pollard showed that bacteria in freshwater systems emit about 66 GtC per year, which is seven times the CO2 emitted by human burning of carbon fuels. Freshwater CO2 emissions increase with temperature.
Here are the known annual inflows of carbon into the atmosphere.
Human CO2 is about 3 percent of the CO2 that flows into the atmosphere. Natural processes are about 97% of the total CO2 inflow.
IPCC’s carbon cycle has four major reservoirs – Land, Atmosphere, Surface Ocean, and Deep Ocean – connected in that order by carbon flows in both directions.
IPCC’s data show its natural carbon cycle has these equilibrium percentages for natural carbon in each reservoir:
Therefore, if human carbon emissions were to stop, human carbon would flow to the same equilibrium percentages as natural carbon has, according to the CEP. That would leave 1.4% of human carbon in the atmosphere.
Human carbon in the carbon cycle is about 1% to the total carbon in the carbon cycle. Therefore, human carbon in the atmosphere would be 1.4% of 1%, or about 4 ppm.
The key point is that natural CO2 inflow is 33 times the human CO2 inflow.
9. A simple approximation to Berry’s calculation
The IPCC assumes the natural CO2 level in 1750 was 280 ppm and the human CO2 level was zero.
We define “human carbon” as the carbon that enters the carbon cycle as a result of human CO2 emissions.
We define “natural carbon” as carbon in the carbon cycle that is not added by human CO2 emissions.
These definitions apply to the IPCC’s “fast” carbon cycle.
Human carbon atoms retain their identity forever, even as they flow from land or ocean back into the atmosphere.
These definitions are critical because, to calculate the effect of human CO2 on CO2 levels, we must keep track of human carbon atoms in our calculations.
We use balance levels to calculate a “first-order” approximation of the amount that human CO2 adds to the CO2 balance level.
Since human and natural CO2 have the same e-time, we can use (3) to write:
Balance Level (H) /Inflow (H) = Balance Level (N) / Inflow (N) (6)
Balance Level (H) / Balance Level (N) = Inflow (H) / Inflow (N)
Balance Level (H) / 280 ppm = 0.03 / 0.97
Balance Level (H) = 280 * 0.03 / 0.97
Balance Level (H) = 8 ppm (7)
This first approximation shows that human CO2 inflow results in a human CO2 balance of about 8 ppm. This is nowhere near the 140 ppm required for human CO2 to account for all the CO2 increase.
Berry (2021) reports a value greater than 8 ppm but nowhere near 140 ppm.
How the IPCC claims Assumption (1) is true.
The IPCC simply claims the half-life of human CO2 is much larger than 2.4 years. Let’s assume, for example, that the IPCC says the human CO2 half-life is 20 times 2.4 years, or 24 years.
To approximate the effect of IPCC’s claim, we multiply the right side of equation (6) by 20 and carry this down to equation (7), which multiplies 8 ppm by 20 to get 160 ppm.
This is an example of how the IPCC and the CO2 Coalition both claim Assumption (1) is true.
How CEP proves this modification is invalid.
The CEP says the half-lives of human and natural CO2 are identical, which violates our multiplying the right-hand side of equation (6) by 20.
The key point is that all climate laws and regulations violate CEP.
10. How to calculate IPCC’s human carbon cycle.
In Porto (2018), I introduced the math equations that describe how carbon and CO2 flow through IPCC’s carbon cycle. Berry (2019, 2021, 2023) shows the equations I used to calculate IPCC’s true human carbon cycle.
Here are the important features of my formulation:
1. My carbon cycle model replicates IPCC’s natural carbon cycle data and shows how IPCC’s natural carbon cycle could keep a constant CO2 level of 280 ppm. IPCC never showed such a carbon cycle model.
2. My carbon cycle model than calculate IPCC’s human carbon cycle by using IPCC’s natural carbon cycle e-times. It begins with all four reservoirs empty and numerically inserts annual data on human carbon emissions into the atmosphere, and allows human carbon to flow through the carbon cycle exactly as IPCC’s natural carbon flows through the natural carbon cycle.
3. The result shows human emissions added about 33 ppm to atmospheric CO2 as of 2020 using IPCC’s own data, which conflicts with IPCC’s claim that human CO2 causes all the CO2 increase.
Here’s what most scientists miss about how I calculate IPCC’s human carbon cycle.
Berry calculates IPCC’s true human carbon cycle independently from IPCC’s natural carbon cycle. This follows the physics Partition Principle. We can add human- and natural-origin carbon at any time to get the carbon cycle.
We can make this separation and addition because equation (2) shows that outflow is a linear function of Level and e-time.
We calculate the human and natural carbon cycles separately, so we can conserve carbon mass independently for each.
If we put human and natural carbon into a single equation (as the CO2 Coalition does), we conserve only total carbon mass, not the individual masses of human and natural carbon.
Berry shows that if we were to stop human emissions, the level of human CO2 would drop from 33 ppm to 14 ppm in 20 years and 10 ppm in 40 years. This proves human CO2 is not a long-term danger.
The key point is IPCC’s true human carbon cycle proves Assumption (1) is false.
11. IPCC’s Bern model vs Berry’s Physics model
The Bern model (1992) assumes Assumption (1) is true, following the IPCC’s political claims that human CO2 caused all the increase in CO2.
The Bern model agrees with IPCC’s false claim that human CO2 has a much longer half-life than natural CO2.
The Bern model arbitrarily assumes 15% of human carbon remains in the atmosphere forever, and the other 85% takes a long time to flow out.
The Bern model is not even a “model.” It is not interactive. It doesn’t predict anything. It is simply a “Green’s function” curve fit to someone’s decay curve that used the above assumptions. The Bern model belongs in the trash bin.
12. Delta14C data prove Assumption (1) is false.
Delta14C is a measure of the ratio of 14C to 12C.
Carbon-14 (14C) helps us distinguish human carbon from natural carbon.
Natural carbon has a Delta14C value of 100%. (Our 100% is called 0 by scientists.) Human carbon has no 14C, so its Delta14C is 0%.
Natural Delta14C has been constant enough to be used for carbon dating. This means the relative inflows of natural 14C and 12C have been constant.
If human carbon inflow were 10% of the total CO2 inflow, this would lower Delta14C from 100% to 90%.
If human carbon inflow were 33% of the carbon in the atmosphere, which would occur if human CO2 caused 33% the CO2 in the atmosphere, this would lower Delta14C to 67%.
Data show the Delta14C balance level is about 98%, slightly below 100% (which scientists define as 0). The balance level is the level caused by natural CO2 inflow. This differs from the actual Delta14C, as we explain below.
Therefore, human CO2 inflow is only about 2% of today’s total CO2 inflow, which means human CO2 is about 2% of the CO2 in the atmosphere, not 33% as Assumption (1) predicts.
Therefore, Delta14C proves Assumption (1) is false.
How do we know the Delta14C balance level is 98%?
The bomb tests of the 1950’s and 1960’s added unnatural 14C to the atmosphere. This caused Delta14C to increase to 170%. But this human-caused addition did not increase the Delta14C balance level because the balance level depends upon the natural inflow of Delta14C, not the level of Delta14C.
Since 1970, the level of Delta14C has decreased steadily back toward its true balance level of about 100%. This decrease has a steady e-time of 16.5 years, which is a half-life of 11.4 years.
We use equations (1) and (2) to curve fit this Delta14C decrease. This curve fit shows the Delta14C balance level has remained constant at about 98% even as the bomb tests increased the actual Delta14C up to 170% as of 1965.
The Delta14C data prevail over IPCC’s more complicated natural carbon cycle data, and lower the calculated human CO2 level to only a few percent of atmospheric CO2.
Delta14C is additional proof that Assumption (1) is false, which does not depend on IPCC’s natural carbon cycle data.
The key point is that Delta14C shows that human CO2 is a very small fraction of atmospheric CO2.
13. Temperature changes happen before CO2 changes.
Ice core data show temperature changes lead CO2 changes by about 800 years.
More relevant to today’s climate debate is that global temperature changes lead CO2 changes by about 12 months (Humlum and Koutsoyiannis, see references). They proved Assumption (2) is false because an event cannot precede its cause.
Pollard showed that temperature increases in freshwater systems increase their CO2 emissions.
Ferenc Miskolczi found how cloud cover and water vapor adjust to compensate for CO2 changes in a way that keeps the Earth’s average “optical depth” constant as the CO2 level changes, proving Assumption (2) is false.
Proof that Assumption (2) is false.
Other scientists have proved Assumption (2) is false. These proofs show:
a. Annual human CO2 emissions do not correlate with annual increases in the CO2 level,
b. changes in global temperature precede changes in the CO2 level by an average of about 12 months,
c. changes in solar radiation and the Earth’s albedo (reflection of sunlight) set the global temperature,
d. water vapor in the atmosphere adjusts to compensate for CO2 changes, thereby keeping the Earth’s radiation to space constant, and
e. planetary global temperature increases with the total mass of the atmosphere rather than with the CO2 or GHG level.
Proofs (a) and (b) are also evidence that Assumption (1) is false.
The key point is that Assumption (2) is also false.
14. Climate alarmism was born on the first Earth Day on April 22, 1970.
In 1987, the United Nations Brundtland report warned that human CO2 might (but not for sure) raise global temperatures enough to harm agriculture, raise sea levels, flood coastal cities, and disrupt national economies. The report called for a major global effort to curb human CO2 emissions and promoted “sustainability” as a possible solution to human-caused environmental problems.
In 1988, James Hansen, head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), testified before a Senate committee that included Al Gore and predicted the world was headed for a global warming disaster.
In 1988, the UN formed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which assumed Assumptions (1) and (2) are true.
Deep State U.S. President G.H.W. Bush (1989-1993) was the main force in forming and funding the IPCC, even while he was vice-President under President Reagan.
In 1990, the IPCC’s First Assessment Report made global headlines, claiming that human CO2 emissions caused global warming and warning that the world must immediately reduce its CO2 emissions by 60 percent to save the planet.
In June 1992, President G.H.W. Bush, 107 other world leaders, and 20,000 climate activists attended, at America’s expense, the UN Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro. Bush signed the UN Earth Charter that gives the UN governance power over the United States.
Maurice Strong, Secretary General of the Earth Summit, spoke,
“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, using the invalid consensus argument,
“Only an insignificant fraction of scientists deny the global warming crisis. The time for debate is over. The science is settled.”
Climate alarmism did not begin in the normal scientific process. It began in Strong’s incubator that protected IPCC’s climate theory from scientific critique. It flourished when environmental organizations adopted it into their programs.
President GHW Bush notified climate scientists with government contracts to attend an EPA meeting.
I attended the EPA meeting at Lawrence Livermore Laboratory. The seats rose from the speaker’s platform. I sat near the top. About 100 climate physicists attended. Most of us knew each other.
A man in a suit popped out of the door by the platform and said, in essence,
“We don’t need any more physics research because we already know human carbon dioxide causes climate change. So, we are terminating contracts with physicists and contracting with ecologists to predict coming disasters.”
The speaker asked if anyone had any questions. I said,
“We don’t know if human CO2 changes the climate. We don’t even know how clouds and ocean currents change the climate. Who are you?”
He answered,
“I am an EPA lawyer, and I know more about climate physics than you do.”
Bush supported the Club of Rome. He announced the “New World Order” as he fired climate physicists. He flooded the universities with blood money to hire ecologists so he could dumb down America’s climate science and promote the climate fraud.
Scientists who kept their university jobs had to “go along” with the climate fraud or lose their jobs. They had to wear masks to associate with the climate alarmists. Midnight came, and their masks had compromised their beliefs for so long that they had forgotten how science works.
In 1993, Vice-president Al Gore continued America’s flow of blood money to universities to support ecologists who would promote false climate science.
The key point is that President GHW Bush began the climate fraud in America.
15. Montana has hosted three climate lawsuits
Our Children’s Trust of Oregon has filed three climate lawsuits in Montana:
1. Barhaugh v Montana 2011
2. Held v Montana 2022-2023
3. Lighthiser v Trump 2025
All three are the same lawsuit, with almost identical wording. All claim the government is damaging the children’s physical and mental health by allowing CO2 emissions to continue.
All ignore that their schools and parents are damaging the children’s physical and mental health by brainwashing them to FEAR human carbon emissions.
The fundamental scientific issue in all three climate lawsuits is whether the assumptions are true or false, but none of the lawsuits list them.
Barhaugh v. Montana, 2011 – that Berry defeated
Barhaugh v. Montana: Petition for Original Jurisdiction, Montana Supreme Court, 2011, was the first climate lawsuit in Montana. Berry led the intervention that stopped the Montana Supreme Court from accepting this Petition.
To justify its petition to the Montana Supreme Court, BvM says on page 5:
“Through the normal litigation and appeals process, this issue would likely take a minimum of two to three years just to reach this Court, in contrast to the average 60 days needed to resolve original proceedings.
“… there is not enough time to effectively arrest the effect of human-caused climate change unless immediate action is taken.”
“Climatological tipping points” lie directly ahead and drive the urgency of taking action.”
“The further we look into the future, the worse the costs of inaction will become. The longer we do nothing, the greater the risks of an irreversible climate catastrophe, such as a massive rise in sea levels, which could make the world unable to support anything like the current levels of population and economic activity.”
Barhaugh v. Montana justified its direct petition to the Montana Supreme Court by claiming that a climate emergency was imminent.
Democrat AG Bullock, who was then running for Governor, wrote, based on the evidence my team presented:
This disputed record is just one example of the factual determinations this Court would need to make to rule for Petitioners.
It would need to address … the current state of climate change science; the role of Montana in the global problem of climate change; how emissions created in Montana ultimately affect Montana’s climate; whether the benefits of energy production must be balanced against the potential harm of climate change; and the concrete limits, if any, of the alleged “affirmative duty.”
The Montana Supreme Court therefore ruled:
The State (e.g., Montana AG Bullock) posits that the relief requested by Petitioners would require numerous other factual determinations, such as the role of Montana in the global problem of climate change and how emissions created in Montana ultimately affect Montana’s climate.
This Court is ill-equipped to resolve the factual assertions.
We further conclude that Petitioners have not established urgency or emergency factors that would preclude litigation in a trial court followed by the normal appeal process.
Consensus has no bearing on scientific truth.
Held v Montana 2023 – the conspiracy
The Our Children’s Trust Held v Montana climate lawsuit assumed Assumptions (1) and (2) were true and based its whole argument on (3).
HvM is a copy of BvM. It still has AG Bullock’s name in it, even though Montana elected Bullock Governor in 2011 and Republican Austin Knudsen was Attorney General.
AG Knudsen could have argued to dismiss HvM based on the failure of the BvM climate prediction that claimed,
“…there is not enough time to effectively arrest the effect of human-caused climate change unless immediate action is taken,”
He did not do this.
AG Knudsen could have argued to dismiss HvM on the basis of the Montana Supreme Court’s 2011 decision to dismiss Held v Montana. He did not do this.
AG Knudsen could have objected to the plaintiff’s argument that, because Assumption (3) is true, therefore (1) and (2) are true, which argues that effects prove their cause. He did not do this.
AG Knudsen could have easily defeated HvM, as Berry explained to an Assistant AG. He did not do this. Knudsen censored Berry.
Montana AG Knudsen PURPOSELY LOST Held v Montana.
On June 12, 2023, just before the trial began, Montana Assistant Attorney General Michael Russell 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.”
AG Knudsen stipulated that Assumptions (1) and (2) are true and that consensus, even without proof, prevails in science.
AG Knudsen’s stance put him to the left of former Democratic AG Bullock.
The HvM plaintiffs used the invalid argument of Affirming the Consequent.
The plaintiffs argued, in essence,
“If our CO2 changes the climate, then bad stuff happens.
Bad stuff happens. Therefore, our CO2 changes the climate.”
AG Knudsen did not object to this logical error. He produced NO relevant expert witness and did NOT challenge any of the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses.
AG Knudsen – whose job was to defeat HvM – did not legally, ethically, or morally defend Montana against the Plaintiffs’ climate science claims.
In the famed witch trials, plaintiffs claimed that innocent women caused harmful weather events. But they did not, and could not, show any connection between the women and the weather events. Nevertheless, they burned the innocent women anyway.
In Held v Montana, plaintiffs claimed human CO2 caused harmful “climate events.” But they did not, and could not, show any connection between human CO2 and their climate events. AG Knudsen let the court convict human CO2 anyway.
Judge Seeley correctly ruled for the plaintiffs based upon the evidence presented because Montana AG Knudsen presented NO evidence and NO rebuttal.
US Senator Steve Daines quickly announced that Montana lost because Judge Seeley was a “liberal” judge. Copycat US Senator Tim Sheehy, a former Navy SEAL like Zinke, issued the same news release as Daines.
Congressman Ryan Zinke, a former commander of SEAL Team Six and my friend since 2008, told me in 2021 that he would invite me to speak to Congress about climate. After his 2023 re-election, at a Kalispell Pachyderm meeting, Zinke told me he couldn’t talk to me anymore as he walked to sit with the Montana WEF man.
AG Austin Knudsen betrayed Montana
Knudsen’s purposeful loss of HvM is a serious betrayal by an elected official of the voters who re-elected him in 2024. Now, Austin Knudsen may run for governor.
AG Knudsen allowed the plaintiffs’ claims of personal injury from human CO2 to become established as fact under Montana law, opening the door to HvM II.
AG Knudsen’s conspiracy sentenced thousands more kids to climate brainwashing, which infects them with a climate anxiety that turns them into climate zombies.
Held v Montana II
AG Knudsen allowed the plaintiffs’ claims of personal injury from human CO2 to become established as fact under Montana law, opening the door to HvM II.
Held Plaintiffs are pushing to overturn three Montana laws passed in the 2025 Legislature. Their case is assigned to Judge Kathy Seeley, the judge of the first Held v. Montana ruling.
Lighthiser v Trump – a federal lawsuit in Montana
Lighthiser v. Trump is a copy of Barhaugh v. Montana and Held v Montana, but applied to federal law rather than Montana law.
The AP report listed these assumptions as facts:
Carbon dioxide, which is released when fossil fuels are burned, traps heat in the atmosphere and is largely responsible for the warming of the climate.
Katie Fairbanks, Montana Free Press, described the testimony of retired Professor Steve Running of the University of Montana, as saying scientists
“have tracked increasing carbon emissions and said every ton of carbon dioxide emissions adds to climate change.”
On September 17, 2025, I drove to Missoula to hear Trump’s defense of Lighthiser v Trump. Steve Running, the key scientist for the plaintiffs, attended wearing sweatpants.
Trump’s attorney made excellent legal arguments to dismiss LvT, causing the judge to later dismiss LvT. AG Knudsen could have done that with Held v Montana.
The key point is that Montana’s AG purposely lost Held v Montana at the orders of WEF, and Montana paid the plaintiffs’ attorneys $3 million.
16. The price of defending climate truth.
Behind the public curtain of known partisan positions on climate science, some Republicans work to help WEF achieve its climate goals.
Between 2009 and 2019, I helped Montana Republicans defeat several climate bills in the Montana legislature by driving to Helena and testifying. In 2011, I led the Intervention that stopped Barhaugh v Montana, the predecessor to Held v Montana.
But someone did not like the fact that I was defeating these climate bills.
In 2020, Trump was running for re-election against Biden. The Democrats had harmed Trump with their COVID conspiracy.
In June 2020, I announced to my email list that I planned to publish Climate Miracle in August. I put my draft on my website and invited comments.
In the same month, Our Children’s Trust filed Held v Montana, and no one told me.
Montana Department of Revenue (MDOR)
One month later, in July 2020, MDOR sent me a letter stating that it was reviewing my small-business tax return.
MDOR forced me to work full-time to prove every minor expense in detail, far beyond what was necessary for a tax review, leaving me no time to run my business.
In September 2020, I asked my accountant to ride shotgun so I could publish Climate Miracle, now delayed to October 2020. I intended my first chapter to help Trump defeat Biden in their debate on climate change.
I asked US Senator Steve Daines and MTGOP chairman, Don K, to give a copy of my book to Donald Trump Jr. during his visit to Montana to help Trump win his upcoming climate debate with Biden. They refused.
MDOR’s review continued until April 2021, when MDOR announced that it found NO errors in my tax return, but added, “It has been decided” that my climate business is a hobby and demanded I pay them $4600, which I did.
My business is not a hobby. It’s work. MDOR continued to harass me until mid-December 2021, when MDOR’s director, appointed by Governor Gianforte, chose his most experienced man to make MDOR’s best attempt to destroy my climate business.
I wrote my own defense and defeated MDOR in its own court on all 9 points, proving MDOR’s attack was a fraud and an illegal attempt to destroy my climate business. Attorneys have told me that “no one” ever beats MDOR. This was a personal attack on me because the State of Montana had no way to benefit from the $100,000 of taxpayer money it wasted trying to destroy me. MDOR returned my $4600, but conscripted me for 9 months, doing permanent harm to my climate business.
The key point is that MDOR spent over $100,000 of taxpayer money and conscripted nine months of my work time over its fraudulent $4700 tax claim, which, if true, could have been easily resolved by adjusting my tax return. The IRS had no problem with my tax return.
17. The Held v Montana climate lawsuit fraud
The Montana AG’s office was sending emails to potential climate physics experts who might serve as expert witnesses. On April 14, 2022, the AG’s office sent an offer to one very good expert, who replied with a copy to me as follows:
The guy you want is Ed Berry, who lives in Big Fork Montana. Ed knows at least as much as I do, and he has written several scientific papers on how CO2 behaves in the atmosphere, the biosphere, and the Ocean. He recently emerged unscathed from a hassle with global-warming alarmists who tried to attack him through the Montana state government.
That was the first time I learned of the Held v. Montana lawsuit.
On May 10, 2022, Emily Jones, AG Knudsen’s contract attorney for HvM, called me. The first thing she told me was that she “was not authorized to pay me for any work I might do.” I learned the State of Montana had secretly blacklisted me to prevent me from ever having a contract with the State, giving me no notification or opportunity to dispute their action.
During our phone conversation, I offered to review their defense documents and make suggestions. My review revealed that the defense was totally unprepared to defeat HvM. I made extensive comments on the 200-page lawsuit. I showed them how to reply to every plaintiff claim. I showed them what they should have done to get HvM dismissed.
An assistant AG read my comments and asked me for more information, which I provided. He was in a hurry, so we both worked weekends and holidays. He decided to have me sign on as an expert witness.
I attended the Kalispell Pachyderm meeting on Friday, June 3, 2022. I mentioned to one of my “friends” that I was helping the AG’s office defeat a climate lawsuit. Much to my surprise, my “friend” became uncontrollably very angry, not at me, but at the fact that I was helping Montana defeat HvM. He left the meeting in a big hurry.
When I returned to my office, I found I was locked out of my contact with the AG’s office. My “friend” is the Montana WEF man. He knows I would have defeated Held v Montana if Montana had let me help. He did not want to hurt me personally. It was just business.
If Montana were a WEF-free state, we would have defeated Held v. Montana, changed the world, and saved Montana from paying the plaintiffs’ attorneys $3 million.
We would have stopped carbon counting and carbon footprints and eliminated legal challenges to President Trump’s energy plan.
We would have stopped the WEF, Deep State, and Bill Gates plan to enslave America by 2030 because their plan needs the climate delusion.
We would have awakened people from their climate delusions. Stopped the evil indoctrination of children. Opened minds to the truth that nature, not human carbon emissions, controls the climate.
We would have freed governments to make economic decisions without “green” distortions. Stopped the waste of money and talent on senseless carbon capture.
We would have, in time, eliminated America’s annual deficit, which today is entirely caused by “green” laws and taxes.
The key point is that Montana could have defeated Held v Montana with my help.
18. They indoctrinate children in the climate fraud to make them future slaves.
The most damaging effect of the climate fraud is the continued indoctrination of children to make them believe human CO2 causes them physical damage.
Climate fraud is a moral, not a scientific, problem. Bad people push the climate fraud on children and on people who cannot understand the fraud.
This indoctrination lowers children’s IQs and sets them up to be WEF puppets.
We should teach children how to think and how to use the scientific method. But immoral leaders indoctrinate them to fear and believe in climate change.
In America, both major political parties act to support this immoral child abuse. The Democrat Party promotes this indoctrination, but the Republican Party has done nothing to stop it.
Montana’s Republican Party could have stopped this indoctrination by defeating Held v Montana. But its leaders purposely lost Held v Montana for WEF.
As Marcus Tullius Cicero wrote,
A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within.
An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves freely among those within the gate, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard even in the very halls of government itself.
For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men.
He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist.
A murderer is less to fear.
Montana’s Republican Party is split on climate truth. About half of its elected legislators support climate truth, while the other half have sold their souls to WEF.
Our unethical leaders have turned innocent children into WEF puppets who believe they are victims of climate change caused by the failure of the government to restrict or eliminate human CO2 emissions.
Our Children’s Trust climate lawsuits show the extent of this child indoctrination.
They forced these children to believe that human CO2 emissions cause increased global temperature, forest fires, smoke, melting glaciers, less snow, and more floods.
So, these children believe these effects decrease their recreational and educational opportunities, cause them shortness of breath, headaches, sore throats, eye and nose irritation, disrupted sleep, persistent stress, and increased anxiety.
These children believe “every additional ton of GHG pollution” causes them lifelong harm. They believe we must reduce GHG emissions to reduce their future injuries.
They believe their only recourse to stop these damages is to file a lawsuit to stop America and the world from emitting CO2.
Neither their teachers nor their parents teach them the scientific method, how to separate assumptions from facts, and how to prove assumptions are false.
My goal is to help people understand simple physics principles so they can decide for themselves how much human CO2 emissions change the climate.
19. My atmospheric physics life
At Caltech, I learned electrical and systems engineering and physics, but not the scientific method. I was an AF ROTC pilot trainee who wanted to fly the jets.
One week before graduation, the Air Force officer told us Congress had reduced its budget for pilots. So, he said, we can either draw straws to see who gets to fly an airplane and who gets to fly a desk, or you can choose an honourable discharge. The idea of flying a desk for four years was so frightening to me that I chose the honourable discharge. (In retrospect, if I had not taken my honourable discharge, I might have taken Gordon Fullerton’s long straw and destroyed his excellent career as a pilot. He was the best pilot in our class.)
Sacramento State University hired me to be a physics instructor. One day, a notice on the bulletin board said Dartmouth College was offering six Teaching Fellowships in Physics. I applied, they accepted me, and that changed my life.
Dartmouth gave me a Teaching Fellowship in Physics.
Dartmouth gave me an excellent physics education. I found John Kemeny, a former math assistant to Albert Einstein, who later became Chairman of the Mathematics and Philosophy Departments.
I took Kemeny’s courses in Markov Chains and the Philosophy of Science, which included the scientific method. These courses were critical to my future in science.
My MA thesis was a whistler experiment where we sent electromagnetic waves into the atmosphere and observed their reflections.
Nevada gave me a Research Fellowship in Atmospheric Physics.
After my MA from Dartmouth, I searched for a university where I could major in atmospheric physics. The U of Nevada had just started a PhD program in atmospheric physics and funded it through its new Desert Research Institute (DRI). I became its first PhD student.
DRI helped Nevada hire the best physicists to teach me. My excellent mentors were Friedwart Winterberg, the best student of Nobel Laureate Werner Heisenberg, and William T. Scott. Winterberg wrote, years later, “Dr. Ed Berry was my best student in 50 years of teaching physics.”
My PhD thesis was to calculate how quickly small cloud droplets can grow by collision and coalescence into raindrops in an ice-free tropical cloud. For perspective, it takes about 1 trillion (10^12) small cloud droplets, 10 microns (10^-6 m) in diameter, to make one raindrop 1 millimetre (10^-2 m) in diameter. Each pair of colliding droplets had a unique probability of coalescing.
It was impossible to perform this calculation with bins because it would require 10 trillion bins. So, I developed a new math structure for my numerical calculations. My calculations predicted rain would form in 20 minutes, as observed.
However, the scientific method says that good predictions do not prove that an assumption, such as a numerical model, is correct. So, I used my model to predict the three known analytic solutions of the collection equation. Two of these analytic solutions were done by William T. Scott while I worked on my numerical solution.
My model exactly predicted the three known analytic solutions that bounded known cloud conditions. This indicated my model represented reality.
My thesis began a new field in cloud physics that continues today. Researchers have added ice, electric charge, and turbulence to my model, yet they still cite my foundational work from 60 years ago.
The Director of Nevada’s Desert Research Institute said my PhD thesis “put Nevada’s DRI on the map.” It also gave me significant worldwide professional recognition.
I lived climate physics outside of textbooks.
I flew sailplanes off dry lakes. Got sucked into a growing cumulus cloud and had to spin out to survive. Made a zero-zero landing in a dust storm. Been in updrafts of 4000 feet per minute.
I was chief scientist for the Desert Research Institute’s Airborne Research. With a professional Navy pilot in command of DRI’s multi-engine aircraft, I flew copilot in research flights through Sierra Nevada winter ice storms, iced up and almost had to land in Lake Tahoe, cruised wave clouds at 26,000 feet, survived Alberta hail storms, and sampled the insides of geysers in Yellowstone National Park and once flew below the roof line of Yellowstone Lodge, in the winter of course.
I was a consultant to DOD’s weather modification experiments. Participated in weather modification experiments worldwide. The only civilian to participate in DOD’s then top-secret Project Popeye.
The National Science Foundation appointed me as its Program Manager for Weather Modification, where I oversaw METROMEX and the National Hail Research Experiment, as well as numerous university research projects.
My theoretical understanding of fluid dynamics helped me understand wind and water flow, giving me an edge in winning world and national sailing championships with my wife as crew.
The University of Nevada Alumni Association awarded me with its Professional Achievement Award.
I showed the FAA how to prevent airline crashes caused by wind shear in the 1970’s.
I have been a Certified Consulting Meteorologist (CCM) since 1978. I have never been on the losing side of a lawsuit.
In 1992, the California Attorney General brought a murder charge against Joe Hunt of the Billionaires Boys Club. Joe hired me to be his key expert witness. Joe Hunt, not an attorney, was the smartest “attorney” I ever worked for. He was his own defense attorney. He designed the tactics that followed the scientific method.
Today, I use Joe Hunt’s tactics to plan defenses in climate lawsuits. The way to defeat a climate lawsuit is to identify the plaintiffs’ assumptions and prove them false, simply and quickly. Then shut up.
In Joe Hunt’s trial, I made courtroom history by developing and defending the first computer model to generate new evidence in a criminal trial. I compiled the other experts’ testimonies to reach a conclusion that proved the plaintiffs’ experts lied.
That is how to defeat a climate lawsuit.
My numerical model combined the other expert witnesses’ testimony with the weather. We proved the prosecution’s witness lied. The two California AGs kept me on the stand for five days until I put them in a box after one of their questions. The jury voted that the defendant was “innocent.” Joe Hunt won, not me.
My courtroom model won the People’s Choice Award at Microsoft’s Windows World Open software contest, beating over 1,300 entries.
I won national and world championships in a high-performance centerboard-trapeze-spinnaker sailboat, becoming the first to do so with my wife as my crew.
To keep my health, I hold Concept2 indoor rowing age-group lightweight world records in the 100m and one-minute events.
20. Here is what you should do now
If you like the information you just read, then…
Here’s what you should do now:
1. Tell your friends about this article on Unbekoming.substack.com
2. To see references for this article, to comment, or to ask questions, click here: https://edberry.com/cep-learning-experience/
3. Subscribe to Dr. Ed’s emails using his pop-up subscription form.
After you subscribe, Dr. Ed will send you an invitation to join his CO2X for a new experience in climate science that will help you make your own decisions about climate and help you overturn bad climate laws in your community, city, or state.
Copyright © 2026 by Edwin X Berry
Permission granted to Unbekoming to publish
Yes, we the people reading this here today are not the cause of changing the climate ,but I assure you with ZERO doubt that the military arms of the major countries around the globe are. There has been no natural weather /climate cycles for many decades now and all one has to do is look the F*ck up in the sky on any day and observe with there own eyes how it is being done. Not to take anything away from this presentation but Mother Nature is in total collapse mode and it is observable from the astonishing rate of trees dying here in New England to the noticeable lack of insects in the spring and rare blue skies above. Here is an attempt to wake up pathetic "lawmakers " by Dane Wigington of Geoengineering .org on this crucial matter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlXIga6IC_A
What struck me most in Dr. Edwin Berry’s essay is not only the argument itself, but the discipline behind it.
The index he proposes is modest in appearance, but powerful in function. It does not try to win the debate by force. It asks a prior question: are we even still treating evidence symmetrically? That shift matters. It moves the discussion away from slogans and toward structure.
What also deserves to be said — plainly — is that publishing work like this today takes real courage. Not because it is reckless, but because the ambient environment is quietly punitive. As Norman Fenton has documented elsewhere (https://youtu.be/r7EDU_IktbU), dissent no longer needs to be formally banned to be suppressed. It only needs to be made costly, reputationally or professionally.
In that context, Berry’s essay reads as more than a technical contribution. It is an example of intellectual responsibility: careful, restrained, and willing to follow an argument where it leads, even when the incentives point elsewhere.
Whether one ultimately agrees with his conclusions or not, the method matters. So does the willingness to publish under conditions where silence is often the safer option.
That, to me, is what makes this piece worth engaging seriously — and why spaces like Unbekoming still matter.