One Man Wielded the Most Powerful Weapon Against the World
Climate Miracle is fun, short, easy to read, and proves climate alarmism is science fiction.
One Man Wielded the Most Powerful Weapon Against the World
Critics Call for End to Gates and Rockefeller Food Program in Africa.
The threat of the climate fraud is the Great Reset.
Climate Miracle is fun, short, easy to read, and proves climate alarmism is science fiction.
Politico pushes for WHO power grab! Giving the WHO this power would circumvent your constitutional rights, as if they haven’t tried doing that before, right? Yuval Harrari says “human rights is an invention of our imagination!” and that Free Will will soon be over, just as soon as AI is merged with human in the great Transhumanist wet dream. Rememebr, transgenderism is just a trojan horse to TRANS HUMANISM.
Karine Jean-Pierre: "We have to be prepared for the next generation of vaccines… We have to be prepared for the next potential pandemic.
Brandon Sued
CASE DISMISSED: Victory For Parents And Their Children.
On Bad Writing and Banality and Klaus Schwab.
Divide County High School Football Player Now Recovering After Suffering Cardiac Arrest During Game
Read the latest in the world of Rona Science, from pre-print to peer reviewed. All the SCIENCE that isn’t in the news:
One Man Wielded the Most Powerful Weapon Against the World
Story at-a-glance
America’s focus on biosecurity began in earnest during the second Bush administration. Dick Cheney, as vice president, was responsible for putting all biodefense research under the auspices of Dr. Anthony Fauci and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)
Since 2003, Fauci has been responsible for civilian biodefence research and early development of medical countermeasures against terrorist threats from infectious diseases
There’s no meaningful administrative distinction between biodefence and scientific research in general, and Fauci has been the sole decision maker for all of it, with no oversight
Fauci has followed in Cheney’s footsteps, using the same tactics to deceive the American public into war. Cheney leaked false information to the press, and then used that press coverage to justify the invasion of Iraq. Fauci supervised the writing of a paper denouncing the lab leak theory, and then used that paper as “evidence” that SARS-CoV-2 arose naturally
COVID-19 is a war against the public, for the purpose of forcing us into a New World Order, a One World Government run by a globalist cabal, where “biosecurity” is the justification for the removal of Constitutional rights and freedoms
As reviewed in “Why Government Health Care Kills More People Than It Helps,” the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention couldn't have botched its COVID response any more if it tried.
August 17, 2022, CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky even publicly admitted the agency’s failures, stating, “we are responsible for some pretty dramatic, pretty public mistakes from testing, to data, to communications.”1,2,3
To save face, Walensky is reorganizing the agency, but considering the extent to which CDC officials have lied, obfuscated and broken laws intended to protect public health, it is highly unlikely that the CDC will ever be able to recover their credibility.
Abolish the CDC
The CDC is corrupted beyond salvage, and as noted by Brownstone Institute founder and president Jeffrey Tucker,4 the only way to fix a captured bureaucracy is to get rid of it:
“Any serious effort to end the crisis must deal with the problem of the administrative state and the bureaucratic power thereof. Without that focus, no reform effort can get anywhere ...
The reason is simple: a free and functioning society cannot coexist with an undemocratic beast like this on the loose, making its own laws and running roughshod over rights and liberties with zero oversight from elected leaders. Until the administrative state is defanged and disempowered, there will be no representative government and no hope for change.
It’s obvious that the bureaucracies will not reform themselves ... The reform will be ... cosmetic without reality. It will not deal with the central problem as plainly stated by Harvey Risch:5 ‘industry subservience and epidemiologic incompetence’ ...
After Betsy DeVos left the Department of Education, and observing from the inside what a disaster it truly was, she said what needed to be said. Abolish it. Shut it down. Defund it completely. Forget about it. It does nothing useful. Everything it does can be performed better at the state level or private markets. All true.
What she says about the Department of Education is equally true of another hundred-plus agencies of the administrative state. People have been talking lately about abolishing the FBI. Great, do it. Same goes for the CDC. It’s time. Right now. Pull the plug on the whole thing and sell the real estate.
Truly there is no other option except continuing to do what we are doing now. The status quo is intolerable. If a serious reform-minded Congress comes to power, abolition and not reform and not cuts, needs to be the starting point of discussion ...
There needs to be a to-be-abolished list and any federal government institution with the word agency, department, or bureau needs to be on it ... Society itself, which is smarter than bureaucracy, can manage the rest.”
The Rise of the American Biosecurity State
To understand how and why the CDC has morphed into an agency that works against, instead of for, the public good, we need to take a look at the history of American biodefense. Two journalists have recently dedicated articles to this issue.
In an August 29, 2022, Unherd article,6 Ashley Rindsberg reviewed how Dr. Anthony Fauci rose to power as the highest paid federal employee, sitting at the “very top of America’s biodefense infrastructure,” with near-unlimited authority, at least as it pertains to science; what gets funded and what doesn’t.
“To understand the rise of Fauci ... we must return to the first months of the 2000s, when a hawkish new administration was settling into power,” Rindsberg writes. George W. Bush came into office with Dick Cheney as vice president. Cheney had already served as defense secretary under George H.W. Bush.
According to Rindsberg, the Bush administration “came to power with biological weapons and infectious disease very much top of mind, with Cheney seeking to address the gaping hole in America’s national security left by the country’s lack of a coherent biodefense strategy.”
Biodefense became an even more prominent concern in the aftermath of 9/11, when letters containing anthrax were sent out to members of media and two U.S. senators. Of the 22 people infected with anthrax, five died. According to Rindsberg, Cheney “served as the political engine behind a paradigm shift that would soon take place in America’s biodefense strategy.”
Biodefense for the 21st Century
Just six days before 9/11, Joe Biden, then-chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, had led a hearing on the threat of bioterrorism and the spread of infectious diseases.
Subsequent to that hearing, in June 2002, president Bush signed the “Biodefense for the 21st Century”7 directive, the aim of which was to advance a “comprehensive framework” for U.S. biodefense, based on the assumption that America could be devastated by a bioweapons attack.
The directive outlined “essential pillars” of the U.S. biodefense program, including threat awareness and vulnerability assessment, prevention and protection, surveillance and detection, response and recovery. The year before, in June 2001, senior policymakers had also performed a two-day tabletop simulation of a smallpox attack called Dark Winter.
“Intended ... to expose vulnerabilities, the operation showed how quickly a public health disaster could lead to widespread chaos and social collapse. This was the stuff nightmares are made of — and, by all accounts, those were the nightmares that Dick Cheney was having,” Rindsberg writes. He continues:8
“Significant as it was, [Cheney’s] transformation of America’s biodefence framework was part of a much larger repositioning of long-term geopolitical strategy, an effort also led by Cheney.
In the aftermath of the Soviet Union’s collapse in the early Nineties, Cheney, then Secretary of Defense under George H.W. Bush, along with Undersecretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, began formulating a grand strategy for the post-Cold War era.
This plan, revealed in an infamous leaked memo,9 was rooted in a single strategic objective: America should permanently remain the world’s superpower. Its architects argued the US would do so only by preserving ‘strategic depth’ to ‘shape the security environment.’
The initial leaked memo was later reworked by Cheney’s chief of staff, Scooter Libby, who broadened the concept10 of ‘strategic depth’ to cover not only geographic reach but also an ability to wage war with weapons that could not only cripple an enemy’s military capabilities but disrupt its political, economic and social stability.”
How Biodefense Became Fauci’s Domain
In 2002, the Bush administration quintupled biodefense spending to $317 million. That same year, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), broke out in China, and in 2003, just as SARS was being contained, H5N1 avian influenza emerged.
The back-to-back outbreaks acted as fuel for the erection of a biosecurity state, and in 2003, the Bush administration increased the annual biodefense budget to $2 billion — a staggering sum at the time. Bush also earmarked another $6 billion for the development and stockpiling of vaccines over the next decade.
But funding was only part of the challenge. To truly prepare for a bioweapons attack, research had to be conducted and coordinated, and to that end, Cheney brought all biodefense research programs under the purview of a single entity — the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), led by Fauci.
So, since 2003, Fauci has been responsible for “civilian biodefense research with a focus on research and early development of medical countermeasures against terrorist threats from infectious diseases and radiation exposures.”11
What’s more, as explained by Rindsberg, “as far as NIAID was concerned, there was no meaningful administrative distinction between biodefense and scientific research. With the stroke of Cheney’s pen, all United States biodefense efforts, classified or unclassified, were placed under the aegis of Anthony Fauci.”
This, in a nutshell, explains Fauci’s power. As the head of the biodefense infrastructure, Fauci has, for decades, had an open channel straight into the top office of the White House. He’s also exempt from oversight. For all these years, he’s had carte blanche to approve and run whatever biodefense research he wanted, without anyone telling him otherwise.
It also explains why he’s the highest paid employee in the federal government, making more than the president himself. A significant portion of Fauci’s $417,600 annual salary12 is compensation for his biodefense research leadership.
COVID-19 Is Fauci’s Grandest Failure
As top dog of biodefense research, it was Fauci’s job to prevent COVID-19 from devastating the U.S. Instead, in 2017, he confidently announced that then-president Trump would “no doubt” have to face a “surprise infectious disease outbreak,”13 and then went on to issue a never-ending series of conflicting recommendations as head of the White House Coronavirus Response team.
Fauci also led efforts to suppress discussion about the origin of COVID-19, as detailed in “Liars, Propagandists and The Great Reset.”
In January 2022, House Oversight Committee Republicans released National Institutes of Health emails showing Fauci and now-former NIH director Francis Collins spearheaded the effort to bury the lab leak theory, even though the consensus in early February 2020 was that the virus likely leaked from the Wuhan lab — and that it appeared to have been genetically engineered.
February 4, 2020, Fauci and Collins received a draft of the article, “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2,” later published in Nature Medicine.14 The original draft has never been released to the public, but we do have an email reply from Fauci, in which he objected to the inclusion of serial passaging through humanized mice.
In its final form, the Nature Medicine article roundly dismissed the idea that the virus originated in a lab, proposing instead that it must have evolved naturally, even though no actual evidence for that existed.
The Dangers of Biodefense Research Are Obvious
For years, a number of critics have warned that biodefense research could result in the very thing we’re trying to avoid, namely an infectious disease outbreak, as even the highest-security laboratories are prone to leaks and accidents.
One such critic is Richard Ebright, a professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Rutgers University. In 2003, he warned that the burgeoning biodefense endeavor, while well-intentioned, “may perversely have exactly the opposite effect.”15
Fauci, ever the defender of risky research (and as we now understand, for selfish reasons), dismissed Ebright’s concerns as “spurious.” Today, Fauci’s dismissal rings hollow, as documents obtained through various Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests show he and Collins appear to have been more than a little nervous about people discovering they funded gain-of-function research on coronaviruses.16 As reported by U.S. Right To Know (USRTK):17
“In the earliest days of the pandemic, Anthony Fauci and Francis Collins emailed about coronaviruses under study at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and about whether they had steered money to the lab, an email obtained by U.S. Right to Know shows.
Collins ... and Fauci ... exchanged emails on February 1, 2020, about a preprint18 authored by Zhengli Shi, director of the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases. The preprint described bat coronaviruses under study at the lab, including a coronavirus 96% genetically similar to the coronavirus that causes COVID-19.
The emails show that Collins and Fauci were concerned about links between the Wuhan Institute of Virology and NIH. ‘In case you haven’t seen this preprint from one week ago,’ Collins said in a February 1, 2020, email to Fauci. ‘No evidence this work was supported by NIH’ ...
About two hours after the email exchange, Collins and Fauci would join a secret teleconference with a group of virologists who were closely examining the novel coronavirus. The teleconference touched off a high-profile push to discredit the lab leak hypothesis.
The revelation that Collins and Fauci were discussing whether NIH had funded work on coronaviruses similar to SARS-CoV-2 at the Wuhan lab in the hours before suggests that politics may have been at play.”
How Cheney Tricked Us Into War
The second article19 to take a deep dive into the links between Cheney and Fauci was published by Sam Husseini, September 7, 2022. Husseini, however, throws his searchlight on the way both of these characters have used lies to further the biosecurity agenda:
“Twenty years ago, the ‘Cheney-Bush junta’ ... launched its propaganda campaign to invade Iraq ... Sept. 8, 2002, The New York Times ran on its front page the story ‘U.S. Says Hussein Intensifies Quest for A-Bomb Parts’ ...
That same day, then Vice President Dick Cheney appeared on Meet the Press ... hyping the New York Times story as evidence that Hussein was attempting to acquire ‘the kinds of tubes that are necessary to build a centrifuge and the centrifuge is required to take low-grade uranium and enhance it into highly-enriched uranium which is what you have to have in order to build a bomb.’ Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice followed Cheney’s lead on other shows.”
The problem, we now know, is that the “anonymous source” quoted by The New York Times lied. Worse, Cheney himself appears to have been that source. In other words, Cheney leaked the false story to the press, and then used that news coverage to support his recommendation to invade Iraq.
“Even the mainstream Bob Simon of CBS would later remark to Bill Moyers about Cheney: ‘You leak a story, and then you quote the story. I mean, that's a remarkable thing to do,’” Husseini writes,20 adding: “Remarkable is actually an understatement. It’s engaging in a de facto conspiracy to deceive the U.S. public into war.”
Fauci Caught Employing the Same Trick
Taking a page straight out of Cheney’s handbook, Fauci used the exact same trick when, in April 2020, he was asked to address the suggestion that SARS-CoV-2 was manmade.
Fauci went on to cite “a study ... where a group of highly qualified evolutionary virologists looked at the sequences there and the sequences in bats as they evolve. And the mutations that it took to get to the point where it is now is totally consistent with a jump of a species from an animal to a human.”
That paper was “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2”21 that I just discussed above — the paper that Fauci and Collins edited prior to its publication in Nature Medicine. So, Fauci edited the paper22 and then he used that paper as “evidence” to support his irrational stance that the virus occurred naturally.
Just as Cheney engaged in a “de facto conspiracy to deceive the U.S. public into war,” Fauci engaged in a de facto conspiracy to trick the public into giving up our freedoms and livelihoods in the name of biosecurity. So, as noted by Husseini,23 “One thing that should be kept in mind as one parses through the claims and ‘exposés’ is that some are de facto cover stories.”
‘Biodefense’ Has Become a War Machine Against the Public
Now, nearly three years into the COVID debacle, it’s clear that this is indeed a war. It’s a war against the American public, for the purpose of forcing us into a New World Order, a One World Government run by a globalist cabal, where “biosecurity” is the justification for the removal of Constitutional rights and freedoms.
The institutions that facilitated this war on the American public must be abolished and dismantled, and the individuals responsible within them held to account for their roles.
The same war is being waged by governments across the globe, against their own citizens, for the same reason and with the same aim. Fauci like Cheney before him, is responsible for getting us into this war, and for keeping us in it, using lies and propaganda.
The Iraq war — launched under false pretenses — lasted for eight years. No doubt, COVID could be strung out for that long as well, unless the truth is finally recognized by the masses.
And, to circle back to where we started, the institutions that facilitated this war on the American public must be abolished and dismantled, and the individuals responsible within them held to account for their roles. This includes not only Fauci and Walensky, but a host of others as well.
Sources and References
6, 8, 15 Unherd August 29, 2022
10 National Security Archive, Prevent the Reemergence of a New Rival
19, 20, 23 Sam Husseini Substack September 7, 2022
Critics Call for End to Gates and Rockefeller Food Program in Africa.
A Green Revolution program meant to increase agricultural yields and help feed starving people in Africa has failed miserably, and critics are calling for the billion-dollar program to end.
Founded by the Bill & Melinda Gates and Rockefeller foundations, hundreds of university graduates in crop breeding spent 16 years “helping” farmers use commercial fertilizers and seeds to increase food production. The bottom line, however, according to PoliticoPro, "is the aim to get African farmers to use more synthetic fertilizers."
But now, with poverty still entrenched in the continent and farmers “at the mercy of volatile global markets," Gabriel Manyangadze of the Southern African Faith Communities Environment Institute s idemanding that the green revolution program end.
While a Gates Foundation spokesperson insisted the program “is playing a critical role in helping countries implement the priorities and policies contained in their national agricultural development strategies,” a Rockefeller spokesperson likened the situation to lesson “we can take into our future world.”
So far, however, the ag group’s response is to stop mentioning fertilizers so much and instead promote the commercial seeds they want the farmers to use.
SOURCE:
PoliticoPro September 13, 2022
The threat of the climate fraud is the Great Reset.
If Republicans support climate truth
September 13, 2022 September 17, 2022
Edwin X Berry, PhD, Theoretical Physics
September 13, 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:
Human CO2 causes all the increase in atmospheric CO2 above 280 ppm.
The CO2 increase above 280 ppm causes global warming.
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.
The first bar in the figure 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:
Nature controls the climate.
Our CO2 does not change the climate and is not a pollutant.
Global temperature controls the CO2 level.
We need more CO2 because more CO2 grows more food with less water.
Our national energy plan should include:
Making natural gas our primary energy source.
Making nuclear energy our growing primary energy source.
Drill, baby, drill, with added incentives to keep our offshore oil rigs in top condition.
Make high-tech coal our secondary energy source.
Teach our children the truth about climate change in our schools.
Our national CO2 plan should include:
Eliminate all climate laws, regulations, incentives, and treaties.
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 because the extreme-right controls Montana’s Attorney General and the extreme-right does not like Berry because he is not crazy-extreme-right enough for them.
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 and change the world.
Post Views: 409
Post navigation
The CO2 Coalition is wrong because its physics is wrong
11 Comments
Warren Blair says:
Why would anyone think, or believe that the earth’s climate is a steady state. There are a myriad of variables which affect the climate, some which we most likely are not even aware of. The tub argument relies upon a steady state which is impossible to prove but is disproven by millions of years of climate history.
Robert Brooks says:
The majority of Western World politicians refuse to do their own homework and rely on “the experts” for advice.
If you don’t do all of your own research you will finish up with a half baked solution.
Look at the climate average temperature of the last 5,000 years and you will see a steady gradual cooling.
Official government and many well respected authoured books support this and do not support those who
agreed with the Paris Accord, mostly unread political heavy weights.
Brinsley Jenkins says:
Dr Berry has a sound argument, It’s wrong in Logic reversing the cause with it’s effect, CO2 rises after heating, so it may not be the cause. Tree rings show this historically. The glasses of tap water, keep one cold, and warm the other will release CO2 as bubbles inside the glass, the cold one has no bubbles. Heat ejects CO2, it may not also be the cause.
Radiative principles of resonance apply, the rare infra red photon at higher energy resonates with CO2 on being absorbed, losing a little energy on the conversion and re-admittance as a photon. This now has a longer wavelength and no longer resonates. A once only event. The Pen University experiment confirms this point there was no detectable heating above 350ppm.
ref Prof William Happer for the mechanism.Kim says:
There are so many good ‘take-home’ meanings in this article.
Rightly in my opinion the author goes beyond the science.
Science is being trampled on. This is not a political or prejudiced statement. The evidence is there before everyone’s eyes. Contradictions, false predictions, censorship, vested interests and abuse of those who question, where questioning is the one of the very tenets of true science.
My experience, with clear evidence, is that mature and experienced teachers and GPs (NHS) are leaving or have already left the medical and educational professions as soon as they can, and in their droves. What does that tell one? Do they see the corruption but are frightened to speak out?
In trying to understand what is going on there are two conclusions that are standing for me.
The first is that many do not believe that there are others that mean to do them harm. It seems that people just cannot or will not accept this basic reality. This is not about a difference in political persuasion or religious belief. There is about an almost tangible force of evil damaging our societies our children, our very existence and our environment, now and right before our eyes. There will be no ‘winners’, wealth and status will mean nothing.
The second is the inability of many to question their beliefs their conditioning and what has been presented to them as truth. This is not a persuasion to adopt a particular perspective but just a call for people to question to do the research and to challenge the blindly accepted, not an imposition of belief, but just a request to ‘wake up’ or ‘open eyes’ to what is happening everywhere.
Thank you for your brilliant article.Allan MacRae says:
Rational analysis concludes that climate is INsensitive to recent observed increases in atmospheric CO2. The false assumption of high climate sensitivities to CO2 is essential to the IPCC’s bogus modelling of catastrophic human-made global warming (CAGW), a decades-old fraud that is clearly NOT happening, and the false and disastrous demonization of fossil fuels.
This paper by Ed Berry is the leading edge of the science. Unlike the IPCC’s models, it is consistent with the observation that CO2 changes lag temperature changes (Kuo 1990, MacRae 2008, Humlum 2013). Ed concludes that the majority of the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 is in fact natural, not human-made – another argument against the IPCC’s blatant climate fraud.
The smartest people I know believe that Ed Berry is essentially correct. I am confident that “The future cannot cause the past” (MacRae, 2008).
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/mean:12/derivative/plot/uah6/from:1979/scale:0.18/offset:0.17
…The impact of human CO2 on atmospheric CO2 – SCC (klimarealistene.com)
Dr Edwin X Berry, December 14, 2021
Abstract
A basic assumption of climate change made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is natural CO2 stayed constant after 1750 and human CO2 dominated the CO2 increase. IPCC’s basic assumption requires human CO2 to stay in the atmosphere longer than natural CO2. But human CO2 and natural CO2 molecules are identical. So, human CO2 and natural CO2 must flow out of the atmosphere at the same rate, or e-time. The 14CO2 e-time, derived from δ14C data, is 10.0 years, making the 12CO2 e-time less than 10 years. The IPCC says the 12CO2 e-time is about 4 years and IPCC’s carbon cycle uses 3.5 years. A new physics carbon cycle model replicates IPCC’s natural carbon cycle. Then, using IPCC’s natural carbon cycle data, it calculates human carbon has added only 33 [24-48] ppmv to the atmosphere as of 2020, which means natural carbon has added 100 ppmv. The physics model calculates if human CO2 emissions had stopped at the end of 2020, the human CO2 level of 33 ppmv would fall to 10 ppmv in 2100. After the bomb tests, δ14C returned to its original balance level of zero even as 12CO2 increased, which suggests a natural source dominates the 12CO2 increase.John A Bird says:
“A consensus of opinions aligned with the preferred narrative. No debate or challenge is permitted and no research is allowed that might uncover uncomfortable or inconvenient facts. Research results which go against the preferred narrative will be suppressed and the perpetrator vilified, ridiculed, and punished.”
TEWS_Pilot says:
Dr. Berry, several of us who follow your postings here also comment at sites like CFACT.org and love to post links to your articles there to drive the CAGW alarmists crazy. I challenge them to come here and debate you, but I doubt they have the self assurance in their junk pseudoscience to challenge you with it. Together we are winning.
Brinsley Jenkins says:
Perseverance Tews! Understanding is the Key which clinches arguments.
Keith R. Ball says:
Here’s the Key,
Sue Al Gore for lying to the public and kids for personal gain. Drive the topic out to the people once and for all. Thank you for all that you are doing.
All the best,
KRB
JAMES H Shanley says:
I know there are good honest scientists, but no one is listening to them. William Happer, a former Jason wrote a paper proving CO2 does not cause global warming. It is available on line but again, no one is listening. I think you need the help that only a professional engineer can provide and I propose to provide that help.
I have had 50+ experience in the field of environmental health and safety, and 25 years as a licensed PE. I worked for a State environmental protection department which covered all areas of practice. When they needed an employee trained in radiation protection they sent me to Oak Ridge for the 10 wk course in health physics. I think I would qualify to provide expert testimony in court. Are you interested?
Chuck Wiese says:
September 19, 2022 at 12:37 am
Well done, Ed! I agree with the entire premise of this article. The climate change scam is a huge part of the global reset the global elite wants to collapse the economy with and regulate our lives completely under their directive.
This must be stopped, but for starters, we must fix the broken election system first or these very same lawless socialists and Marxists in Biden’s illegitimate regime will attempt another stolen election in the upcoming midterms this November.
Leave a Reply
Subscribe to newsletter
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Ed Berry LLC
439 Grand Dr #147
Bigfork, MT 59911
USA
ed@edberry.com
© 2022 Edwin X Berry, PhD
My peer-reviewed paper, published on December 14, 2021, is the scientific reference for Climate Miracle.
Climate Miracle is fun, short, easy to read, and proves climate alarmism is science fiction.
Climate Miracle is your key to winning your climate lawsuit or climate debate.
"In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way." - Franklin D. Roosevelt
So, what is really going on here? As I said today (21 Sept 2022) on Steve Bannon’s War Room:Pandemic show, this POLITICO article is a modified limited hangout. And what is that, you ask?
Increased surveillance: Under Article 5, the WHO will develop early warning criteria that will allow it to establish a risk assessment for a member state, which means that it can use the type of modeling, simulation, and predictions that exaggerated the risk from Covid-19 over two years ago. Once the WHO creates its assessment, it will communicate it to inter-governmental organizations and other member states.
48-hour deadline: Under Articles 6, 10, 11, and 13, a member state is given 48 hours to respond to a WHO risk assessment and accept or reject on-site assistance. However, in practice, this timeline can be reduced to hours, forcing it to comply or face international disapproval lead by the WHO and potentially unfriendly member states.
Secret sources: Under Article 9, the WHO can rely on undisclosed sources for information leading it to declare a public health emergency. Those sources could include Big Pharma, WHO funders such as the Gates Foundation and the Gates-founded-and-funded GAVI Alliance, as well as others seeking to monopolize power.
Weakened Sovereignty: Under Article 12, when the WHO receives undisclosed information concerning a purported public health threat in a member state, the Director-General may (not must) consult with the WHO Emergency Committee and the member state. However, s/he can unilaterally declare a potential or actual public health emergency of international concern. The Director General’s authority replaces national sovereign authority. This can later be used to enforce sanctions on nations.
Rejecting the amendments: Under Article 59, after the amendments are adopted by the World Health Assembly, a member state has six months to reject them. This means November, this year. If the member state fails to act, it will be deemed to have accepted the amendments in full. Any rejection or reservation received by the Director-General after the expiry of that period shall have no force and effect.
And what do they want? Well, only 0.1% of all of the developed worlds income. For the poor, of course. Well, that And unilateral power over all nations. And global sign off on the IHR modifications summarized above.
"One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them, One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them."
Watch carefully as Economist Jeffrey Sachs provides his explanation and justification in the clip at the top of this substack (here is the source). Listen carefully to the fawning sycophant praise which he graciously ladles on glorious leader WHO Director General Tedros.
The POLITICO narrative is not cracking. It is being reoriented as part of the “Great Reset” “Build Back Better” repositioning that is in progress throughout the world now. This is our intelligence community in action. You pay taxes for the privilege of being lied to, censored, propagandized and manipulated. The five eyes alliance is really quite skilled. Even the devil deserves his due.
The POLITICO narrative is not cracking. It is being reoriented as part of the “Great Reset” “Build Back Better” repositioning that is in progress throughout the world now. This is our intelligence community in action. You pay taxes for the privilege of being lied to, censored, propagandized and manipulated. The five eyes alliance is really quite skilled. Even the devil deserves his due.
This coming cold and flu season is going to require a VAIDS coverup of epic proportions.
BigPharma and their Federal government partner in crime have their latest slow kill bioweapon DEATHVAX™ offerings on deck.
The mendacious clown of a press secretary is doing her part in telegraphing the latest Crimes Against Humanity rollout; to wit:
Expect SADS and "irregular heartbeats" to suddenly explode because the climate changes to cooler temperatures in the winter months:
Do NOT comply.
Dr. David Martin has sued the Senile Diaper Soiling Ice Cream Eating Pedo Criminal Puppet.Thanks for reading DailyDose19! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
BATON ROUGE, LA - This year, parents and guardians stood together in opposition to the COVID-19 shot being required for their children to attend school. As a result of their coming together, the Louisiana Department of Health (LDH) decided to rescind the mandate for Louisiana students. As of yesterday, it has officially been repealed.
Child medical decisions should be made by their guardians, not the government. I hope this health freedom victory reminds everyone what can happen when we all work together. When citizens are engaged and get involved, their government will listen." -Attorney General, Jeff Landry, Sept 21, 2022
Friend-of-the blog Igor Chudov disagrees with my suggestion that Klaus Schwab’s Great Reset amounts to “a lot of jargon and vacuity, signifying nothing.” Instead, he proposes that
… the WEF purposely makes their proposals to be difficult for ordinary people to comprehend. To a person reading without paying close attention, their writings appear to be feel-good generalities written without a purpose — and yet when understood fully, they contain radical proposals that would upend the most basic foundations of our Western societies.Thanks for reading DailyDose19! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
As I am fond of typing, the WEF is a conference circuit, where elite attendees and young leaders and scientists and thinkers and journalists and who knows who else can network with each other and coordinate policy and messaging. For providing these services, the WEF collects dues. I think we should regard Schwab’s books as the equivalent of advertising or promotional material, of the kind that many organisations put out. If you look at his footnotes, you’ll find support for this view: He cites a lot of WEF-affiliated thinkers and scientists and he likes to quote WEF-affiliated politicians and WEF-affiliated journalists. Schwab’s customers read Schwab’s book and are happy to see their own ideas repeated and to imagine themselves as constructive participants in the intellectual world that they pay Schwab to curate for them.