Why we KNOW fossil fuels played a completely negligible role in the rise of atmospheric CO₂ in plain English 1. Carbon has a fingerprint. Carbon atoms come in two stable kinds. One is a little heavier than the other. Every source of carbon on Earth has its own mix of heavy and light atoms, and scientists measure that mix as a single number. Think of it as a fingerprint. Coal, oil, and gas have a fingerprint of minus 28. Carbon dioxide bubbling out of the ocean has a fingerprint of minus 8. Volcanoes are minus 5. Dissolving limestone is 0. A lower number means lighter carbon. These fingerprints are measured facts, and the IPCC uses the same numbers. 2. You can read the fingerprint of whatever is being added to the air. When carbon is added to the atmosphere, the atmosphere's fingerprint drifts toward the fingerprint of what was added. In 1958 Charles Keeling showed a simple way to read off the fingerprint of the added carbon directly from the air measurements. It is a graph. Plot the air's fingerprint against the amount of CO₂ in the air in a certain way and you get a straight line. Where that line meets the edge of the graph is the fingerprint of the net addition. This is not a computer model. It is bookkeeping. You count the heavy atoms, you count the light atoms, and the answer follows. Nothing about oceans, forests, or weather goes into it. 3. The fingerprint of the added carbon is minus 13. Koutsoyiannis (2024) did this with the four Scripps monitoring stations in Alaska, California, Hawaii, and the South Pole, using records from about 1978 to today. Every station gives the same answer: minus 13.2, give or take 0.2. These are the same records the IPCC relies on. Two completely separate measurements say the same thing. A Caribbean sponge that grows in yearly layers, like tree rings, records ocean carbon back to about the year 1500. Its fingerprint is about minus 13 for all five centuries, with no drift. Air trapped in Antarctic ice at Law Dome, analyzed by Köhler et al. (2006), also gives minus 13. Three different materials, three different laboratories, five hundred years, one number. 4. Simple mixing math sets the range from the modern data alone. Every carbon atom added to the air came either from fossil-fuel combustion or from some non-fossil-fuel source: the ocean, volcanoes, rock weathering, plants and soil. The fingerprint of the mix tells you how much came from each. It works like mixing paint. If you mix black and white and get a very light gray, you know there was very little black. Fossil-fuel carbon is the black, at minus 28. The ocean is the white, at minus 8. The measured mix is minus 13, much closer to the ocean than to fossil fuel. The modern record from 1978 to today does not by itself pin down the exact fingerprint of the non-fossil-fuel carbon. It could be anywhere from minus 8 (pure ocean) down to minus 13 (matching the mix exactly). Run the mixing math across that whole range and the fossil-fuel share comes out somewhere between zero and 26 percent. That is what we know from the modern data alone: not more than 26 percent, possibly zero. The exact answer comes in step 6. 5. The official claim is impossible under any assumption. The IPCC, NASA, NOAA, EPA, and Engelbeen, Hannon, and Burton (2024) say fossil-fuel combustion caused essentially all of the rise. That is close to 100 percent. "Dominant" by any normal meaning is at least 80 percent. Run the mixing math backwards and ask what the non-fossil-fuel carbon would have to look like for each of those claims to be true: - For fossil fuel to be even a bare 50 percent, the non-fossil-fuel carbon would need a fingerprint of plus 1.6. No carbon source on Earth is that heavy. - For 80 percent, it would need a fingerprint of plus 46. That is more than 20 times heavier than the heaviest source that exists. - For 90 percent, it would need plus 120, about 60 times heavier than anything on Earth. - For 100 percent, it would need to be infinitely heavy. The official claims do not fall a little short. They require carbon sources that do not exist. 6. Five hundred years of no change gives the exact answer: essentially ZERO (0% fossil-fuel sources). The modern data left one unknown: the fingerprint of the non-fossil-fuel carbon. The sponge and ice-core records supply it. In the year 1500 there was essentially no fossil-fuel burning, so the fingerprint of the added carbon then, minus 13, came entirely from non-fossil-fuel sources. That fixes the unknown at minus 13. Since 1500, fossil-fuel burning has grown about ten thousand times over. If fossil-fuel carbon were any real part of the added carbon, the fingerprint would have slid toward minus 28 as burning grew. It did not move. It is still minus 13 today. Put minus 13 for the non-fossil-fuel carbon and minus 13.2 for the modern mix into the mixing math and fossil fuel's share of the added carbon comes out at about 1 percent, which is zero within the measurement error. The range of zero to 26 percent from step 4 collapses to a single answer: essentially zero. 7. Why this is knowledge, not opinion. The conclusion rests on three things only: - counting atoms, - the standard measured fingerprints of fossil-fuel carbon and the other sources, and - the Scripps, sponge, and ice-core records. The IPCC uses all three. Anyone who accepts all three and rejects the conclusion is refusing to do arithmetic. The only way out is to throw away one of the three, and each one is a foundation of the IPCC's own work, and nobody has done so anywhere in the peer-reviewed literature. 8. What is actually happening. Burning fossil fuel does put CO₂ into the air. That is measured at the smokestack. But a CO₂ molecule stays in the air only about four years on average before the ocean or plants take it back. So fossil-fuel CO₂ never piles up. Add up all fossil-fuel emissions since 1850 with that four-year turnover and only about 4 percent of the carbon in today's air came from fossil fuel. The growth in atmospheric CO₂ since the industrial revolution came from non-fossil-fuel sources. Fossil fuel's share of that growth is essentially zero.

Why we KNOW fossil fuels played a completely negligible role in the rise of atmospheric CO₂ in plain English 1. Carbon has a fingerprint. Carbon atoms come in two stable kinds. One is a little heavier than the other. Every source of carbon on Earth has its own mix of heavy and light atoms, and scientists measure that mix as a single number. Think of it as a fingerprint. Coal, oil, and gas have a fingerprint of minus 28. Carbon dioxide bubbling out of the ocean has a fingerprint of minus 8. Volcanoes are minus 5. Dissolving limestone is 0. A lower number means lighter carbon. These fingerprints are measured facts, and the IPCC uses the same numbers. 2. You can read the fingerprint of whatever is being added to the air. When carbon is added to the atmosphere, the atmosphere's fingerprint drifts toward the fingerprint of what was added. In 1958 Charles Keeling showed a simple way to read off the fingerprint of the added carbon directly from the air measurements. It is a graph. Plot the air's fingerprint against the amount of CO₂ in the air in a certain way and you get a straight line. Where that line meets the edge of the graph is the fingerprint of the net addition. This is not a computer model. It is bookkeeping. You count the heavy atoms, you count the light atoms, and the answer follows. Nothing about oceans, forests, or weather goes into it. 3. The fingerprint of the added carbon is minus 13. Koutsoyiannis (2024) did this with the four Scripps monitoring stations in Alaska, California, Hawaii, and the South Pole, using records from about 1978 to today. Every station gives the same answer: minus 13.2, give or take 0.2. These are the same records the IPCC relies on. Two completely separate measurements say the same thing. A Caribbean sponge that grows in yearly layers, like tree rings, records ocean carbon back to about the year 1500. Its fingerprint is about minus 13 for all five centuries, with no drift. Air trapped in Antarctic ice at Law Dome, analyzed by Köhler et al. (2006), also gives minus 13. Three different materials, three different laboratories, five hundred years, one number. 4. Simple mixing math sets the range from the modern data alone. Every carbon atom added to the air came either from fossil-fuel combustion or from some non-fossil-fuel source: the ocean, volcanoes, rock weathering, plants and soil. The fingerprint of the mix tells you how much came from each. It works like mixing paint. If you mix black and white and get a very light gray, you know there was very little black. Fossil-fuel carbon is the black, at minus 28. The ocean is the white, at minus 8. The measured mix is minus 13, much closer to the ocean than to fossil fuel. The modern record from 1978 to today does not by itself pin down the exact fingerprint of the non-fossil-fuel carbon. It could be anywhere from minus 8 (pure ocean) down to minus 13 (matching the mix exactly). Run the mixing math across that whole range and the fossil-fuel share comes out somewhere between zero and 26 percent. That is what we know from the modern data alone: not more than 26 percent, possibly zero. The exact answer comes in step 6. 5. The official claim is impossible under any assumption. The IPCC, NASA, NOAA, EPA, and Engelbeen, Hannon, and Burton (2024) say fossil-fuel combustion caused essentially all of the rise. That is close to 100 percent. "Dominant" by any normal meaning is at least 80 percent. Run the mixing math backwards and ask what the non-fossil-fuel carbon would have to look like for each of those claims to be true: - For fossil fuel to be even a bare 50 percent, the non-fossil-fuel carbon would need a fingerprint of plus 1.6. No carbon source on Earth is that heavy. - For 80 percent, it would need a fingerprint of plus 46. That is more than 20 times heavier than the heaviest source that exists. - For 90 percent, it would need plus 120, about 60 times heavier than anything on Earth. - For 100 percent, it would need to be infinitely heavy. The official claims do not fall a little short. They require carbon sources that do not exist. 6. Five hundred years of no change gives the exact answer: essentially ZERO (0% fossil-fuel sources). The modern data left one unknown: the fingerprint of the non-fossil-fuel carbon. The sponge and ice-core records supply it. In the year 1500 there was essentially no fossil-fuel burning, so the fingerprint of the added carbon then, minus 13, came entirely from non-fossil-fuel sources. That fixes the unknown at minus 13. Since 1500, fossil-fuel burning has grown about ten thousand times over. If fossil-fuel carbon were any real part of the added carbon, the fingerprint would have slid toward minus 28 as burning grew. It did not move. It is still minus 13 today. Put minus 13 for the non-fossil-fuel carbon and minus 13.2 for the modern mix into the mixing math and fossil fuel's share of the added carbon comes out at about 1 percent, which is zero within the measurement error. The range of zero to 26 percent from step 4 collapses to a single answer: essentially zero. 7. Why this is knowledge, not opinion. The conclusion rests on three things only: - counting atoms, - the standard measured fingerprints of fossil-fuel carbon and the other sources, and - the Scripps, sponge, and ice-core records. The IPCC uses all three. Anyone who accepts all three and rejects the conclusion is refusing to do arithmetic. The only way out is to throw away one of the three, and each one is a foundation of the IPCC's own work, and nobody has done so anywhere in the peer-reviewed literature. 8. What is actually happening. Burning fossil fuel does put CO₂ into the air. That is measured at the smokestack. But a CO₂ molecule stays in the air only about four years on average before the ocean or plants take it back. So fossil-fuel CO₂ never piles up. Add up all fossil-fuel emissions since 1850 with that four-year turnover and only about 4 percent of the carbon in today's air came from fossil fuel. The growth in atmospheric CO₂ since the industrial revolution came from non-fossil-fuel sources. Fossil fuel's share of that growth is essentially zero.

My latest video on the Tom Nelson Podcast @TomANelson is live now correcting false claims made by Ed Berry about one of our papers. Video attached below and also available on YouTube at piped.video/watch?v=pD7zvlvH…

Grok 5 will be out before the end of this year and it will be crushingly good

Why we KNOW fossil fuels played a completely negligible role in the rise of atmospheric CO₂ in plain English 1. Carbon has a fingerprint. Carbon atoms come in two stable kinds. One is a little heavier than the other. Every source of carbon on Earth has its own mix of heavy and light atoms, and scientists measure that mix as a single number. Think of it as a fingerprint. Coal, oil, and gas have a fingerprint of minus 28. Carbon dioxide bubbling out of the ocean has a fingerprint of minus 8. Volcanoes are minus 5. Dissolving limestone is 0. A lower number means lighter carbon. These fingerprints are measured facts, and the IPCC uses the same numbers. 2. You can read the fingerprint of whatever is being added to the air. When carbon is added to the atmosphere, the atmosphere's fingerprint drifts toward the fingerprint of what was added. In 1958 Charles Keeling showed a simple way to read off the fingerprint of the added carbon directly from the air measurements. It is a graph. Plot the air's fingerprint against the amount of CO₂ in the air in a certain way and you get a straight line. Where that line meets the edge of the graph is the fingerprint of the net addition. This is not a computer model. It is bookkeeping. You count the heavy atoms, you count the light atoms, and the answer follows. Nothing about oceans, forests, or weather goes into it. 3. The fingerprint of the added carbon is minus 13. Koutsoyiannis (2024) did this with the four Scripps monitoring stations in Alaska, California, Hawaii, and the South Pole, using records from about 1978 to today. Every station gives the same answer: minus 13.2, give or take 0.2. These are the same records the IPCC relies on. Two completely separate measurements say the same thing. A Caribbean sponge that grows in yearly layers, like tree rings, records ocean carbon back to about the year 1500. Its fingerprint is about minus 13 for all five centuries, with no drift. Air trapped in Antarctic ice at Law Dome, analyzed by Köhler et al. (2006), also gives minus 13. Three different materials, three different laboratories, five hundred years, one number. 4. Simple mixing math sets the range from the modern data alone. Every carbon atom added to the air came either from fossil-fuel combustion or from some non-fossil-fuel source: the ocean, volcanoes, rock weathering, plants and soil. The fingerprint of the mix tells you how much came from each. It works like mixing paint. If you mix black and white and get a very light gray, you know there was very little black. Fossil-fuel carbon is the black, at minus 28. The ocean is the white, at minus 8. The measured mix is minus 13, much closer to the ocean than to fossil fuel. The modern record from 1978 to today does not by itself pin down the exact fingerprint of the non-fossil-fuel carbon. It could be anywhere from minus 8 (pure ocean) down to minus 13 (matching the mix exactly). Run the mixing math across that whole range and the fossil-fuel share comes out somewhere between zero and 26 percent. That is what we know from the modern data alone: not more than 26 percent, possibly zero. The exact answer comes in step 6. 5. The official claim is impossible under any assumption. The IPCC, NASA, NOAA, EPA, and Engelbeen, Hannon, and Burton (2024) say fossil-fuel combustion caused essentially all of the rise. That is close to 100 percent. "Dominant" by any normal meaning is at least 80 percent. Run the mixing math backwards and ask what the non-fossil-fuel carbon would have to look like for each of those claims to be true: - For fossil fuel to be even a bare 50 percent, the non-fossil-fuel carbon would need a fingerprint of plus 1.6. No carbon source on Earth is that heavy. - For 80 percent, it would need a fingerprint of plus 46. That is more than 20 times heavier than the heaviest source that exists. - For 90 percent, it would need plus 120, about 60 times heavier than anything on Earth. - For 100 percent, it would need to be infinitely heavy. The official claims do not fall a little short. They require carbon sources that do not exist. 6. Five hundred years of no change gives the exact answer: essentially ZERO (0% fossil-fuel sources). The modern data left one unknown: the fingerprint of the non-fossil-fuel carbon. The sponge and ice-core records supply it. In the year 1500 there was essentially no fossil-fuel burning, so the fingerprint of the added carbon then, minus 13, came entirely from non-fossil-fuel sources. That fixes the unknown at minus 13. Since 1500, fossil-fuel burning has grown about ten thousand times over. If fossil-fuel carbon were any real part of the added carbon, the fingerprint would have slid toward minus 28 as burning grew. It did not move. It is still minus 13 today. Put minus 13 for the non-fossil-fuel carbon and minus 13.2 for the modern mix into the mixing math and fossil fuel's share of the added carbon comes out at about 1 percent, which is zero within the measurement error. The range of zero to 26 percent from step 4 collapses to a single answer: essentially zero. 7. Why this is knowledge, not opinion. The conclusion rests on three things only: - counting atoms, - the standard measured fingerprints of fossil-fuel carbon and the other sources, and - the Scripps, sponge, and ice-core records. The IPCC uses all three. Anyone who accepts all three and rejects the conclusion is refusing to do arithmetic. The only way out is to throw away one of the three, and each one is a foundation of the IPCC's own work, and nobody has done so anywhere in the peer-reviewed literature. 8. What is actually happening. Burning fossil fuel does put CO₂ into the air. That is measured at the smokestack. But a CO₂ molecule stays in the air only about four years on average before the ocean or plants take it back. So fossil-fuel CO₂ never piles up. Add up all fossil-fuel emissions since 1850 with that four-year turnover and only about 4 percent of the carbon in today's air came from fossil fuel. The growth in atmospheric CO₂ since the industrial revolution came from non-fossil-fuel sources. Fossil fuel's share of that growth is essentially zero.

CO2 RISE IS NOT CAUSED BY HUMANS I thank Warwick Smith @RecoEco for concisely presenting the standard IPCC / TROLL / “useful idiot” FALSE, confused, and misleading arguments designed to make you believe humans are causing atmospheric CO2 rise. They are all ROOKIE ERRORS. Here's why. Warwick, In order by your confused panels from your cartoon attached below. Panel 1. "The fingerprints are fine." You accept the measured numbers. Good. Then you claim the disagreement is about "what happens to the carbon after it is added." WRONG. The Keeling intercept measures the fingerprint of what is being added, at the moment it is added. It is arithmetic on air measurements. Nothing about "after" enters the discussion. You have accepted the data and rejected the arithmetic that follows. ROOKIE ERROR. Panel 2. "The air isn't a sealed jar." You say the Keeling plot "assumes nothing is swapped." FALSE. The intercept measures the net signature of everything entering the air, cycling included. Ocean and plants swap >200 GtC each way, AND that swap is already inside the measurement. It is not left out. It cannot be left out. The intercept already incorporates that. ROOKIE ERROR. Panel 3. "Why the intercept says minus 13." This is your central ERROR. You say the ocean and plants send back "older, heavier" carbon that drags the fingerprint back toward minus 13. Look at the sclerosponge record, the DATA. The Keeling intercept was already at minus 13 in the year 1500. Look at Law Dome. Its Keeling intercept was also minus 13 for more than 900 years. Fossil-fuel burning back then was ZERO. Fossil emissions have grown more than ten thousand times since 1500. If fossil carbon were any real part of the addition today, the intercept would have slid dramatically toward minus 28. It did not. It is still minus 13. Your "disequilibrium" story requires a heavier source of CO2 carbon that DOES NOT EXIST, and it fails the time test. The Keeling intercept cannot sit unmoved for five centuries while the fossil-fuel CO2 input grows by four orders of magnitude. You miss the obvious fact that CO2—ALL CO2—cycles out of the atmosphere in under 4 years. ROOKIE ERROR. Panel 4. "Fixing the paint analogy." Your analogy needs a white tub at minus 8. There is no white tub. The tub was minus 13 in 1500. It is still minus 13 today. You are painting into a bucket that was already the "mixed" color five hundred years before the first coal fire. ROOKIE ERROR. Panel 5. "Other fingerprints agree." Four claims, none of them attribute the rise to fossil-fuels. ROOKIE ERROR. Radiocarbon. The total fossil-fuel generated CO2 content of the atmosphere is about 4% of today's air, given the measured and well-known four-year residence time. The bomb spike from 1950 to 1963 gave us the actual relaxation time directly: 18.4 years. Not centuries. If your Bern-model "centuries" were right, the bomb pulse would still be sitting in the atmosphere. It is long gone. Oxygen. Confirms that fossil burning emits CO₂. Nobody denies this. Emitted is not retained. Says nothing about attribution. North-South gradient. Any Northern-heavy source produces it. Land mass, ocean geometry, and outgassing asymmetry produce it. It does not attribute. Ocean gaining and acidifying. The ocean is a sink at present partial pressure because pressure rose. Henry's law. It tells you nothing about the origin of the rise. Warmer ocean also outgasses. Every data set shows CO₂ follows temperature. Four consistency checks. Zero attribution. ROOKIE ERROR. Panel 6. "The fingerprint did change." Yes. The atmospheric δ¹³C moved from about minus 6.5 to about minus 8.5. That drop is essentially entirely due to biospheric expansion (including the ocean). Nothing else. The biosphere has grown by roughly 30% since 1900 (satellite greening data, free-air CO₂ enrichment experiments, direct leaf-area measurements, and ocean measurements). Plants preferentially take up light carbon and release, on decay, carbon at their own fingerprint near minus 26. An expanding biosphere pumps light carbon into the atmosphere on net as the standing pool of plant carbon turns over at a higher throughput. That is where the two-per-mil atmospheric drop comes from. It is not from fossil fuel combustion. If the drop were fossil, the Keeling intercept of what is currently being added would be near minus 28. It is minus 13. The intercept measures the source. The source is not fossil. The atmospheric mean is drifting toward the source fingerprint, which is around minus 13, and biospheric turnover accounts for essentially all of the observed atmospheric change. You are confusing the signature of the bulk atmosphere with the signature of the NET CHANGE in the atmosphere over 500 years. The two-per-mil drop points to the biosphere, NOT fossil-fuels. You don't even understand the Keeling intercept. ROOKIE ERROR. Panel 7. "It really is just arithmetic." This is the Engelbeen-Hannon-Burton (2024) mass-balance-identity fallacy. It is tautology, not physics. The identity collapses non-fossil sources and non-fossil sinks into a single net term. It cannot tell "small source and small sink" from "large source and large sink." Fossil input is about 10 GtC per year. Gross ocean and biosphere exchange is greater than 200 GtC per year each way. Fossil carbon is about 5% of the influx and 5% of the outflux. Molecules cycle on four years. "Net sink so cannot be the source" is a category error. Reservoirs are large sources and large sinks at the same time. The net says nothing about attribution. No accounting identity is ever evidence of causation. Logic 101. ROOKIE ERROR. Panel 8. "What's actually happening." Your bank analogy assumes the Bern impulse-response function. The Bern IRF is a computational construct with four preset timescales and hand-tuned weights, one of them effectively infinite. Its "centuries" is an assumption baked into a model, not a measurement. The bomb-¹⁴C data measure the actual isotopic relaxation directly: 18.4 years, single exponential. It connects directly to the roughly 4-year bulk CO2 relaxation time by the bridge equation. A bank balance persists by ledger convention. Air CO₂ persists by partial-pressure equilibrium with ocean and biosphere. There is no ledger. Molecules do not carry origin tags. ROOKIE ERROR. Your bottom line. "Nature soaked up half." That is the annual-growth-over-annual-emission ratio (ABF_C). It ranges from 17.9% to 77.4% year to year, coefficient of variation 28.7%. It is unstable. The IPCC glossary defines airborne fraction as cumulative-still-airborne over cumulative-emitted (ABF_L). Under proper routing with a 3.8-year residence time, ABF_L is about 6%, not 50%. Your "half" is WRONG. "Essentially ALL." The isotopic mixing math rules this out. For fossil share to be even 50%, the non-fossil source would need δ¹³C = +1.6. No such source exists. For 80%, +46. For 90%, +120. For 100%, infinite. YOUR claim requires carbon sources that do not exist on Earth. ROOKIE ERROR. Warwick. Every one of these errors has been addressed in my published work and dismantled in detail on my X threads. The three-way convergence forces the answer: Scripps 1978 to today at minus 13.2, sclerosponge 1500 to today at minus 13, Law Dome 1500 to today at minus 13. Three materials, three labs, five centuries, one number. Fossil-fuel share of the rise is essentially zero within measurement error. You have been handed the standard consensus package and you are repeating it like a dutiful, brainwashed "useful idiot" without checking whether the arithmetic works. It does not. Read the preview paper: bit.ly/NoHumanCO2**. You are not defending science. You are defending a slogan. It is wrong. ROOKIE ERRORS ALL.

“NATURE IS A NET SINK” DOESN’T PROVE ANYTHING ABOUT HUMAN CAUSATION Evidential Vacuity of Accounting Identities Let E be an accounting identity and C any proposition in F. Then E∩C = C and E∩¬C = ¬C. The partition {C ∩ E, ¬C ∩ E} coincides with {C, ¬C}. Consequently E induces no refinement of {C,¬C}, and no evidence relation defined on that partition can register a change in the status of C upon learning E. Engelbeen, Hannon, and Burton keep promoting the following disproven lie over and over again in EHB (2024). But no matter how many times they repeat the lie, it NEVER becomes the truth. Just like Orwell’s 2+2=5. They can torture us all they want, but unlike Winston in Orwell’s 1984, we will never relent. THE BIG LIE Evidence of the Human Influence (p. 7): "The carbon mass balance is what definitely proves that humans are the main cause of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere: As long as the increase in the atmosphere is less than what humans emit per year, nature as a whole is a net sink and can't be the cause of the overall increase because that would violate the mass balance."

Tom Nelson Podcast #431: Cohler/Soon: “ Response to Ed Berry’s recent presentation” is now published. @cohler Jonathan Cohler, joined by Willie Soon, says he is correcting false statements Ed Berry made about their paper “Dominance of Natural Atmospheric CO2 Dynamics,” which is under review and posted online. Cohler argues Berry wrongly claimed they ignored Berry’s work, presented an identical delta-14C “proof,” and called for a carbon-cycle model; Cohler says they cited Berry prominently and used newer radiocarbon data (Hua et al. 2022) and Koutsoyiannis 2024. They distinguish residence time (~3.8 years) from radiocarbon relaxation time (~18.4 years), claim a bridge equation links them, and assert their new work mathematically refutes Bern multi-exponential/adjustment-time models. They also discuss conflicts with the CO2 Coalition over attributing CO2 rise to humans. 00:00 Why This Rebuttal 01:23 Berry Claims Overview 03:16 New Radiocarbon Data 05:19 Lie One Citation Record 07:33 Lie Two Not Identical 10:00 Lie Three No Model Needed 12:34 Why Skip Berry 2023 13:16 Residence vs Relaxation 15:57 Bridge Equation Results 17:20 Math Theorems Against Bern 18:29 Independent Checks and Implications 21:38 Host Q and IPCC Confusion 22:49 Soon on Adjustment Time Myth 24:55 Table Consensus and Bern Failure 26:25 Bomb 14C Reality Check 27:30 Why Bomb Tests Matter 28:19 Ethics And Accusations 29:27 Data Driven Challenge 31:08 CO2 Coalition Split 33:32 Math Not Debate 36:55 Ugly Email Wars 40:01 Science Over Ego 42:52 Searchers Versus Blockers 43:22 Passing The Torch 45:08 Final Thanks And Goodbye

It's not the truth though is it Jonathan?