Montana scientist challenges climate change orthodoxy with new paper

I’m no scientist, but I have a logical mind, which puts me in a good position to at least recognize bad science when I see it.

The theory of anthropogenic (man-caused) global warming is bad science.

But you don’t have to take my word for it. Lots of scientists have poked holes in the “science” of climate change. They just don’t suit the Big Brother Globalist UN agenda, so they are largely ignored if not ridiculed in the lackey left-wing media.


I happen to know one of the scientists who has been laboring to educate the public about the flaws of the science that blames man-made CO2 for global warming or climate change.

Ed Berry, of Bigfork, Montana, has a Ph.D. in theoretical physics with minors in atmospheric physics and math. This month he published a paper in the International Journal of Atmospheric and Ocean Sciences that rejects the “consensus” or “settled science” claims of the UN panel on climate change and asserts that “Human CO2 Emissions Have Little Effect on Atmospheric CO2.”

You can download a copy of Berry’s papers here or read his theory on his own website. Here is the core theory as explained by Berry:


Human CO2 makes an insignificant increase in the natural level of atmospheric CO2 and, therefore, nature, not human CO2, is responsible for changing the climate.

I won’t try to encapsulate Berry’s intriguing theory here, but I will simply quote from the abstract of his paper to give the gist of it:

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) agrees human CO2 is only 5 percent and natural CO2 is 95 percent of the CO2 inflow into the atmosphere. The ratio of human to natural CO2 in the atmosphere must equal the ratio of the inflows. Yet IPCC claims human CO2 has caused all the rise in atmospheric CO2 above 280 ppm, which is now 130 ppm or 32 percent of today’s atmospheric CO2. To cause the human 5 percent to become 32 percent in the atmosphere, the IPCC model treats human and natural CO2 differently, which is impossible because the molecules are identical. IPCC’s Bern model artificially traps human CO2 in the atmosphere while it lets natural CO2 flow freely out of the atmosphere. By contrast, a simple Physics Model treats all CO2 molecules the same, as it should, and shows how CO2 flows through the atmosphere and produces a balance level where outflow equals inflow. Thereafter, if inflow is constant, level remains constant. The Physics Model has only one hypothesis, that outflow is proportional to level.

Berry’s conclusion, like his hypothesis is simple:

Human CO2 is insignificant to the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Increased natural CO2 inflow has increased the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.

For those of us who have looked at the massive amount of natural CO2 released by a variety of causes including forest fires and volcanic eruptions, Berry’s thesis provides a useful complement to observational notes. Essentially he explains that man-caused CO2 under current conditions could not account for the rise in atmospheric CO2 in the modern era. This also confirms what science has long known — that periods of massive warming and cooling swings have existed independent of human activity on many occasions.


Scientists like Ed Berry are largely shut out of the academic discussion, so it is good to see Berry find an outlet for publication of a theory he has worked on for some time.

Visit www.EdBerry.com to reach Dr. Berry.


Frank Miele writes from Kalispell, Montana, at www.HeartlandDiaryUSA.com and is a columnist at Real Clear Politics. To support my work, please consider buying my “Why We Needed Trump” trilogy, which documents the downward spiral of the USA before Trump arrived on the scene. The books are available at Amazon in paperback or Kindle editions. Thanks! Also visit Heartland Diary on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC1FmrOF2TF-njRznqoU4yjA


THIS GRAPHIC by Dr. Edwin X. Berry provides a simple illustration of how his Physics Model accounts for human CO2 in the atmosphere.

One comment on “Montana scientist challenges climate change orthodoxy with new paper

  1. You present as very aware. How can you not know all about #Climate Engineering? On YouTube see Dane Wigington, Jim Lee, Mike Morales, please.

Leave a Reply