By Ed Berry, PhD, Theoretical Physics, CCM

November 19, 2024

My goal in this article is to help Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy make America more efficient. Americas largest unnecessary cost is caused by the climate scam.

I also to apply for Elon’s reward for the most cost-effective carbon capture method. My method costs zero because it shows nature controls the CO₂ level.

Making AI intelligent and saving America $2 trillion requires using the scientific method to reject climate fiction and to reject the false idea that consensus determines scientific truth.

Consensus determines opinion, not truth.

Today’s AI is good at deduction, but it incorrectly assumes consensus determines truth. To be intelligent, AI must use the scientific method.

Worldwide, a handful of climate physicists who use the scientific method have proved in published peer-reviewed literature that human CO₂ emissions do not change the climate. In fact, they show human CO₂ emissions have an insignificant effect on the level of atmospheric CO₂.

The World Economic Forum and the deep state censor these scientists. WEF promotes the climate consensus to control America by 2030.

America’s biggest, useless expense is based on the incorrect assumption that human CO₂ causes dangerous climate change. This incorrect assumption, easily disproved, costs America more than its national defense, and all of America’s annual deficit.

Climate politics today incorrectly ASSUMES human CO₂ causes dangerous climate change and spends no time and no money to determine if this assumption is true.

As a consequence, the dominant political climate arguments are opinions about how much money to spend to try to lower human CO₂ emissions, while ignoring the truth that human CO₂ emissions do not even control the CO₂ level, much less cause climate change.

The Democrats want to spend more money, and Republicans want to spend less money. But both sides waste money because they reject scientific truth.

Would it not make sense to spend a small amount of time and money to evaluate the proof that human CO₂ does not control the climate?

Obviously, yes, but the government has no money to check the reality of its biggest waste of money. Elon and Vivek can make this check happen.

The COVID panic a few years ago lowered human CO₂ emissions by about 20% for a year. However, the CO₂ level continued to rise without any effect from lowered human CO₂ emissions.

That should be a wake-up call to check the alarmist consensus assumption that human CO₂ controls the CO₂ level.

The scientific method

No one automatically knows how to think. We must learn how to think. That’s why good schools are critical to America’s survival.

Our Homo Sapiens’ brains saved us in the wild but fail us in science. We think we know the scientific method, but we don’t.

Aristotle developed the scientific method 2400 years ago. Sir Francis Bacon expanded on the scientific method 500 years ago.

Today, the scientific method is part of the Philosophy of Science. It is not an arbitrary set of rules. It is the only way to find truth in science. But fewer than about two percent of all PhD scientists have learned the scientific method.

The scientific method is simple, but it takes some thinking.

At Caltech, I learned science, but Caltech did not formally teach the scientific method while I was there from 1953 to 1957.

Dartmouth College offered me a teaching fellowship in physics. There, I learned the scientific method from John Kemeny, who learned it when he was a special mathematical assistant to Albert Einstein.

Kemeny’s course in the Philosophy of Science, including the scientific method, and his course in Probability and Markov Chains, changed my life.

Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureat in Physics, later taught the same Scientific Method at Cornel and Caltech.

The scientific method begins and ends with data.

Using data, we formulate an idea, hypothesis, or assumption to connect a cause to an effect. This step is induction.

Then we insert data into our assumption to make a testable prediction. This step is deduction.

Then we compare the prediction with new data.

If our prediction is correct, our hypothesis may be correct, but successful predictions do not prove a hypothesis is true because the next experiment may prove it is false.

Albert Einstein said, “many experiments may prove me right, but it takes only one to prove me wrong.”

It is impossible to prove an assumption is true. We can only prove an assumption is false.

The key to science is, if any prediction disagrees with data, the hypothesis is false.

Proof that an assumption is false overrides all claims and scientific consensus that the assumption is true. Votes do not count in science.

The scientific method applies only to things we can measure. It does not apply to things we cannot measure.

We cannot measure God or heaven or the spirit world. That’s why our Constitution gives us freedom of religion. No one has any scientific basis to tell us our belief about God is wrong.

You can have any opinion you want about something we cannot measure. But when religion steps into areas that we can measure, science wins.

For example, measurements prove the Earth is a lot more than 6000 years old.

Climate change is about science, not feelings or religion. The Pope is not a scientist.

A legal trial example of using the scientific method

In a trial where a prosecution accuses Smith of shooting Jones, the prosecution will try to show a connection between Smith having a gun, aiming his gun at Jones, pulling the trigger, and shooting a bullet at Jones.

The defense does not need to prove all the prosecutions claims are false. The defense needs only to prove that one of the prosecution’s assumptions is false. The unstated assumption was that Smith was near the crime.

The defense proves Smith was three thousand miles away at the time of the shooting. That simple proof outvotes all arguments that Smith is guilty.

A climate change example of using the scientific method.

Climate change science is a subset of climate science. All political decisions and legal trials related to climate are about climate change science and not about climate science.

We do not need to involve all known climate science to resolve the climate change debate. We should keep the arguments simple.

The only things that matter in a climate change lawsuit are the assumptions made by the plaintiffs and the proof by the defense that one or more of the plaintiffs’ assumptions are wrong.

The first task of intelligent AI would be to identify these assumptions. If AI cannot do this then Ai needs experts to identify unstated assumptions in every argument.

Held v Montana shows how alarmists “prove” their climate change claims.

Held v Montana (HvM) was the first key climate lawsuit in America that set a precedent for other climate lawsuits. The plaintiffs started in Montana because Montana Republican candidates are for sale at a lower price than in other states.

Montana could have easily defeated Held v Montana.

Montana lost because the evil Republican Party Boss forced AG Knudsen to purposely lose the lawsuit. So, Knudsen stipulated his agreement with the plaintiffs and put up NO defense of climate change in Held v Montana.

The State of Montana censored and blacklisted me to be sure they lost Held v Montana. I have a long story to tell that is not relevant to this article.

Held v Montana plaintiffs make three invalid assumptions.

To win a lawsuit or debate, we must first identify all our opponent’s assumptions. Then we must prove their key assumptions are false. Keep it simple.

Our Children’s Trust filed Held v Montana in July 2020. The trial took place from June 12 to 20, 2023.

The Held v Montana plaintiffs used the same three assumptions that the IPCC and climate alarmists make to support their climate change claims. But they never list their assumptions and never call them assumptions.

Their whole case depended upon these three assumptions:

1. The natural CO₂ level remained at 280 ppm since 1750. Consequently, human CO₂ emissions caused all the CO₂ increase above 280 ppm.
2. This human-caused CO₂ increase causes global warming.
3. This human-caused global warming causes bad stuff to happen.

What evidence do climate alarmists have to prove its three assumptions are true?

Can they measure the amount of human CO₂ versus natural CO₂ in the air?

• That is impossible because human and natural CO₂ molecules are identical. We can only measure the total CO₂ in the air.

Can they measure the amount of global warming caused by increased CO₂?

• That is impossible because we cannot directly connect warming with increases in CO₂.

Can they measure how much bad stuff is caused by global warming?

• That is impossible because bad stuff happens whether or not the global temperature is warming or cooling or staying the same.

So, climate alarmist’s core assumptions are not directly provable.

Ten expert witnesses testified that weather and climate “bad stuff” harmed the child plaintiffs.

Two expert witnesses, Steve Running and Cathy Whitlock, argued that human CO₂ emissions caused the “bad stuff.”

First, they argued that assumptions #1 and #2 are true because a “scientific consensus” (of people who never appear in court for cross-examination) believe these assumptions are true.

Plaintiffs’ Expert Report by Steve Running and Cathy Whitlock argued as follows:

There is a scientific consensus that the rise in atmospheric CO₂ that we are witnessing is attributable to human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels.

The vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change.

Most leading science organizations around the world have issued public statements expressing this, including international and U.S. science academies, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and a whole host of reputable scientific bodies around the world.

2400 years ago, Aristotle showed the consensus argument fails. Wikipedia (2023) says, argumentum ad populum is a fallacious argument which is based on claiming a truth because the majority thinks it is true.

Argumentum ad populum is similar to an argument from authority (argumentum ad verecundiam). It uses an appeal to the beliefs of a group of people, stating that because a certain opinion is held by a majority, it is therefore correct.

Second, they argued, the existence of “bad stuff” in assumption #3 proves assumptions #1 and #2 are true. Of course, they did not call these assumptions “assumptions.”

Their second argument is that effects prove their cause, which is fundamentally not true.

What is both amazing and sad it that about 97% of America’s population does not understand that the climate scam is totally based on the invalid arguments of consensus and that effects prove their cause. This argues for better education.

That’s it! All climate alarmism is based on the above invalid arguments.

Killing their climate arguments in a legal trial is a piece of cake. They win by assuring no public entity makes a good defense. I am a witness to how they did that in Montana.

They even blow their own case with additional claims.

In support of assumption #1, they claim human CO₂ stays in the atmosphere much longer than natural CO₂. In fact, they need to make that claim to justify their assumption #1.

But this claim is impossible because human and natural CO₂ molecules are identical, so they will behave exactly the same and will flow out of the atmosphere at exactly the same rate. This is the Climate Equivalence Principle.

Therefore, their assumption #1 is false because it requires human CO₂ to behave differently than natural CO₂.

They also claim that we must reduce human CO₂ enough to lower the CO₂ level to 350 ppm, to save the planet. But IPCC’s own data (Berry, 2019, 2021, 2023) show the natural CO₂ level is already about 400 ppm, and human CO₂ about 20 ppm. Therefore, we can’t “save the planet” by restricting human CO₂ emissions.

Here’s a summary of how to win a climate change lawsuit.

We do not use the argument that “warmer is better” because it does not prove any key assumption is false, and it inherently agrees with the plaintiffs’ assumptions #1 and #2. This argument does not belong in a climate lawsuit.

Edwin X Berry, PhD, Theoretical Physics, CCM (2020 – 2023):

The IPCC assumes the natural CO₂ level remained constant after 1750, and human carbon emissions caused ALL the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide above 280 ppm.

IPCC’s own data and the Climate Equivalence Principle prove this assumption is wrong. Natural carbon emissions control the CO₂ level.

Carbon-14 data, properly interpreted, proves human carbon emissions have no significant effect on the CO₂ level. Nature, not human emissions, controls the CO₂ level and climate change.

Richard Courtney, UK climate scientist and professional reviewer (2021 -2024):

Berry’s work is a breakthrough in understanding which I and all others failed to make. It indicates that anthropogenic emissions of CO₂ contribute a negligible proportion of the recent rise in atmospheric CO₂ concentration. (2021)

Berry’s analysis is the only breakthrough in climate science in the last four decades. (2023, 2024)

Richard Courtney died on September 30, 2024, the day before his 78^th birthday.

Howard “Cork” Hayden, PhD, Theoretical Physics (2023):

IPCC’s calculation for the temperature increase caused by doubling CO₂ is 4.5 times greater than properly calculated by the Stephan-Boltzman radiation law.

Chuck Wiese, Meteorologist (2023):

Change in the Earth’s reflectivity (albedo) explains all temperature increase since 1984. The increased CO₂ level has no effect on temperature.

Humlum et al. (2012) and Koutsoyiannis et al. (2023):

CO₂ changes follow temperature changes with a delay of about 12 months.

Ferenc Miskolczi, Foreign Associate Member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (2023):

Global mean cloud cover fully explains the observed mean surface temperature.

John Clauser, 2022 Physics Nobel Prize Winner (2024):

The IPCC has misidentified the dominant process that controls the climate. Its models are based on incomplete and incorrect physics.

The dominant climate process is cloud coverage over the oceans. When cloud cover decreases, sunlight evaporates more water that causes more clouds that in turn cool the Earth, and vice-versa.

© 2024 Ed Berry – All Rights Reserved

E-Mail Ed Berry: ed@edberry.com

By Ed Berry, PhD, Theoretical Physics, CCM

November 5, 2024

Held v Montana (HvM), which ended on June 20, 2023, will go down in history as the trial where Montana’s Republican traitors did more damage to Republicans than any Democrat ever did.

Let’s turn the clock back a year to see how this happened.

On April 14, 2022, Montana Assistant Attorney General Alwyn Lansing emailed a climate physics expert whom I know in eastern USA, asking,

I am reaching out to you to inquire if you would be interested and willing to serve as an expert witness for Montana in this case. If so, could you please send me your CV and a fee schedule?

This scientist returned the email with a copy to me, saying,

Dear Ms Lansing:

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 pertaining to the way 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 using the Montana state government.

Upon receiving this email, I knew immediately that Montana’s Attorney Austin Knudsen had purposely censored me from helping him defeat HvM, or he would have asked me to help him in 2021.

I sent another email on April 20 and received a brief reply from Emily Jones, AG Knudsen’s contract attorney for HvM, and we scheduled to talk on May 10, 2022, which was her first opportunity to talk. I’m thinking, I hold all the keys to how to defeat HvM and the lawyers won’t even talk to me.

In our phone conversation, the first thing she told me was she was not “authorized to pay me.”

So, the State of Montana under Governor Gianforte had secretly censored and blacklisted me without giving me any notification or opportunity to reply. They would pay other experts, but not me.

Anyway, I offered to help them for a limited time at no cost to the State of Montana. They sent me all their legal stuff and, a week later, I returned my full review of the lawsuit. I showed them the steps they needed to take to win, suggested possible expert witnesses, and presented a plan to organize defense attorneys and experts to defeat HvM.

Another Assistant AG liked my suggestions and asked me for more information. At the end of May 2022, he began signing me up as an expert witness.

On June 1, 2022, I attended the Pachyderm meeting in Kalispell. I mentioned to a person who I thought was my friend that I was helping Knudsen defend HvM. He became uncontrollably angry and left the meeting in a big hurry. When I returned to my office an hour later, I found that Knudsen had terminated my communications with his assistant AG.

I met the face of evil, who secretly forced AG Knudsen to throw the HvM trial.

The trial

On June 12, 2023, just before the trial began, Montana Assistant Attorney General Michael Russell gave away the farm by stipulating,

“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.”

I watched the whole trial. I have never seen anything so despicable in my life. Montana’s AG rolled out the red carpet to make sure the Plaintiffs won HvM.

Montana’s defense did not counter any Plaintiff’ expert’ climate claim and did not present any expert witnesses on true climate science to challenge the Plaintiffs’ experts.

The plaintiffs did not show any evidence that human CO₂ caused their claimed damages. Montana’s Attorney General did not point that out to the court.

The plaintiffs never presented any evidence to support cause and effect, e.g., to show human carbon emissions caused the climate to cause their claimed damages. My expert team with my attorney would have shredded the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses and easily defeated HvM.

Knudsen did not legally, ethically, or morally defend Montana against the Plaintiffs’ claims.

Knudsen betrayed the truth that people need to be free. Knudsen’s was the worst action I have ever seen a lawyer do.

In the famed witch-trials, plaintiffs claimed 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 HvM, the 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. Nevertheless, they convicted human CO₂ anyway… but this conviction happened because the defense let it happen.

Human CO₂ was the real defendant in HvM, but no one defended human CO₂.

Censorship is the biggest threat to democracy.

In their debate, vice-president candidates, Vance and Walz, agreed that censorship is the biggest threat to democracy. That we must debate our differences. Persuade but never censor.

Imagine, if you will, a Montana where our Republican leaders were honest, faithful, intelligent, and “good.”

Montana’s Attorney General Knudsen would have not censored me. He would have let me help him defend Held v Montana.

Without question, we would have defeated Held v Montana. Shocked and changed the world. Saved Montana from paying the plaintiffs’ attorneys millions of dollars.

We would have awakened people from their climate delusions. Stopped the evil indoctrination of children in climate fiction, fear, and anxiety. Showed how the scientific method finds truth. Opened minds to the physics truth that nature, not human carbon emissions, controls the climate.

We would have forced governments to discard laws and taxes on carbon emissions. Freed governments to make economic decisions without “green” distortions. Stopped wasting money and engineering 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. Strengthened the US dollar. Helped people buy homes, wheels, and food.

No more counting carbon footprints. No more climate challenges to Donald Trump’s energy plan.

We would have stopped the World Economic Forum, the Deep State, and Bill Gates’ plan to enslave America by 2030 because their plan needs the climate delusion.

Ah, but I must be dreaming.

Montana’s Republican leaders – Sen Daines, Rep Zinke, Gov Gianforte, and their wannabe Senator Sheehy – are “RATS” (Republicans Against Truth) who helped WEF win HvM.

They support AG Knudsen’s despicable deliberate loss of Held v Montana. They accepted their thirty pieces of silver to censor scientific truth and secretly betray the people.

Held v Montana is now in Montana’s Supreme Court. I filed an Amicus Brief on climate truth with many good Montanans as parties. We do not know if the court will hear our brief.

After Judge Seeley rendered her decision on HvM, Senator Daines wrote on X:

Activist judges, even here in MT, are helping far-Left environmentalists push their green hallucination down the throats of Americans. Shutting down energy projects that support an all-of-the-above energy portfolio is setting America on a dangerous path. We must reverse course.

Republican wannabe US Senator Tim Sheehy quickly echoed Daines on X:

The latest example of a liberal activist judge trying to legislate radical Green New Deal disastrous policies from the bench. We must fight back and take a strong stand against the climate cult and their job-killing agenda.

Daines’ and Sheehy’s comments are bullshit! They are outright lies designed to control the people.

Judge Seeley is not an “activist judge.” She made the correct decision based on the evidence presented because AG Knudsen presented no evidence.

Senator Daines wrote his public support for criminal AG Knudsen:

“I’m writing you today on behalf of my good friend, Austin Knudsen. As Montana’s Attorney General, Austin is working to stop Joe Biden’s overreach every single day. Montana has never had a fiercer warrior against big government power grabs than Austin, and that’s why I’m asking you to donate today to support his reelection.”

“And make no mistake, the left wants Austin gone. They’ve got their sites on the Attorney General’s office, propping up a liberal extremist trial lawyer against him.”

The climate myth costs America more than national defense. Rational Republicans would take time to understand this.

Republican voters don’t know what happened with HvM, except those who read my letters. No one else is telling the people the truth.

The World Economic Forum plans to control America by 2030. Their takeover of Montana is almost complete. It will be complete if Republican voters elect Tim Sheehy for Senate and reelect Ryan Zinke for Congress, and Austin Knudsen for AG. If that happens, the party boss will control the fate of Montana. Since he serves WEF, it’s good-bye Montana.

This is how we lose our America. This is how we lose our freedom.

I invited Zinke and Sheehy several times since June 2024 to spend an hour with me, any time, any place in Flathead County to talk about climate. They won’t reply to me. In Montana, that never happens in normal politics.

Tim Sheehy

Tim Sheehy is challenging Democrat Sen. Jon Tester. Tester has done a lot of good things for Montana and has a high seniority in the Senate. Sheehy has never held an elected office.

Sheehy has lots of negatives that are too long to list here. He was discharged from the navy seals with an “involuntary separation.”

He sold bonds by saying he would use the money to buy planes. But instead, he used the money to buy his company’s stock. He does not sound like an honest person.

Ryan Zinke

Zinke is running for reelection and his challenger is Democrat Monica Tranel.

Zinke explained his view of climate change to the press. He saw a glacier melting one day when he was eating his lunch near a glacier in Glacier National Park. He said the melting he saw proves climate change is real, and our carbon emissions are causing it.

Zinke told the press he is a “scientist” to justify his support of the green agenda. He has a BS degree in geology but that does not make him a scientist. Like where’s his PhD thesis?

I have supported Ryan Zinke since 2011. In November 2022, after he had been elected to Congress, he told me he would invite me to talk to Congress about climate. The problem is the party boss overheard Zinke’s invitation. The next time I talked to Zinke at one of his fund raisers, he told me he will no longer talk to me about climate.

After our twelve years of friendship, Zinke stopped talking to me because he now belongs to the party boss.

Zinke won’t tell Donald Trump the truth about climate and will not give Trump a copy of my book, Climate Miracle.

Here’s my letter to the editor that summarizes my position on these votes:

I’ve always voted Republican. But I can’t this time because Tim Sheehy and Rep. Ryan Zinke, Gov. Greg Gianforte, and Attorney General Austin Knudsen are RATS (Republicans Against Truth).

Party boss told Knudsen to lose Held v. Montana. He complied, inflicting more damage on Republicans than any Democrat has ever done. Party boss told RATS to support Knudsen’s loss. They complied.

Party boss told RATS to have the state of Montana attack and censor me because I teach climate truth that would have defeated Held v. Montana. They complied.

Party boss serves the World Economic Forum that needed Montana to lose Held v. Montana so they can make us slaves who will own nothing, eat insects and be happy, by 2030.

Sheehy’s a Trojan horse who can’t remember who he is. Zinke lies to Trump. It’s insanity to give shady Sheehy six years and zombie Zinke two more years to destroy us. This is more important than who controls Congress. I’m voting for former President Donald Trump, Sen. Jon Tester and Monica Tranel.  — Ed Berry, Bigfork

© 2024 Ed Berry – All Rights Reserved

E-Mail Ed Berry: ed@edberry.com

By Ed Berry, PhD, Theoretical Physics, CCM

November 1, 2024

True experts are important. If German physicist Werner von Braun had not come to America after WWII, America would not have built the rockets that sent our astronauts to the Moon. Sometimes, a goal is reached because of only one person.

Below are selections of scientific publications and statements that summarize what we know about climate change. This selection does not include hundreds of good authors and their scientific papers that support the same conclusions as in this summary.

The authors below prove IPCC’s climate claims are false. According to the scientific method, these papers override all papers that claim human CO₂ changes the climate.

To expand your knowledge about this climate truth issue, you would do well to read Brian Sussman’s book, Climate Cult, which reveals how the dark side controls what you think you know about climate science. And my book, Climate Miracle, which includes what one reviewer wrote is the best explanation of the scientific method.

Harold Lewis, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, wrote in his resignation letter to the American Physical Society, on October 8, 2010,

IPCC’s climate theory “is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.”

Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller (2024);

The sun’s Total Solar Irradiance and albedo (Earth’s reflection of sunlight) fully explain all observed global warming since 1999. Albedo changes are by far the dominant driver of the Earth’s global temperature. There is no evidence that human carbon dioxide emissions or changes in the carbon dioxide level affect the Earth’s global temperature.

Chuck Wiese, Meteorologist (2023):

Change in the Earth’s reflectivity (albedo) explains all temperature increase since 1984. The increased CO₂ level has no effect on temperature.

Howard “Cork” Hayden (2023):

IPCC’s calculation for the temperature increase caused by doubling CO₂ is 4.5 times greater than properly calculated by the Stephan-Boltzman radiation law. The IPCC does not even use the Stephan-Boltzman radiation law.

Humlum et al. (2012) and Koutsoyiannis et al. (2023):

CO₂ changes follow temperature changes with a delay of about 12 months. Therefore, temperature change causes CO₂ changes, not vice versa.

Ferenc Miskolczi, Foreign Associate Member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (2023):

Global mean cloud cover, which controls the Earth’s albedo, fully explains the observed mean surface temperature.

John Clauser, 2022 Physics Nobel Prize Winner (2024):

As much as it may upset many people, my message is the planet is NOT in peril. … atmospheric CO₂ and methane have negligible effect on the climate. The policies the government has been implementing are unnecessary and should be eliminated.

The IPCC has misidentified the dominant process that controls the climate. Its models are based on incomplete and incorrect physics.

The dominant climate process is cloud coverage over the oceans. When cloud cover decreases, sunlight evaporates more water that causes more clouds that in turn cool the Earth, and vice-versa.

I can very confidently assert, there is NO climate emergency.

Edwin X Berry (2018, 2019, 2021, 2023):

Get over it. You are not causing global warming. Human-caused climate change is a mass delusion.

The climate myth assumes human CO₂ sticks in the atmosphere like garbage in a garbage dump. The truth is CO₂ flows through the atmosphere as water flows into a lake and out over a dam.

The faster the inflow, the higher the level. The higher the level, the faster the outflow. The level will rise or fall until outflow equals inflow. That level is the balance level set by the inflow.

Once you understand this simple physics, you will understand why human CO₂ has little effect on the CO₂ level.

The IPCC assumes, not proves, that human CO₂ emissions have caused ALL the increase in atmospheric CO₂ above 280 ppm.

IPCC’s own data and the Climate Equivalence Principle prove this IPCC assumption is false. Human CO₂ emissions have an insignificant effect on the natural CO₂ level. Stopping all human CO₂ emissions will not significantly decrease the CO₂ level.

Carbon-14 data show human carbon emissions have no significant effect on the CO₂ level. Nature, not human emissions, controls the CO₂ level.

Richard Courtney (2021, 2024):

Berry’s work is a breakthrough in understanding which I and all others failed to make. It indicates that anthropogenic emissions of CO₂ contribute a negligible proportion of the recent rise in atmospheric CO₂ concentration (2021).

Berry’s analysis is the only breakthrough in climate science in the last four decades (2023, 2024).

Richard Courtney died on September 30, 2024, the day before his 78^th birthday.

America needs more electrical energy.

Donald Trump proposes to double America’s generation of electric energy to support the needs of America’s companies the need this energy to power our future. This is not only an economic need. It is also a national defense need. If America falls behind in producing abundant, low-cost electrical energy, America will also fall behind in national defense.

This expansion of energy production will be powered primarily by natural gas until new developments in nuclear energy come online.

Climate fiction opposes America’s energy needs.

Climate alarmists in Congress will oppose America’s plan to increase its energy production because it will be powered primarily by natural gas.

It’s time to get rid of climate alarmists. Dunk their heads into a bucket of reality. Indoctrinate them into the world of true science.

Climate delusion cannot survive in a competitive world.

Republicans are just as much to blame for America’s climate delusion as the Democrats. Republicans, as a group, believe in climate fiction as much as the Democrats do.

Republicans deny climate truth and refuse to even discuss climate truth with climate experts. They are wimps who do not have the courage to learn and stand up for the truth that would make us free.

Republicans are responsible for Montana’s disastrous loss of the Held v Montana climate lawsuit in 2023. The Republican party boss forced AG Knudsen to purposely lose HvM. We could have easily defeated HvM and saved the world from the costs of climate fiction. More on this later.

The bottom line is we must eliminate climate fiction if we are to be free to quickly expand America’s electrical energy production.

Climate fiction is destroying America’s economy.

The scientific debate is over. There is no scientific basis for the government to regulate or try to control carbon emissions.

It is time for our elected officials, Republican as well as Democrat, to accept that human carbon emissions do not change the climate.

Climate fiction costs America more than America pays for its national defense. Many of these costs are hidden in climate laws, regulations, tax incentives, carbon footprint regulations, and foot-dragging that stalls good economic decisions.

If Congress stopped its climate alarmism, we could eliminate America’s annual deficit. We could revive America’s economy, reduce or eliminate income taxes, and add true wealth to America. We could strengthen the US dollar, which is critical to America’s survival.

America must remove all green energy incentives and let businesspeople, investors, engineers, and scientists make decisions without the illusion of climate change.

Congress must remove climate illusions from the economic playing field. Congress must not make business decisions because, as a group, they are not experts in making or micro-managing business decisions.

Let the businesspeople, not Congress, decide where green energy is more economical than natural gas, coal, or nuclear.

As a group, Congress does not represent America’s smartest people.

Carbon Capture is irrational.

A back-of-the-envelope calculation shows that capturing all annual human CO₂ emissions would cost America more than its annual budget. Yet, Republicans support carbon capture.

Even if we could capture all human CO₂ emissions, we would accomplish nothing because natural CO₂ emissions control the CO₂ level. Stopping all human CO₂ emissions will not lower the CO₂ level to 350 ppm, which alarmists claim is necessary to save the world.

At a fraction of carbon capture cost, we could educate Congress and Americans about the truth of climate change. The truth is the only way to solve the climate delusion.

Our food supply depends on atmospheric CO₂. We need more CO₂, not less CO₂. Stuffing CO₂ underground is like stuffing our food underground.

Population is not responsible for the CO₂ increase.

Bill Gates is supposed to be smart. He is smart in business and technology. But he does not understand atmospheric physics. He is as dangerous as the proverbial evil trillionaire in the James Bond movies.

Bill Gates’ combination of unlimited money with insanity is dangerous to life on Earth.

Bill Gates believes he must reduce the human population so his kids can enjoy a world where the CO₂ level stays at 350 ppm.

Bill Gates believes he must create vaccines to lower the human population.

Bill Gates believes he must insert something into the Earth’s upper atmosphere that reflects the sun’s energy. He is insane.

Sunlight is not only the energy source that supports life on Earth. Sunlight is also the essential low entropy source we need to support human life. The Earth manages the amount of sunlight we need. Don’t let Bill Gates play God with mother nature.

Climate fiction is destroying our freedom.

Our greatest enemy is not each other. The battle between Rs and Ds is a distraction.

Our greatest enemy is the World Economic Forum (WEF), deep state, Bill Gates, and other rich dudes who are working hard to control America and make us slaves who will “own nothing, go nowhere, eat insects, and be happy” by 2030.

WEF wants to own the world. They are rich. They are organized.

They believe making us slaves is the only way to save the planet.

Bill Gates is buying up US farmland so he can reduce our future food supply.

If we were smart, we would fight our common enemy, not each other.

Do you know the best way to stop WEF?

The best way to stop WEF and save our freedom is to spread the word about climate truth.

Organize meetings. Invite climate experts to speak or even debate climate alarmists.

Write articles for publication. Tell your friends.

WEF’s plan requires the acceptance of climate fiction.

WEF needs dummies in government who will pass laws and regulations based on climate fiction.

WEF needs the climate laws to provide a legal way to control the people.

WEF needs a dumbed down population that believes in climate fiction to accept a degraded lifestyle, socialism, and a world government to “save the planet.”

WEF needs to stuff people’s brains with climate fiction to make them accept slavery and WEF control.

An expose of stuffed brains was on display in the Held v Montana climate lawsuit. Unfortunate brainwashed kids testified they are victims of dangerous climate change caused by human CO₂ emissions. Their indoctrination was successful.

WEF needs Republican traitors and party bosses to help WEF win climate lawsuits. WEF won Held v Montana in 2023 because Republican traitors helped them win.

WEF needs Republican Party bosses and attorney generals to censor climate experts who would prove in court that the claimed scientific basis of these lawsuits is imaginary.

WEF needs dumbed down voters to reelect WEF Republicans to assure WEF controls America during the next six years. They may have accomplished this in Montana.

© 2024 Ed Berry – All Rights Reserved

E-Mail Ed Berry: ed@edberry.com

By Edwin X Berry, PhD, Theoretical Physics

May 31, 2024

I have seen the face of evil.

My professional work in climate physics and my effort to bring climate truth to the people and our elected leaders has let me see things few ever see.

A powerful cabal of evil Republicans are working to steal Montana’s freedom and turn good Montanans into slaves.

Every preacher, pastor, priest, and rabbi, scientist, public servant, and all who care about freedom must warn Montana voters before June 4, or these voters may vote for their own slavery.

Republicans purposely lost Held v Montana.

In June 2023, Montana Republican Attorney General Austin Knudsen PURPOSELY lost the critical Held v Montana climate lawsuit, which was the most important climate lawsuit in America.

AG Knudsen had three years to prepare his defense. He could have easily defeated Held v Montana. He only needed to defend climate truth, which is easy.

A good trial attorney with good climate expert witnesses would easily have proved the plaintiffs’ climate experts were wrong. That’s why Knudsen blacklisted me and other climate physicists who would have defeated Held v Montana.

The World Economic Forum (WEF) needs the climate myth to support its plan to control us. The climate myth creates dummies who vote to help WEF make them slaves. If we had defeated Held v Montana, we would have destroyed WEF.

To make it a quick death, Knudsen gave away Held v Montana in the first few minutes of the trial on June 12, 2023. His assistant attorney stipulated that Montana agrees with the Plaintiffs’ climate and damage claims. Game over. WEF won.

Knudsen’s trial attorneys did not challenge any Plaintiff expert witness. They presented no expert witness in climate or law. They laid down a legal red carpet to let the Plaintiffs easily win. Knudsen is not that stupid. Knudsen serves WEF.

Knudsen’s purposeful loss of Held v Montana gives the WEF a legal pathway to checkmate Montana’s economy, energy production, and education. His loss gives Democrats free reign to indoctrinate Montana’s kids in the climate myth and global government.

While the Montana Supreme Court can overturn the district court’s ruling on legal technicalities, it cannot overturn that Montana lost the climate science debate.

Montana’s primary election on Tuesday, June 4, is Biblical.

Hosea 8:4 describes what is happening in Montana’s 2024 primary election:

They set up kings without my consent; they choose princes without my approval. With their silver and gold, they make idols for themselves to their own destruction.

Hosea 8:4 New International Version 4 

The cabal of evil Montana Republicans includes Montana Senator Daines, Congressman Zinke, and Governor Gianforte. The cabal also includes Knudsen and Republicans who work in the shadow.

They chose Tim Sheehy without our approval to be our next US Senator, who would be the richest US Senator. With their money and power, they make idols for themselves to their own destruction.

These evil Republicans are using national Republican money to promote Sheehy who will be a WEF puppet. They support the climate myth and Montana’s loss of Held v Montana.

“By their works we will know them.” These powerful Republicans are working to help WEF take over Montana, America, and our lives by 2030.

Our only way to save our freedom and Montana is to elect Brad Johnson for US Senate, Mary Todd for Congress, and Tanner Smith for Governor.

But few Republican voters know they will be choosing between good and evil.

If Republican voters nominate the cabal candidates, we can kiss Montana’s freedom and economy goodbye. WEF will have won control Montana.

The World Economic Forum plans to make us slaves.

The World Economic Forum (and Bill Gates) wants to cull 80 percent of the world’s population and take ownership of our land and property, so we will, in their words, own nothing, go nowhere, eat bugs, and “be happy” submissive, quiet socialists. Their planned “great reset” now in progress plans to put America under socialism.

On June 20, 2023, District Court Judge Seeley gave the Plaintiffs the win Held v Montana.

Senator Daines wrote on X:

“Activist judges, even here in MT, are helping far-Left environmentalists push their green hallucination down the throats of Americans. Shutting down energy projects that support an all-of-the-above energy portfolio is setting America on a dangerous path. We must reverse course.”

Tim Sheehy parroted Daines on X:

“The latest example of a liberal activist judge trying to legislate radical Green New Deal disastrous policies from the bench. We must fight back and take a strong stand against the climate cult and their job-killing agenda.”

Judge Seeley is not an “activist judge.” She made the correct decision based on the arguments presented, because Knudsen presented no argument to defend Montana.

Daines and Sheehy won’t tell you that AG Knudsen purposely lost Held v Montana because that would tip you off that they are lying to you.

In May 2024, Senator Daines sent a letter to Montana Republicans, saying Knudsen is “on the front lines, fighting for our freedoms and defending our way of life.”

Senator Daines lies again. Knudsen did not fight for our freedom or defend our way of life.

What’s the scoop on climate?

The myth of “human-caused climate change” is the most destructive myth in human history. It destroys people’s minds as well as their economies.

Climate alarmism is based on the false assumption human CO₂ stays in the atmosphere longer than natural CO₂, which is impossible because human and natural CO₂ molecules are identical. So, natural and human CO₂ have the same half-life in the atmosphere, which according to the IPCC, is about 2.5 years.

These facts easily compute that natural CO₂ is now about 400 ppm and human CO₂ is about 20 ppm, which means human CO₂ is negligible and cannot have any measurable effect on climate change. It also means carbon taxes and carbon capture projects are irrational because they cannot stop mother nature from increasing the CO₂ level.

Climate alarmism also assumes CO₂ increase causes temperature increase. However, valid published papers prove the reverse, that temperature increase causes CO₂ increase.

The Earth’s reflection of sunlight decreased slightly since 1984. A simple physics calculation shows this change of reflectivity explains all the measured global warming since 1984. Human CO₂ does not cause global warming or climate change. For more information, read WEF Climate, Amicus Brief, Epoch Times, Berry Papers.

Brad Johnson vs Tim Sheehy for US Senate

Brad Johnson is a proven Montana conservative leader. In 1982, he served as a campaign coordinator for the Montana Republican nominee for US Senate. His conservative values and strong faith guided him while he was serving as Montana’s conservative Secretary of State. Brad’s experiences and long tenure in Montana provide him with an in-depth understanding of the issues that matter most to Montanans.

He won two Montana statewide elections, Secretary of State and PSC Commission Chairman. He worked in the Montana Republican Party for over 40 years. He was a statewide voting member of the MTGOP and a member of the MTGOP executive board.

He supports the Montana Republican Party Platform 100%. He improved the Republican Party Platform as a voting member of the Republican State Platform Convention.

Brad Johnson will vote for climate truth in the US Senate. He is the only candidate for US Senate with genuine experience serving Montanans.

We don’t know the real Sheehy.

The cabal authors his emails and produces his videos. He sends us dozens of emails every day. He has YouTube videos everywhere. He has never held a public office. He is not even from Montana. He is not a cowboy. His past record shows he is a liberal. He does not know what Montanans want or need.

In the fall of 2023, I attended a Pachyderm meeting to meet Sheehy. His talk was a long boring monotone. He held the mic too close to his mouth, overloading the mic and causing big pops from the speakers. When he finished his talk, he disappeared, vanished. He did not stay to meet Montana voters.

He is not a conservative. He embraces radical leftist causes. He achieved his wealth at taxpayer expense. He has Democrat friends in government who helped him get rich, and he owes them.

• His Bridger Aerospace company promoted itself to the far-left Woke community as a “fundamentally-driven ESG business,” thus securing a $160 million ESG industrial development bond – one of the largest ESG-accredited “sustainability” bonds ever.
• After becoming a candidate, Sheehy scrubbed all ESG references from his website. He stays invested in climate alarmism-based enterprises, such as the sustainability service Cloverly, a firm that helps companies watch their “planet-threatening” carbon (CO₂) output.
• Until Sheehy announced for the senate, his company boldly represented itself as “fighting on the front lines of climate change” and attacking “CO₂emissions to combat climate change.”  This, too, has disappeared from his Bridger website.
• In August of 2022, Sheehy was still urging “international cooperation” in fighting climate change and described Bridger’s “fundamental business principles of environmental and social sustainability” and the ability “to effectively combat today’s changing climate.”
• While earning $5 million a year in personal salary and bonuses from his company, 96% of whose revenues are derived from government contracts, Sheehy aggressively fattened his bank account through direct taxpayer subsidies.
• This included a $774,300 payroll “forgivable federal loan” (swamp-speak for subsidy.) Then he personally donated $700,000 to his senate campaign.
• Sheehy feasted at the corporate welfare trough a second time, taking a $221,000 federal SBA subsidyso taxpayers could underwrite the training of his employees.
• Having gained his probable net worth of over $200 million from government grants to support the climate myth, Sheehy will not vote for climate truth in the US Senate.
• In his TV spots, Sheehy dons his cowboy hat while planted in the saddle of a sturdy quarter horse. He describes himself as “rancher” or “cowboy.” Yet no serious rancher would have “forgotten” to register his livestockwith the Department of Revenue as required by state law.
• Sheehy avoided Montana state tax by incorporating on the east coast. He recently merged with Jack Creek Investment, a “blank check” corporation and a tax haven for the wealthy in the Cayman Islands.
• His post-military largesse with lewd photos and erotica connect to his early years on Facebook.
• On May 5, 2024, the Montana Association of Rabbis and the Montana Jewish Project called on Sheehy to stop his hatred, antisemitism, and bigotry. See their full letter here.

Mary Todd vs Ryan Zinke for Congress

Mary Todd is much smarter and more honest than Zinke. She has dealt with more government problems than Zinke. She has suffered more due to government actions and inactions than Zinke. Mary Todd will make a better member of Congress than Zinke.

Mary Todd’s book – Hard Drive, A Family’s Fight Against Three Countries – is about who left her son, Dr. Shane Truman Todd, a young American engineer, hanging in his Singapore Apartment just a week before his scheduled return to the United States. Her book describes her fight with three countries to find the truth.

Mary Todd writes,

In June of 2012, my son’s life was unjustly taken. Shane died because he was unwilling to illegally trade American secrets. We are still waiting for justice. When I tell you that I am courageous, know that I have had to face the giants. When I tell you that I will give a voice to the voiceless, it’s because I, too, had my voice taken away. When I tell you I will listen to those who have been ignored, it’s because I, too, have been brushed off. When I tell you that I will look you in the eye and fight for your needs, no matter the cost or odds of success, know that I mean it. Because I, too, have been avoided and cast aside. Because of my experiences, I can assure you that my resolve and dedication to the security of this country and to the safety of your family will never waiver.

We are currently in a battle for our nation’s survival. A battle between those who love America and those who hate her. Those who hate her want to destroy it. Those who love America want to keep the American way of life and uphold our Constitution. This is a fight we must win.

Mary Todd attended my climate lecture in March 2024.

Ryan Zinke

Retired Navy Seal Commander Zinke supports Sheehy, the climate myth, and WEF.

Zinke refused to attend my climate lecture in March 2024, even though he was in town. He told me he has no time to talk to me about climate, but he spends hours listening to climate cultists. Zinke is a liberal who will waste our tax dollars trying to stop climate change.

Tanner Smith v Greg Gianforte for Montana Governor

Tanner Smith will be a welcome governor who understands Montana. He will listen to my conclusions about climate truth.

Governor Gianforte supports Knudsen’s purposeful loss of Held v Montana. He has not taken one minute of his time in four years to talk to me about climate. He supports Sheehy and the climate myth.

Vote for freedom.

Vote for Brad Johnson for US Senate, Mary Todd for Congress, and Tanner Smith for Governor.

© 2024 Ed Berry – All Rights Reserved

E-Mail Ed Berry: ed@edberry.com

By Edwin Berry

December 8, 2023

Montana’s top Republican leaders support the Democrats’ climate fraud that Klaus Schwab and his World Economic Forum (WEF) are using to take over America.

Here is the most important question about climate politics:

Do you agree or disagree with this climate alarmist statement?

The earth is warming as a direct result of human GHG emissions, primarily from the burning of fossil fuels.

There are only two possible answers: YES or NO.

There is no middle answer.

Most Democrats will answer YES.

The surprise is most Republican leaders also answer YES.

They pretend to be Republicans by promoting carbon capture and green energy, which wastes billions of dollars and won’t reduce the CO2 level.

They prefer to live in delusion rather than learn the truth. Or maybe they are not on our side.

Robert Frost said there are only two roads, and the road we take will make all the difference.

• The YES-answer will tear down America, dumb down our people, and ultimately, make us slaves.
• The NO-answer will build up America, raise our intelligence, and save our freedom.

The good news is we (good scientists) have proved climate alarmism is a fraud.

The bad news is no one will tell you.

Our elected officials, except for a small, honest minority, our lying media, our nutcase university professors, and our incompetent “climate” scientists control the news.

They have brainwashed almost all of us to “believe” the climate fraud.

As Joseph Goebbels wrote,

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.

Let’s start with some critical information no one will tell you.

In June 2023, Montana lost the Held v Montana (HvM) climate lawsuit. HvM is the first significant climate lawsuit brought by the public in America.

Montana lost HvM because Montana’s Attorney General Austin Knudsen purposely threw the trial and all America’s conservatives under the bus.

I saw this coming and predicted this loss in June 2022.

Knudsen stipulated at the beginning of the HvM trial that he agrees with the statement above. In fact, that statement is Knudsen’s exact wording.

Montana appealed its loss to the Montana Supreme Court (MSC). The climate outcome will determine whether America sinks or swims because HvM will set a climate law precedent for all states and America.

The problem is they did not appeal their climate stipulation. They appealed only legal technicalities that they will likely lose. Their appeals are to make you think they support climate truth. They don’t.

Our Children’s Trust of Oregon began in Montana because it’s easy for power people to control Montana’s elected officials. For all I know, this Republican betrayal of truth and freedom may go all the way to Bill Gates.

As of now, the set climate precedent is a YES answer to the question.

Unless we can do something, Montana has permanently lost the climate part of the lawsuit for America. We are on the YES-road.

We have only one opportunity to overturn HvM’s climate decision.

I wrote an Amicus Brief for Montana that defends climate truth. It will overturn HvM if MSC accepts our brief. For acceptance, we need “parties” to our brief. Being a party is free because I am paying our attorney.

None of our high-level officials will be parties to our brief. Not our governor, not our US Senator, not our candidates for US Senator, and not our two Congressmen.

They are busy promoting their candidate Tim Sheehy, who has money but no experience in holding a government office. Sheehy and US Senator Daines lied about Judge Seeley’s decision on Held v Montana.

They are testing Joseph Goebbels theory of politics. Sheehy sends me four emails every day, assuming that will buy my vote. Sheehy is aligned with the Democrats’ climate change scam.

Our brief may be the best argument for climate truth ever written for the public reader, and you can read it for free.

Here’s how you can help.

We need elected or previously elected officials in any state or the US government to be parties to our Amicus Brief.

We also need non-profit organizations to be parties to our Amicus Brief.

So far, 22 Montana legislators are parties. These are the true patriot warriors who are defending truth. One is a candidate for governor. We need him to be governor.

I wrote this article to NWV because I have only about one week to get this show together and I don’t have enough time to also find people who can help me find people and organizations.

You can help save America by being a party to our Amicus Brief

To be a party, send an email to me ed@edberry.com and to our attorney qmr@montanalawyer.com asking to be a party.

Click here to comment on this article.

© 2023 Ed Berry – All Rights Reserved

E-Mail Ed Berry: ed@edberry.com

By Dr. Ed Berry

March 31, 2023

MTGOP’s censorship of former Governor Racicot was destructive to Montana Republicans. Censorship never pays. It always loses. In science it’s called Lysenkoism for a good reason. But a much bigger censorship loss is now in play.

Montana’s radical right (RR) controls Montana’s government. They happily rearrange their political deck chairs, unaware that their powerful Titanic will hit an iceberg on June 12, 2023, when the Our Childrens’ Trust (OCT) of Oregon, Held v Montana (HvM) trial begins.

OCT just won its climate lawsuit in Hawaii. When OCT wins HvM, Montana’s MCA § 90-4-I00l(c)-(g), MCA § 75-l-201(2)(a), energy policy, and MEPA climate change exceptions will be unconstitutional. Democrats will control Montana’s resources, energy, economy, and education.

Equally important, HvM will legally define unscientific junk to be the “climate truth” that Montana’s schools will use to brainwash and scare Montana’s kids.

In 2011, on my own dime, I defeated the same HvM when it was a petition in Montana’s Supreme Court, thereby saving Montana conservatives billions of dollars per year. As my reward, Montana censored me from helping Montana win HvM.

This letter is not about me. It is about saving conservative Montana. This is what you need to know.

Our AG and Governor have betrayed Montana conservatives. They have censored the best forensic climate physicist on the planet (me), a Montanan, a faithful Republican, who is also an expert in winning lawsuits.

Our AG and Governor have thereby purposefully, deceitfully, unethically, and immorally rejected leading edge, peer-reviewed, published (Made in Montana) climate science that can prove in court that the plaintiffs’ claimed science is fiction.

I learned on April 14, 2022, they censored me when an honest climate scientist returned, with a copy to me, our AG’s invitation to be an HvM expert witness. He wrote, “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 pertaining to the way CO2 behaves in the atmosphere, the biosphere, and the Ocean.”

Our AG is either incompetent or a puppet. Because he censored me, he has lost other climate lawsuits and made serious errors in defending HvM.

Our AG underestimates the strength of the plaintiffs’ arguments. He does not know how to use his expert witnesses. Some of them are incompetent to defeat HvM and who will turn on the defense if the plaintiffs’ attorneys know what questions to ask them.

Our Governor, who could do a parallel defense of HvM, supports our AG’s decision to censor me.

The RRs censored Racicot in the open. They censored me in the dark, in secret, without giving me a fair trial. I have the right to know my censors and respond to their charges. But they will not show their faces. They are today’s Pharisees.

They call themselves Libertarians. They agree with the Liberty Fellowship cult that preaches “there is not a dime’s worth of difference between Democrats and Republicans.” They are a growing cancer in the MTGOP.

They were 17% of western Montana voters in November. They added 7% to the Libertarian’s vote and 10% percent to the Democrat’s vote. I am a better Republican than they are.

Their censorship of me parallels Montana’s Department of Revenue attack on my climate business from July 2020 to July 2022. MDOR found no errors in my bookkeeping yet unnecessarily conscripted over 1600 hours of my professional time and wasted over $100,000 of Montana taxpayer money in its failed attempt to extract $4500 from my LLC. I wrote my own defense and won MDOR’s mediation because MDOR’s attack was a fraud.

By their works we shall know them. The RRs’, our AG’s, and our Governor’s censorship supports Democrats.

Good conservatives will do three things.

First, tell Montana voters their elected RRs have betrayed Montana conservatives by censoring the best possible scientific argument to defeat HvM.

Second, to hear my 15-minute argument that would win HvM, contact me (edberry.com). I show how data and simple logic overturn everything you have read or heard about climate change.

Third, ASAP, we need some true conservatives to hire a quality trial lawyer to file an Intervention on HvM. If we do this, we will win.

© 2023 Ed Berry – All Rights Reserved

E-Mail Ed Berry: ed@edberry.com

By Edwin X Berry, PhD, Theoretical Physics

September 16, 2022

Today, Seth Borenstein, AP Science Writer, produced another irrational attack on climate truth. He references a prediction in the 2012 special report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),

“A changing climate leads to changes in the frequency, intensity, spatial extent, duration, and timing of extreme weather and climate events, and can result in unprecedented extreme weather and climate events.”

Then, he presents the usual extensive list of weather-caused damages since 2012.

He says this IPCC report is the warning and forecast “by top United Nations climate scientists more than 10 years ago.”

He quotes Michael Oppenheimer of Princeton University,

“The report was clairvoyant. The report was exactly what a climate report should do: Warn us about the future in time for us to adapt before the worst stuff happens.”

But Borenstein and Oppenheimer go off the scientific cliff by concluding these IPCC predicted damages prove that our CO2 emissions caused these damages.

The only thing Borenstein has proved is that he and scientists parked in universities around the world do not understand the logic of science and boastfully announce conclusions that are illogical, irrational, and unethical.

Events do not prove their cause.

Events do not prove CO2, human or natural, caused the events. Furthermore, climate is a 30-year average of weather, so the use of weather events to argue a human cause for climate change is unscientific. The fundamental scientific principle – that events do not prove their cause – ends all arguments that events prove human CO2 is guilty.

The most important principle in science is ironically one of the simplest.

It is impossible to prove a theory is true but only one contradiction with data or accepted physics proves a theory is false. Science progresses by proving theories are false, not by claiming theories are true.

Proof that a theory is false supersedes all claims that the theory is true. Neither votes nor opinions can overturn proofs that a theory is false.

Only true science can find the cause.

The IPCC claims these three (false) theories are true:

1. Human CO2 causes all the increase in atmospheric CO2 above 280 ppm.
2. The CO2 increase above 280 ppm causes global warming.
3. This global warming causes dangerous climate change.

All climate alarmists assume these three IPCC theories are true. They cannot prove these theories are true, be we can prove these theories are wrong.

You didn’t know it was this simple, did you?

Good physicists have supplied the proofs that Republicans need to win the climate debate. These physicists will win in a court of law. If Republicans back true scientists, Republicans will win climate lawsuits and win elections.

Let’s look at the big picture of climate alarmism.

This figure shows the three scenarios for Natural and Human CO2.

The first bar is the IPCC version for 1750. Here, the natural CO2 level is at 280 ppm. It is at equilibrium, which means the CO2 outflow equals the CO2 inflow.

The second bar is the IPCC version for about 2020. Here, the IPCC assigns all the CO2 increase to Human CO2. All climate alarmism is based on this bar.

The third bar is what the IPCC data show (Berry, 2021). Here, the Human addition is only 35 ppm. This means Natural CO2 caused about 75% of the CO2 increase. The third bar is climate truth according to IPCC’s own data.

Berry (2021) proves the second bar is false, PCC’s theory (1) is false, and the climate claims by Borenstein and Oppenheimer are science fiction. It is simple and can prove in a court of law that climate alarmism is based on false science.

Other scientists have proved IPCC’s theories (2) and (3) are wrong. There is no scientific basis to support the claim that human CO2 causes dangerous climate change.

The threat of the climate fraud is the Great Reset.

The Great Reset depends on the climate fraud and its climate laws and regulations. The only way to stop the Great Reset is to undermine its Democrat-supported climate foundation by voting Republican in the 2022 election.

The Great Reset, if achieved, will impose a world government with a two-tiered economy where the superrich will control their profitable monopoly and everyone else will live as a serf in perpetual socialism.

You will own little or nothing. You will rent what you need from the monopoly. You will jump when they tell you to jump, eat the insects they tell you to eat, and take every vax jab they tell you to take until your shoulder or butt is full of little holes.

They will control the miseducation and medication of your next generation so they will never again regain the power to be free.

Will the Republican Party support climate truth in time to win in 2022?

Climate change is the most divisive, misunderstood, critical issue in the 2022 election

According to Pew Research, in 2022, 60% of all American voters say climate change is a major threat. Among Democrats, 88% say climate is a major threat. Among Republicans, 31% say climate is a major threat, 45% say it is a minor threat, and 24% say it is not a threat at all.

Climate truth is the core Republican issue because it affects the supply and cost of our energy and food, and negatively affects our education, economy, taxes, and freedom. The climate fraud encourages citizens to believe other government lies.

Your climate belief can decide your vote. If you strongly believe there is a climate emergency, you will vote Democrat, even if you are a Republican. If you strongly believe climate change is a fraud, you will vote Republican, even if you are a Democrat.

America’s only hope is that the Republican Party will support climate truth. The absence of a Republican challenge has allowed the Democrats to gain voters on the climate issue.

President Trump is no longer president because, in addition to the election fraud, he lost his climate debate against Biden. His debate loss disillusioned voters who were waiting for him to prove Biden is wrong about climate.

The Message is more important than money.

Now, in mid-September 2022, the November election does not look good for Republicans.

Republican candidates say they are losing the election because the Democrats have more money. While money is necessary, today’s business advertising proves a better message can beat money every time.

This Republican climate message will get free publicity because it is controversial:

1. Nature controls the climate.
2. Our CO2 does not change the climate and is not a pollutant.
3. Global temperature controls the CO2 level.
4. We need more CO2 because more CO2 grows more food with less water.

Our national energy plan should include:

1. Making natural gas our primary energy source.
2. Making nuclear energy our growing primary energy source.
3. Drill, baby, drill, with added incentives to keep our offshore oil rigs in top condition.
4. Make high-tech coal our secondary energy source.
5. Teach our children the truth about climate change in our schools.

Our national CO2 plan should include:

1. Eliminate all climate laws, regulations, incentives, and treaties.
2. Eliminate all subsidies for EV’s, heat pumps, wind, and solar energy, thereby forcing them compete on a level economic playing field.

Carbon capture may be the most insane and counter-productive peacetime undertaking in human history.

Don’t waste good energy to put atmospheric CO2 in the ground.

Stop net zero politics. Netzeroclimate.org says, “Net zero refers to a state in which greenhouse gases going into the atmosphere are balanced by removal from the atmosphere.”

Berry (2021) describes how CO2 always moves toward a net zero state where outflow equals inflow. It’s high-school physics.

Montana Republicans have not supported climate truth.

Nineteen Republicans entered Montana’s 2022 primary election for Congress. Montana Free Press asked these candidates to answer questions on climate change.

Sixteen Republican candidates (85%) agreed with the Democrats on climate change. They did not read Berry’s book, Climate Miracle.

Democrats have filed multiple redundant climate lawsuits.

If they win their climate lawsuits in Montana, Democrats will control Montana’s mining, energy, and economy. They will shut down Montana’s hydrocarbon energy try to power Montana with wind energy.

In 2011, Dr. Berry filed an Intervention to a Democrat climate petition in Montana’s Supreme Court. His Intervention caused the Court to reject the petition, thereby saving Montana billions of dollars per year thereafter and making him the only scientist to defeat a climate lawsuit. The Montana Supreme Court ruled,

“If they cannot prove a connection between eliminating Montana’s minute carbon emissions, and reducing the pace of global climate change, then public trust doctrine cannot, even under their own flawed legal theory, apply.”

De. Berry’s attorney, Quentin Rhoades, wrote,

“This establishes once and for all, at least for Montana law, that climate science is decidedly not settled.”

Beginning in 2020, environmental groups have filed more climate lawsuits against the State of Montana. One of these new lawsuits, Held v. Montana, is a carbon copy of their 2011 petition to the Supreme Court that Dr. Berry defeated in 2011. Montana has refused Dr. Berry’s offer to help Montana defeat Held v Montana.

How to stop a climate lawsuit.

Montana’s defense attorney for Held v Montana thinks they must defend against the plaintiffs’ direct claims.

Dr. Berry disagrees. He believes the best way to defend against climate lawsuits is to prove the plaintiffs’ assumptions are wrong, as he did in 2011.

According to Dr. Berry, all climate lawsuits assume the above three IPCC theories are true. The best way to win the defense is to defeat theories (1) and (2). Dr. Berry says his Climate Team 6 can take out these three invalid climate theories in court and thereby stop all Democrat climate lawsuits.

As a bonus, defeating these Democrat climate assumptions in court will change America’s education and politics.

Montana’s defense should use the 2011 Montana Supreme Court precedent that climate science is “not settled.” This would put the burden of proof on the plaintiffs to defend the science behind their lawsuit.

The defense should include the reasons the 2011 plaintiffs filed their petition in the Montana’s Supreme Court rather than in a lower court. They claimed an irreversible climate change event would occur before they could go from a lower court to the Supreme Court and stop Montana’s CO2 emissions in time to save the planet. Now 10 years later, it is obvious that no such damage has occurred.

The scientific method says if your prediction is wrong then your theory is wrong. This proves the scientific basis of the Democrats’ 2022 climate lawsuits is wrong.

Dr. Berry’s Climate Team 6 includes the best climate scientists in the world who know how to win a climate lawsuit. Dr. Berry’s team can teach other attorneys what they must know to defeat climate lawsuits.

Republicans must act now!

Republicans must lead a new revolution against the climate fraud.

Putin’s closure of his gas pipeline to Europe should be our wakeup call. Europe quickly cast aside its green idealism for carbon fuels and nuclear energy. Solar and wind have proved they cannot support a free industrial society.

Now is the perfect time for Republicans to promote climate truth because people want to stay warm this winter and want to keep the costs of energy, travel, and food low.

Dr. Berry’s book, Climate Miracle, can help Republicans win climate lawsuits, stop the climate fraud, and stop the Great Reset.

If Republicans accept this challenge, they will win in November 2022 and change the world.

© 2022 Ed Berry – All Rights Reserved

E-Mail Ed Berry: ed@edberry.com

By Edwin Berry, Ph.D.

January 14, 2022

The Science of the people who will not be slaves again!

The journal, Science of Climate Change, published my landmark scientific paper on December 14, 2021.

My paper, and papers by Murry Salby and Hermann Harde, are checkmate proof that natural CO₂, not human CO₂, causes most of the increase in atmospheric CO2. Physics proves our CO₂ does not change our climate.

President Bush began the climate fraud.

The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) makes this core assumption:

Natural CO2 remained constant after 1750 and human CO₂ causes all the observed increase in atmospheric CO₂.

IPCC’s core assumption is the basis of all climate laws, regulations, treaties, taxes, and education. It has cost us dearly in our energy sources, our economy, our national defense, our lives, our minds, and our freedom.

My paper shows why this assumption in wrong. But more important, my paper shows this assumption is not the result of a simple error by the IPCC. This assumption is an obvious fraud of global proportions.

President GHW Bush was the main force in forming and funding the IPCC in 1988. There is nothing in IPCC’s Charter about investigating the cause of climate change. The IPCC merely assumes our CO2 causes climate change.

In June 1992, President G.H.W. Bush and 107 other world leaders attended the U.N. Conference on Environment and Development, or the “Earth Summit” in Rio de Janeiro.

Secretary General Maurice Strong chaired the conference that 20,000 climate activists and green lobby members attended. The UN and the US government paid all attendees’ expenses.

Strong declared in his Summit speech,

“A shift is necessary toward lifestyles less geared to environmentally damaging consumption patterns. We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrialized civilization to collapse. Isn’t it our responsibility to bring this about?”

Strong declared,

“the real goal of the Earth Charter is that it will in fact become like the Ten Commandments.”

Strong long supported global governance at the expense of national sovereignty. He said environmental mandates require the eventual dismantling of the power of the nation state:

“It is simply not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation-states, however powerful. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the imperatives of global environmental cooperation.”

“We need a system of global governance through which nations can cooperate and deal with issues they cannot deal with alone. The ultimate example is climate change.”

In 1992, Al Gore claimed,

“Only an insignificant fraction of scientists deny the global warming crisis. The time for debate is over.The science is settled.”

I attended the meeting in the San Francisco Bay area where Bush’s toady told some 100 climate physicists like me that we were out of a job. They did not want physicists to tell them our CO2 does not cause climate change. They wanted and would fund only ecologists to write reports on the damage we do by burning carbon fuels.

We must stop the climate fraud.

I am sorry to see Frosty Wooldridge has fallen for the climate fraud (NWV Dec 30, 2022). I like many things Frosty does, but his promotion of the climate fraud is wrong.

Frosty wrote:

“The fact remains: adding population adds to catastrophic climate destabilization with millions of more people burning millions of barrels of oil 24/7.

“That means more wildfires in the 6^th year of an “exceptional drought” in the West.  That means more extraordinary tornadoes in Kentucky, Tennessee, Oklahoma ad nauseum.

“It means massive hurricanes sweeping up our coasts. It means raising the temperatures at the poles to a point where all glaciers melt into the oceans.

“It means dropping more acidic carbon molecules into our oceans to kill more than 100 species daily across the planet.”

“Well, now, we’ve got catastrophic climate destabilization breathing down our throats.”

Frosty’s climate claims are not science.

The dark side propagates its climate fraud by trying to scare you with its claimed consequences if you do not do what they tell you to do. Fear causes us to abandon our logic and common sense. Likely, the witch doctors of old used the same techniques.

How to understand the climate fraud.

Every day, the news media tells us about a new “climate catastrophe.”The subliminal message is “because it’s bad, you caused it.”

The climate fraud may be the mother of all frauds. Belief in IPCC’s core assumption dumbs us down and makes us susceptible to other frauds, like gun control and COVID mandates.

They say, “natural CO2 emissions stayed constant and human CO2 caused the problem.” This is the ecological nonsense of “Nature is Good, Human is Bad.”

My book Climate Miracle explains in a short read the logic you need to defend yourself against climate alarmism.

The proof is important.

According to the scientific method, it is impossible to prove a theory is true (as climate alarmists try to do) but it takes only one contradiction to prove a theory is false. My paper supplies that contradiction.

According to the scientific method, my paper overturns the “consensus” claim that IPCC’s core assumption is true, and it “outvotes” the thousands of IPCC papers that claim IPCC’s core assumption is true.

Now, the only scientific way for them to justify their climate alarmism is to show there is a major error in my paper. Many have tried but no one has succeeded.

Human CO2 does not “accumulate” in the atmosphere.

CO2 flows through the atmosphere like water flows through a lake. Imagine a lake where a river sends water into a lake and lake water flows out over a dam. Pretend we arrive when the inflow is small but constant and the water flowing over the dam is equally small and constant.

The lake level is at equilibrium. Its outflow equals its inflow. The lake level is constant. Suddenly, the inflow increases. It raises the lake level. This rise in the lake level makes more water flow over the dam. The lake level rises just enough to make its new outflow equal its new inflow.

That illustrates now human and natural CO2 that flow into the atmosphere change the CO2 level in the atmosphere. Nothing accumulates. The level rises only enough to make CO2 outflow equal to the CO2 inflow.

Let’s do a first approximation.

The IPCC says annual human CO₂ emissions are about 5% of natural CO₂ emissions. This is like a recipe. What you put in is what you get. The only difference here is your recipe is flowing out of a hole in the bottom of your bowl as you pour things in.

Because human CO₂inflowis5% the human CO₂ level in the bowl is also5%. The natural CO₂levelin the bowl is95%.

Same for CO2 in the atmosphere. This first approximation says human CO2 is only 5%.

But the IPCC theory is that human CO2 is at 30%. This shows IPCC’s core assumption is wrong.

Let’s do more accurate calculations.

My paper uses IPCC’s natural carbon cycle data and annual human CO₂ emissions data to calculate the true effect of human CO₂ emissions. Notice I use IPCC’s own data to prove its assumption about human CO2 is false.

Human and natural CO2 do not react with each other. So, we can calculate their effects independently, which simplifies the calculations.

My calculations include human CO₂ that recycles back into the atmosphere and the transfer of human carbon from the slow carbon cycle to the fast carbon cycle. The whole banana.

The result, as of 2020, is human CO2 has increased to only 8% of all atmospheric CO2. This is still nowhere near the 30% required by IPCC’s core assumption. Therefore, IPCC’s core assumption is wrong.Not even close. In fact, a fraud.

The IPCC attempts to explain this problem.

The IPCC tries to get around this problem by claiming human CO₂, but not natural CO₂ stays in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. And by staying around longer, the human CO2 goes up to 30%.

Thus, the IPCC digs its own grave.

This IPCC claim is absurd because human and natural CO₂ molecules are identical, so they flow out of the atmosphere at the same rate.

IPCC’s story (and it is a story) would require a magic demon in the atmosphere that can separate human CO2 from natural CO₂ molecules, and then detain the human molecules. It can’t happen. No one should fall for this baloney.

IPCC’s climate fiction is so absurd that it proves the IPCC committed a fraud of global proportions.

The COVID shutdown did not reduce the increase in the CO2 level.

The 2021 emissions reduction due to COVID did not stop the inevitable CO₂ increase caused by natural CO₂. This proves climate treaties and green energy are useless because they ignore that unstoppable nature is the dominant cause of the CO₂ increase.

Carbon dating data prove nature dominates the CO2 increase.

Carbon dating measures the percent of carbon-14 in a quantity of carbon-12. Carbon daters call these measurements δ¹⁴C (delta 14C).

We can use δ¹⁴C data to prove nature dominates the CO2 increase.

The natural level of δ¹⁴C is zero. That does not mean there is no carbon-14. It means the amount of carbon-14 compared to carbon-12 is exactly what nature has produced for millions of years.

But from 1950 to 1965, the atomic bomb tests almost doubled the δ¹⁴C level. After 1965, the δ¹⁴C level gradually decreased and today the δ¹⁴C is back to zero.

Here’s the thing.

Human CO₂ from burning carbon fuels has zero carbon-14. Therefore, human δ¹⁴C is negative 1000. So, if human CO2 caused the CO2 increase, it would have lowered the δ¹⁴C equilibrium level below zero.

Look at it this way. Suppose you have a drink that has 8% alcohol, and you pour in an equal quantity of water. What happens to the 8% alcohol level? It drops to 4%.

Similarly, if human carbon causes all the CO2 increase, it would have lowered the equilibrium level of δ¹⁴C below zero. Data show human emission have had no effect on the δ¹⁴Cequilibrium level of zero. Also, the increase in atmospheric CO2 has had no effect on the equilibrium level of δ¹⁴C.

Therefore, natural CO₂ dominates the increase in atmospheric CO₂.

Conclusions

The only scientific way for alarmists to argue that human CO₂ dominates the increase is to prove there is a major error in my paper. No one has done that.

I will make videos to help you understand my paper.

My paper shows if human CO₂ emissions were to stop, the small human-caused CO2 increase would quickly fall, meaning there is no scientific basis to claim there is a climate emergency or worry about our grand kids.

My paper overturns IPCC’s climate fraud with a clarity that can win in a court of law. Good high school students can understand my paper. Now, we need lawyers willing to overturn climate laws, regulations, and taxes.

© 2021 Ed Berry – All Rights Reserved

E-Mail Ed Berry: ed@edberry.com

by Ed Berry, PhD, Physics

Political campaigns are like V8 engines. There are about 8 key issues in every election. The 8th cylinder is climate.

The Democrat’s V8 is running on all 8 cylinders. Not well but running. Their argument on climate is bad, stupid, and fraudulent, but it is getting votes because it is based on fear.

The Dems have captured 5 to 10 percent of the Republicans who voted for Trump in 2016.
Why? Because these Republicans think they must vote for the Dems to “save the planet.”

The Republican’s V8 is running on only 7 cylinders. They have no good argument to support their position on climate.

Some say the Dems will have a carbon tax. Trump says it’s going to get colder. But those answers don’t buy any votes because they do not remove the fear of climate change that makes people vote for the Dems.

It’s like, what do you prefer, higher taxes or death?

However, my new book Climate Miracle shows Republicans how to get their 8th cylinder running.That will bring back those Republican votes and add 5 points to the Republican vote count.

If President Trump gets the Climate Miracle message soon enough, he and other Republicans will win their elections.

Climate Miracle show very clearly and simply why the Dem’s climate story is a fraud. It shows nature controls the climate and human emissions are irrelevant.

Climate Miracle shows you how to remove the fear of climate change from enough otherwise conservative voters to turn the election into a solid Republican victory.

Climate Miracle is a 30-minute easy read. It uses many stories to teachesreaders about how to think.

The Forward is by Gerald R. Molen, Academy Award winning Producer of Schindler’s List, Jurassic Park, Hook, Rain Man, Minority Report, and many others.

Rather than tell you more about Climate Miracle, I will let Chapter 1 speak for itself.

Chapter 1 – A Critical Climate Debate

Let’s drop in on a climate debate that never happened.

The fictitious debate is between Globalist Gore and Wisdom Will. It illustrates a climate debate without going deep into the science.

The key reference in this book is the United Nations (UN) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The Moderator asks Globalist Gore about climate change.

There are two kinds of climate scientists.

Globalist Gore

More than 16,000 scientists from 184 countries published a letter in 2017, warning that “human beings and the natural world are on a collision course.”

More than 11,000 researchers from around the world have issued a grim warning of the “untold suffering” that will be caused by climate change if humanity doesn’t change its ways. These scientists say they have the “moral obligation to tell it like it is.”

They say posterity will remember them badly if they dismiss climate change as a serious threat to our civilization.

Wisdom Will

There are two kinds of climate scientists: “cause” scientists and “effects” scientists.

All the scientists you reference are “effects” scientists. They focus on the effects of climate change. They tell you climate change causes bad stuff to happen. Then they scare you into believing humans caused the bad stuff.

Their science error is they assume, incorrectly, that human CO2 causes all the CO2 increase. They have no idea their core assumption is wrong.

“Cause” scientists focus on the cause of climate change. They are the physicists. And they have proved human CO2 has little effect on atmospheric CO2. (Section 2.4)

The idea that 97 percent of scientists support Globalist Gore is false, and even if it were true it would be irrelevant to science.

According to the scientific method, one proof that a theory is wrong outvotes all scientists who claim the theory is true. (Section 5.2)

There is no climate crisis. Nature controls climate.

Ice core data under represent actual CO2.

Globalist Gore

Ice core data prove natural CO2 stayed at 280 ppm. Therefore, human CO2 caused the increase in atmospheric CO2 above 280 ppm.

Wisdom Will

First, according to the scientific method, it is impossible to prove a theory is correct, but it is possible to prove a theory is wrong.

Second, ice core data under represent the true CO2 level. Leaf stomata data and more than 90,000 direct chemical measurements show the CO2 level in the past 1200 years was well above your assumed 280 ppm. (Sections 3.4 and 3.5)

Effects do not prove their cause.

Globalist Gore

On October 4, 2020, “60 Minutes” covered the California fires and concluded human CO2 was responsible for the dry weather and dead trees that helped the fires to spread so fast.

These wildfires prove our CO2 is causing dangerous climate change. Floods, droughts, hurricanes and rising oceans are worse than ever.

We must make drastic cuts in our CO2 emissions. We must add taxes on carbon fuels that will make them more expensive than alternatives. If we don’t stop climate change, we will all perish.

The planet is warming. We caused it. We must fix it.

Wisdom Will

The “60 Minutes” show was junk science. It showed examples of weather effects.

Their expert witnesses were “effects” scientists, not “cause” scientists.

One witness claimed California’s current drought is a megadrought that occurs only once in a thousand years. But data show California had similar droughts in 1840 and 1930.

More importantly, these droughts are cyclical. They show up in tree-ring data. A 1990 study found cyclical patterns in tree-ring data that predicted a severe drought in 2020 to 2030.

California’s drought is a result of natural climate cycles and has nothing to do with CO2. But California could have minimized its fires by clearing out dead wood and brush. (Section 6.7)

Nature controls the climate. We are not responsible. We can’t fix it.

Moderator

Sorry everyone. We must take a ten-minute break because about 30 people in the audience have fainted and four appear to have heart attacks. We need time to get them medical attention.… OK, we are now ready to continue this debate. It’s your turn, Globalist Gore.

Human CO2 does not stick in the atmosphere.

Globalist Gore

Our CO2 sticks in the atmosphere for thousands of years. Our CO2 sticks in the atmosphere like our garbage sticks in a garbage dump.

We must stop our CO2 emission no matter how much it costs us.

Wisdom Will

Human CO2 does not stick in the atmosphere. It flows out of the atmosphere as natural CO2 flows out of the atmosphere. (Section 4.1)

Human and natural CO2 will behave the same because their CO2 molecules are the same. If natural CO2 sticks in the atmosphere for thousands of years, then the CO2 level would be over a million ppm. (Section 2.8)

Since that has not happened, no CO2 sticks in the atmosphere for thousands of years.

1.5 Sum of human CO2 proves nature caused the increase.

Globalist Gore

The sum of human CO2 emitted since 1750 is greater than the increase in CO2 above 280 ppm. This proves human CO2 caused the increase.

Wisdom Will

IPCC’s own data show your claim is wrong. The “sum of human CO2” is less than the “increase in CO2 above 280 ppm” before 1950. This proves natural CO2 caused the CO2 increase. (Section 3.3)

Statistics prove nature caused the increase.

Globalist Gore

Since 1750, the CO2 level has increased as human CO2 emissions increased. This proves human CO2 caused the increase.

Wisdom Will

Globalist Gore, you should read a book on how to be fooled by statistics. The CO2 data are time series data.

The time-series trends of hemlines of New York models once correlated with the level of Lake Titicaca in the Andes. Which was the cause, and which was the effect?

There are hundreds of examples of time-series correlations that do not have any cause-effect relationship.

Statisticians detrend time-series data before doing a correlation. They have proved the correlation of annual human CO2 emissions with the annual changes in CO2 is zero. Zero correlation means human CO2 is not the cause of the increase in CO2. (Stion 3.6)

Moderator

OK, OK. We must take another break. We have a few more heart attacks in our audience and a breaking riot. … OK, we are now ready to continue this debate. It’s your turn, Globalist Gore.

People believe human CO2 caused the increase.

Globalist Gore

Most people know climate change is real. They support aggressive climate legislation to address the crisis.

Wisdom Will

Most people “know climate change is real” because our media, government, schools, colleges, and universities have indoctrinated our people for two generations. They scared them to make them believe climate fiction. Some children were so scared they committed suicide.

Their scary predictions never come true. But the scared people never acknowledge that fact.

They make children join groupthink programs. They teach them to reject facts that contradict their groupthink belief. They taught them to ignore or attack those who opposed their belief.

They claim to be on the side of science, but they promote the false idea that the children they exploit for political purposes are climate experts.

That is not teaching. That is child abuse and brainwashing.

IPCC’s carbon cycle shows nature caused the increase.

Globalist Gore

When you calculate how human carbon flows through the carbon cycle, you will find that human carbon that flows out of the atmosphere flows back into the atmosphere. This backflow causes human CO2 to cause all the rise in atmospheric CO2.

Wisdom Will

That is not true, Globalist Gore.

Dr. Ed Berry, an atmospheric physicist, out in Bigfork, Montana, calculated what IPCC scientists did not, or could not do. [This is called a shameless plug – exb.]

He had no government funding like your fat-cat scientists because our government won’t fund research that contradicts the IPCC. Berry did the calculations using Microsoft Excel on his desktop computer. He says a good high school student can do the same calculations.

Then, Dr. William Happer, of Princeton University, and W.A. van Wijngaarden, of York University, Canada, proved Dr. Berry’s numerical calculations are correct. Many other scientists have reviewed and approved Berry’s work.

Berry showed that a few years ago, when the CO2 level was 413 ppm, natural CO2 was responsible for 380 ppm and the human effect was only 33 ppm, based on IPCC data.

He also showed if human CO2 emissions stopped in 2020, the human effect would fall to 10 ppm by 2100. (Section 4.7)

Nature controls CO2 and there is no climate crisis.

We don’t control the climate.

Globalist Gore

Even if we are wrong about climate science, we must do everything we can to reduce our CO2 emissions.

Wisdom Will

Economist Bjorn Lomborg, in his book False Alarm, shows that no amount of money spent on trying to control global temperature would have any measurable effect. He says adjusting to climate change is more economical and moral than trying to prevent climate change. And he even believes the IPCC climate myth.

Lomborg shows that for less than $100 billion per year – a fraction of the amount the alarmists want to spend on climate change – we can lift the world’s 650 million extremely poor people out of their extreme poverty.

Good science shows that nature controls CO2. We are not responsible for the increase.
There is no climate crisis.

Get your copy now. Available in Kindle and Paperback.

Click here to read the Foreword, Table of Contents, References, Acknowledgements, and Enthusiastic Endorsements

© 2020 Ed Berry – All Rights Reserved

E-Mail Ed Berry: ed@edberry.com

In the late 1960s, I traveled to South Africa. I saw children with their legs bound to purposely turn them into cripples for life, presumably so they would make money from donations.

Today, I see children in America and other countries with their minds bound to purposely turn them into mental cripples for life, presumably so they will support votes for a political cause that in the end will destroy their own country. These children have suffered mind-warping child abuse. This abuse has caused them mental and physical harm.

What is worse? A crippled leg or a crippled mind?

Those born after about 1995 have been severely harmed. Their teachers, media, and government have programmed them from early ages to believe human CO2 is destroying their world. Their teachers have used fear to make them believe. Fear is known to be the most permanent way to program children’s minds to believe anything.

Their teachers have molded these children into a climate alarmist cult that rejects true science. Once inside the cult, the children can no longer think for themselves. They become servants of the BORG that controls them.

The young people that become climate alarmists have never been taught true science. For example, how many young people can understand the following simple science?

Climate alarmists make four invalid claims:

1. Human CO2 has caused all the increase in atmospheric CO2 above 280 ppm.
2. Increased atmospheric CO2 causes global warming.
3. Global warming causes bad stuff to happen.
4. Therefore, human CO2 causes bad stuff to happen.

Let’s focus on claim #1. Here is why it is wrong:

• Simple physics shows that human CO2 causes about 18 ppm of today’s 410 ppm level of atmospheric CO2, while natural CO2 causes 392 ppm. Human CO2 is insignificant to climate.
• By contrast, the IPCC claims that human CO2 causes 130 ppm of today’s 410 ppm, while natural CO2 causes 280 ppm.

IPCC is the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

It is easy to prove with high-school physics that the IPCC claim is wrong. According to the UN IPCC, the annual flow of human CO2 into the atmosphere is about 4.4 ppm per year and the natural CO2 inflow is about 98 ppm per year.

According to simple physics and common sense, the percent of human CO2 in the atmosphere equals the percent of human CO2 in the inflow. It is like a recipe. What you put into a bowl is what is in the bowl.

So, get your calculator and do the math. The total of 4.5 ppm per year and 98 ppm per year is 102.5 ppm per year inflow into the atmosphere. The human contribution is 4.5 divided by 102.5 or 4.4 percent. Therefore, the contribution of human CO2 to atmospheric CO2 is 0.044 times 410 ppm or 18 ppm.

Therefore, reducing human CO2 emissions will not reduce atmospheric CO2 enough to make any difference in the climate. Alarmism is junk science. There is no climate emergency.

The physics model also explains why continuing human CO2 emissions will not further increase atmospheric CO2 … but that is another subject.

How do the IPCC and climate alarmists justify their claim that human CO2 increased atmospheric CO2 by 130 ppm?

Answer: They reject physics. We are not talking about rocket science here. We are talking about what they should have learned in high-school physics.

One IPCC argument is that natural CO2 flows freely out of the atmosphere, but human CO2 goes into 4 bins. The CO2 in the first bin flows freely out of the atmosphere. The CO2 in the second bin flows slowly out of the atmosphere. The CO2 in the third bin flows very slowly out of the atmosphere. And the CO2 in the fourth bin stays in the atmosphere forever. This claim is junk science. It is like a wee-wee-wee 4-little-piggy nursery rhyme.

Figure 1 illustrates IPCC’s 4 bins for human CO2.

Everyone who believes this wee-wee-wee 4-little-piggy argument rejects science. IPCC scientists believe it. National Climate Assessment authors believe it.  Climate alarmists believe it. Too bad they are all wrong.

The truth is nature can’t tell the difference between human and nature CO2 because CO2 molecules are identical no matter what their source.

Download two new scientific papers as free PDF files.

Two recent peer-reviewed scientific publications prove the IPCC alarmist theory is wrong. Both show why human CO2 does not change atmospheric CO2 enough to change the climate. Both prove the UN IPCC climate theory is wrong.

• Edwin X Berry: Human CO2 Emissions Have Little Effect on Atmospheric CO2, published on July 4, 2019.
• Hermann Harde: What Humans Contribute to Atmospheric CO2: Comparison of Carbon Cycle Models with Observations, published on June 12, 2019.

Please click on the links and download these two papers. Every download adds to the attention a paper gets. You may be surprised that you can understand much of my scientific paper even if you are not trained in science.

Please bring these two scientific papers to the attention of your elected representatives and conservative media. You will help bring climate truth to the people. You can make a difference.

Also, notice these papers are not “opinions” because the climate alarmists will try to pass them off as such. These papers are slam-dunk proof the IPCC is wrong. They will prevail in court if a smart lawyer uses them.

Science, like legal trials, has a default position. Most law, for example, assumes an accused person is innocent until proven guilty. The same holds for science. The default position (known as the null hypothesis) is that all climate change is assumed to be natural until proven to be human-caused. Human CO2 is innocent until proven guilty.

No one has proved that human CO2 causes climate change because natural CO2 prevails over human CO2 in the atmosphere. Natural CO2 emissions increased since 1750 enough to increase atmospheric CO2 from 280 ppm to 392 ppm. The human effect is only an additional 18 ppm. The human effect on climate is completely negligible and removing it completely will not eliminate the dominant natural climate change.

The two referenced scientific papers take the additional step. They prove all the IPCC arguments, that the IPCC uses to claim a human cause, fail science. Checkmate. These papers cannot be ignored in any serious discussion of climate change.

Help me bring climate truth to the world.

Imagine a world with no climate alarmism. We would be able to focus on things that matter and not waste our time and money on climate distractions. Junk climate science would not distort politics and the economy. Colleges would not require students to join sustainability programs. Kids would not proclaim climate emergencies. Governments would save money. Power generation would be more reliable and cost less. Children and students would learn real science rather than fake science. It might help them pay off their college loans.

I am building a new website where we can work together to accomplish this goal. It will be a membership website where you can interact with other people. It will include seminars that explain in ordinary language why climate alarmists are wrong. It will provide the science and explanation necessary to win in public debate, but we will not be distracted by more science than is necessary to achieve our political goals. It will provide the simplest and most powerful arguments that you can use to counter the climate alarmists.

We have already won the science debate, but few people understand this. The alarmists have no scientific case. Now we must win the political debate.

Several people have offered to help fund my work. I thank them very much. The work we plan to do will require money. My new website will make this possible.

Already, thousands of people have signed up on my email list. If you are not already on my email list, you may sign up on edberry.com to get information about what I am doing.

Our task is great. We must show the public why human CO2 does not change the climate. Our goal is to get climate change out of politics and back into science.

The idea that we have a “climate emergency” is a product of a crippled mind.

Our job is to stand for climate truth.

To comment on this article or to view references, please click here.

© 2019 Ed Berry – All Rights Reserved

E-Mail Ed Berry: ed@edberry.com

by Ed Berry, Ph.D., Physics

When someone is delusional about climate change, it makes them feel better when they join with another 57 people who are equally delusional. That is called groupthink.

Climate groupthink believes human emissions cause climate change. They have no evidence to support their belief. So, to defend themselves they attack and block those who disagree with their belief. You will notice they do not list any evidence to support their belief.

On March 5, 2019, 58 “former national security leaders” signed a letter addressed to President Trump. They claim,

“climate change is real, it is happening now, it is driven by humans, and it is accelerating. The overwhelming majority of scientists agree: less than 0.2% of peer-reviewed climate science papers dispute these facts.”

They sound like used-car salesmen who desperately need to sell you worn-out car. The “overwhelming majority of scientists” do not agree that humans cause climate change:  

1. The promoters of human-caused climate change do not use the scientific method. So, they are not scientists.
2. I can count about 2000 atmospheric physicists who say we are not causing climate change. There are likely not over 4000 atmospheric physicists on the planet.
3. The alarmist side counts ecologists, pediatricians, college sophomores, and “environmentalists” as “experts” in climate cause and effect.
4. The number of papers has no relevance. There is no climate physics paper that shows humans cause climate change that has not violated physics.

They say they signed their letter because they

“are deeply concerned by reports that National Security Council officials are considering forming a committee to dispute and undermine military and intelligence judgments on the threat posed by climate change.”

They are concerned all right. They do not want a Presidential science panel to peer-review the scientific basis of their climate claims.

They say the people who disagree with them are,

“second-guessing the scientific sources used to assess the threat, such as the rigorously peer-reviewed National Climate Assessment, and applying that to national security policy.”

The National Climate Assessment (NCA) presents no evidence to support its claim that human CO2 causes climate change.

Read the NCA (if you want to waste your time). You will find long discussions about how climate changes and the damage climate change causes. You will find loads of cited papers. But you will find no evidence that human CO2 causes climate change.

The NCA merely ASSUMES we cause the rise in atmospheric CO2. The fact that atmospheric CO2 has increased does not prove we caused the increase. And if we did not cause the increase then we do not cause climate change. Checkmate.

My preprint and other published papers prove this NCA assumption is wrong. The last thing Americans want is their national security policy based on the National Climate Assessment.

They are the ones who morph climate science into politics.

“Imposing a political test on reports issued by the science agencies, and forcing a blind spot onto the national security assessments that depend on them, will erode our national security.”

They say,

“It is dangerous to have national security analysis conform to politics. Our officials’ job is to ensure that we are prepared for current threats and future contingencies. We cannot do that if the scientific studies that inform our threat assessments are undermined.”

“Undermined”? 

Science is based upon proving theories are wrong. They oppose climate truth because it undermines their political positions. They are afraid of a peer review. Why?

“Our national security community will not remain the best in the world if it cannot make decisions based on the best available evidence.”

“Best available evidence”? 

They don’t understand scientific evidence. Their theoretical base is in the reports by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Their theory makes wrong predictions. Therefore, their climate theory is wrong.

Statistics prove they are wrong:

The statistical correlation between annual human CO2 emissions and annual changes in CO2 in the atmosphere is ZERO! (See Munshi reference here.) Where there is no correlation, there is no cause and effect. There is NO rational scientific basis to claim or believe that human CO2 emissions CAUSE the climate to change.

They are guilty of malpractice.

The signers are not climate physicists. They don’t know how to determine cause and effect for climate change. It would not matter if 10,058 government-paid dignitaries and high-ranking officials signed their letter. They would still be wrong.

The signers of the letter threaten America.

By assuming human CO2 causes dangerous climate change, they threaten our economy and our national security. Their signed letter is bad for science, bad for national security, and bad for America.

To comment on this article or to view references, please click here.

Dr. Ed Berry is editor and publisher of edberry.com based in Bigfork, Montana. He has a PhD in Physics, is a Certified Consulting Meteorologist, and an expert in climate change who takes the position that our carbon dioxide emissions are insignificant to climate change.

© 2019 Edwin X Berry, PhD – All Rights Reserved

E-Mail Ed Berry: ed@edberry.com

Environmental Correspondent Alister Dyle penned the news pseudoscience article entitled, “Evidence for man-made global warming hits ‘gold standard’: scientists.”

The article claims,

Evidence for man-made global warming has reached a “gold standard” level of certainty.

Well, where is the evidence? Evidence means cause and effect evidence. They don’t give any evidence to support their claim.

Are there any scientists on the climate alarmist side who understand how science works? I don’t think so. If they understood science, they would not be climate alarmists.

Rising temperatures, even if true, are not evidence that human CO2 caused the rise. The public does not get this. (How many kids paying off their college loans learned how science works?)

The article reports,

Ben Santer, lead author of Monday’s study at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, said he hoped the findings would win over skeptics and spur action.

Not a chance in hell. The skeptic scientists understand science and don’t fall for false logic.

Ben and his buddies use the following false logic:

• If human CO2 causes global warming, then bad stuff will happen.
• Bad stuff happens. Therefore, human CO2 caused the global warming.

If you believe that, then you also believe this parallel in logic:

• If Bill Gates owned Fort Knox, then Bill Gates is rich.
• Bill Gates is rich. Therefore, Bill Gates owned Fort Knox.

It is called the logical error of affirming the consequent. Look it up.

To convince any rational person that human CO2 is causing global warming, Ben and his buddies must show evidence to confirm these cause-effect hypotheses:

1. Human CO2 emissions caused the rise in atmospheric CO2 since 1750.
2. Increased atmospheric CO2 caused the claimed global warming.
3. Global warming causes bad stuff to happen.

But they never talk about the first two necessary hypotheses. They just harp that bad stuff happens and hope you won’t notice their logical deficiency.

Ben and his buddies use the same irrational logic the Aztecs used to cut out beating hearts and roll decapitated heads down temple steps, thinking their sacrifices would bring rain for their crops. They continued their sacrifices until it rained. Then, they concluded their sacrifices caused the rain.

While it is not possible in science to prove a hypothesis is true, it is possible to prove a hypothesis is false. We do that by proving a theory’s prediction is false.

In contrast to the unsupported opinions of Ben and his buddies, simple physics proves the following:

1. Carbon-14 data and some simple physics prove human emissions have caused a rise of only 18 ppm and nature causes a rise of 392 ppm. Nature caused 95% of the rise in atmospheric CO2. Therefore, human CO2 is insignificant to the level of atmospheric CO2 and insignificant to global warming. Checkmate.
2. Data show that changes in temperature come before changes in CO2. Therefore, temperature change is the cause, rather than the result, of changes in CO2. Checkmate.
3. Data show that human life is better when the earth is warmer.

Ben and his buddies ignore the facts that prove their ideas are false. They do not understand science itself. They have NO evidence that human CO2 causes any significant global warming.

Furthermore, Jamal Munshi published his statistical calculations that show the correlation between annual CO2 emissions and annual increase in atmospheric CO2 is ZERO! Where there is no correlation, there can be no cause and effect. Checkmate.

The article claims,

Mainstream scientists say the burning of fossil fuels is causing more floods, droughts, heat waves and rising sea levels.”

They have no scientific evidence to support their claim and they ignore scientific evidence that proves they are wrong. So much for “mainstream” scientists.

Ben and his buddies are part of the Swamp. Our tax dollars are still paying them to tell lies to the American people, while scientists who tell you the truth still get no support from government.

The article claims,

Sixty-two percent of Americans polled in 2018 believed that climate change has a human cause, up from 47 percent in 2013, according to the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication.

If this poll is valid, it only proves Americans as a group are getting dumber. God save America.

To comment on this article or to view references, please click here.

© 2019 Edwin X Berry – All Rights Reserved

E-Mail Ed Berry: ed@edberry.com

By Edwin Berry, PhD, Atmospheric Physics

Al Gore framed the climate debate. He said, human carbon dioxide emissions increase atmospheric carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Greenhouse gases traps heat like a blanket that keeps you warm at night. It was that simple, he told us.

People believe big Al’s story. Simplicity sells. But simple is not always correct. A whole lot of people who don’t care about correct, push for laws to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. They are the “climate alarmists.” They think they are saving the planet.

Since they think Al Gore’s basic claims are correct, the alarmists focus on possible consequences of global warming. They believe that finding consequence proves we must stop carbon dioxide emissions. But the climate debate is not about consequences because consequences do not prove their cause.

The critical questions about climate are about cause-and-effect:

1. How much do human emissions increase atmospheric carbon dioxide?
2. How much does increased atmospheric carbon dioxide change climate?

In a climate debate, the alarmists must prove the answers to BOTH questions are “significant.” If they miss on only one question, they still lose the debate. They have the burden of proof.

President Trump is a “climate realist.” He disagrees with the alarmists. Many good atmospheric physicists are climate realists. They have shown the answer is “insignificant” to both questions.

These answers may seem counter-intuitive if you think the atmosphere is a simple system. But the atmosphere is a complex system and, as good systems engineers know, complex systems are counter-intuitive.

Al Gore and his alarmists think the atmosphere is like a garbage landfill. What we dump in, stays. They could not be more wrong.

Neither nature’s emissions nor human emissions stay in the atmosphere. They merely flow through the atmosphere. The atmosphere is like a lake where a river flows in and lake water flows out over a dam. The lake’s water level will rise or fall until the outflow over the dam equals the inflow from the river.

If the inflow increases, the level will rise until the outflow equals the inflow and the level becomes constant. Conversely, if inflow decreases, the level will decrease until, once again, outflow equals inflow. The faster the inflow, the higher the level to balance the inflow. Fig. 1 illustrates the simple physics model for both the lake and the atmosphere.

Fig. 1. The Model shows the rate of change of the level equals the difference between Inflow and Outflow. This model applies to both the lake model and the atmosphere model.

Nature’s carbon dioxide emissions are over 20 times human emissions.

Suppose the first river represents nature’s carbon dioxide emissions and a second river represents human emissions. The first river produces 95 percent and the second river produces 5 percent of the total inflow into the lake.

Question: What percent of the water in the lake came from the first river and second river?

If you answered 95 percent came from the first river and 5 percent from the second river, then you passed your physics exam. You are more qualified in physics than any climate alarmist including their PhD’s. This intuitive answer is backed up by solid math that good physicists use.

The ratio of natural to human carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the ratio of their inflows. Nature produces more than 95 percent of the carbon dioxide in our atmosphere and human emissions produce less than 5 percent.

In terms of the often-quoted ppm (or parts per million), these percentages show that human emissions cause an 18-ppm rise, and nature’s emissions cause a 392-ppm rise, in atmospheric carbon dioxide. The total of each inflow is today’s carbon dioxide level of 410 ppm.

The flows and corresponding levels of natural and human carbon dioxide are independent of each other. It does not matter what natural emissions are. If natural emissions went to zero, the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would fall to 18 ppm and we all would die.

If alarmists could stop ALL human emissions, the present inflow of natural carbon dioxide would maintain the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at 392 ppm.

The Paris Climate Agreement proposed to reduce worldwide human emissions by 28 percent. Twenty-eight percent of 18 ppm is 5 ppm. The Paris Agreement would have reduced atmospheric carbon dioxide by only 5 ppm, which is insignificant. Even 18 ppm is insignificant. The alarmists have no case.

Alarmists claim human emissions have caused all the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide since 1750. They claim human emissions have caused the 130-ppm rise from 280 ppm to 410 ppm. They believe the human-produced inflow of 5 percent of the total causes 32 percent (130 ppm / 410 ppm) of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It can’t happen.

Climate alarmists don’t understand how nature works. They deny the way how nature balances itself. Therefore, they are not good guardians of nature because they flunk simple physics.

The IPCC scientists made a critical scientific error.

The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) inserted their critical error into their climate models. This error negates all their alarmists’ beliefs and claims.

The IPCC reports are clear. While the IPCC correctly assumes nature’s emissions of about 100 ppm per year balance outflow to inflow, the IPCC incorrectly assumes human emissions do not balance. The IPCC assumes 1.5 ppm per year of human emissions gets stuck in the atmosphere and stays there. That 1.5 ppm is coincidently just enough to support their claim that human emissions have caused all the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide since 1750.

The IPCC and its believers and scientists began, not with science, but with their emotional, ecological belief that human emissions are bad and natural emissions are good. They have built their whole climate fraud on a foundation of sand.

Here’s why the core IPCC assumption is invalid.

First, the IPCC method rejects simple physics that proves the level, of lake water or atmospheric carbon dioxide, will always adjust outflow to balance inflow. The physics question is NOT whether there is an imbalance of flows. There is. Nature always proceeds toward balance.

The physics question is how much will the level change to achieve this balance. We have already described the answer to this simple physics question.

Second, the atmosphere cannot open its exit door to nature-produced carbon dioxide and close its exit door to human-produced carbon dioxide because it can’t tell the difference between nature-produced and human-produced molecules of carbon dioxide.

In physics, the Equivalence Principle means if we cannot tell the difference between two things then they are identical, and nature will process them the same.

Third, even IF nature could identify nature-produced from human-produced carbon dioxide, to treat them differently would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics, because it would decrease entropy without an input of energy.

For example, if you mix cream in your coffee, it goes in with no effort. But try to take the cream back out of your coffee. It would take an energy source to separate the cream from your coffee. There is no energy source available to separate identical carbon dioxide molecules based upon their history.

In summary, the IPCC claims, and all climate alarmists believe, that nature separates human and natural carbon dioxide molecules – thereby violating the Equivalence Principle – and that nature shuts its exit door for human-produced carbon-dioxide molecules while letting nature-produced carbon-dioxide molecules pass freely – thereby violating the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

IPCC’s Bern model proves the IPCC’s climate claims are wrong.

The IPCC has something it calls the Bern model. The Bern model is a seven-parameter curve fit to the output of IPCC climate models. To satisfy the intended curve fit, the Bern model must have the same mathematical form as the climate models. Therefore, the Bern model tells us a lot about what is in the climate models.

Specifically, the IPCC claims the Bern model simulates how our atmosphere treats human carbon dioxide emissions. The Bern model says a one-year “pulse” of human carbon dioxide inflow that sets the carbon dioxide level to 100 ppm, will cause the level to still be 29 ppm after 100 years and have a permanent level of 15 ppm forever. This is for only one year of emissions.

The Bern model then adds these permanent levels for all successive years. This invalid idea follows the initial assumption that nature does not balance human emissions. It is the reason alarmists claim human carbon dioxide emissions cause permanent and long-range damage. This is why James Hansen claimed in 2008 that we must shut down all coal-electric power plants by 2012 in order to save the planet. Alarmists believe and preach their irrational feelings rather than logical physics.

These alarmist claims derive from the invalid idea that the atmosphere is a garbage dump rather than a reservoir the processes inflows and outflows. The IPCC built these claims into all its climate models. The built-in false claims are why all IPCC climate models are pieces of junk.

Here is a simple way to test the Bern model and thereby all IPCC climate models. According to the Equivalence Principle, the Bern model must hold for natural emissions as well as human emissions, even though the IPCC says it only applies to human emissions.

If we insert natural emissions of 100 ppm per year into the Bern model, it predicts these natural emissions would add 15 ppm per year permanently to the atmosphere. Therefore, the Bern model predicts that the last 1000 years of natural emissions would have added a permanent increase of 15,000 ppm today. Obviously, this has not happened. This invalid prediction proves the IPCC Bern model and all IPCC climate models are wrong.

Here are the steps in the IPCC climate alarmist logic:

1. Claim human emissions cause all the increase in carbon dioxide.
2. This means nature must restrict outflow of human carbon dioxide.
3. Insert this restriction into climate models.
4. Insert also the false claim that more carbon dioxide increases temperature.
5. Models calculate that human emissions increase carbon dioxide and carbon dioxide increases temperature.
6. Then alarmists claim the climate model output proves human emissions cause climate change.

Here are the steps in climate physics logic:

1. Understand how nature adjusts outflow to balance inflow.
2. Develop simple Model of how nature balances inflow.
3. Show the Model reproduces real data, like carbon-14 data.
4. Show the Model proves that IPCC models are fundamentally wrong.

The fork in the road of the climate change debate

It may be hard for you to believe, but climate realists now come in two opposing flavors: vanilla and chocolate.

The chocolates want to prove the IPCC is fundamentally wrong by using solid, simple arguments like I have summarized above. The chocolate argument is sufficient to cut off the alarmist argument at its knees. Nothing more is needed. It would be a slam-dunk win in a quick checkmate. The jury would be impressed. The judge would be happy. The chocolates would reverse the EPA Endangerment Finding.

By contrast, the vanillas would begin by trashing physics and admitting that Al Gore, the IPCC, and the alarmists are right about the warming effects of human emissions. Then they would to try to prove that global warming brings more benefits than the status quo. That approach opens the door to endless arguments that the alarmists have perfected.

Even worse, the vanillas would reverse the burden of proof from the alarmists to the vanillas.

The vanillas would confuse the jury, upset the judge, lose the climate debate, and forever extinguish the opportunity to win the debate using simple physics.

The alarmists have already noticed the cave-in by the vanillas and expect to easily win a debate or trial if the vanillas are their opponents. The alarmists will simply claim they want to stop all carbon dioxide emissions so they can keep the climate status quo. Checkmate win.

Conclusion

President Trump is right to recognize the climate fraud. Now, it is up to the realist scientists to recognize and promote a debate based on the physics of climate change, rather than on the vanillas plan to admit the alarmists are right and then try to prove warming is good. Yikes.

To comment on this article, please click here.

This article is written for the layman. To read my preprint that explains the physics of this post, please see “Why human CO2 does not change climate.”

© 2017 Edwin X Berry, PhD – All Rights Reserved

E-Mail Ed Berry: ed@edberry.com

The story of Montana’s Last Indian Water Compact reveals, like no other true story, the nature of the split in the Republican Party.

This story needs to be told, and I may be the only one who will ever tell it. To understand politics, you must understand this story.

You can get the Amazon Kindle version FREE from February 15 to 19

“Montana’s Last Indian Water Compact: The Truth about the Compact and the Republican Party” is available in paperback or Kindle on Amazon.

Montana’s CSKT Water Compact

Montana’s Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes Water Compact in 2015 may have been the most important and controversial issue in Montana’s history.

Its ratification would resolve all Montana’s Indian water-rights issues forever. Its rejection would subject Montanans to a generation of the most-costly legal battles in Montana’s history.

Most Montana’s farmers and ranchers, city managers and business leaders supported the Compact. Democrat legislators supported the Compact.

Before November 2014, I opposed the Compact. But, as a physicist, I realized I should study the Compact. So, I read and organized the arguments on both sides.

By December 2014, I realized my original conclusion was wrong. The arguments against the Compact clearly failed and facts proved the Compact was necessary for Montana.

My book explains the well-documented four faces of the Republican Party and how one face opposed the Compact.

The Republican split

The Republican split occurs because the three faces that compose 80 percent of Republicans regularly support the Republican nominee, while the one face that composes 20 percent of the Republican Party regularly opposes the Republican nominee.

The source of the split is major ideological difference between the 80 percent and the 20 percent. Therefore, Republicans cannot resolve the split by compromise because these diverse ideologies cannot compromise. Only the 20 percent can resolve the split when they realize their ideology is factually and morally wrong. Don’t hold your breath.

The split over the Water Compact matched the split in the Republican Party. The 80 percent supported the Compact and the 20 percent opposed the Compact.

We call the 20-percent face of the Republican Party, VCEs. My book describes this designation in detail. They represent only 10 percent of all voters. Percentages differ somewhat in different states but the general pattern is consistent in all states.

Democrats and Republicans differ on partisan bills. However, the Compact was a bipartisan bill that all parties should have decided on facts and logic. But the VCEs disagreed.

Aristotle’s Golden Mean

Nelson Hultberg describes Aristotle’s Golden Mean in his book “The Golden Mean: Libertarian Politics, Conservative Values.” Aristotle concluded the middle 60 to 80 percent are much more likely to be correct than the radical 10 percent on each end of the political spectrum.

In the political spectrum, VCEs are to the right of 1.4 standard deviations from the mean. They are the last 10 percent on the right. They are the radical right.

VCEs were wrong about the Compact.

Compact proponents based their arguments on facts and logic.

Compact opponents based their arguments on delusions. They opposed the Compact because they believed it was an Agenda 21 government conspiracy to steal Montana’s water. The fact is Compact rejection would have caused Montana to lose control of its water. VCEs had their “facts” backwards.

VCEs are so convinced they are right, that they reject evidence that proves they are wrong. Their radical ideology led them to oppose the CSKT Water Compact and to reject all arguments that proved their claims were wrong.

They voted their conscience rather than their intelligence. They let their fears drive their decisions.

They opposed the Compact because their political religion dictated opposition. Their opposition to the Compact proves their political religion is wrong.

Why the split matters.

You might ask, why should the split matter because the Republican 80 percent can outvote the 20 percent?

The split matters because the 20 percent VCEs are much more politically active than the other 80 percent of Republicans. Neither Republican nor Democrat voters understand the difference between the Republican 80 percent and the radical VCEs 20 percent. Therefore, unaware voters elected VCEs to 80 percent of the Republican seats in Montana’s 2015 House.

Because the VCEs dominated the Republicans in Montana’s House and Republicans outnumbered the Democrats, Montana’s House ratified the Compact by only ONE vote.

The Compact was not an inconsequential bill that would have minor effect on Montana whether approved or rejected. The Compact was a significant bill that would have a dramatic effect on Montana’s economy, forever. Compact ratification would save Montana’s water rights and Compact rejection would lose Montana’s water rights, forever, plus cost Montana a whole lot of money.

Radical VCEs almost destroyed Montana. They still don’t get it. They don’t care to learn facts and logic. They have their political religion to guide them.

VCEs make bad political decisions. Montana’s Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes Water Compact is a case in point.

Perfection or Rejection

As a group, VCEs have unique characteristics. They have a perfection obsession. They believe if something or someone is not perfect by their definition, they must vote to condemn the something or the someone to hell.
VCEs view the world as black and white with no gray scale. To them, it’s perfection or rejection.

VCEs demand Godly perfection of candidates and bills. Yet, they are far from Godly perfection themselves. Godly perfection does not exist in our real world. VCEs live in a dream world.

VCEs thought if they could find one imperfection in the Compact, that was a reason to reject the Compact. After 12 years of work funded by our taxpayers, VCEs decided the Compact was not good enough for them to send to heaven, so they voted to send the Compact to hell.

Negative Voting Mantra

Another unique characteristic is their negativity. Their preachers are negative. Compared to other Republicans, VCE’s see the cup as half empty whereas other Republicans see the cup as half full.

VCEs follow the Negative Voting Mantra: “A vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil.”

They use their Negative Voting Mantra to justify their votes against Republican nominees who are “not good enough” for them. They vote for third-party candidates who can’t win.

VCEs remove votes from the better candidate among candidates who can win. They achieve the exact opposite of their political goal. The Negative Voting Mantra achieves the greater evil and is immoral.

Positive Voting Principle

The alternative to the Negative Voting Mantra is the Positive Voting Principle. Aristotle’s Positive Voting Principle is:

Our moral duty is to vote to achieve the most possible good, which eliminates voting for candidates who cannot win, and eliminates mandatory conditions.

Stated simply, the Positive Voting Principle is:

Always vote and act to achieve the greatest possible good.

Historically, some very qualified philosophers have weighed in on the Positive Voting Principle and the Negative Voting Mantra. The Catholic Church and the six major Protestant churches support the Positive Voting Principle and reject the Negative Voting Mantra.

America’s Founding Fathers used the Positive Voting Principle. They voted for the greater good. If each Founding Father rejected what he thought was imperfect, they would not have approved our Constitution.

VCEs call themselves “Constitutionalists” but they reject the Positive Voting Principle that was necessary to produce our Constitution. The VCEs who opposed the CSKT Water Compact would have opposed our Constitution because it was not perfect.

Mandatory Conditions

VCE claim a candidate must meet certain “mandatory” conditions to get their vote. They think their mandatory conditions show they hold high moral standards. In fact, their mandatory condition show they do not understand morals and logic.

For example, some VCEs told me before the 2014 election, “I can’t vote for Ryan Zinke” because his prolife position “is not good enough” for me.

I replied that Ryan Zinke scored 90 percent on a prolife evaluation and his Democratic opponent scored zero. This did not matter to these VCEs. Zinke’s 90-percent score on a prolife test was “not good enough” for them. They required a score of 100 percent. They required perfection.

These VCEs believed it would have been a sin for them to vote for Zinke because he was not perfect. Yet they believe it was no sin to help the Democrat to win. They are not only illogical, they are immoral.

Their VCE mandatory conditions eliminated Ryan Zinke who was clearly the “greater good” candidate from their own VCE perspective.

Here how VCEs think:

Suppose you can vote for Candidate A, whose abortion policies will kill 10 million babies, or Candidate B, whose policies will kill 1 million babies. Who will you vote for?

All normal Christians will vote for Candidate B so they can save 9 million babies.

VCEs won’t vote to save 9 million babies because Candidate B is not perfect enough for them.

VCEs don’t understand bipartisan issues

VCEs believe all issues are partisan. They do not believe in bipartisan bills where Republicans should vote the same as Democrats, like paving our highways.

Compact opponents claimed Republicans should always vote the opposite of Democrats. They call Republicans who vote the same as Democrats, “RINOs.” They don’t understand that “RINO” applies only to partisan issues, not to bipartisan issues.

Therefore, they concluded, since the Democrats supported the Compact, all Republicans must oppose the Compact.

VCEs don’t understand Bible admonition on “works”

VCE they VCEs don’t understand the definition of the word “works.” They think their actions are works. They do not understand that works are the results of actions, not the actions themselves.

VCEs think they do good works if they vote their feelings or “conscience,” as VCE Ted Cruz told his audience to do at the 2016 Republican National Convention.

VCEs define “good” by how their actions make them “feel,” regardless of the consequences.

VCEs who opposed the CSKT Water Compact, voted their “conscience.”

VCEs claim they have a moral compass. But their compass points in the wrong direction.

It takes intelligence to predict results of our actions. We must use our intelligence to choose the action the brings the desired result.

VCEs elected Democrat US Senator Tester in 2012.

The VCEs voted Libertarian rather than for Republican Congressman Denny Rehberg for US Senate. The VCEs’ Libertarian votes were substantially more than Tester’s win over Rehberg. So, the VCEs elected Democrat Tester to the US Senate for six more years.

Now you know why the dominantly conservative State of Montana elects Democrats to key positions in Montana and Congress. It is because VCEs throw childish temper tantrums when Republican voters nominate non-VCE candidates.

Ryan Zinke won decisively in 2014 and 2016

VCEs would not support Ryan Zinke for Congress. But Ryan Zinke won the Republican primary election and the Republican nomination without their help.

Zinke proved Republican candidates do better when they get more votes in the middle of the political spectrum even if they lose votes from the radical VCEs

The Montana 2016 election results prove the VCEs have little influence in the outcome of major elections. VCEs simply do not have enough votes to change elections in their favor. The only effect they can have is to vote Libertarian to try to deprive a Republican candidate of a victory.

Subscribe to NewsWithViews Daily Email Alerts

Email Address *
First Name
*required field
Thanks to Republican voters in Montana, Ryan Zinke will be your next Secretary of Interior.

Voter wake-up call

The CSKT Water Compact is an example of how the far-right VCE Republicans make bad decisions.

All voters everywhere should realize the danger to themselves when they elect too many VCEs.

To read the full story and better understand Republican politics, get my book for FREE on Amazon from February 15 to 19.

© 2017 Edwin X Berry, Ph.D – All Rights Reserved

Over 4000 people, including hundreds of scientists, read my article “Why our CO2 emissions do not increase Atmosphere CO2”. As I write this (January 3, 2017), there are 112 comments.

One well-respected scientist wrote to me:

Your article is (in my opinion) the BEST commentary yet that I’ve seen on this topic. I cannot see any way to shorten it. Your analogies are fantastic.

This article brings the (atmospheric physicist) scientific level of understanding down to the level of a 6th-grade education.

Just science, facts. No politics, no hysteria, and no hype. I love it.

I appreciate that comment because that is my writing goal. However, I have a scientific goal as well. That is to prove the arguments to support alarmist Claim #1, namely, that “Human CO2 emissions caused all or most of the observed rise in atmospheric CO2,” are wrong.

The discussion in the 112 comments shows I have proved by logic that their 4-step argument to prove Claim #1 is invalid. Also, I proved the arguments that use carbon isotopes to prove Claim #1 are wrong.

All alarmist arguments for Claim #1 include the classic mathematical error of having more unknowns than equations. Therefore …

There exists no scientific basis to claim that human CO2 caused all or most of the increase in atmospheric CO2.

The comments by one Icarus62 and my replies best illustrate the core of the debate:

Icarus62:

It couldn’t be simpler: We’ve emitted twice as much CO2 since the preindustrial as remains in the atmosphere today. Therefore, nature had been a net sink of CO2 from the atmosphere over this period and we’re responsible for 100% of the 120ppm rise. Agreed? It cannot possibly be otherwise.

Berry:

Dear Icarus62, Thank you again for your comment. “It could not be simpler,” said the Aztec priests. “We simply cut out beating hearts and roll heads down the temple steps … and it rains.” They all believed it.

What is missing? The scientific method and good physics are missing. You are using what Richard Feynman called Cargo Cult science.

Icarus62:

1. Anthropogenic sources have emitted ~2,000Gt of CO2 since the preindustrial.
2. Atmospheric concentration has risen by ~850Gt / 120ppm.
3. The remaining ~1150Gt is no longer in the atmosphere – it has been sequestered by the land and oceans.
4. Hence the land and oceans have been a net sink for atmospheric CO2 over this period, and 100% of the 120ppm rise in atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic.

This proves your argument wrong. If you disagree, please let me know which of these four items you dispute, and why. Thanks…

Berry:

Dear Icarus62, Thank you for your comment because it is directly on point. You have presented the key 4 steps of the standard argument that human CO2 caused 100% of the rise in atmospheric CO2.

They are the same 4 steps that I present and rebut in my article above. The 4 steps fail because of invalid wording in steps 3 and 4. The phrase “land AND oceans” should be “land OR oceans.” The fact that (land + oceans) is less than 0 does not prove (land is less than 0) AND (oceans is less than 0).

Land can be a net sink even while oceans can be a net source for atmospheric CO2. Therefore, step 4 is invalid.

The 4-step argument does not prove human CO2 drives atmospheric CO2. That is because there are other scenarios where oceans can drive atmospheric CO2, while still meeting all the constraints of steps 1-3 after the “and” in step 3 is changed to “or” as required by logic.

My Fig. 1 above is a scenario were land absorbs all the human CO2 while oceans absorb and much CO2 as they emit. In that scenario, atmospheric CO2 remains constant. Steps 1-3 (with the “or”) do not exclude this scenario.

A second scenario can be where land absorbs all human CO2 emissions while oceans add CO2 to the atmosphere. (Simply change the ocean input in Fig. 1 from 44 to 46.) Steps 1-3 (with the “or”) do not exclude this scenario.

As you can see, there are an infinite number of scenarios that prove the 4-step argument is wrong.

You are not the first to challenge me with this 4-step argument. Keith Pickering, writing for Peter Gleick and company, challenged me with the same 4 steps. Keith acknowledged that I would win if I could produce even one scenario that showed his argument wrong. I did and Keith provided no counter argument.

Icarus62:

Your comment is not a valid rebuttal. I can replace “the land and oceans” with “the natural world” and the logic is still the same – it’s immaterial how that 1150Gt of anthropogenic CO2 that is no longer in the atmosphere has been partitioned between land and oceans. The natural world (land + oceans) has been a net sink of CO2 from the atmosphere since the preindustrial and there is no scenario in which we can be responsible for less than 100% of the 120ppm rise in atmospheric CO2.

To take one of your scenarios as an example:

If the land had absorbed 2,000Gt CO2 since the preindustrial, while the oceans had added ~850Gt to the atmosphere, the net natural change would be -1150Gt, i.e. a net sink. 100% of the 120ppm rise in atmospheric CO2 would be due to us, because in the absence of our emissions, the natural world would have caused a decline to 130ppm, instead of the increase to 400ppm we have observed. Not a physically realistic scenario, but it does demonstrate why your argument is wrong.

Berry:

Dear Icarus62, Thank you again for your comment.

You make an invalid assumption. You assume the “natural world” does not adjust to human input of CO2. Only a very small adjustment by the “natural world” will easily compensate for all human CO2 emissions.

If humans add CO2 to the atmosphere, land will absorb more CO2 and oceans will reduce their CO2 transfer to the atmosphere. That is because transfer rates are controlled by partial pressures of CO2.

Nothing in the 4-step argument excludes that ocean temperature can control the rate of change of atmospheric CO2. Since the 4-step argument cannot exclude this alternative, the 4-step argument is NOT proof that human CO2 caused all the rise in atmospheric CO2.

Further, the 4-step argument does not exclude the Fig. 1 alternative that shows atmospheric CO2 can remain constant if atmospheric CO2 is at equilibrium with ocean temperature. In Fig. 1, the “natural world” is a net sink but atmospheric CO2 remains constant.

Remember, to be proof, the 4-step argument must exclude all possible scenarios where atmospheric CO2 can remain constant in the presence of human CO2 emissions. The 4-step argument does not accomplish that proof.

The 4-step argument is a case of having more unknowns than equations. For example, if there were an equation that proved land and oceans emissions would not adjust to human CO2 emissions, then that would be sufficient to be a proof. But there is no such equation. So, the 4-step argument is based on an invalid assumption.

Icarus62:

The ‘4-step argument’ explicitly states that the natural world has adjusted by absorbing around half of our CO2 emissions, thus becoming a net sink. Any scenario in which we’re not responsible for 100% of the rise in atmospheric CO2 is logically ruled out. I illustrated this with one of your scenarios above (land = -2000Gt, ocean = +850Gt, net natural change = -1150Gt CO2, thus 100% of the 120ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to anthropogenic emissions, and none of it is due to nature).

Berry:

Dear Icarus62, the 4-step argument incorrectly assumes the natural world absorbs only enough human CO2 emissions to account for the excess in its argument. That is illogical because it does not allow the natural world to absorb any more than this amount.

What physics would constrain the natural world to absorbing only enough human CO2 to support the unfounded alarmist hypothesis?

None! It is a hand-waving argument with no physical basis, and no support from the argument itself. If the natural world can absorb about half, the natural world can absorb all human CO2 emissions.

The 4-step argument assumes the natural world cannot absorb more CO2 than an amount specified in the assumption. And, lo and behold, the 4-step argument concludes its own assumption is correct. That is a perfect case of garbage in, garbage out. Sorry. That proves the 4-step argument is a religion and not a science.

The 4-step argument still has more unknowns than equations.

Maybe Icarus62 will return but my argument will prevail.

There exists no scientific basis to claim that human CO2 caused all or most of the increase in atmospheric CO2.

My article references Murry Salby’s videos and book. My lake analogy conveys the same correct physics that Salby puts into differential equations.

Alarmists claim Salby’s calculations do not “conserve carbon.” They are wrong. Salby’s calculations conserve carbon, just as my lake example conserves water.

Alarmists claim I needed to included ocean acidification, land and ocean absorption limits, etc., to refute their hypothesis. My response is as follows:

1. The alarmist hypothesis claims human CO2 causes all the observed rise in atmospheric CO2.
2. The alarmist hypothesis includes only data on human CO2 emissions and atmospheric CO2.
3. I showed their hypothesis fails by including all data in their hypothesis.
4. I do not need to include data that alarmists did not use in their hypothesis.

There is no end to the illogic of climate alarmists.

What if we could do an experiment to prove whether human CO2 increases atmospheric CO2?

We could stop all human CO2 emissions and see if atmospheric CO2 goes down. Fat chance of pulling off that experiment.

We could increase human CO2 emissions and see if atmospheric CO2 increased its slope – or rate of increase – as the alarmist hypothesis predicts.

Then:

• If atmospheric CO2 increases its slope, the alarmists win.
• If atmospheric CO2 does not increase its slope, the alarmists lose.

Well, we did that experiment. It is at the end of my article. Here it is again.

After 2002, human CO2 emissions increased its slope by three times. At the end of 2012, human CO2 emissions were three times where they would have been if we continued “business as usual.”

Atmospheric CO2 scaled did not change its slope.

The alarmist hypothesis made an incorrect prediction. Therefore, the alarmist hypothesis is wrong.

Human CO2 emissions do not significantly increase atmospheric CO2. As the alarmists like to say, “the science is settled.”

Soon-to-be President Trump is correct. Our CO2 emissions do not cause global warming or climate change. We do not need to restrict our CO2 emissions.

© 2017 Edwin X Berry, Ph.D – All Rights Reserved

The genius of Al Gore

Give Al Gore an A for marketing and an F for science. But, hey, we all know the sale is in the marketing. The genius of Al Gore was to make his invalid myth simple:

1. Our CO2 emissions increase Atmosphere CO2, and
2. Atmosphere CO2 heats the Earth.

What could be simpler? Al Gore assumed his two invalid claims were true. His marketing job was to make you believe bad things happen when Atmosphere CO2 rises.

Everybody believed Al Gore. Well, almost everybody. His simple, inaccurate description of how our climate works created a generation of science deniers, some with PhD’s. Al Gore turned climate science into a political-environmental movement.

The alarmists’ goal is to scare you into believing our CO2 causes climate change. Once scared into an invalid belief, you will tend to hold that invalid belief forever.

Those who believe Al Gore’s marketing believe they can make the Earth cooler by reducing our CO2 emissions. Al Gore has sold them a bridge to nowhere.

Climate alarmists are like the Aztecs who believed they could make rain by cutting out beating hearts and rolling decapitated heads down temple steps.

Both of Al Gore’s two assumptions are wrong. This article shows how his first assumption is wrong. Nature, not human CO2 emissions, causes the changes in Atmosphere CO2.

The Logical Fallacy of Climate Change

Climate alarmists tell us climate change causes bad stuff to happen, and if bad stuff happens, they claim it is our fault. The alarmist logic goes like this:

If human CO2 causes climate change, then bad stuff will happen.
Bad stuff happens. Therefore, human CO2 causes climate change.

This alarmist claim is the well-known logical fallacy called “Affirming the Consequent.” Here is an example that illustrates this logical fallacy:

If Bill Gates owns Fort Knox, then Bill Gates is rich.
Bill Gates is rich. Therefore, Bill Gates owns Fort Knox.

The logical error is to assume that every result has only one possible cause. Shrinking glaciers do not prove we caused them to shrink.

The relevant climate change questions are about cause and effect.

The relevant climate change questions are not whether the climate has changed. Climate always changes. The only relevant climate change questions concern cause and effect:

1. Do Human CO2 emissions significantly increase Atmosphere CO2?
2. Does Atmosphere CO2 significantly increase climate change?

Climate alarmists must prove BOTH answers are YES. Otherwise, they lose their case.

This article shows why the answer to the first question is NO. A future article will show why the answer to the second question is also NO.

Why Human CO2 emissions do not cause climate change.

Fig. 1 shows why nature’s CO2 emissions, not Human CO2, are the major cause of the observed change in Atmosphere CO2.

All numbers in this article represent amounts of CO2. CO2 units are in parts per million by volume (ppmv) of CO2. Gigatons of Carbon (GtC) convert to ppmv using: 1 ppmv of CO2?= 2.13 GtC.

In the middle of Fig. 1 is a box that represents the CO2 in our atmosphere. The amount of CO2 in our Atmosphere in 2015 was 400.

Land and Ocean CO2 emissions into the Atmosphere total about 100 each year (plus or minus ten percent). An almost equal amount flows from Atmosphere CO2 to Land and Ocean CO2 each year (CDIAC, 2016; IPPC, 2007a; IPPC, 2007b).

Let’s use an analogy to help understand Fig. 1. Let water in a lake represent Atmosphere CO2.

Two large rivers flow into the lake. One river represents Land CO2. The other river represents Ocean CO2. Together, they supply about 100 units per year to the lake.

Lake water spills over a dam. The inflow of 100 raises the lake level until the outflow over the dam equals the inflow.

Similarly, the flow of Land and Ocean CO2 into our Atmosphere increases the amount of CO2 in our Atmosphere. Increased Atmosphere CO2 increases CO2 outflow to Land and Ocean. Like the lake, Atmosphere CO2 is at equilibrium when outflow equals inflow.

If inflow exceeds outflow, the lake level (Atmosphere CO2) will rise until outflow equals inflow. If outflow exceeds inflow, the lake level will fall until outflow equals inflow.

Fig. 1. Our Atmosphere’s CO2 is like a big lake. It receives CO2 from two big rivers (Land and Ocean) and from one small river (Human). Temperature controls CO2 flow from Land and Ocean to Atmosphere. Lake level rises or falls until outflow equals inflow.

The dam separates the CO2 spill into two parts. One part goes back to Land. The other part goes back to the Ocean.

Fig. 1 includes the much longer CO2 cycle where Land CO2 becomes Fossil Fuels. Human CO2 emissions complete this CO2 cycle by returning Fossil Fuel CO2 to the Atmosphere.

A small river, with a flow of 4, also flows into the lake. This small river represents the Human CO2 flow into our Atmosphere. This small river adds only 4 percent to the Land and Ocean flow of 100 into the lake. This small river raises the total flow into the lake to 104. This will raise the lake level until the outflow equals 104.

The contribution of Human CO2 to the new lake level (Atmosphere CO2) is only 4 percent of the lake level above the dam, or only 4 percent of the total flow into and out of the lake. Ninety-six percent of the CO2 flow into and out of our Atmosphere is due to nature.

Fig. 1 shows a scenario where the total inflow into the Atmosphere equals the total outflow, and where the Human CO2 contribution goes to Land to support vegetation growth. Because inflow equals outflow, Atmosphere CO2 will remain constant whether Atmosphere CO2 is 400 or 300 or any other value.

Salby (2016) comes to the same conclusion. Salby (2012) authored the comprehensive textbook, “The Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate.”

Our Atmosphere does not treat Human CO2 any differently than CO2 from Land and Ocean. Human CO2 is simply another input to Atmosphere CO2 that will increase the outflow of Atmosphere CO2 to Land or Ocean by the same amount as the Human CO2 flow into the Atmosphere.

Temperature controls Atmosphere CO2.

Salby (2015) shows, directly from data and with no hypotheses, that Temperature sets the rate at which Atmosphere CO2 increases or decreases. This means temperature sets the equilibrium value of Atmosphere CO2. Fig. 1 indicates the Temperature effect by the symbol for the Sun.

If the Sun, cloud cover, or ocean currents change to increase temperature, the increased temperature will cause more Land and Ocean CO2 to flow into Atmosphere CO2. This will increase Atmosphere CO2 until outflow balances inflow.

Temperature is like the accelerator in your car. Atmosphere CO2 is like the speed of your car. Atmosphere CO2 follows Temperature like the speed of your car follows your accelerator. Press down, your car speeds up. Let up, your car slows down.

Contrary to what Al Gore told you, CO2 does not control temperature. Temperature controls CO2.

Climate alarmists present their case.

Climate alarmists claim our CO2 emissions cause 100 percent of the observed rise in Atmosphere CO2. We will show why their claim is unphysical and invalid.

Here is the alarmists’ four step argument they claim proves their case:

1. From 1750 to 2010, humans added 171 units of CO2 to our Atmosphere and Atmosphere CO2 increased by 113 units. This leaves 58 units.
2. Land and Oceans absorbed the 58 units of Atmosphere CO2.
3. Therefore, Land and Oceans are net absorbers of CO2.
4. Therefore, Human CO2 caused 100 percent of the increase in Atmosphere CO2 since 1750 and 1960.

Here is my rebuttal to the Alarmists case:

During the same period that Human CO2 emissions added 171 units of CO2 to our Atmosphere, the Land and Ocean CO2 emissions added 26,000 units to our Atmosphere. Land and Ocean also absorbed about 26,000 units of CO2 from our Atmosphere, including the 171 units from Human CO2. There were no 58 units left over.

Fig. 2 illustrates how Land & Ocean CO2 emissions compare to Human CO2 emissions during this period. The ratio is 152 to 1.

Fig. 2. Land and Ocean CO2 emissions are 152 times greater than Human CO2 emissions during the period from 1750 to 2010.

The alarmists case fails because it omits Land and Ocean CO2 emissions. Their omission leaves Human CO2 emissions as 100 percent and makes their claim that Human CO2 caused ALL the Atmosphere CO2 increase artificial.
During the 260-year period, Human CO2 caused “at most” 0.7 of the 113 rise in Atmosphere CO2.

“At most” is because Salby (2015) showed that Temperature controls the rate of change of Atmosphere CO2, and the equilibrium value of Atmosphere CO2. Under that scenario, Land and Ocean emissions and absorptions will adjust to neutralize the effect of Human CO2 emissions, and the effect of Human CO2 on Atmosphere CO2 will be ZERO!

The Atmosphere does not know whether its CO2 came from Land, Ocean, or Human CO2 emissions. No matter what the source, the greater the total Atmosphere CO2, the greater the flow of Atmosphere CO2 to Land and Ocean CO2. Therefore, Atmosphere CO2 will seek the same balance level with or without Human CO2 emissions.

Land can absorb CO2 from the Atmosphere while Ocean provides CO2 to the Atmosphere. Fig. 1 shows this scenario where Land absorbs ALL Human CO2 emissions while Atmosphere CO2 remains constant.

In 2015, Human CO2 emissions were 4 percent of Land and Ocean CO2 emissions. Therefore, Human CO2 emissions caused “at most” only 4 percent of the rise in Atmosphere CO2.

A small river with a inflow of 4 cannot cause an outflow of 104. Yet this is what climate alarmists claim happens. The following tale illustrates the absurdity of the alarmist case:

An elephant crosses a bridge. A mouse, riding on the elephant’s back, says to the elephant, “We sure made that bridge shake, didn’t we?”

The alarmists’ case is a shell game. They would flunk physics.

Three more reasons Human CO2 emissions do not control Atmosphere CO2.

Fig. 3 shows Atmosphere CO2 scaled to fit Human CO2 emissions and the annual change in Atmosphere CO2 (NOAA, 2016; CDIAC, 2016; IPCC, 2007b).

Salby (2016) makes the following three arguments using Fig. 3.

1. Human CO2 emissions increased significantly after 2002 due to China (Oliver, 2015). Yet Atmosphere CO2 continued its same steady rise.
2. Annual changes in Atmosphere CO2 (jagged line) do not follow the smooth increase in Human CO2 emissions. (Also, Courtney, 2008.)
3. In some years, particularly the period from 1988 to 1993, Atmosphere CO2 falls while Human CO2 emissions continue to rise.

Therefore, Human CO2 emissions do not control Atmosphere CO2.

Fig. 3. Human CO2 emissions, annual change in Atmosphere CO2, and Atmosphere CO2 scaled (by subtracting 266 and dividing by 50).

Conclusions

Climate alarmists claim Human CO2 causes ALL the increase in Atmosphere CO2. Their argument fails because they omit Land and Ocean CO2 emissions that are many times greater than Human CO2 emissions.

Climate alarmists also omit how Land and Ocean CO2 emissions and absorptions balance Atmosphere CO2 with or without the presence of Human CO2. Temperature sets the equilibrium Atmosphere CO2 independent of Human CO2 emission.

Here are three more reasons Human CO2 does not cause ALL the rise in Atmosphere CO2:

1. Human CO2 emissions increased significantly after 2002, yet Atmosphere CO2 continued its same steady rise.
2. Annual changes in Atmosphere CO2 do not follow the smooth increase in Human CO2 emissions.
3. In some years, particularly the period from 1988 to 1993,
Atmosphere CO2 falls while Human CO2 emissions continue to rise.

Therefore, Human CO2 emissions do not increase Atmosphere CO2.

Most public climate alarmist arguments use this invalid logic:

If human CO2 causes climate change, then bad stuff will happen.
Bad stuff happens. Therefore, human CO2 causes climate change.

Such arguments are invalid because they do not prove Human CO2 caused the change.

If we stopped all Human CO2 emissions today, it would not change future Atmosphere CO2. For part two click below.

© 2016 Edwin X Berry, Ph.D – All Rights Reserved

Politics is like the sport of sailing. In a world-class competition, you may have 30 to 50 competitors, all very experienced, smart sailors. You all have identical boats. You have a level playing field. You have no control over the wind, the waves, the current, or your competition. You control only where your boat goes.

Competitive sailing is like a three-dimensional chess game where you must make a new decision every second. The race lasts about two hours. The wind may be 5 to 25 knots. At the end of the race, you will have made about 7200 decisions. You are physically and mentally exhausted, but not so much that you can’t attend the evening parties.

You have one race per day for several days. At the end of the series, the team that made the fewest mistakes wins.

In the last race, you may have to forego first place to assure that you beat your closest competitors in the series … like I did in a world competition when I won first place in the series by purposely getting third place in the last race.

In politics, we call this the art of compromise. We never get 100 percent of our desires in politics but by compromise, we can get much of what we want. If we refuse to compromise, or vote third party, we will get little of what we want. Compromise is part of the Art of the Deal and smart politics.

Presidential election

Donald Trump won the nomination because he made fewer mistakes than his Republican competitors. He won the presidency because he made fewer mistakes than Hillary Clinton. His detractors criticized his every action that they thought was a mistake. But Trump is smarter than his detractors. That’s why he won and they lost.

Similarly, now that Trump has won, we should let him do his job. We should not try to micromanage him. We should not criticize his decisions. Trump is smart and his data sources far exceed ours. What may seem like a bad decision to us, is very likely the best decision in the big picture.

Opinions about why Trump won are as many as there are pundits but here are the facts. Trump won because he had the best game plan, “Make America Great Again,” and he did not make very many mistakes.

Trump appealed to the disenfranchised working class, many of them lifelong Democrats. He appealed to the nationalists and populists. He appealed to conservative Evangelicals He gathered the support of all four faces of the Republican Party. No other Republican candidate had such wide support.

Donald Trump won because his candidacy became a people’s revolution. This song from Les Miserables describes the candidacy of Donald Trump. Understand this song to understand politics:

Do you hear the people sing?
Singing the songs of angry men?
It is the music of the people
Who will not be slaves again!

When the beating of your heart
Echoes the beating of the drums
There is a life about to start
When tomorrow comes!

Shocked at their loss, Democrats want to eliminate the Electoral College and choose presidents by popular vote. They don’t understand that America is a Republic. America is modeled after the Iroquois Federation of Hiawatha. Each state votes independently. The Electoral College gives each state one vote for each Senator plus one vote for each Representative. That was part of the deal when each state joined the United States. Democrats want to change the deal.

Rather than eliminate the Electoral College, how about we simply count the states? Trump won 30 states. Clinton won 20 plus Washington, DC. The states choose Donald Trump for president. That is why the Democrats will never get two-thirds of the states to approve the elimination of the Electoral College.

Clinton won Washington, DC, with 92.8 percent of the vote. That shows how strongly the Democrats control America. They dominate the bureaucrats. Washington, DC, has 3 electoral votes, the same number as Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Alaska.

Montana’s elections

The fewest mistakes also determined the election results in the political microcosm of Montana. The Montana GOP did a good job. They properly took credit for GOP wins in Montana. But they were lucky and they could have done better.

The Montana GOP was lucky because Donald Trump’s popularity pulled all the Republican candidates ahead. The Montana GOP made a mistake in not realizing Trump would win by so much. Many tea party players who dominate the Montana GOP did not support Trump.

Here are the results of Montana’s key statewide votes.

Montana’s vote for AG Tim Fox not only reelected him as Attorney General but also assured his election as Montana’s next Governor in 2020.

Montana’s second most popular candidate is Congressman Ryan Zinke. His reelection was a significant win over his opponent Juneau. Democrats tried to defeat Zinke by advertising Zinke’s support of Trump. They failed to recognize Trump’s popularity among Montana voters. Their advertising helped Zinke win.

The only Republican to lose a Montana statewide race was governor candidate Greg Gianforte. Gianforte’s opponent was incumbent Democrat Governor Bullock, certainly a worthy opponent.

Montana GOP’s and Gianforte’s mistake was to not connect Gianforte with Trump. I advised Gianforte personally to connect himself with the Trump campaign and to adopt Trump’s positions on the issues.

Gianaforte did not attend Donald Trump’s widely-viewed primary rally in Montana. Zinke did. Bullock beat Gianforte by 52 to 48 percent. Trump beat Clinton 61 to 39 percent. Had Gianforte associated his campaign with Trump’s, he would have gained at least 5 percentage points and won the governor’s race.

A former Montana Congressman, who advised Gianforte and the Montana GOP, continued to claim on Twitter and Facebook that Trump could not win. He was very anti Donald Trump. I argued that his logic was wrong and that Trump was going to win, and win strongly in Montana. His response was to call me “stupid” and block me on Twitter and Facebook. His political mistakes helped Bullock beat Gianforte.

Republicans Stapleton, Rosendale, and Arntzen also won their statewide races. Rosendale and Arntzen won by small margins and were helped more by Donald Trump than by the Montana GOP.

Democrats would have won more legislative races of they had simply connected their Republican opponents with their votes against the critical 2015 legislative bill, SB 262, Montana’s Last Indian Water Compact.

This bill was a clear example where the voters supported the Compact and the tea party Republicans opposed the Compact without good reason. AG Tim Fox and Governor Bullock supported the Compact and they won reelection.

Governor Bullock could have used the Compact against Gianforte because Gianforte contributed to many Republicans who voted against the Compact. Had Bullock done this, he would have raised voter awareness of the Water Compact vote, and helped Democrats win their legislative races. Lacking this attention to the Compact, unaware voters reelected many Republican legislators who voted against the Compact.

In conclusion, the team that makes fewest mistakes wins.

© 2016 Edwin X Berry, PhD – All Rights Reserved

Pastor Chuck Baldwin’s article today did a magnificent job of blasting Hillary Clinton. He made it very clear that Hillary Clinton would be a disaster if she became president.

I agree with everything the good Pastor said about Hillary, but when I got to the end of his article, something was missing. Something very critical was missing. In marketing, we call the missing part the “Call to Action.”

As I read his article, I anticipated this would be the first time, to my knowledge, that Pastor Baldwin would advise his followers to vote for the Republican candidate. But that was not to be. He just left his readers hanging.

Do they vote a third-party candidate? Do they not vote at all? Or do they buy Baldwin’s book on gun rights, clean their AR-15s, and bunker down for a shootout with the US government?

Pastor Baldwin is not clear.

Donald Trump has two groups of enemies

Trump’s first group of enemies are the hard-core Hillary Democrats.

Trump’s second group of “enemies” are the Myth Keepers. They are the undecided, tea party Evangelicals who follow the Negative Voting Myth.

Myth Keepers dominate the 5 to 10 percent of voters who will determine who be the president of the United States. So, this is a very, very serious subject.

Do we tell them to NOT vote for Hillary? Or do we tell them to vote FOR Donald Trump?

The difference is whether we see the world as negative or positive.

They believe the Negative Voting Myth

Myth Keepers do a good job of criticizing Hillary. But they won’t admit to themselves that they must vote for Donald Trump to help stop Hillary from becoming our next president.

They are mixed up because they follow the Negative Voting Myth:

A vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil.

They admit Hillary is the “greater evil,” but they consider Trump the “lesser evil” because he is not “perfect” enough for them. So, they use their Negative Voting Myth as their excuse to not vote for Donald Trump.

Their Negative Voting Myth is irrational, unethical, and immoral.

History of the Negative Voting Myth

In 1968, Jane Fonda and Tom Hayden led the progressives protest of the Vietnam War. Their protests involved supporting third-party candidates.
They promoted the Negative Voting Myth to get their third-party votes.

They did not realize the Negative Voting Myth does not win elections. It pulls votes from the “lesser evil” and helps elect the “greater evil.”

In 1980, progressives abandoned Jimmy Carter because he “was not good enough for them.” So, they helped Ronald Reagan beat Carter.

In 2000, progressives decided Al Gore was their “lesser of two evils.” So, they gave 3 million votes, or 2.7% of total votes, to Ralph Nader, United States Green Party “progressive” candidate. They unwittingly helped elect their worst enemy, George W. Bush, as President.

They thought their votes would help elect Ralph Nader even though it was obvious Nader had no chance to win. But like today’s Myth Keepers, the progressives rejected data that contradicted their preconceived beliefs.

Like today’s Myth Keepers, progressives voted their “principles” and their “conscience.” But their Negative Voting Myth caused them to elect the very opposite of their desired goals.

Unless they wake up, these Myth Keepers may to the same thing the progressives did to Al Gore. If they refuse to vote for Donald Trump, they may be responsible for electing Hillary Clinton.

Aristotle’s Positive Voting Principle

Aristotle was a Republican. He denounced the idea that the poor, by force of numbers, had a right to take property from the rich. He opposed the forced redistribution of wealth. Aristotle is the father of the scientific method.

Aristotle proposed the Positive Voting Principle to replace the Negative Voting Myth. Yes, the Negative Voting Myth existed in the days of Aristotle.
Aristotle (320 BC) wrote (as translated by Roger Crisp):

In the case of evil, the reverse is the case, since the lesser evil is counted as a good in comparison with the greater evil; the lesser evil is more worthy of choice than the greater, what is worthy of choice is a good, and what is more worthy of choice is a greater good.

In modern terms, Aristotle’s Positive Voting Principle is:

Our moral duty is to vote to achieve the most possible good, which eliminates voting for candidates who cannot win, and eliminates mandatory conditions.

Stated simply, the Positive Voting Principle is:

Always vote and act to achieve the greatest possible good.

The Positive Voting Principle does not tell you how to vote. It tells you how to decide how to vote. It tells you about logic and lets you decide your politics.

The Positive Voting Principle works for all political parties and religions. It lets you decide which candidate you think is the greater good. It requires you to not consider third-party candidates who cannot win. It requires you to compare the candidates who can win, and choose the candidate whom you believe will produce the greater good.

Thomas Jefferson wrote “Aristotle, Cicero, Sidney, and Locke” were inspirations for our Constitution.

America’s Founding Fathers used the Positive Voting Principle. They voted for the greater good. If each Founding Father rejected what he thought was imperfect, they would not have approved our Constitution.

All major Christian Religions support the Positive Voting Principle

Historically, all moral philosophers and all major Christian religions support the Positive Voting Principle. They all follow the wisdom of Aristotle.

Thomas Aquinas (1260) in his Summa Theologica told us to focus on achieving the possible good rather than upon preventing a lesser evil.

Aquinas wrote our moral duty is to achieve as much good as possible from every situation, including our vote. He says we cannot achieve good by acting on something that is impossible, like voting for a third-party candidate.
Philosopher Pope John Paul II said we should vote for the “lesser of two evils” if we can help prevent worse evils from occurring.

Church Summary on Positive Voting Principle

• The Catholic Church gives very clear directions that Catholics must vote to achieve the most possible good even if that means voting for the “lesser of two evils”.
• A Baptist minister advises voting for the “lesser of two evils” candidate if this is necessary to achieve the greater good.
• A Methodist minister quoted Apostle Paul wrote, “Don’t be defeated by evil, but defeat evil with good.”
• The Lutheran Church says to vote for the person who will do the better job caring for our earthly needs, even if this person is the “lesser of two evils”.
• The Presbyterian Church says to vote for the candidate who will most consistently meet our personal agenda for the nation, even if this candidate is the “lesser of two evils”.
• An Evangelical minister says to vote for the “lesser of two evils” because a vote for a third-party candidate jeopardizes this nation.
• Calvinist representatives argue we must vote for the lesser of two evils if it is necessary to achieve the greater good.
• The Mormon LDS Church does NOT support the Positive Voting Principle.
• Many far-right Evangelicals and Baptists do NOT support the Positive Voting Principle.

All major Christian churches tell us to vote and to use the Positive Voting Principle:

Our moral duty is to vote to achieve the most possible good, which eliminates voting for candidates who cannot win, and eliminates mandatory conditions.

Only some far-right Evangelicals and Mormons support the Negative Voting Myth.

The Positive Voting Principle forbids Mandatory Conditions.
Mandatory conditions are immoral because they can eliminate from consideration the candidate who may be the greater good
Some pastors proudly tell their flock a candidate must meet certain “mandatory” conditions to get their vote. Their mandatory conditions reveal they do not understand morality, logic, or the teachings of all major Christian religions and philosophers.

Don’t be a Myth Keeper

Let’s explain the Negative Voting Myth this way:

Suppose you get to vote for Candidate A, whose abortion policies will kill 10 million babies, or Candidate B, whose policies will kill 1 million babies. Who will you vote for?

All normal Christians will vote for Candidate B so they can save 9 million babies.

Myth Keepers won’t vote for either candidate because they don’t care about saving 9 million babies. They care about their “conscience” and “principles.”
Oath Keepers leaders Stewart Rhodes and Pastor Chuck Baldwin, the John Birch Society, tea party Evangelicals, and many tea party groups are Myth Keepers. They promote the Negative Voting Myth. Their myth would kill 9 million babies.

Reject the Negative Voting Myth and reject all groups that promote it.

How to vote right

Before we can make a good decision, we must define the key question.
The Key Question of the 2016 presidential election is:

Will Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton better serve America as President?

A subset of the Key Question is:

Will Donald Trump’s 3 to 5 Supreme Court justices better serve America than Hillary Clinton’s choice of Supreme Court justices?

The Key Question is NOT:

• Is Donald Trump perfect enough for me?
• Will I violate my principles if I vote for Donald Trump?
• Do I like Donald Trump?

When we choose a President, we should not be concerned about “likes.” We should be concerned only about who will do the best job for America.

Conclusion

First, define and answer the key question:

Will Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton better serve America as President?

Second, follow the Positive Voting Principle:

Our moral duty is to vote to achieve the most possible good, which eliminates voting for candidates who cannot win, and eliminates mandatory conditions.

If you agree that Donald Trump will serve America better than Hillary Clinton would, then get out and vote for Donald Trump.

(That’s my call to action.)

For a more complete discussion of this subject, please read my NEW book “Choose America.”

© 2016 Edwin X Berry, PhD – All Rights Reserved

Some people spend their whole lives seeking positive reinforcement of their beliefs. They reject information that contradicts their beliefs. They will never learn if their beliefs are wrong.

Democrats, in general, believe our carbon dioxide emissions cause dangerous global warming. Only about 0.001 percent of these believers can claim any expertise in climate. They believe because it is part of their political religion.

If they are atheists, it makes no difference. Their religion is global warming. They believe it without question.

They become cocksure they are correct because they reject information that contradicts their belief and accept information that reinforces their belief.

That’s how we end up with people who are totally cocksure they are right when they are on opposite sides.

Rogers & Hammerstein illustrated this confusion in “The King and I: A Puzzlement”

There are times I almost think Nobody sure of what he absolutely know. Everybody find confusion in conclusion he concluded long ago. And it puzzle me to learn that tho’ a man may be in doubt of what he know. Very quickly he will fight… He’ll fight to prove that what he does not know is so!

The philosophy of science teaches us we can never prove our belief is true.

We can only prove our theory or belief is false.

Einstein said (to paraphrase), “Many experiments may show my theory is correct but it takes only one experiment to prove my theory is wrong.” Einstein was a master of the philosophy of science.

Our only path to truth is to reject false beliefs or theories. Our schools should teach all students this part of the philosophy of science but they do not.

All true scientists try to prove their theory or belief is false. Those who do not are not real scientists.

If there were no arguments to show a theory is false, then we may begin to accept that the theory may be true.

In the case of global warming, the theory is “our carbon dioxide emissions cause dangerous climate change.”

There are hundreds of overwhelming arguments that prove the global warming theory is false. Therefore, it is irrational for anyone to claim the global warming theory is true. And even worse to claim “the science is settled.”

Yet the delusional promoters are out there. They do everything they can to shut down America’s production of abundant cheap energy. And they have no idea their belief is completely wrong.

But because 99.999 percent of global warming believers do not understand climate science, they never got the memo that their belief is wrong. They should apply for jobs as Energizer bunnies.

The proper mode of thinking, to reject a belief that is wrong, threatens many people. They don’t want to learn the truth.

Recently, in comments on edberry.com, Democrat climate alarmist, David Appell, was unable to assimilate simple plots of temperature and model predictions that proved him wrong.

Moving to politics, some people who claim to be conservatives cannot back Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton for president. In politics, you don’t need to love the person you vote for.

It’s really quite simple: You only need to vote for the person who you believe will do a better job than the other candidates.

One person bet me $100 that Marco Rubio would win the Republican nomination, while I bet that Donald Trump would win. Now that I won the bet, this person unsubscribed from my email list and has not offered to pay me my $100.

But my point is this person would send me article after article that bashed Trump. This person would read only what gave him positive reinforcement. That’s why he was wrong.

You can find hundreds of articles and media news that bash Trump. If you get all your political information from positive reinforcements, you will never get smart.

Politics comes down to these questions:

Do you think for yourself? Or do you rely on what other people say?

If you can’t think for yourself, you will read or listen to what other people say Trump said rather than read or listen to what Trump really said for yourself.
If you think for yourself, you will watch or read Donald Trump’s speeches and decide for yourself whether you want Trump or Hillary.

So my message for today is to suggest you actually watch or read Donald Trump’s speeches.

If you think for yourself, you will acknowledge your only viable choices are Trump or Hillary. You will not waste time with third-parties. You will not promote irrelevant, pseudo-intellectual thinking that attempts to dissect Trump’s behavior. You will focus on the question at hand.

Some people can’t figure out their political orientation.

It’s now 67 days before the election. If you can’t tell people they should vote for Donald Trump to save America, then you should quit pretending to be a conservative. Really. Admit you are a Democrat.

Intelligent people don’t make things complicated. They make things simple (but not stupidly simple like Al Gore did).

Any moron can find fault with another person. So what? Negative thinking doesn’t solve a problem. It takes intelligence to decide how one candidate is better than another candidate for President and CEO of the United States.

Anyone can list his “worst” presidents of America. So what? Negative thinking doesn’t solve a problem. It takes intelligence to decide and tell people that Donald Trump will make a better president than Hillary Clinton.

I notice Romney supports Marco but won’t support Trump. Not intelligent.

If you want a liberal Supreme Court that will misinterpret our Constitution, then by all means criticize Trump and don’t tell people to vote for Trump. It’s that simple.

The Rasmussen poll for September 1 shows Trump 40%, Clinton 39%, Johnson 7%, and Stein 3%. That leaves 11% undecided. The race will hinge on that 11%.

My forecast: The Never-Trumps will lose and Trump will win.

• Click here to go to edberry.com. Then…
• Watch Donald Trump’s speech on immigration or read the text of his speech.
• Check out the Trump Train song by Angel Leydig.
• Watch the movie, Hillary Clinton, Please stop killing people.
• Watch the movie, Donald Trump’s Long Road to the White House.
• Watch how a true athlete respects other people, Usain Bolt stops his interview during the US Anthem.

© 2016 Edwin X Berry, PhD – All Rights Reserved

We all know Democrats and Republicans differ on partisan politics. But there are bipartisan issues where everyone should agree. We should all agree on what facts and science tell us.

Democrats, in general, claim scientists like me “deny climate change.” The truth is these Democrats deny science.

Anyone who has an open mind to scientific truth will understand there is no evidence that our carbon dioxide emissions cause dangerous climate change.

Facts prove our carbon dioxide emissions are not dangerous. If anything, facts show we should try to increase the carbon dioxide in our atmosphere.

In Montana, Democrats promote their candidate for Superintendent of Schools. But Democrats have promoted their false climate religion in our schools and universities. Democrats have dumbed down our whole society.

The strongest argument for electing a Republican to Superintendent of Schools is to stop the destructive promotion of the false climate religion.

Science denial cuts both ways in our governor’s contest. Our Republican candidate believes our earth and universe are 6000 years old. Our Democrat candidate believes our carbon dioxide emissions cause dangerous climate change.

Which is worse for a Montana governor? Believing the earth is 6000 years old or believing our carbon dioxide emissions cause dangerous climate change?

The answer is obvious. The false climate religion causes far more damage to our economy than the belief our earth is 6000 years old. The false climate religion destroys our abundant cheap energy, the foundation of our economy.

At the presidential level, the choice is even more clear. Hillary will work to shut down America’s best sources of abundant cheap energy. Donald Trump will work to build up America’s best sources of abundant cheap energy.

About 5 to 10 percent of voters say they support Libertarian Gary Johnson. Johnson believes the false climate religion. Johnson can’t win but his supporters will help Hillary win.

Only Hillary or Trump can win. Fence sitters and third-party voters who claim to be conservatives are not conservatives. They are Democrats.

Some politically-active, Bible-thumping pastors will not support Trump. They are false prophets who lead their people astray.

True Americans support Donald Trump, not because he is perfect. No one is perfect. But because Donald Trump will be far better for America than liar criminal Hillary.

I correctly predicted Trump would win the Republican nomination. Now I predict he will win the presidency.

Vox Day explained why he supports Donald Trump:

I am often asked why I, a Christian libertarian and intellectual, would publicly support Donald Trump, a man of no fixed ideology, no apparent religious beliefs, multiple marriages, visible ties to the Clintons, and whose taste and sophistication tends to resemble that of a nouveau riche rhinoceros. It is a reasonable question. After all, how can anyone support a candidate whose public statements are, to put it mildly, inconsistent—when they are not completely self-contradictory.

The answer is as simple as it is conclusive and convincing. Donald Trump is the only candidate in either major party whose personal interests are aligned with those of the American public rather than with the interests of the anti-nationalist elite who see America as nothing more than lines on a map and Americans as nothing more than 300 million economic units in the global economy.

Ask yourself this: why did Donald Trump run for president in the first place? I believe the real reason is that he, like you, is deeply concerned about the current state of the United States of America, and he, like you, fears for its future.

I support Donald Trump because he loves the America that once was, and he is willing to put both his body and his reputation on the line in order to restore America to that unique state that was the envy of the entire world. That is what he means by Make America Great Again.

Donald Trump not only wants to make America great again, he wants America to be American. That is what distinguishes him from Ted Cruz, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. And that is why I support him.

In the past month, I posted several new articles on climate change.

My July 5 article, Why Eric Grimsrud is wrong about climate, has 126 comments. My article on Soon’s, Sun not CO2 causes climate change, has 92 comments.

Some Democrat scientists have attempted to show these articles are wrong. They have failed to do so. Read the comments and judge for yourself.

Democrat David Appell added a comment wherein he denied the facts shown in a chart before him. His comment led me to post two more articles:

Data contradict government Climate Claims is John Christy’s full Testimony to U.S. House Committee on Science, Space & Technology on February 2, 2016. Christy shows why the Democrat climate change agenda is a religion rather than science.

Global Warming for Dummies and Activists is Roy Spencer’s talk at the International Conference on Climate Change in Las Vegas in 2014. Spencer presents a “sixth-grade” level of climate change that is very easy to understand.

© 2016 Edwin X Berry, PhD – All Rights Reserved

On April 5, one of my subscribers sent me the following email:

Dr Ed, I’m very sad that Donald Trump lost tonight in Wisconsin. Is this the end to him winning? Can my family still have hope and support him? We just feel very sad and feel like no one is treating him right! How can this be allowed?

Actually, my family stopped watching anything on the news channels…just depressing and mean how they treat Donald Trump!! We hope things still end up with him winning and becoming our next PRESIDENT!!

Do we still have hope? Or is this going to be controlled by the GOP!! We feel very distraught and need you to give us some hope!!!

Thank you,

Dear Subscriber,

We are in a “Star Wars” battle. Trump’s supporters are faithful to Trump and Trump will defeat the Darth Vader GOP Establishment.

Let’s look at the new delegates. Here’s where the race for the nomination stands today:

The blue shows the delegates won. The orange shows the delegates needed to get 1237.

We use RealClearPolitics data as of April 12. Trump needs 482 more delegates or 58% of the remaining delegates. Cruz needs 692 more delegates or 83% of the remaining delegates.

Let’s estimate the delegate count after New York, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island vote. We use the projected delegate wins estimated by Nelson Hultberg.

Of course, no projection can be exact. Voter fraud happens. Polls error by a few percent.

But poll data indicates the delegate chart will look like this after April 26:

Trump will have about 929 delegates. He will need only 308 more or 55% of the remaining delegates to get 1237.

Cruz will have about 638 delegates. He will need 599 delegates to get 1237 or 106% of the remaining delegates. Therefore, Cruz will be out of the race for 1237. But he will remain in the race to help the GOP establishment try to stop Trump from getting 1237 delegates.

Let’s look at the full list of the states yet to vote. We showed the data in this list through April in the above chart. Here is the rest of the projected data using Hultberg’s estimated delegates. We assume Cruz gets the delegates that Trump does not win. Maybe Kasich will get some of the votes we have assigned to Cruz.

In this scenario, Trump ends up with 1226 total delegates, only 11 shy of 1237.

Presently, Trump polls 60 percent in New York. If Trump wins over 50 percent in New York then his total will go up by 40 to 1266. Then, even if Trump loses Montana, he will still have 1239 delegates.

After April 26, Cruz lovers who passed high school math may realize Cruz can’t get 106 percent of the remaining votes. Then they may find their next best choice is Trump. That may help Trump get more delegates.

It Trump wins he will control the GOP. We sure need to replace those who have fought Trump all the way, and who would like to replace Trump with a candidate like Paul Ryan. Ryan would lose about half of the Republican voters and lose to Hillary or Bernie.

More good news is businessman Paul Nehlen is running against Paul Ryan in Wisconsin. What an upset it would be for Nehlen to remove the Speaker of the House when Trump becomes president.

Does Trump have a Plan B?

Yes. If Trump falls short of delegates he will make a deal with either Kasich or Rubio. He will choose one of them as his VP in return for their delegates to nominate him.

If both Kasich and Rubio accept similar offers, I think Trump will choose Kasich. Kasich has more executive experience, more name recognition, less in bed with GOP’s elite, and he can assure Trump would win Ohio. Kasich can at least help Trump. Trump would have to babysit Rubio.

I think the reason Kasich has remained in the race is he is running for VP. If Trump needs Plan B, I predict a Trump-Kasich ticket.

Meanwhile, let’s do our best to help Trump so he does not need Plan B.

Will Trump pull the eligibility card on Cruz?

Probably not, at least not until after the June 7 elections and only then if necessary. Doing so might set a negative tone to his campaign.

Meanwhile, there are eligibility lawsuits filed against Cruz in some states. Victor Williams for President has filed an eligibility lawsuit against Cruz. It includes the Amicus Curiae by Professor Elhauge.

The lawsuits that have the best chance to be heard and win are the ones where Harvard Law Professor Einer Elhauge has filed his Amicus Curiae.

Elhauge’s Statement of Interest of Amicus reads in part:

The amicus is a Harvard Law professor who has researched and written on the natural born citizen clause and other issues of constitutional and statutory interpretation. Because of his research and expertise, he can help identify law or arguments that may not be presented by the parties or that might otherwise escape the Court’s consideration, and he can otherwise assist the Court with an objective assessment of the legal issues.

Elhauge’s Conclusion is:

For the reasons set forth herein, the issue of whether Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen is justiciable and should be resolved in the negative.

Elhauge shows how Cruz’s legal arguments fail. Elhauge discusses many legal documents. His review of Wong Kim Ark is conclusive:

The fourteenth amendment of the constitution, in the declaration that ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside,’ contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only,—birth and naturalization.

Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.

A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.

Voter Fraud in Wisconsin

Wisconsin Trump voter Jeremy Rogers said,

“It was the strangest thing. The machine literally would not let me vote for Trump. I have heard the same from several others coming out of the voting booth.”

If you don’t think the GOP can and does rig voting machines to get the result they want, then you must watch this 121-minute documentary video:

The documentary video shows how good people who wanted fair elections worked to reveal the truth about voting machines. The video shows how easy it is for the manufacturer to remotely reset voting totals, and to even set local voting machines to change votes.

Expert programmers were able to find backdoors where manufacturers can set their machines to produce desired results. They demonstrate how they can edit the database and how they can change the memory cards.

After a software expert demonstrated how to easily change voting results, a state voting official stated:

“If I had not known what was behind this I would have certified this election as a true count of a vote.

The video shows a check from a GOP establishment to the machine manufacturer. Why would the GOP send a check to the manufacturer? To request the manufacturer to set the results of an election. The manufacturer can remotely program the machines to produce the desired result.

The Darth Vader GOP Establishment not only fixed the Wisconsin election but threatens to do the same in New York. DJ Lewis reported on Twitter,

“I was 5 feet from Priebus when he said ‘Use the Diebold program in New York to keep Trump under 50 percent.'”

Wisconsin is littered with voting machines, most of them Diabold. Wisconsin voters reported voting machine problems in 2014.

Here is a map of Wisconsin counties that Trump and Cruz won.

Here is a list of the voting machines in Wisconsin. You can match the counties with no or few voting machines with the counties Trump and Cruz won. Trump won every county that did not use voting machines.

What is other evidence of vote fraud?

Compare the final results with the good polls. Ignore the bad polls like WSJ because they are purposely biased because Murdoch hates Trump.

The final vote results should not be more than ten percent different from the good polls. In the states that Cruz won, his votes were up to four times his poll data. The probability of this happening is about the same as winning a lottery. This happened in Wisconsin.

Why do states buy voting machines with hidden software?

Here is a rule: Never buy a voting machine with hidden software. Only buy source software. Every state has universities, colleges, and private industry with expert software people. The state should hire these people to review, test, and approve the software in every voting machine.

Even better, let your experts design the software. Keep it open source so experts in all states can benefit from each other.

The video shows the voting machine software was written in Microsoft Visual Basic with an Access database. I am an expert in Microsoft Visual Basic and Access. One year I won Microsoft’s “People’s Choice Award” at Microsoft’s Windows World Open and Computerworld’s Custom Application Contest.

So you can believe me when I tell you, you don’t need a voting machine. Voting machines are a scam! Having said that, it’s time to move away from Visual Basic and Access.

The best way would be to write voting software to run in Google’s Chrome browser. Then people can vote with a touch-screen PC, Apple, or smart phone.

Compare the browser-based, very secure software used for stock trading. By comparison, counting votes is very simple.

Properly done, it is possible to let people vote from their own computer or smart phone. That is the future. Imagine, our military personnel would be able to vote from anywhere. States to have a way for the few who can’t use a computer to still vote.

© 2016 Edwin X Berry, PhD – All Rights Reserved

On March 15, Donald Trump won 5 states. Cruz won zip. Here are the delegates to date:

After losing his home state of Florida, Marco Rubio dropped out.

Kasich barely won his home state of Ohio only because Rubio and Cruz told their supporters to vote for Kasich. Kasich should drop out.

Here’s the summary.

For Kasich to get 1237 delegates, he needs to win 106 percent of the remaining delegates. That can’t happen.

For Cruz to get 1237 delegates, he needs to win 79 percent of the remaining delegates. That won’t happen.

For Trump to get 1237 delegates, he needs to win 53 percent of the remaining delegates. That will happen.

Here’s why Trump will get over 1237 delegates.

The March 13 YouGov.com poll shows Trump’s national popularity rose from 40% a month ago to 53% today.

Trump gained popularity while the GOP elite tried to take him down. Trump gained support while the media blamed the Soros-funded Democratic riots, in Chicago, Dayton, and Kansas City, on Trump.

Trump will win the “winner take all” states of Arizona, Wisconsin, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Nebraska, California, Montana, New Jersey, and South Dakota. And he will dominate the “proportional” delegate states of New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Oregon, Washington, and New Mexico.

That’s enough to give Trump over 1400 delegates.

How the GOP wastes money.

The GOP’s attack on Donald Trump has nothing to do with his platform. It has everything to do with who controls Washington DC. The elite are scared Donald Trump will end their power over America.

They are right. Trump will return the power back to the American people where it belongs. As more Americans catch on to this fact, they will support Donald Trump.

The GOP elite, led by Mitt Romney, spent more money trying to stop Donald Trump than they did to try to stop Obama from winning in 2012. Makes you wonder whose side they are on.

Romney cost Trump Idaho. The Mormons in southeast Idaho who previously supported Trump voted for Cruz. Utah will likely vote for Cruz even though their values differ from Cruz’s values. Mormons seem to follow their leaders more than Catholics follow their Pope.

The GOP elite wasted $35 million on attack ads against Trump in Florida and Illinois. Trump spent no money to counter the GOP attack. Trump won Florida and Illinois significantly.

This is why we need Trump. The GOP elite don’t know how to manage money. Trump does.

Why a brokered convention will fail.

Some anti-Trump folks want a brokered convention to choose Romney, Ryan, Rubio, or Bush. They think these losers can beat Hillary. They think wrong.

The latest RCP poll shows Obama has a 51 percent approval rating. Obama has had a 49 to 51 percent approval rating for the past year.

Some anti-Trump folks claim face-off polls show another candidate would do better than Trump. They do not understand data. Face-off polls mean nothing. The general public can barely keep up with the present election, much less forecast an election that has not even begun.

The only way a Republican candidate can win the presidency is to pull votes from Democrats, Independents, and voters who have never voted before.

Donald Trump is the only candidate who has brought in new voters. Trump brings Democrats, Independents, and Republicans who had given up on the Republican Party.

Donald Trump has doubled and even tripled the number of Republican primary voters that Romney pulled in 2012. Trump’s new voters are there for only one reason: to vote for Donald Trump. They are the voters the GOP establishment screwed and long ago forgot.

If the GOP feeds them any candidate but Trump, these Trump voters will not vote GOP. Any candidate but Trump will lose to Hillary by a greater margin than Romney lost to Obama in 2012.

Many GOP elites have announced publicly they prefer Hillary over Donald Trump. They don’t belong in the GOP. They are Democrats.

There are only four kinds of voters. Which are you?

1. American: You want Donald Trump to be our next president.
2. Irrational Democrat: You want a brokered convention.
3. Delusional Democrat: You want Ted Cruz to be our next president.
4. Real Democrat: You want Hillary Clinton to be our next president.

It does not matter who you claim you are. We judge you by the results of your actions. If your actions help elect Hillary, you are a Democrat.

Irrational Democrats and Delusional Democrats are Democrats. If you are undecided, you are a Democrat.

There are only two sides.

Let’s be clear. There are only two sides in America right now. You are either for Trump or you are against Trump.

Dr. Ben Carson supports Donald Trump. Ben Carson is an American.

Ben Carson explained, according to Michele Hickford in allenbwest.com:

“The key thing for me was recognizing that the political establishment was pulling out all the stops to try to stop Trump. It seems to me that’s thwarting the will of the people. The people are the ones who are supposed to make the decision.”

Why a vote for Ted Cruz is Irrational.

The national YouGov poll has Cruz in second place with 22%, less than half of Trump’s support.

Cruz’s support comes from two sources: Very Conservative Evangelicals “Tea Party” (VCEs) voters who are Delusional Democrats and anti-Trump voters who are Irrational Democrats.

Don’t confuse “Very Conservative Evangelicals” with “Moderate Evangelicals.” Moderate Evangelicals support Trump.

Ted Cruz does not represent Tea Party values. Tea Party leader Debbie Dooley wrote in Breitbart:

I was disheartened to learn that you [Ted Cruz] recently joined progressives and Republican establishment elitists by attacking millions of activists like me that support Donald Trump by calling us low information voters.

I would encourage you to climb down out of your Ivy League tower and find out just who we are and why we decided to support Donald Trump.

You would find among Trump supporters people that cherish the U.S. Constitution and The Bill of Rights. We have watched as candidates pledge to uphold the Constitution on the campaign trail and once elected they forget about their pledge in order to institute policy supported by their donors. We know until the corrupt D.C. system is upended, the Constitution will continue to be ignored.

Cruz is a Dominionist

Cruz is not your normal Evangelical. Cruz is an extreme rightwing evangelical Dominionist. He wants to replace our Constitution with his version of God’s laws. He believes God called him and anointed him to be president so his church can control America.

Cruz does not do tithing. His tax records show he made over $1 million per year from 2006 to 2010 and he gave ZIP to his church.

Cruz is a serial liar.

In the past month Cruz has told more lies about Donald Trump than we can count. Cruz believes the end justifies the means. Smart Evangelicals will drop Cruz and vote for Trump.

Cruz supports a pastor who tells you to kill gays.

MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow reviewed the anti-gay diatribe by wacko Pastor Kevin Swanson at a National Religious Liberties Conference. Swanson held up his Bible as he shouted that God commands we kill all homosexuals.

Then, right after his sermon, Swanson introduced presidential candidate Ted Cruz who walked on stage and shook Swanson’s hand.

Cruz is a Globalist.

Cruz, like Obama, is a globalist. He supports NAFTA. He was a policy advisor for Bush/Cheney. Canada Cruz wants open borders, amnesty, and no wall.

Cruz’s wife Heidi is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and an executive in Goldman Sachs. Goldman Sachs wants a North American Union. Cruz wants to be the first president of the North American Union, which would join Canada, USA, and Mexico into one union.

Cruz can’t negotiate.

In two debates, Donald Trump said he would try to negotiate a peace agreement between Israel and its neighbors. Cruz called such a negotiation a compromise of “principles.” Cruz said he would never compromise his “principles” for the sake of a negotiation.

Twice in the debates, Cruz called negotiation “moral relativism.” Cruz believes in “moral absolutism,” which means, “It’s my way or the highway.” Cruz cannot negotiate.

Cruz is an economic moron.

Donald Trump said he would improve America’s economy by using tariffs where necessary. Cruz claimed tariffs would raise prices and harm the economy.

Cruz does not understand feedback. Cruz sees only the immediate price effect of tariffs. Cruz does not realize that Trump’s tariffs would protect America’s manufacturing jobs and even bring manufacturing jobs back to America.

To have a good economy, America must manufacture its own goods where it makes sense. Manufacturing jobs pay higher wages. These higher wages more than make up for tariffs on imports.

Cruz choose the wrong side in the Chicago riot.

George Soros funded the riot in Chicago. Rioters included Sanders’ supporters, known members of ISIS, and Bill Ayers. Police reports show the riot was much worse than most media told you.

Riots are illegal at events protected by the US Secret Service.

Breitbart reported:

The most stunning part of this whole storyline is perhaps not that liberals got violent trying to stop him: It’s that Trump’s GOP primary opponents, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Ohio Gov. John Kasich, blamed him and not the violent liberals for the chaos.

Infowars.com reported:

Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and John Kasich sided with Bill Ayers, Black Lives Matter, Communists and violent far left protesters.

Ted Cruz lost support of prominent conservatives.

Cruz is not fit to be president.

Cruz is ineligible.

Cruz’s VCEs claim they are “constitutionalists.” Yet they support Cruz who is not a “natural born citizen.”

Lawrence Tribe, Cruz’s Harvard law professor, says Cruz is ineligible to be president. When Cruz was born in Canada in 1970, the Canadian government did not allow dual citizenship. It required Cruz’s parents to choose between USA and Canada for Ted Cruz’s citizenship. They choose Canadian.

Ted Cruz was still a Canadian citizen when Texas elected him to the US Senate. He illegally served in the US Senate because was not a US citizen. Cruz is dishonest and unethical. See video below.

In 2014, Cruz became a “naturalized” citizen. This is further proof he is not a “natural born citizen.” Cruz knows he is not eligible to be president. So he lies about it.

Don’t expect the 5 or so eligibility lawsuits filed by non-candidates to stop Cruz. Only Donald Trump can prevail in an eligibility lawsuit against Canada Cruz. Trump’s lawyers are ready to prove Cruz is not eligible. The problem is politics.

If Trump files the lawsuit, he may lose votes because the general public does not respond well to negative actions. So Trump must decide if and when he will drop his “trump” card on Cruz. Meanwhile, the best way to beat Cruz is with more votes.

To resolve the “natural born citizen” issue, elect Donald Trump. He will ask Congress to define “natural born citizen.”

Conclusions

Americans will vote for Donald Trump.

Donald Trump is the only Republican candidate who can and will win the presidency.

He is the only candidate with the necessary and proven CEO experience to run American and to save our economy.

Trump will win the final election against Hillary by a landslide.

He will choose the best people for his cabinet and advisers. He already has Ben Carson, Chris Christie, Carl Icahn, Rudy Giuliani, and other superstars on his team.

Trump will choose the best Generals and Admirals. Trump will not micromanage how they do their job.

Trump will choose the best science adviser. I hope Trump contacts Princeton Professor of Physics Will Happer.

Trump will not take orders from the CFR. Trump will audit the Fed. Trump will build America’s economy. We need a strong economy to make America great again.

I stand with those who want to build up America. I am an American.

© 2016 Edwin X Berry, PhD – All Rights Reserved

Those who claim our CO2 causes significant climate change are delusional. They do not use the scientific method. They refuse to acknowledge data that proves their climate theory is wrong. They think they defeat a message when they attack the messenger.

They are more than half of our American population. They never learned to think because their schools never taught them how to think. Worse, their schools forced them to accept dogma rather than to always question dogma. It’s not in our DNA to think logically. We must learn it.

The inability to think is not restricted to the left wing liberals. Many right wing conservatives have the same problem.

I found in my climate lectures that many right wing conservatives rejected the climate scam but only because this belief was part of their political religion. They never understood the logical reasons I presented to show why our CO2 does not cause significant climate change.

Below, I show you replies I made to two opinion letters in my local newspaper. Both letters attacked me personally which means the authors were morons. The authors, a PhD in ecology, a PhD in molecular biology, and an MD, thought their backgrounds made them better atmospheric physicists than me.

My replies show you that a PhD behind one’s name does not make you smart. In fact, if a PhD has not learned how to use the scientific method, that PhD is not a real scientist. Unfortunately, too many universities grant PhD degrees without demanding the recipient understands the scientific method.

Before I present my two rebuttals, let’s observe some important related politics. As we have seen from Obama, the president has significant influence on how America views climate change.

Marita Noon reviewed the views of presidential candidates on climate change in Breitbart:

Donald Trump is the biggest opponent of climate change, having called the man-made crisis view a “hoax” and tweeting that the Chinese started the global warming ruse “in order to make US manufacturing non-competitive.”

In his book, Crippled America, Trump opens his chapter on energy with a tirade on climate change in which, talking about historic “violent climate changes” and “ice ages,” he acknowledges that the climate does change, but concludes: “I just don’t happen to believe they are man-made.”

Therefore, the outcome of the current presidential election will have far more influence on how America views climate change than 1000s of letters like mine.

Nevertheless, you should be able to learn something important about how to think by reading my two letters to the editor below.

The first opinion author is a moron who believes attacks on the messenger proves the message is wrong. So I had to defend myself as well as my message.

Click Daily Inter Lake to see my rebuttal in print on the right side of page 24. Notice the article to the left titled, “Montana fishing industry gutted by climate change.” The authors are morons who claim Montana must “address climate change” to save its fish.

Face it. The average logic-impaired homo sapiens is not too logical. They “addressed” village problems by burning innocent ladies at the stake. They “addressed” lack of rain by cutting out beating hearts and rolling decapitated heads down temple stairs.

Today, they “address” climate change by raising our taxes, erecting uneconomical wind farms, and shutting down our abundant cheap energy. They can’t tell the difference between facts and their political religion.

First Rebuttal: Matthews Bradley promotes Climate Lysenkoism

Matthews Bradley, a PhD in molecular biology, (Daily Inter Lake Feb 7) admits he is “not an expert in climate science.” Yet, he makes irrational claims about climate science.

In the 1930s, Soviet biologist Lysenko made irrational claims. Lysenkoism set back Russian biology some 30 years until 1964.

Bradley promotes “Climate Lysenkoism.”

He avoids logic and the scientific method. Like Lysenko, he thinks ad hominem attacks make a scientific argument.

Here are Bradley’s unfounded claims followed by facts.

Bradley: Berry denies fundamental principles and facts in climate science. Berry never studied statistics. Berry’s climate denials aren’t credible. Berry claims to be a physicist. Berry doesn’t understand that all quantitative scientific models and results are considered correct within a certain probability.

Facts: My physics mentors were the best in the world. My theoretical PhD thesis received instant worldwide attention because it solved a key problem in climate physics. It combines probability, statistics, numerical mathematics, and the scientific method. The Director of Nevada’s Desert Research Institute credited my 1965 thesis with putting the institute on the map. Today, 50 years later, after most PhD theses are long forgotten, scientists still cite my thesis every month. Science textbooks discuss my thesis. Geologists, cosmologists, and engineers use my thesis to make calculations.

Bradley: Berry is an anomaly and huge outlier among the vast majority of scientists and particularly atmospheric physicists and climate scientists.

Facts: Only 64 of 11,944 peer-reviewed papers agree with Bradley. On my side are more than 1000 climate scientists, a huge number in this field. We are the majority. My side includes Dr. Ivar Giaever, a Democrat who won the 1973 Nobel Prize in Physics. Giaever concludes Bradley’s climate claims are a religion because its believers reject data that show their belief is wrong.

Bradley: The earth would be an ice-covered planet without CO2.

Fact: The water phase diagram, an elementary concept in climate physics, shows ice sublimation would add enough water vapor to produce today’s greenhouse effect, with or without CO2.

Bradley: The basic science is not very complicated: CO2 traps heat. CO2 has risen dramatically. Those basic facts will convince anyone that human fossil fuel burning causes the earth to warm.

Facts: Only fools believe a complex problem is so simple. The scientific method proves Bradley’s simplistic cause and effect claim is invalid. Dr. Willie Soon’s 2015 peer-reviewed paper shows CO2 does not even correlate with temperature, but solar radiation does.

Bradley: No credible scientist denies that CO2 is one of the most important greenhouse gases.

Facts: Bradley is not a credible scientist. Water vapor is more important than CO2. Data show water vapor and clouds keep the Earth’s average greenhouse effect constant when CO2 changes.

Bradley: Each climate model prediction has a certain high probability of being correct (typically 95 percent or better).

Facts: We have had 37 years to test climate models. The 102 climate model average over-predicts temperature by a factor of 2.5. That is far outside Bradley’s claim of 95 percent accurate, which would be acceptable. If your prediction is wrong, your theory is wrong.

Bradley: Oceans are warming, sea levels are rising, glaciers are shrinking. We have a serious problem. Ignoring it is disingenuous, irresponsible, and perhaps worse. Doing nothing is not an option. Deniers are either ideologues with rigid minds or on a paid agenda.

Facts: Rate of warming since 1950 is lower than in previous centuries before human CO2. Dr. Murry Salby’s textbook “Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate” shows temperature, not human emissions, causes atmospheric CO2 to rise. Follow Salby’s lectures here.

Nature, not our CO2 causes climate change.

Matthews Bradley is an ideologue with a rigid mind.

Second Rebuttal: Elwood and Thiessen promote Cargo Cult Science

Elwood, and ecologist, and Thiessen, and MD, (Daily Inter Lake Feb 14) try to prove true the popular illusion that our CO2 emissions cause dangerous climate change. They fail. Let’s call this failed illusion “AGW.”

Before we proceed, let’s park our partisanship and focus on truth. Climate change is a nonpartisan issue. We must decide nonpartisan issues on truth, not partisan votes.

The only way we can find truth about AGW is to use the scientific method.

Unfortunately, few people ever learn it and Elwood and Thiessen flunk it.

The method says we must use our theory to make a prediction. Then we test our prediction against new data. If our prediction disagrees with new data, our theory is wrong.

Richard Feynman explained: “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”

We can never prove a theory true.

Yet Elwood and Thiessen claim to prove AGW true. We can only prove a theory false. We approach truth when we discard fiction.

Climate models use AGW to predict future climate. Today, 37 years later, climate models way over-predict future temperature, by 2.5 times on average. Therefore, AGW is wrong. AGW makes many more wrong predictions outside the scope of this letter.

Elwood and Thiessen use what Feynman in 1974 called “cargo cult science.”

Cargo cult science seems to be scientific, but it does not follow the scientific method.

Elwood and Thiessen’s statements, “multiple, independent lines of evidence show conclusively,” “vanishingly small,” “thoroughly examined and tested” are cargo cult science.

Their statement, “the projected rate of global warming … is greater than … past 65 million years,” is cargo cult science. “Projections” are meaningless when your theory is wrong.

Their list of organizations that agree with them is cargo cult science. Their ad hominem attack on me is cargo cult science. Their letter contains NO science.

Before playing climate physicists, ecologist Elwood and medical doctor Thiessen should at minimum study Murry Salby’s textbook, “Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate.” Otherwise stick to something they know.

Using data, not theory, Salby proves surface temperature, not human CO2 emissions, causes atmospheric CO2 to change. Follow Salby’s lectures here.

Dr. Willie Soon’s 2015 peer-reviewed paper shows CO2 does not even correlate with temperature, but solar irradiance does. No correlation means no cause-effect. CO2 does not drive climate.

Elwood and Thiessen deny science that proves their theory is wrong.

They promote cargo cult science. They promote extremely costly illusions.

If Elwood and Thiessen were Aztecs they would claim cutting out beating hearts causes rain.

© 2016 Edwin X Berry, PhD – All Rights Reserved

Republicans and Democrats will always have different opinions on partisan issues. We get that. We can live with that.

Jim Webb, 2016 Democratic presidential candidate correctly said,

The other party is not the enemy. They are the opposition. In our democracy we are lucky to have an opposition, to have honest debate.

Both sides must come together and decide nonpartisan issues on the basis of truth.

Today, I come down on Democrats. First, to show I am fair and balanced, note I have written extensively in support of the nonpartisan CSKT Water Compact. I found Montana was much better served with the Compact than without the Compact, and Republicans who voted against the Compact were intellectually dishonest.

Now that I have made 80 percent of the Republicans in Montana’s 2015 House my opponents, but hopefully not my enemies, I will make opponents of most Democrats.

Today, the Missoulian published an article that reeks of Democratic dishonesty:

“UM professor who shared Nobel for climate work believes UM Foundation should divest its investments in fossil fuels, starting with coal.”

I begin my reply to this dishonest Missoulian article with my “Columbo” moment:

So let me get this straight. UM professor Steve Running, who is a forest ecologist, who has no physics degree but masquerades as an atmospheric physicist, who lies that he shares Al Gore’s Nobel Peace Prize, who lies that a Peace Prize indicates expertise in science, who lies that our CO2 causes dangerous climate change, who does not use the scientific method, and who has no freakin’ idea of how the atmosphere works, now suggests the UM Foundation pull its money from fossil-fuel energy investments because he lies that doing so will help save the planet.

Have I made my point?

Professor Steve Running lies about having a Nobel Prize. The UM promotes his lie. The Missoulian, that should employ credible journalists, promotes his lie. Where do the lies stop?

Elected Democrats have claimed, in my presence, we have a global warming problem because Running said so and Running has a Nobel Prize so his statement means more than schmucks like me who say Running is wrong.

The Democrat’s evangelical promotion of their failed pseudo scientific climate theory is the worst intellectual failure of the Democratic Party. They have made their false belief a premise of their political religion. To them, it is a sin to question it.

These Democrats are as dumb as the kooks who believe our Earth and universe are 6000 years old.

If they were Aztecs they would assure you that cutting out beating hearts and rolling decapitated heads down temple stairs causes rain.

They are so evangelical about their belief in Al Gore’s pathetic version of climate physics that they cannot even have a rational discussion with real climate scientists.

Are Democrats so intellectually deprived that they cannot understand the difference between Steve Running, a Democrat who lies about having a Nobel Prize, and Ivar Giaever, a Democrat who has a real Nobel Prize in Physics, who tells you Running’s idea about climate is pseudoscience and a cult religion because its believers reject data that proves their climate belief is wrong?

No, they are not. But as a group, Democrats won’t acknowledge that climate is a nonpartisan issue, and we cannot determine scientific truth by voting on it.

The Democrats’ false belief of climate is like Lysenko’s false view of biology. Russia used Lysenko’s intellectual dishonesty to support Russia’s political agenda.

Today, Democrats use their false belief of climate to promote their political agenda.

Lysenkoism set back Russia’s biological research for 30 years until Russia stopped it in 1964. The Democrat “Climate Lysenkoism,” if not stopped, can set back America’s climate physics 30 years.

The Scientific Method 101

For those who need a crash course in the scientific method, here it is. This should be taught in all high schools.

We get an idea or theory. To test our theory, we use our theory to make a prediction. Then we compare our prediction to new data. If our prediction disagrees with new data, our theory is wrong.

Richard Feynman explained the key to the scientific method:

“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”

A fundamental principle is we can never prove a theory true. Yet Democrat climate addicts claim they have proved our CO2 causes dangerous global warming. Nonsense.

We can only prove a theory is false. When we prove our ideas are false, we discard fiction. When we discard fiction, we approach truth. But we can never know if we have found the truth.

Therefore, real scientists must try to prove their ideas are false. Those who promote their idea as true and try to make it part of a political agenda are pseudo scientists.

Einstein famously said,

“Many experiments may show me right but it takes only ONE experiment to prove me wrong.”

Many experiments have proved the Democrat’s “Climate Lysenkoism” is false but they ignore such proof. Like Energizer Bunnies, they beat their drums to drown out truth. Their political agenda is more important to them than truth.

Here are two examples that prove the Democrats’ version of climate change is false. Climate models use the Democrat’s climate theory to predict future climate.

Today, 37 years after their predictions, we find climate models way over-predict future temperature. They are over by 2.5 times on average. This is unacceptable in physics. Therefore, following Feynman, the Democrat’s version of climate science is wrong.

A 2015 peer-reviewed scientific paper shows CO2 is not even correlated with global temperature. Where there is no correlation, there is no cause-effect. The paper shows the sun, not CO2, drives global temperature. If you still think otherwise, get over it. Welcome to the real world of climate physics.

The real “deniers” are those who refuse to follow the scientific method.

The Democrats and Steve Running do not follow the scientific method. If they did, they would conclude their climate theory is wrong. Then we could save America and Montana a lot of money. We could put people back to work producing abundant cheap energy from fossil fuels. We could improve our economy, our educational system, and our political decisions.

Democrats use what Feynman in 1974 called “cargo cult science.” Cargo cult science seems to be scientific, but it does not follow the scientific method.

Their claims that “multiple, independent lines of evidence show conclusively” that their belief is true, is cargo cult science.

Their claim that a list of organizations that agree with them proves their climate theory is true, is cargo cult science. Their belief that their ad hominem attack on those who show their theory is wrong proves their theory is true, is cargo cult science.

Their claims that “the projected rate of global warming is greater now than any time in the past 65 million years” proves their theory is true, is cargo cult science. Since climate models are wrong, their projections are wrong. Their claimed data are wrong.

Even IF today’s global temperature were greater than past global temperatures, this is meaningless. That’s because such data says nothing about the cause of global temperature change. The whole public distraction over temperature change, glacier change, species change, etc., is irrelevant to the key question of what causes the change.

Here’s a big problem the Democrats have caused

The UM has “educated” a generation of Montanans to believe cargo cult climate science. These students don’t know the difference between cargo cult science and real science.

The biggest omission in Montana’s education system is our schools do not teach the scientific method. This omission causes irrational thinking. We can’t trust the Democrats to solve this problem because the scientific method opposes their political agenda.

Therefore, Montana voters have only one rational choice if they wish to improve Montana’s schools: elect Republican Elsie Arntzen for Superintendent of Schools.

Montana climate politics

Montana Governor Steve Bullock (D) declared after the Supreme Court’s ruling on Obama’s Clean Power Plan:

“I have been clear that I think these rules were unfair to Montana. Given the court’s ruling today, I am putting the work of the Clean Power Plan Council on hold. What we cannot put on hold, however, is the need to address climate change and embrace Montana’s energy future, and I am committed to ensuring we do so on our own terms.”

Montana Attorney General Tim Fox (R) supported the court’s decision:

“The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to halt implementation of the EPA’s carbon regulations is a clear victory for Montana and the 27 other states that are challenging those regulations in court. Today’s ruling will prevent Montana families, energy workers, businesses, and public agencies from bearing the burden of regulations that we believe will be overturned ultimately.”

Montana U.S. Senator Steve Daines (R) also supported the court’s decision:

“The Supreme Court decision to issue a nationwide stay on the Obama administration’s misguided, job-killing rule is great news for Montana. The so-called Clean Power Plan will kill Montana jobs and leads our country in the wrong direction — away from being an energy leader.”

Although climate is a nonpartisan issue, Democrats refuse to treat climate as a nonpartisan issue. Governor Bullock still wants to “address” climate change.

Montana Governor Race

Greg Gianforte (R) now challenges Governor Steve Bullock (D) for governor. Gianforte’s skeleton in his closet is his belief our Earth and universe are 6000 years old. So how can Gianforte hope to win?

The only way Gianforte can beat Bullock for governor is to prove to the voters that Bullock’s belief in “climate change” is more kooky and more economically destructive than Gianforte’s belief that our Earth and universe are 6000 years old.

If Gianforte has the smarts, balls, and public persuasion, he can turn the political battle for governor into the issue of who has the most kooky and destructive belief.

If Gianforte can make Montanan’s understand our CO2 is not dangerous, then he will have improved intellectual honesty, and he may just beat Bullock for governor.

He will need to bone up on the scientific method and real climate science to pull it off. The way I see it, this is Gianforte’s only chance to win.

© 2016 Edwin X Berry, PhD – All Rights Reserved

It won’t be easy but here’s why it will happen.

Life is a war between good and evil. The hero risks his life to make good prevail over evil. Joseph Campbell wrote about this in his “The power of Myth.”

Campbell said our popular myths derive from the meaningful stories of old. They survived hundreds of generations.

Campbell’s “Power of Myth” became the foundation of George Lucas’s Star Wars movies. That’s why we like Star Wars movies. Our hero, Luke Skywalker, led the war against the forces of evil.

Donald Trump is in a war for the presidency. Coincidently, Trump’s war occurs during the new Star Wars movie. Trump is the hero who leads America’s war against the dark forces of evil.

He will win some battles. He will lose some battles. In the end, like Luke Skywalker, Donald Trump will prevail. This end of the story is written in our genes and our culture.

Campbell wrote,

“The adventure matches the readiness of the hero. Follow your bliss and doors will open for you where they would open for no one else.”

The anti-Trump forces are split between Cruz and Rubio. The two-forked dark plan is to use Cruz to steal votes of the unwary from Trump while Rubio leads the forces of evil.

Behind the curtain of evil are the sinister men who control Cruz and Rubio and even Hillary. If their puppet wins, they will control America.

We already know two truths. Cruz cannot beat Rubio. Rubio can’t beat Hillary or Bernie. Therefore, Donald Trump is the only Republican candidate who can win the presidency.

Some will deny these truths because they support another candidate. Yet, the data clearly show these truths will prevail.

The Climate Scam

The puppeteers behind both Cruz and Rubio benefit from the climate scam. Therefore, no matter how strong Cruz may seem against the climate scam, he will not be able to stop the detrimental effects of the climate scam on America. Nor can Rubio.

Donald Trump is the only candidate we can trust to stop the climate scam, the EPA, and all the economic damages the climate scam does to our economy.

What happened in Iowa?

Des Moines Register/Bloomberg poll right before the caucus scored Trump 28, Cruz 23, Rubio 15, and Carson 10. The caucus produced the following differences from the polls:

• Trump went from 28 to 24.
• Cruz went from 23 to 28.
• Rubio went from 15 to 23.
• Carson went from 10 to 9.

These changes, especially the rise of Rubio from 15 to 23, are statistically out of range. Today’s polls typically have an error range of about plus or minus 3 percent. They are very good because today’s pollsters use good ground data and good mathematics to make their predictions.

Nate Silver, of FiveThirtyEight, predicted Trump would win Iowa and the next five elections. Nate’s predictions are never wrong unless something happened to mess up the elections.

Well, here are some problems with the Iowa caucus.

A minor point shows a GOP bias. There were a total of 186,874 GOP caucus votes. Cruz got 51,666, Trump 45,427, and Rubio 43,165 votes. Iowa has 27 delegates to distribute. The GOP rules read, “The proportional allocation shall be rounded to the nearest whole delegate.” Delegate means integer.

A simple calculation using the above data shows Cruz scored 7.46, Trump scored 6.56, and Rubio scored 6.24. These numbers round to Cruz 7, Trump 7, and Rubio 6 delegates each. But the GOP gave Cruz 8 delegates.

The truth is Trump tied with Cruz for 7 delegates each. Have you heard this from the news media? Or Rush or Hannity? Or Newsmax? NO. Even the so-called conservative news media tells us lies.

Some 250,000 people stood in line in the snow to attend Trump’s Iowa rallies. Do you really believe only 45,427 Trump supporters attended the caucus?

Rubio’s rise from 15 to 23 percent can’t happen. Iowa has twice the ratio of conservative to moderate voters as the other states. A moderate like Rubio can’t come close to Cruz in Iowa.

Rubio’s Iowa campaign was virtually nonexistent. His events had at most 10% of the attendees of Trump’s events. Do you really believe Rubio scored close to Trump and Cruz?

One caucus observer noticed the reported votes for Cruz maintained exactly 3000 votes ahead of Trump until near the end of the count. Every time Trump got a vote, Cruz got a vote.

An Iowa voter reported the GOP caucus turned away about 100,000 voters because they “ran out of ballots.”

Another Iowa voter reported the GOP caucus was unlike any before. Before, they went into rooms for their candidate. This year, whole crowds of 4000 went to any table they wanted and they could easily vote more than once.

Cruz was the only candidate who was against subsidies to make ethanol from corn. Yet caucus data show Cruz won Kossuth and Sioux counties. These are the first and fourth biggest corn-producing counties in Iowa. Do you really believe Cruz won these counties?

Who counted the votes?

“Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything.” – Joseph Stalin

The GOP contracted with Microsoft to count Iowa votes with new Microsoft software. Microsoft is the second largest direct donor to Rubio.

Rubio is a lead sponsor of a bill called I-Squared, which triples the number of H-1B visas. Big technology firms like Microsoft and Oracle support I-Squared. In 2013, they backed Rubio’s “Gang of 8” immigration bill.

Oracle’s Larry Ellison hosted a fundraiser for Rubio’s campaign. Ellison also gave $3 million to the pro-Rubio super PAC.

Why did the GOP allow Rubio donor Microsoft count the votes?

I am a software professional. One year, I won the “People’s Choice Award” in a Microsoft and Computerworld “Windows World Open Custom Application Contest.”

There are general rules when you implement new software. One rule is to always keep your original method for doing calculations until you can test and certify new software.

Yet, the GOP discarded its old vote-counting methods when it let Microsoft count the votes. It’s a perfect crime. Neither the GOP nor Microsoft has a paper trail to recount votes.

Microsoft even miscalculated the 8 delegates for Cruz when it Cruz really got 7. (Software, by the way, has different methods to round numbers to an integer. Microsoft did not use its own software properly.)

Why Rubio can’t win the presidency

Obama still has a 47 to 50 percent approval rating. That’s the famous “47 percent” Romney referenced in 2012. This means the only way a Republican candidate can win the presidency with today’s voter demographics is to attract Democrat voters.

Rubio’s “manufactured” third place finish in Iowa means he is now the consensus establishment candidate. However, Rubio does not attract Independent and Democrat voters. Rubio would be another Romney.

To further guarantee they win, the Democrats will file eligibility lawsuits against Cruz or Rubio, if the GOP nominates either of them. This political tactic will assure the Democrats win the presidency whether or not the Supreme Court decides later that they are eligible.

Why Cruz can’t win the nomination

Cruz is not the innocent, ethical, conservative evangelical candidate his supporters believe he is. My tweet about Cruz went viral:

“Cruz is worst insider. Owned by CFR. Ineligible. Lies. Cheats. Dominionist. Globalist. No ethics. Big $ Puppet.”

Cruz told thousands of caucus voters that Trump strongly supported ObamaCare.

Cruz mailed a false “Voter Violation” certificate to thousands of voters, a misdemeanor at minimum.

Cruz sent a false announcement that claimed Ben Carson had abandoned the race and told Carson voters to vote for Cruz.

In the debate without Trump, Cruz crashed. Here are some viewer comments on Cruz:

• When Cruz got booed, he said “I might have to leave the stage!” He barely got any laughter. Very awkward.
• Cruz started whining and was called out on his lies and flipflops.
• Cruz got his tail caught in Megyn Kelly’s cage on amnesty.
• Cruz appeared stiff & rehearsed. He was typical “Cruz”. No authenticity.
• Cruz is unlikable. Period. Not funny.
• According to CNN Trump won.
• Shapiro gave Cruz a “C” on the debate and he loves Cruz.

Cruz never “settled” his eligibility question after Trump challenged him. Yet, Iowa voters did not penalize Cruz on his questionable eligibility.

New Hampshire

A recent University of Massachusetts poll for New Hampshire has Trump at 36, Rubio 15, Cruz 14, Bush 8, Kasich 7, Christie 5, Carson 4, Fiorina 4, Undecided 7. We can use these data to draw some conclusions.

After Rubio’s fraudulent rise in Iowa, he will attract the votes for Bush, Kasich, Christie, and Fiorina. Using the New Hampshire data, Rubio would add 24 votes to his present 15 to give him 39 percent.

But Trump has a few cards up his sleeve as well. Carson voters may move to Trump. This would give him 40 percent. It’s going to be close.

About half the Cruz votes will eventually move to Trump. The other half will support Cruz to the end. They are the former Ron Paul supporters who would not support Romney after the nomination.

They booed Trump when he mentioned Cruz might not be eligible. They think they are pristine constitutionalists but they ignore the Constitution when it conflicts with their desires. Those who stick with Cruz really support Hillary or Bernie.

Trump

Trump is the only Republican candidate who can beat Hillary or Bernie because only Trump draws votes from Independents and Democrats.

Here are some comments by callers to C-Span after its showing of Trump’s fund raiser:

• I’m a Democrat and I am voting for Donald Trump. I have many Democrat friends who will also vote for Trump.
• Trump is authentic. He is not political. He does not have to do this. He is doing this for America.
• I’m a Democrat. I have never voted before but I am changing parties so I can vote for Donald Trump.
• This is the first time I have been excited about an election. I am voting for Donald Trump.
• I’m a Democrat. I voted for Obama and I now realize that was a big mistake. I am voting for Donald Trump.
• Every American must get out and vote for Donald Trump. Only Trump will make America great again.
• I have never voted before but I will vote for Trump.
• Trump is the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for America. We will never have a chance like this again.

Some people criticize Trump for not spending more money at his campaign. He spent about one-tenth what Cruz spent in Iowa. That’s the kind of president we want. Trump knows how to get the most bang for the buck.

Some people criticize Trump because he used Chapter 11 for 4 of his over 500 companies. The other candidates have not started one company. Candidates with no real business experience should not be put in control of America.

I don’t trust a man who has never failed. We learn our best lessons from our failures.

Would you hire a pilot with 100 hours or with 20,000 hours? Unless you have a death wish you will choose the pilot with 20,000 hours.

Cruz and Rubio are like pilots with 100 hours. Trump is like a pilot with 20,000 hours. Trump can make America great again. Cruz or Rubio or Hillary or Bernie cannot.

Joseph Campbell has words of advice for Donald Trump and all those who wish to win life’s battles:

• Follow your bliss. The real end is the journey.
• We are all agents in the structuring of other peoples’ lives.
• Eternity is now. Time is our experience.
• “Use the force, Luke!”
• Later, we will ask: “Who composed this plot?”

© 2016 Edwin X Berry, PhD – All Rights Reserved

Here we are on January 26, 2016. Do you feel the heat? Do you see the clouds are gone and the sky is glowing red?

Ten years ago, on January 25, 2006, Al Gore stood before his Sundance audience at the screening of his “An Inconvenient Truth.”

Al Gore waved his quivering finger in the air and told his audience that unless the world takes drastic measures to reduce greenhouse gases within the next 10 years, we will reach a point of no return.

Gore said our CO2 emissions would cause Earth to go into a runaway heat death.

The Washington Post reported Al Gore “believes humans may have only 10 years left to save the planet from turning into a total frying pan.”

CBS News wrote Gore predicted the earth would be in “a true planetary emergency” within the next ten years unless drastic action is taken to reduce greenhouse gases.

Al Gore’s people have been singing like the Donkey in Schrek, “I believe, I believe.”

Eco-freak groups have tried in vain to save the planet from our CO2. Don’t they know it’s too late? It’s over? We’re done for?

Nothing they can do now can save Earth. Al Gore said so. They can relax now and enjoy the heat before we all perish.

Could it be that Al Gore is mistaken? That cannot be.

If Al Gore is wrong then he has betrayed millions of global warmers. They have devoted their lives to Al Gore. Their devotion is their religion. Because global warming is their religion they cannot hear, see, or touch any evidence that might prove their religion is wrong.

But. But. But.

Unless there are no more clouds in the sky and no more snow on the ground, then Al Gore is wrong. You know what Richard Feynman said about the scientific method:

If your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong.

And if you reject the scientific method then you reject true science. Unless you reject your hypothesis that our CO2 causes global warming (or climate change) then your belief is a religion, not science.

You see, Al Gore believed the climate models. But climate models are not reality. Models are but an attempt to simulate reality. We must test models against reality. If the models’ predictions are wrong then the climate models are wrong.

Look at the red line in the chart. That is the average climate model prediction. According to the average of climate model prediction, Earth’s global temperature has risen 0.7 C since 1980.

No wonder it’s so hot and there is no snow in Washington, D.C.

But wait. That is a model prediction, right? A model prediction is not reality, right?

Have you ever witnessed an incorrect weather prediction? Now you have witnessed an incorrect climate prediction.

The blue circles and green squares show the real data. They show the earth’s global temperature is only 0.2 C higher than in 1980. Al Gore is wrong. The climate models are wrong. The hypothesis that our CO2 causes global warming is wrong. Checkmate.

Isn’t it time the ecofreaks check their climate religion at the door and wake up to reality? If they did, they would save the world a lot of money.

Epilog

Aztecs priests cut out beating hearts, then rolled decapitated heads down the temple stairs to make rain. When rain came, the priests claimed their methods worked. The people believed the priests. So the priests stayed in business.

Today, global warming priests shut down coal-fired electric power plants, tax you to pay for electric cars and wind farms, and sic the EPA on your state to control your businesses and industry.

We think the Aztecs were delusional. But today, as a nation, we are just as delusional as the Aztecs.

Today’s ecofreaks waste time and money trying to “address” climate change when they don’t even understand what causes climate change. Today’s ecofreaks would have supported the Aztec priests in their day.

Today, our schools do not teach students how to think. They don’t teach students how to tell a bad hypothesis from a good hypothesis.

Can you tell me what is wrong with the Aztec hypothesis?

You know the Aztec hypothesis is wrong. But can you tell me the general method you would use to reject the Aztec hypothesis?

If not, then your schools have defrauded you of an education. You are ripe to believe in any wacko idea that comes along.

Just because you agree with me about global warming does not prove you have learned how to think.

Many rightwing folks agree with me about global warming because it is a part of their political “religion.” Well, the ecofreaks believe just the opposite because it’s a part of their religion.

We have many obstacles to overcome in order to learn how to think

We have Pope Francis who preaches the climate cult religion. He should promote good science like Catholic schools taught when I went to high school.

We have a Montana governor who does not know how to appoint qualified people to a climate board. Our Montana climate board has no climate scientist. This is like a medical board with no medical doctor.

Our Montana climate board has medical doctors who “believe” our carbon dioxide emissions cause wildfire smoke. Is “belief” the qualification for a board? The board has no one to suggest the doctors have not properly diagnosed the cause-effect relationships of our atmosphere.

I don’t practice medicine but some medical doctors practice atmospheric physics. Does our governor not understand the difference between scientific disciplines?

Is there anything more important in life than to be able to tell the difference between a valid cause-effect relationship and a fraudulent one?

Look at some of the reasons ecofreaks “believe” in global warming. They say polar bears are dying, animals are going extinct, the seas are going acidic, the oceans are rising, and, yes, atmospheric CO2 is rising.

But for CO2, these claimed events are incorrect, but suppose they were correct. Would that prove our carbon dioxide emissions caused the events?

What is the fallacy of this reasoning?

The fallacy is consequences do not prove causation. Just because something happens does not prove what causes it to happen. The only way to determine causation is to use the scientific method.

There are three parts to the global warming hypothesis:

1. Our carbon dioxide emissions cause the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide.
2. Added atmospheric carbon dioxide increases global temperature.
3. Therefore, our carbon dioxide emissions cause dangerous global warming.
As we will show, all three parts are wrong.

Our government has spent some $100 billion on climate models. These climate models were supposed to show the above three part hypothesis is correct.

The problem is the climate models have failed. Climate models failed because they do not include accurate atmospheric science. Today’s climate models are the premier example of garbage in, garbage out.

Our atmosphere and its interactions with our biosphere and oceans are vastly more complicated than Al Gore told you. Our atmosphere is as complicated as the human body. No simplistic hypothesis about how either of them work is acceptable.

If we really want to know what drives climate, we must throw out the Al Gore “science” and look to the real science.

Here are some highlights in the real science

As I have previously outlined, there are major problems with the simplistic view that CO2 acts like a blanket that warms what is under it.

Dr. Murry Salby is the author of the 666-page, 2012 textbook “Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate.” He shows that the first part of global warming hypothesis is wrong. Our carbon dioxide emission do not cause the observed increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Salby uses advanced physics and math to analyze CO2 data. He proves mathematically that surface temperature, not human CO2 emissions, causes the change in atmospheric CO2.

Salby’s conclusion does not depend on theory. It results from proper data analysis and mathematics.

Watch Salby’s two presentations. If you do not follow Salby’s lecture then you do not understand atmospheric science.

Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi shows how part two of Al Gore’s global warming hypothesis is wrong. Added atmospheric carbon dioxide does not increase the greenhouse effect or global temperature.

Miskolczi’s peer-reviewed scientific papers show atmospheric water vapor and clouds adjust to changes in CO2 to keep Earth’s greenhouse effect constant. Miskolczi’s predictions match observations. Changes in atmospheric CO2 do not change the greenhouse effect and do not cause global warming.

Dr. Willie Soon is lead author of a 2015 peer-reviewed paper that shows our sun, not CO2, drives climate. He shows how CO2 and total solar irradiance correlate with temperature from 1880 to 2013.

In the figure, the blue temperature lines in each plot are the same. Only the red line is different.

In the first plot, the red line represents CO2. It shows CO2 is not similar to temperature. Therefore, CO2 does not drive temperature.

In the second plot, the red line represents total solar irradiance. The good match shows total solar irradiance is a major driver of earth’s temperature.

Dr. David Evans is an expert mathematician. He found a serious error in climate models. When Evans corrects for this model error alone, climate model temperature predictions decrease by 80 to 90 percent.

Climate models use the old Arrhenius assumption that Earth responds to CO2 change like it responds to change in solar radiation. The Arrhenius assumption is incorrect. Climate responds much differently to changes in CO2 than it does to changes in solar radiation.

Dr. Ivar Giaever won the 1973 Nobel Prize in Physics. He is a Democrat who puts scientific truth above partisanship. He is not an ecofreak.

Giaever explains why Al Gore’s global warming hypothesis is pseudoscience. He says climate alarmists have made their idea a new religion and therefore can’t question it. He shows many conflicts of the alarmist climate idea with the real world of physics.

Conclusions

The choice is yours. You can either accept true science or reject it. If you reject it, you will live in a world of delusion. You will be like the Aztecs who believed their human sacrifices really caused rain.

Of course, you will not believe in same delusions the Aztecs did. But you will believe in delusions that are just as irrational. You will not know your belief is wrong. If your belief is like a religion, you will refuse to consider evidence your belief is wrong.

So, here’s your homework:

If you had a time machine to transport back to an Aztec community, what argument would you use before an impartial court to show their human sacrifices did not cause the subsequent rain?

© 2016 Edwin X Berry, PhD – All Rights Reserved

Don’t get me wrong. I am a hat-wearing supporter of Donald Trump. Trump is doing great in the polls. As I write this, Trump might win in Iowa.

But here’s the problem. Cruz might win the Republican nomination. Then he will lose to Sanders. And America will be history.

There are anti-Trump votes out there. They are presently split between Rubio, Bush, Kasich, and Christy. These moderate voters are frustrated that none of their four candidates pulls more votes than Cruz. That, of course is because these moderate four are splitting the moderate votes.

Maybe a moderate candidate will break away from the foursome in New Hampshire. If so, then anti-Trump votes will converge on that moderate candidate.

If the anti-Trump votes converge on one moderate candidate, then that candidate would be the anti-Trump candidate of choice. That moderate candidate would easily beat Cruz and remove our concern that Cruz might be our next president.

That would change the present two-way race between Trump versus Cruz, to Trump versus the moderate candidate. This would give Trump a better chance to win.

But what if no moderate candidate dominates in New Hampshire? Then anti-Trump voters will start to see Cruz as the only possible way to defeat Trump.

If all these anti-Trump votes go to Cruz, then Cruz will be our next president. This can happen whether we like it or not, and whether Cruz is ineligible or not.

Yes, Donald Trump is in a fight of his life for all of us who believe in him. He is our best and only hope to save America.

Unfortunately, many far-right conservatives, former Ron Paul supporters who would not vote for Romney, now back Cruz. They are the core problem in this election. They are idealistic about Cruz and could care less if he is ineligible. Very strange for voters who claim to support our constitution but these people are not rational.

They are the ones who booed Trump in the last debate when Trump mentioned that Cruz should get a declaratory judgment to prove his eligibility, or risk taking down the Republican Party.

A strange thing about politics is how a strong pull by the far right can result in the election of a leftwing candidate. The far right tea party did this in Montana in 2012 when they emotionally voted Libertarian because Republican candidates “were not good enough for them.”

Their Libertarian votes elected Democrat Steve Bullock as governor, Jon Tester for US Senator, and many Democrats to statewide offices. All these Democrat wins were by fewer votes than the votes for the Libertarian candidates.

Although many of these tea party voters are evangelical, they do not accept or understand the Biblical advice, “By their works we shall know them.” These Montana tea party voters will not accept that they are responsible for the works of Senator Tester and Obama.

Furthermore, they just don’t care. Today, these tea party folks rally around Ted Cruz and claim Donald Trump does not follow the constitution. They do not even concern themselves that Cruz may be ineligible according to our constitution. If they were smart, they would realize Donald Trump is their only hope to get what they really want for America.

What about the Cruz and Rubio eligibility issue?

If moderates converge on Cruz, the eligibility issue will not matter in the Republican nomination. The Republican establishment will happily nominate Cruz or Rubio and suffer the consequences, rather than to nominate Donald Trump. They will risk losing to Sanders rather than let Donald Trump take over the Republican Party.

Yes, the Democrats will sue if Republicans nominate either Cruz or Rubio. Then Sanders may be our next president. Hillary, as we now know, will likely be in jail. Sanders will be a stronger Democratic, or I should say socialist, candidate than Hillary because he does not have Benghazi hanging over his head.

A few readers of my article “Cruz and Rubio are eligible to be president,” read the tapes in their brains before they read what I wrote. They assumed without evidence that I personally believed they were technically eligible. These readers considered my behavior a mortal sin according to their tea party religion. Some actually chastised me in their emails and comments.

Actually, I did not discuss my personal opinion. I made it clear that, as a physicist, I do not play lawyer. I do not attempt to judge which side might win if the eligibility issue ever receives a proper review in a court of law. Frankly, it’s a waste of my time to play lawyer and judge because my legal opinion is irrelevant to a court of law.

What I wrote was I believe those who argue the eligible side would “prevail” in a court of law.

There is a difference between a prediction and a desire. In 2008, I desired McCain to beat Obama. I voted for McCain. At the same time, I predicted Obama would win.

Similarity, I desire that Cruz and Rubio be proven ineligible but I predict that will not happen.

My main point, as you can see emphasized in the 80 or so comments on my article, is that by law Cruz and Rubio are eligible until proven ineligible in a court of law. Since no one has yet proven them ineligible, they are legally eligible.

I encourage you who make legal arguments that Cruz and Rubio are ineligible, to act rather than talk. Internet debates about law are useless. If you who have good arguments want to be useful, get your arguments into a court of law.

We know some people have done this. Unfortunately, only the Texas lawsuit has made the news. It will take a court longer to make a decision than it will to elect the next president. Once the votes are cast, the nomination will be concluded. We need another strategy.

Donald Trump showed his wisdom in how he handled the eligibility issue with Cruz. Trump did not claim that Cruz is ineligible. That would have started a legal debate that Trump could not win in the court of public opinion. That would have cost him votes.

Trump kept his eye on the goal: votes. Trump realized the court of public opinion is greater than a court of law that could take two years to make a decision.

Trump reversed the burden of proof. The burden of proof in a court of law is upon those who attempt to prove Cruz or Rubio guilty. This burden of proof makes it more difficult to win. Trump told Cruz he should get a declaratory judgment to prove he is eligible. That puts the burden of proof on Cruz.

How did Cruz respond? He laughed it off!

Cruz will not get a declaratory judgment. That is proof in the court of public opinion that he does not care and he is a fraud. He wants to be the first president of the North American Union. He wants to be a puppet for his money providers. He wants to bring dominionism to America.

Cruz laughed it off!

That Cruz laughed off the possibility that he “might be ineligible” is the issue that Trump supporters must push now. Forget trying to resolve the legal technicalities on internet debates.

Elections are in process. Trump is an excellent candidate. He needs our help to overcome the threat by Cruz. The best way to get Cruz on eligibility is to shout loudly that, as a lawyer, Cruz will not accept the fact that the eligibility issue is “unsettled.”

The voting public will care that Cruz’s eligibility is “unsettled.” They will care that Cruz refuses to do anything about it. They will not care about your detailed legal arguments where you attempt to prove Cruz is ineligible.

The public will not understand legal mumbo jumbo. But the public will understand that Cruz “threatens” America when his eligibility is “unsettled.”

As a candidate, Trump can lose by being too negative. He must be positive as much as possible. It’s up to us to do his negative dirty work.

Let’s review what Trump said in the debate:

“The fact is, there is a big overhang. There’s a big question mark on your head. And you can’t do that to the party. You really can’t. You can’t do that to the party. You have to have certainty. Even if it was a one percent chance, and it’s far greater than one percent…. I mean, you have great constitutional lawyers that say you can’t run. If there was a–and you know I’m not bringing a suit. I promise. But the Democrats are going to bring a lawsuit, and you have to have certainty. You can’t have a question. I can agree with you or not, but you can’t have a question over your head.”

Cruz responded:

“Well, listen, I’ve spent my entire life defending the Constitution before the US Supreme Court. And I’ll tell you, I’m not going to be taking legal advice from Donald Trump. The chances of any litigation proceeding and succeeding on this are zero. And Mr. Trump is very focused on Larry Tribe. Let me tell you who Larry Tribe is.”

Cruz evaded the question. Cruz is smart. He knows what he is doing. But his reply avoids the question. Larry Tribe is irrelevant. There are good lawyers on both sides. That makes the issue unsettled. Cruz did not prove the issue is settled. He did not prove his candidacy is not a threat to the Republican Party

We need to turn Cruz’s strength into weakness. Show the public how Cruz is too slick, too practiced, too insincere, and too artificial. He’s a good puppet for his puppet masters. His puppet masters loaned Cruz money and you better bet there are lots of strings attached.

Jerry Falwell, Jr., endorsed Trump. Phyllis Schlafly said “Trump is the last hope for America.” Sarah Palin endorsed Trump and is campaigning for Trump in Iowa. The Iowa governor told Iowans, “Cruz must be defeated.” John Wayne’s daughter endorsed Trump. John Wayne was born in Iowa.

Trump is on a roll. But to defeat the threat of Cruz we must help Trump win Iowa.

Donald Trump has the best tax plan to restore America’s economy. He has the best immigration plan to stop the destruction of America. He has the best defense plan to make America strong. He has the best Second Amendment plan to assure America’s freedom. He has the best veterans plan to assure we properly care for our veterans. He has the best trade plan to bring jobs back to America.

No candidate brings as much potential value to America as Donald Trump. No candidate but Trump brings in new voters. That is why only Trump can beat Sanders.

Perhaps most important, Donald Trump will bring back control of America to the American people. In my opinion, we lost control of America when they shot John Fitzgerald Kennedy. Today, we see how the Washington Republican elite tries to defeat the Republican’s leading candidate. No candidate but Donald Trump has the chance to beat the Republican elite and give America back to our people.

I do not understand how those who claim to be “freedom fighters” or “patriots” do not support Donald Trump.

I do not understand how those who have waited in vain for a “man on a white horse” to save America to not support Donald Trump.

I do not understand how those who correctly praised Dinesh D’Souza’s and Gerald Molen’s “America” do not support Donald Trump. Donald Trump is the only candidate who will truly build up America.

We must begin to build up America again. We must make America great again. We must support Donald Trump for president.

© 2016 Edwin X Berry, PhD – All Rights Reserved

• A Physics View of Climate Change, 12-26-15
• Cruz and Rubio are eligible to be president, 12-17-15
• Pope Francis preaches cult climate religion, 11-30-15
• Why a vote for Carson is a vote for Rubio, 11-21-15
• Assessing Presidential Candidates on Climate Change, 11-3-15
• Chuck Baldwin Wrong About Ryan Zinke, 10-18-14