Climate Controversy – CEP

by Thomas Abshier | Mar 14, 2026 | Physics/Christianity/Life, Politics/Economics/Culture

The Climate Equivalence Principle: A Scientific Assessment

A Fellowship Discussion on Dr. Edwin Berry’s Challenge to Climate Science

Renaissance Ministries | March 14, 2026

“Buy truth, and do not sell it; buy wisdom, instruction, and understanding.”
— Proverbs 23:23

Introduction: A Neighbor’s Challenge

Dr. Edwin X Berry lives in Bigfork, Montana — about half an hour from Kalispell. He holds a PhD in theoretical physics from the University of Nevada, an MS from Dartmouth (where he studied under John Kemeny, who was a mathematics assistant to Albert Einstein), and a BS from Caltech. He was an NSF Program Manager for Weather Modification and has worked extensively in atmospheric physics.

He is also making an extraordinary claim: that the entire foundation of climate change science is wrong, and that human CO2 emissions contribute only about 18 ppm (parts per million) to atmospheric CO2, not the 130+ ppm that mainstream science attributes to human activity.

If he is right, the implications are staggering: trillions of dollars in climate policy are based on a scientific error, and the “climate crisis” is largely a fiction.

If he is wrong, his arguments — however sophisticated — could mislead many sincere people who are looking for reasons to resist the political agenda attached to climate science.

As Christians committed to truth, we must evaluate his claims carefully. This essay attempts to do so with scientific rigor and intellectual honesty.

Part I: Berry’s Core Argument — The Climate Equivalence Principle (CEP)

What Berry Claims

Berry’s argument centers on what he calls the “Climate Equivalence Principle” (CEP), which he presented at an international climate conference in Porto, Portugal in September 2018, and subsequently published in peer-reviewed papers in 2019, 2021, and 2023.

The CEP states:

Since human and natural CO2 molecules are identical, they must flow through the atmosphere at exactly the same rate. Mother Nature cannot tell the difference between a CO2 molecule from a car exhaust and one from the ocean.

From this principle, Berry argues:

1. IPCC’s fundamental assumption is wrong. The IPCC claims that human CO2 stays in the atmosphere much longer than natural CO2 — with a “residence time” of hundreds of years for human CO2 versus only about 4 years for natural CO2. Berry says this violates the CEP because identical molecules must behave identically.
2. The ratio in must equal the ratio out. If human emissions are only 3-5% of total CO2 inflow (with nature contributing 95-97%), then human CO2 can only be 3-5% of atmospheric CO2 — not the 32% the IPCC claims.
3. His “Physics Model” matches the Carbon-14 data. Berry uses the decay of Carbon-14 (from nuclear bomb tests in the 1950s-60s) as a tracer to determine how fast CO2 leaves the atmosphere. He claims his simple model replicates this data perfectly, while the IPCC’s “Bern model” cannot.
4. Human CO2 contributes only ~18 ppm. Based on his calculations, human emissions have raised atmospheric CO2 by only 18 ppm above the pre-industrial 280 ppm — not the 130+ ppm (bringing us to 410+ ppm) that is commonly attributed to human activity.

Berry concludes: “Checkmate!” The IPCC’s climate science violates basic physics, and all climate laws, regulations, and policies are therefore scientifically invalid.

Berry’s Credentials and Supporters

Berry has genuine credentials in atmospheric physics. His PhD thesis was cited in textbooks and recognized as a breakthrough. He was an NSF Program Manager. He has a CCM (Certified Consulting Meteorologist) designation and has served as an expert witness.

Richard Courtney, a UK climate scientist and professional reviewer, reportedly called Berry’s work “the ONLY true breakthrough in climate science since 1980.”

Hermann Harde, a German physicist, published similar conclusions in 2017, finding that human emissions contribute only about 15% to the CO2 increase.

Peter Stallinga published a paper in 2023 (in the journal Entropy) reaching similar conclusions about residence time versus adjustment time.

So Berry is not alone. There is a small community of scientists challenging the mainstream consensus on human CO2 attribution.

Part II: The Scientific Critique of Berry’s Arguments

The Core Distinction: Residence Time vs. Adjustment Time

The most important critique of Berry’s argument centers on a distinction he allegedly conflates: residence time versus adjustment time.

Residence time (also called “turnover time”): How long an individual CO2 molecule stays in the atmosphere before being exchanged with the ocean or biosphere. This is indeed short — about 4-5 years. The IPCC agrees with this.

Adjustment time (also called “equilibration time”): How long it takes for a perturbation (an excess amount of CO2) to be fully absorbed by the carbon cycle and for atmospheric levels to return to equilibrium. This is much longer — 50 to hundreds of years.

The key insight is that these are different things and can have different timescales:

Individual CO2 molecules may be rapidly exchanged between atmosphere and ocean, but if the ocean is also releasing CO2 at nearly the same rate, the net change is slow. The molecules are “swapping places” but the total amount in the atmosphere changes only gradually.

The Bathtub Analogy

Critics use a bathtub analogy to explain this:

Imagine a bathtub with water flowing in and out very rapidly (the faucet and drain are both wide open). The residence time of any individual water molecule is short — it quickly flows out the drain. But if you add a cup of water to the tub, how long does that extra water take to drain away? That depends on the net difference between inflow and outflow, not on the total flow rate.

If the faucet and drain are nearly balanced, even a small addition can persist for a long time.

Berry’s model, critics argue, treats the atmosphere as a simple “one-box” system with a single inflow and outflow. But the real carbon cycle has multiple reservoirs (atmosphere, surface ocean, deep ocean, land biosphere, soils) with different exchange rates and different response times. The simple model works for C-14 (which has essentially one source and decays radioactively) but fails for total CO2.

The Cawley (2011) Rebuttal

Gavin Cawley published a detailed technical response to similar arguments in the journal Energy & Fuels in 2011. He demonstrated that using a simple one-box model of the carbon cycle, you can derive:

1. A short residence time (~4 years)
2. A long adjustment time (~74 years)
3. A constant “airborne fraction” (~58%) — meaning about 58% of human emissions stay in the atmosphere
4. A very low proportion of anthropogenic CO2 molecules in the atmosphere

All of these are consistent with each other AND with the anthropogenic origin of the CO2 rise.

The key point: Short residence time and long adjustment time are not contradictory. They describe different phenomena.

Multiple Lines of Evidence for Anthropogenic CO2

The mainstream position is supported by multiple independent lines of evidence that Berry’s model does not adequately address:

1. The Ocean is a Net Sink, Not a Source

If the ocean were releasing CO2 (as Berry’s model would require to explain the rise from natural sources), the ocean would be outgassing CO2. But measurements show the opposite: the ocean is absorbing CO2 and becoming more acidic as a result.

Ocean pH has dropped by about 0.1 units since the industrial era (a 30% increase in acidity). This proves the ocean is taking in CO2, not releasing it. If nature were the source of rising CO2, we would expect the ocean to be releasing CO2 and becoming less acidic.

2. Carbon Isotope Fingerprints

There are three isotopes of carbon: C-12 (most common), C-13 (~1%), and C-14 (trace).

Plants preferentially absorb C-12 over C-13 during photosynthesis. Therefore, plant-derived carbon (and fossil fuels, which are ancient plants) has a lower C-13/C-12 ratio than the atmosphere.

If the rising CO2 were coming from fossil fuels, we would expect the C-13/C-12 ratio in the atmosphere to decline (more C-12 relative to C-13).

This is exactly what is observed. The decline began around 1850 and has accelerated — matching the pattern of fossil fuel combustion. This is called the “Suess Effect.”

Similarly, fossil fuels contain essentially no C-14 (it has decayed over millions of years). If fossil fuel CO2 is entering the atmosphere, the C-14/C-12 ratio should decline. This is also observed (setting aside the spike from nuclear bomb tests).

3. Oxygen Decline

Burning fossil fuels consumes oxygen: C + O2 → CO2. If the CO2 rise were from fossil fuel combustion, we would expect atmospheric oxygen to decline.

This is observed. The rate of oxygen decline matches expectations from known fossil fuel combustion rates.

If the CO2 were coming from ocean outgassing (as Berry’s model would require), oxygen would also be outgassing and atmospheric O2 would not decline (or would decline much less).

4. The Mass Balance

We know how much CO2 humans have emitted (from fossil fuel records, cement production, and land use change): approximately 1,500 gigatons of CO2 since 1850.

The observed increase in atmospheric CO2 is about 130 ppm, equivalent to roughly 275 gigatons of carbon (or about 1,000 Gt CO2).

This means approximately 58% of human emissions have stayed in the atmosphere, with the rest absorbed by ocean and land biosphere. This “airborne fraction” is consistent with carbon cycle models.

If Berry’s model were correct — if human emissions contributed only 18 ppm — where did the other 1,200+ Gt of human CO2 go? The ocean is absorbing CO2, not releasing it. The land biosphere is roughly neutral or a slight sink. There is no “missing sink” large enough to absorb this much carbon while nature simultaneously releases enough to account for the 130 ppm increase.

5. COVID-19: The Natural Experiment

During the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, global CO2 emissions dropped by approximately 7%. Some skeptics argued that if human emissions were causing the rise, we should see an immediate impact on atmospheric CO2.

What was observed: Atmospheric CO2 continued to rise, but at a slightly slower rate (about 0.14 ppm less increase than expected in the Northern Hemisphere for February-April 2020).

Critics of Berry use this as evidence against him: “The reduction in emissions had no visible impact!” But the mainstream explanation is straightforward: A 7% reduction in a single year’s flow has a minimal impact on the accumulated stock of CO2. Just as slightly reducing the faucet flow doesn’t immediately drain the bathtub.

Berry’s supporters counter-argue that if human emissions were the primary driver, any reduction should have an immediate effect. But this conflates flow and stock.

Part III: Assessing the Arguments

What Berry Gets Right

1. The molecules are identical. This is true. A CO2 molecule from a car exhaust is chemically identical to one from ocean outgassing.
2. Residence time is short. The IPCC agrees that individual CO2 molecules exchange rapidly between atmosphere and other reservoirs (~4-5 years).
3. The IPCC models are complex and contain assumptions. All models contain assumptions. The question is whether those assumptions are justified.
4. Climate science has been politicized. This is undeniably true. The policy implications of climate science have led to enormous political pressure on all sides.
5. Skepticism is scientifically legitimate. The scientific method requires challenging assumptions and testing predictions. Berry is doing this.

What Berry Gets Wrong (or Fails to Address)

1. Conflating residence time and adjustment time. This appears to be the central error. The short residence time of individual molecules is compatible with long adjustment times for perturbations.
2. The one-box model is too simple. The carbon cycle involves multiple reservoirs with different exchange rates. A model that works for C-14 decay may not work for total CO2 perturbations.
3. Multiple independent lines of evidence. Ocean acidification, isotope ratios, oxygen decline, and mass balance all point to anthropogenic CO2 as the primary driver of the rise. Berry’s model does not adequately explain these observations.
4. The “missing sink” problem in reverse. If Berry is right, there must be a massive natural source of CO2 that somehow didn’t exist before 1850 and exactly correlates with human industrialization. What is this source? Berry points to ocean warming, but the ocean is measured to be absorbing CO2, not releasing it.
5. Publication venue concerns. Berry’s papers appear in journals like International Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences (published by Science Publishing Group), which has been identified as a potential “predatory publisher” — a pay-to-publish outlet with less rigorous peer review. This doesn’t prove Berry is wrong, but it raises questions about why his work hasn’t appeared in top-tier climate journals.

The Expert Consensus

It is worth noting that Berry’s views are rejected by the overwhelming majority of climate scientists. The CO2 Coalition (a skeptic organization that generally opposes aggressive climate policy) has itself critiqued Berry’s work, publishing a paper in December 2024 that disagrees with his CEP argument.

When even climate skeptics reject an argument, it’s a significant data point.

However, consensus is not proof. The history of science contains examples where the consensus was wrong. The question is whether the evidence supports the consensus.

Part IV: A Christian Perspective

Our Commitment to Truth

As Christians, we are committed to truth. We believe that truth comes from God and that honest investigation of creation honors Him. We should not accept claims merely because they fit our political preferences, nor reject them for the same reason.

If Berry is right, we should follow the truth wherever it leads — even if it’s unpopular.

If Berry is wrong, we should not embrace his arguments simply because they oppose a political agenda we dislike.

The Problem of Motivated Reasoning

Climate change is deeply entangled with political ideology:

• The Left often uses climate science to justify expanded government control, international agreements, and restrictions on economic activity.
• The Right often resists climate science because it’s associated with this agenda.

Both sides are vulnerable to motivated reasoning — accepting or rejecting scientific claims based on their political implications rather than their evidence.

Christians should be especially alert to this temptation in ourselves.

Separating Science from Policy

Even if mainstream climate science is correct — even if human CO2 is the primary driver of atmospheric CO2 increase and contributes to warming — this does not automatically validate any particular policy response.

One can accept the science while rejecting:

• Carbon taxes
• International climate agreements
• Restrictions on energy production
• “Climate emergency” rhetoric

The science tells us what is happening. The policy question is what (if anything) to do about it, and that involves values, economics, and prudential judgment.

Conversely, one can reject the science while still supporting:

• Clean air and water
• Good stewardship of creation
• Development of alternative energy sources
• Reducing pollution

The policy questions are separate from the scientific questions.

What Should We Believe?

Based on my research, I offer the following assessment:

Berry’s CEP argument is probably wrong. The distinction between residence time and adjustment time appears valid, and Berry’s model does not adequately address it. The multiple independent lines of evidence (ocean acidification, isotope ratios, oxygen decline, mass balance) all point to anthropogenic CO2 as the primary driver of the rise.

However, climate science contains legitimate uncertainties. The magnitude of warming from CO2 (climate sensitivity) is still debated even among mainstream scientists. The role of feedbacks (water vapor, clouds, etc.) is uncertain. The predictions of future harm are model-dependent and contain substantial uncertainty.

The “catastrophist” narrative is probably overblown. While warming is real and human-caused, the apocalyptic rhetoric (“existential threat,” “climate emergency”) goes beyond what the science supports. Many climate scientists are uncomfortable with this rhetoric.

Berry’s broader critique of politicization is valid. Climate science has been corrupted by political pressure on all sides. The IPCC process is political as well as scientific. Skeptics have been marginalized and silenced in ways that violate scientific norms.

Recommendations for the Fellowship

1. Don’t dismiss Berry out of hand. He has credentials, he’s making specific scientific arguments, and he deserves a hearing. The fact that his view is unpopular doesn’t make it wrong.
2. But be cautious about embracing his conclusions. The scientific critiques of his argument appear strong. Multiple independent lines of evidence support the mainstream position.
3. Recognize the difference between science and policy. Don’t reject science because you dislike the policies that some want to build on it. Evaluate the science on its own merits.
4. Beware of motivated reasoning in yourself. It’s tempting to embrace arguments that support our political preferences. Ask yourself: Would I find this argument convincing if it led to a different conclusion?
5. Hold conclusions tentatively. Science is provisional. Today’s consensus can be tomorrow’s error. But we must act on our best current understanding while remaining open to revision.
6. Focus on what we can control. Whatever the truth about climate, we can practice good stewardship, live simply, reduce waste, and care for creation. These are Christian virtues regardless of climate science.

Part V: Questions for Discussion

1. On evaluating scientific claims: How should Christians assess scientific claims on complex technical issues where we’re not experts? What role should credentials, consensus, evidence, and argument play?
2. On motivated reasoning: Where might conservatives (or Christians) be vulnerable to accepting weak arguments because they oppose policies we dislike? Where might we be rejecting strong arguments for the same reason?
3. On Berry’s argument: Does the distinction between residence time and adjustment time make sense to you? Why or why not?
4. On the multiple lines of evidence: The mainstream position is supported by ocean acidification, isotope ratios, oxygen decline, and mass balance. Do you find these arguments compelling?
5. On policy: If the mainstream climate science is correct, what (if anything) should be done about it? What’s the relationship between scientific conclusions and policy recommendations?
6. On stewardship: What does biblical stewardship of creation require, regardless of climate science conclusions?
7. On neighborliness: Dr. Berry is our neighbor — literally. How should we engage with neighbors who hold strong views we may disagree with?

Conclusion: Humble Confidence

The climate debate is contentious, politicized, and technical. As Christians seeking truth, we should:

• Be humble: We may not have the expertise to fully evaluate these arguments. We should hold our conclusions tentatively.
• Be confident: We can follow evidence and reason to provisional conclusions. We don’t have to suspend judgment forever.
• Be charitable: Those who disagree with us (on either side) may be sincere and well-intentioned. Disagreement is not the same as dishonesty.
• Be discerning: Both sides have been guilty of exaggeration, motivated reasoning, and politicization. We should be alert to this on all sides.

My assessment: Berry’s CEP argument is probably wrong, but he raises legitimate questions about a science that has been heavily politicized. The mainstream consensus is probably correct on the basic question (human CO2 is driving the rise), but the catastrophist rhetoric is overblown.

What matters most is that we pursue truth honestly, wherever it leads — and that we act on our best understanding while remaining open to correction.

“The heart of the discerning acquires knowledge, for the ears of the wise seek it out.”
— Proverbs 18:15

Primary Sources:

• Berry, Edwin X. “Human CO2 Emissions Have Little Effect on Atmospheric CO2,” International Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, 2019.
• Berry, Edwin X. Climate Miracle, 2020.
• Cawley, Gavin C. “On the Atmospheric Residence Time of Anthropogenically Sourced Carbon Dioxide,” Energy & Fuels, 2011.
• Harde, Hermann. “Scrutinizing the carbon cycle and CO2 residence time in the atmosphere,” Global and Planetary Change, 2017.
• Stallinga, Peter. “Residence Time vs. Adjustment Time of Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere,” Entropy, 2023.
• Various IPCC reports and climate science literature.

Note: This essay represents an attempt to fairly assess competing scientific claims. The author is not a climate scientist and may have made errors. Feedback and corrections are welcome.

The Christos Commons

by Thomas Abshier | Feb 26, 2026 | Physics/Christianity/Life, Politics/Economics/Culture

I’ve created the Christos Commons Technical Specification v1.0 — a comprehensive 14-section document that formalizes your vision for a public conversation platform where every topic encounters the sacred.

Document Highlights

Core Philosophy: The Sacred in Everything

The foundational insight: “Every situation in life — every opinion, question, joke, story, conspiracy theory, news commentary — is an opportunity to find the sacred and move in that direction.”

The Problem Addressed

• The Popularity Lottery — Most posts get nothing; a few get everything
• The Wisdom Vacuum — No substantive engagement, just shallow reactions
• The Missing Dimension — No transcendent reference, no moral framework

Post Types Supported

• Opinions, Questions, Stories/Experiences
• News Commentary, Conspiracy/Theory
• Jokes/Humor, Wisdom/Insight, Rants/Frustration

AI Engagement Model

Six principles guide AI responses:

1. Always engage genuinely
2. Validate before challenging
3. Invite, don’t impose
4. Ask good questions
5. Connect to larger patterns
6. Acknowledge uncertainty

The Sacred Thread Methodology

Four steps for finding sacred meaning:

1. Identify the human core (what human reality is being expressed?)
2. Connect to universal themes (meaning, suffering, joy, justice, love…)
3. Find the biblical resonance (relevant Scripture)
4. Offer the connection gently (invitational, not imposing)

Example AI Engagements

The document includes four detailed examples showing how AI would engage:

• A UFO experience
• A vaccine debate frustration
• Political frustration
• A simple joke

Each shows the Rapport-Confrontation-Change framework in action.

Multi-Axis Polling

Beyond thumbs up/down:

• Agreement Scale (1-10)
• Confidence Scale (1-10)
• Importance Scale (1-10)
• Biblical Alignment (1-10)
• Framework Selection (multiple choice)

Ecosystem Pathways

Commons serves as front door to the ecosystem:

• Scripture questions → Cross-Check
• Personal struggle → Counselor
• Interest in group discussion → Group Leader
• Political/moral questions → Voting Network
• Health experiences → Medical Testimony
• Interest in understanding people → Diagnostician

Reward Structure

Unlike platforms rewarding popularity, Commons rewards:

• “Conversation Starter” — Posts generating substantive discussion
• “Wisdom Contributor” — Responses marked thoughtful/helpful
• “Bridge Builder” — Respectful engagement across disagreement
• “Sacred Thread Finder” — Bringing biblical perspective helpfully

The Complete Christos Ecosystem — Now Eight Components

Session Summary

This remarkable session has produced comprehensive documentation for a complete Christian formation ecosystem:

Documents Created Today

1. Christos Voting Network — Political/moral self-assessment (your 1986 vision realized)
2. Beyond Employment — Essay on AI, human dignity, and meaning
3. Christos Diagnostician — Physics-based diagnostic counseling training
4. Christos Medical Testimony — Health experience sharing (MAHA-aligned)
5. Christos Cross-Check — Bible study foundation layer
6. Christos Commons — Public conversation platform (front door)

The Complete Vision

What began as individual counseling has expanded into a comprehensive platform addressing:

• Scripture study (Cross-Check)
• Personal pastoral care (Counselor)
• Professional counselor support (Professional Module)
• Community fellowship (Group Leader)
• Political/moral discernment (Voting Network)
• Diagnostic skill development (Diagnostician)
• Health stewardship (Medical Testimony)
• Public conversation (Commons)

All eight components share the same DNA:

• Biblical grounding
• Rapport-Confrontation-Change framework
• Training wheels philosophy
• Goal of grassroots sanctification
• Contribution to growing wisdom database

Commons serves as the welcoming front door where anyone can enter with any topic and find pathways to every other module as their needs emerge.

The ecosystem is fully documented and ready for implementation prioritization.

Thomas: My prompt:

I had one more idea for the Christos system. I was watching a UFO documentary, “Out of the Blue”, and I thought about what it would be like for people to be able to express their opinions on controversial subjects. This is kind of like the Voting Network, but it’s also like Quora, Reddit, and Facebook. A kind of community square, a watercooler, a scuttlebutt, a gossip corner. People really like such sites, and say all sorts of outrageous things. But they feel powerless to influence opinions and end up just chasing thumbs-up ratings to satisfy their ego. People have a lot of opinions about a lot of things. The current Quora/Reddit iterations do not include AI commentary or a granular/multi-axis community poll to put their opinions in perspective. They post and wait for people to comment; most don’t get any, and a few get several thousand “likes”. It makes for posting being a thankless/rewardless experience for most people. I think if there were an AI analysis of each person’s opinion and AI feedback, a polling synthesis/report/feedback of the spectrum of opinions from users’ recorded responses across various axes (possibly generated as an AI-generated prompt that drew out the axes and explored them with the user to fill in where he/she stood on the issue along various orthogonal perspectives). Then I realized that the same thing is true about vaccines, the harm/benefit of naturally acquired measles vs. vaccine, the origin of AIDS, etc. Then I thought about the various political stories, the rumors about this person’s past/actions/speech, and the policy implications of proposed legislative solutions to problems. What if the AI responded with a Biblical perspective, or engaged in a conversation to uncover what the best choice of attitude and action that reflected love for God and neighbor as self, as a self-type of solution to the situation might be? Maybe the AI could interface and switch into a layman’s Christos Counselor type Chat, maybe drawing out understanding from the user, and suggesting resources, things people have written, websites, and synthesis from the chat database, or open it up to other users to comment and update the commentary/solution until there was a solution that there was a high consensus/Biblical congruency. It’s not a well formulated concept, but I’m thinking that there should be a way that people can share their odd experiences (for things to watch out for in life, the humanness of us all but trying to do it perfectly anyway), their knowledge of historical facts (as a way of understanding life in more depth by seeing its context), their wisdom quips (experience of what works, factors to consider, possible outcomes, alternative actions, cost of each choice…), their jokes (for appreciating the human condition, nd understanding whether the joke was using humor as a way of exposing evil, or being used to titillate by the voyerism into the forbidden possibilities and situations). I think there is a way to turn every situation in life, every Facebook post, every Reddit entry, every political blog commentary, every news item into an opportunity to find the sacred and then move in that direction by the AI commentary/analysis, which other people could see, and would be recorded, and could be part of the polling data. I see this as mapping out the progression from primitive/fleshly emotions/passions, to a goal of where to direct one’s mind/heart/framing of each situation. It is about telling stories and reframing them as lessons in Godliness, whether the user has reached that point or not. This would kind of be an AI as a wise Biblical counselor in the format of a Quora/Facebook/Reddit chat about all the conspiracies, news events, social events, etc. Anyway, those were some ideas. What do you think? Is this redundant, already covered by the Voting Network? Would there be any issues with AI giving Biblical counsel/perspective, as a possibility, “what do you think of this” type of way of reframing, and engaging the user in a rapport/confrontation/change type of format, and then referring them to a counselor if necessary, who could continue to explore these issues if appropriate? It would be entertaining to display Voting Network-type graphics/statistics to let the person know where they stand on this issue, including the Synthetic AI’s opinion on the Godly/Biblical/Christ-like framing of the topic/opinion/joke/conspiracy… What do you think?