Jonathan Cohler

“most-recorded clarinet soloist of our time”
—Fanfare
Clarinetist/Conductor-Software Dev-AI & Climate Scientist 🇺🇸

[Jonathan Cohler @cohler]

THE BIGGEST LIE EVER TOLD
The IPCC has nothing.

Forty years of civilizational alarm. Trillions of dollars redirected. Energy systems dismantled. Farmers crushed. Children taught to fear the sky. Political freedom surrendered. Reproductive choices second-guessed. Entire economies rewired.

For nothing.

There is no empirical finding underneath any of it. None. Not one measurement, standing on its own, that would move a reasonable person to alarm.

The entire structure is manufactured.

Ask for one item. True without a model. Significant without a redefinition. Measured without extrapolation. Able to stand alone and matter to a parent, a farmer, a shipowner, an engineer, a legislator.

The honest inventory is three measurements. Not one of them means anything by itself.

CO₂ rose from 315 to 425 ppm since 1958. Plants grew better. Nothing bad happened that follows from the number.

Humans emit about 10 GtC/yr from combustion. A flux figure. By itself it tells you nothing.

CO₂ absorbs infrared on known bands. Water vapor absorbs far more. A spectroscopic line is not a consequence.

That is it. The entire empirical pile. Three measurements. Zero significance.

Everything else they have told you is one of three tricks.

Model output passed off as observation. Climate sensitivity. Airborne fraction read as retention. Revelle-limited uptake. Millennial persistence. Attribution of warming to forcing. Catastrophic projection. None of this is measured. All of it is what model code returns when they turn its crank. Model output is the model's assumptions integrated forward. It is not testimony from nature. It never was.

Definitional sleight-of-hand. Global mean surface temperature called a physical quantity. It is not. It is an area-weighted arithmetic mean of intensive readings with no thermodynamic referent. The 44 percent ratio of annual growth to annual emission relabeled as an airborne fraction and sold as retention. It carries zero information about retention. Fossil "dominance" quietly redefined from "nearly all" to "a bare majority" so the claim survives data that killed the real version.

Extrapolation sold as measurement. Tide gauges spliced to altimetry and projected as acceleration. Local pH drift at a handful of stations generalized to a planetary crisis. Arctic ice loss broadcast while Antarctic stability is dropped. Retreating glaciers paraded. Advancing ones hidden.

Strip the models. Strip the redefinitions. Strip the extrapolations. The pile is empty.

This is the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

The civilizational emergency has no empirical content. It was built by running trivial measurements through model chains and definitional swaps until the output read as apocalypse. Then it was broadcast as settled science. Then dissent was criminalized. Then careers were destroyed. Then children were terrified. Then nations were restructured.

For nothing.

The emperor has no clothes.
The pile is empty.
The alarm is a fabrication.
The greatest lie ever told to the human species was told in the name of saving the planet from a trace gas that feeds every green thing that lives.

That is the headline.
That is the story.
That is what you were never supposed to notice.

Now you know.

[Jonathan Cohler @cohler]

@Avalonstarship1 IF you were genuinely curious, you would be reading my papers and not asking dumb questions.

[Jonathan Cohler @cohler]

IPCC HUMAN CO₂ ATTRIBUTION PROVEN MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE

Fossil carbon contributes ≈ZERO to the observed rise in atmospheric CO₂.

The Keeling intercept has remained locked at δ¹³C_I ≈ −13‰ for five full centuries, while fossil emissions rose from essentially nothing to ~10 GtC yr⁻¹.

A large fossil fraction would have dragged the intercept toward −28‰. It didn't budge.

The only value consistent with a fixed intercept is
fossil fraction f ≈ 0.

IPCC’s own methods, own isotopic standards, and own data force the conclusion:

Human fossil emissions are not the cause of the rise in atmospheric CO₂. PERIOD.

The claim is mathematically dead.

Full mathematical proof:
https://t.co/qYpY0qiGxv

[Jonathan Cohler @cohler]

@haribalzac01 It’s called MATH. And YES it only takes ONE paper to prove MATH.

[Jonathan Cohler @cohler]

@BigIke1313 @grok So what’s your point?

[Jonathan Cohler @cohler]

>442,000 people have seen this post!

[Jonathan Cohler @cohler]

IPCC HUMAN CO₂ ATTRIBUTION PROVEN MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE

Fossil carbon contributes ≈ZERO to the observed rise in atmospheric CO₂.

The Keeling intercept has remained locked at δ¹³C_I ≈ −13‰ for five full centuries, while fossil emissions rose from essentially nothing to ~10 GtC yr⁻¹.

A large fossil fraction would have dragged the intercept toward −28‰. It didn't budge.

The only value consistent with a fixed intercept is
fossil fraction f ≈ 0.

IPCC’s own methods, own isotopic standards, and own data force the conclusion:

Human fossil emissions are not the cause of the rise in atmospheric CO₂. PERIOD.

The claim is mathematically dead.

Full mathematical proof:
https://t.co/qYpY0qiGxv

[North London Arsenal Man @CreditRealist]

@cohler Why is @BBCNews still refusing to report this?

[Jonathan Cohler @cohler]

@cliffmoore71

Since you have never provided the link (as expected) you are hereby

BLOCKED

for being a confirmed

TROLL

[Jonathan Cohler @cohler]

@cliffmoore71 I’ll give you one more

Then

BLOCKED

[michael holcombe @mgholcombe1976]

@cohler That’s not enough. Post and repost!

[🇳🇱RudolfJ🇳🇱💪 @RUDOLFJ15]

@cohler Finally, IPCC misinformation is proven.💪‼️🎯

NGOs and governments influenced by this should abolish their climate activism or totally lose their credibility.‼️🧐

[Jonathan Cohler @cohler]

Alan is self-important MORON who writes a response about 14C to a paper on 13C. Dumb is as dumb says.

And Alan @KIVUNature sure is DUMB. A doornail comes to mind.

[Tony Heller 🇺🇸 🇯🇵 @TonyClimate]

400 feet of sea level rise was natural, but the last few inches was caused by SUV's and cheeseburgers. The inner workings of the climate alarmist mind is always fascinating.

[Jonathan Cohler @cohler]

It means natural processes that have NOTHING to do with fossil-fuel combustion are what has driven the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere since industrialization (i.e. ~ 1850 or 1750).

PERIOD.
END OF STORY.
NO IFS ANDS OR BUTS.

[Jonathan Cohler @cohler]

It means natural processes that have NOTHING to do with fossil-fuel combustion are what has driven the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere since industrialization (i.e. ~ 1850 or 1750).

PERIOD.
END OF STORY.
NO IFS ANDS OR BUTS.

[Jonathan Cohler @cohler]

>442,000 people have seen this post!

[Jonathan Cohler @cohler]

It's MUCH worse than that. GMSL is an ENTIRELY fraudulent concept. From top to bottom. Pure MATH. They are all liars OR they are all really dumb. Here's a very brief summary.

GMSL: A Complete and Total Mathematical Fraud
Enumeration of structural failures in the Global Mean Sea Level construct and in satellite-altimetry claims of sub-millimeter precision.

The Foundational Failure

0. GMSL does not exist in the real world.
There is no such thing as GMSL anywhere on Earth. It is an imaginary number. You cannot go to any spot on the planet and find it. You cannot sail a boat on it. You cannot drop a plumb line to it. You cannot point a camera at it. It is not the height of any ocean, any sea, any bay, any shoreline. Every point on the actual ocean surface has a definite height. Those heights differ by over 2 meters from place to place and change every second. Someone adds up all those different heights and divides by the number of points. The resulting number is GMSL. That number is not the height of anything. It is the output of an arithmetic operation performed on numbers that describe different places.

Adding up heights from thousands of different places and dividing by how many places you added does not produce a height. It produces a number. The number has no counterpart in the physical world. The satellites are not measuring GMSL. They cannot measure GMSL. Nothing can measure GMSL. There is nothing out there to measure. The units (millimeters) are tacked on at the end of the arithmetic by convention. Millimeters are a unit of length. Length is a property of actual physical things.

GMSL is not an actual physical thing. It is a made-up concept. The entire industry built around measuring it to sub-millimeter accuracy is measuring the non-existent.

The Construct Itself

1. The ocean is not one thing with one height.
The ocean is a time-varying 3D surface. Its instantaneous height varies by over 2 meters across the globe from tides, pressure, wind, currents, warming, cooling, and salinity. Collapsing all of that into one number does not describe the ocean. It describes nothing.

2. The averaging operation mixes readings from places that have nothing in common.

Tropical warming expansion, Southern Ocean storm variability, and shelf-sea tidal residuals are different physical phenomena at different places. Adding them up with area weights and dividing produces an arithmetic answer that describes none of them. The result is a number, not a feature of the ocean.

The Satellite Measurement Chain

3. The radar footprint is kilometers wide.
TOPEX, Jason-1/2/3, and Sentinel-6 each illuminate a patch of ocean 2 to 5 km across with every ping. Claiming sub-millimeter precision from a measurement whose spot size is 2 to 5 kilometers is claiming precision 6 to 7 orders of magnitude finer than the thing you are actually measuring with. Impossible on its face.

4. The satellite does not know its own height to anywhere near the claimed precision.
The orbital height of a Jason-class satellite is uncertain by 1 to 2 centimeters per pass. The claimed trend uncertainty of 0.3 millimeters per year is 30 to 60 times smaller than how well the satellite knows its own position when it took the reading.

5. The published number is not a measurement. It is a sum of fudge factors.
The raw radar return gets corrected for wet troposphere, dry troposphere, ionosphere, sea state bias, ocean tide, solid earth tide, pole tide, loading tide, and atmospheric pressure. Every one of those corrections is a number produced by a computer model, not a measurement. Each one of those model corrections has its own uncertainty, mostly bigger than the whole yearly trend they claim to extract.

6. The GIA correction is just made up by a model.
About 0.3 mm/yr of the reported 3.3 mm/yr trend is added by a Glacial Isostatic Adjustment model (ICE-6G and its relatives). Nobody measured this number. A computer program made it up based on assumptions about ice sheets 20,000 years ago. Take the model correction out and the trend drops by 10%. A number that depends on an unverifiable computer invention is not a measurement.

7. When one satellite is replaced by the next, somebody picks the number that connects them.
The handovers from Jason-1 to Jason-2 to Jason-3 to Sentinel-6 require bias adjustments of several millimeters. Those adjustments are judgment calls made from short overlap periods and from comparisons to tide gauges. The uncertainty in those judgment calls is as big as the whole multi-year trend.

8. "Global" is a lie.
TOPEX and Jason satellites fly in orbits that only cover latitudes between 66 degrees south and 66 degrees north. The Arctic Ocean and most of the Southern Ocean, where ocean behavior changes most, are not covered at all. The word "global" in Global Mean Sea Level is factually untrue.

9. The calibration against tide gauges is circular.
Satellite altimetry is checked against tide gauges to see if it is right. Tide gauges have to be corrected for the land underneath them rising or sinking. That land-motion correction is made using GPS plus the same kind of ice-age model that was already baked into the satellite number. So the check uses the same model it is supposed to check against. Round and round.

The Statistics

10. The sub-millimeter uncertainty is a made-up statistic.
The headline uncertainty number comes from fitting a straight line to one time series and reporting the standard error of the slope. There is only one series. There is no ensemble, no replication, no independent instrument doing the same job. A straight-line fit error is not a measurement uncertainty. It describes how well a line fits points, not how right the points are.

11. The coordinate system itself drifts at the same scale as the signal.
The reference frame used to define positions on Earth (ITRF2008, ITRF2014, ITRF2020) changes between updates at the millimeter-per-year scale. The published trend number changes when the reference frame is updated. A number whose value depends on which coordinate system is in use that year is not describing anything physical.

12. The ruler changes shape while you measure with it.
The reference surface for sea level is not flat. It is the shape of Earth’s gravity field (the geoid). That shape changes as mass moves around (ice sheets melting, groundwater pumping, ocean currents). The changes happen at the same millimeter-per-year scale as the signal. The thing used to define "sea level" is moving while you measure sea level with it.

13. The "big N" trick for shrinking uncertainty is misused.
Averaging a million measurements only reduces uncertainty if the errors are random and independent. Satellite altimetry errors are not random and not independent. They are systematic, they are correlated across tracks, they are correlated in time, they are correlated across missions. Averaging millions of readings whose errors all point the same way does not reduce the uncertainty. The sub-millimeter claim relies on a statistical rule that does not apply to this data.

14. The thing they claim to see is smaller than the uncertainty in each reading used to see it.
Just the water-vapor correction alone has about 1 centimeter of uncertainty per measurement. Extracting a 3.3-millimeter-per-year signal to sub-millimeter precision from readings each corrected by a term with 10 millimeters of uncertainty requires huge amounts of error cancellation to just happen to occur. That cancellation is assumed, never shown.

15. The product is a model result mislabeled as a measurement.
The GMSL time series is a processing pipeline output. The raw satellite reading is one input among dozens of computer model outputs. The final number comes out of software. Calling that number a measurement of rising seas is the same category confusion as calling climate model outputs "observations" of future climate.

Summary

GMSL does not exist in the real world. It is an imaginary number produced by arithmetic. The satellites are not measuring it. Nothing is measuring it. There is nothing out there to measure.

On top of that fundamental problem: the pipeline that produces the number is dominated by computer models rather than measurements, the precision claim relies on statistics that do not apply, the "global" claim is factually untrue, and the ruler used to define the quantity moves at the same scale as the claimed signal.
Sub-millimeter accuracy claims about a quantity that does not exist. Mathematical fraud at every layer.

[Jonathan Cohler @cohler]

THE CARBON LIES
TRILLIONS STOLEN
MASS PSYCHOSIS

Rising CO2 is NOT caused by fossil fuels.
Rising CO2 is NOT harmful.
Both claims are categorically false.
Both are foreclosed by direct measurement.

Every carbon capture project, every carbon credit scheme, every Net-Zero pledge, every fossil-fuel restriction, every carbon footprint calculation rests on physics that has been falsified.

Trillions of dollars. Two lies. Here's the TRUTH.

LIE #1: Rising atmospheric CO2 is harmful.

There is NO evidence that increasing CO2 at current atmospheric concentrations causes ANY harm to humans, ecosystems, or the planet. NONE.

The harm claim typically routes through "warming." Two problems.

First: there is no physical quantity called "global temperature." What is reported as "global mean surface temperature" is an area-weighted arithmetic mean of intensive-variable surface readings from thermometers of varying kind, siting, and coverage. An arithmetic mean of intensive variables is not itself an intensive variable. It has no physical meaning whatsoever. Units belong to physical quantities. GMST is a number, not a temperature.

Second: even accepting the FALSE temperature framing, the radiative forcing from CO2 is trivially small. Happer and van Wijngaarden's line-by-line calculations from the HITRAN spectroscopic database give clear-sky CO2 forcing of 2.97 W/m² for doubling from 400 to 800 ppm at the top of the atmosphere.

The saturation is direct: doubling CO2 reduces outgoing radiation by only about 1%. Applying any reasonable cloud correction — Earth averages ~67% cloud cover, and clouds absorb strongly in CO2's principal 15 μm band, already blocking most of the outgoing radiation CO2 would absorb — reduces all-sky forcing below 1 W/m², plausibly below 0.5 W/m².

That is undetectable. Solar input at any surface location varies by hundreds of W/m² diurnally, dozens of W/m² seasonally, and dozens of W/m² between adjacent cloudy and clear moments. A signal of 0.5 W/m² does not rise above ordinary variability. There is nothing there to measure.

John Clauser (Nobel Prize in Physics 2022) has emphasized the further point: clouds are Earth's actual thermostat, responding to surface conditions on the scale of hours. No cloud feedback in any general circulation model has been validated against observation. A calculation that omits the dominant regulatory mechanism cannot testify to how the system responds.

Meanwhile, what CO2 does is measured, direct, and life-sustaining.

CO2 is the direct substrate of photosynthesis. Plants are the base of the entire food chain. Every calorie consumed by every animal, humans included, begins as photosynthesis. More atmospheric CO2 means more photosynthesis, more crop yield, more biomass. More CO2 means more life.

Satellite measurements since 1982 show Earth's leaf area has increased substantially, driven primarily by CO2 fertilization. Agricultural yields have risen with atmospheric CO2. Commercial greenhouse operators intentionally maintain CO2 at 1,000-1,500 ppm because plants thrive there.

The geological record: atmospheric CO2 has ranged from 180 ppm (glacial minima) to 7,000 ppm (Cambrian). Life flourished at the high end. The genuine danger threshold is the low end, near 150 ppm, below which C3 photosynthesis fails and terrestrial life largely ends.

LIE #2: Rising atmospheric CO2 is caused by human fossil fuel burning.

The isotopic mass balance forecloses this claim.

Fossil fuel carries δ¹³C = −28‰. The measured signature of the actual net addition to the atmosphere, from six independent records spanning 500-1000 years (four Scripps stations, Cape Grim Air Archive, Law Dome ice core, Caribbean sclerosponge), is δ¹³C = −13.2‰.

Under the physically dictated mass partition equation, the fossil fraction of the net atmospheric addition is approximately ZERO.

For fossil to dominate the atmospheric increase (the IPCC and @CO2Coalition FALSELY claim), non-fossil sources and sinks would need to carry δ¹³C = +46‰ or heavier. No terrestrial reservoir on Earth carries this signature. Not the ocean. Not the biosphere. Not volcanic. Not carbonate weathering. Nothing on this planet. This is two orders of magnitude away from REALITY. Not even close.

Trillions stolen.

Global spending on climate policy exceeded $2 trillion in 2024. McKinsey estimates cumulative spending of $275 trillion through 2050 under the industry-standard Net Zero 2050 scenario, roughly 7.5% of global GDP annually for three decades. Carbon credit markets alone moved over $100 billion in 2023, trading permission slips against a claim the physics forecloses.

Every dollar spent on carbon capture, offset schemes, Net-Zero infrastructure, carbon credits, and fossil-fuel restriction is STOLEN from productive economies on the basis of physics that has been falsified by direct measurement.

This is not waste. It is thievery.

Mass psychosis.

Two claims that fail on the physics are treated as settled science by governments, corporations, universities, and media on every continent. Dissent is professionally punished. Nobel laureates who point out the missing physics are called deniers. Peer-reviewed papers that reproduce the direct measurements are shouted down or ignored. Children are taught the falsified claims as fact.

Mattias Desmet, professor of clinical psychology at Ghent University, documents this exact pattern in The Psychology of Totalitarianism (2022). His mass-formation theory describes the mechanism: a population held in free-floating anxiety fixates on a single crisis narrative, adopts collective beliefs whose scale exceeds the evidence for them by orders of magnitude, and punishes dissent socially and professionally.

That gap between belief and evidence, held collectively and enforced socially, is what mass psychosis looks like.

Public policy built on falsified science is not policy. It is a crime against humanity.

Paper preview with derivations: https://t.co/5Hs2dIZ5fs

Or watch he video below!

[Jonathan Cohler @cohler]

Rockström openly advocates for support of the IPCC which has published the most damaging and expensive LIES in the history of humanity for the last 38 years.

[Johan Rockström @jrockstrom]

You want a safe future for humanity on Earth? Base all actions on science. IPCC provides us the basis for a manageable climate future for people today and tomorrow, across the entire world. Do not undermine it.
https://t.co/20pS3SprWQ

[Jonathan Cohler @cohler]

@Alpenweerman @jrockstrom @rahmstorf Typical fallacious nonsense about authority.

The sign of a person who has no argument to make.

Posting authority arguments on MY THREADS will get you blocked.

These threads are for TRUTH.

Consensus is irrelevant.

[Jonathan Cohler @cohler]

Johan Rockström (@jrockstrom) is a LIAR.
Stefan Rahmstorf (@rahmstorf) is a LIAR.

The CTV News post is false. Johan Rockström’s claim that “global warming is accelerating” and Stefan Rahmstorf’s paper claiming a statistically significant acceleration both rest on the same nonexistent quantity.

There is no global temperature. Temperature is a local property that exists only inside a system that is in thermodynamic equilibrium. Averaging thermometer readings from stations and ocean buoys produces a number, but that number is not the temperature of the Earth. No law of thermodynamics defines a single global temperature for a planet with oceans, atmosphere, ice, and land that are not in equilibrium with one another. Different ways of averaging the same data give different numbers. None of those numbers is a physical temperature. Claims that this number is “accelerating,” or that its changes are “global warming,” are statements about something that does not exist.

The further claim that fossil-fuel emissions are driving the rise in atmospheric CO₂ is also false. The isotopic signature of the carbon added to the atmosphere has stayed near −13‰ for centuries, including across the instrumental record. Fossil carbon has a signature near −28‰. Simple mass-balance arithmetic on those measured values shows that fossil carbon accounts for a negligible fraction of the net addition—effectively zero once the long-term stability of the signature is taken into account. The standard datasets and the standard end-member values used by the carbon-cycle literature itself force this result.

Rockström’s conference remarks and Rahmstorf’s 2026 paper in Geophysical Research Letters both treat the nonexistent global-temperature series as a physical fact and both attribute its changes to fossil emissions. Neither the temperature construct nor the fossil attribution holds.

The story reports false claims about quantities that do not exist.

For the TRUTH see:
https://t.co/Wv2K6LVwzK
https://t.co/LlTg4a2dGc

[CTV News @CTVNews]

Global warming is accelerating, leading climate scientist Rockström says https://t.co/D9oqfFftmC

[Jonathan Cohler @cohler]

@TomANelson Great summary of why fossil fuels have played NO ROLE in the rise of atmospheric CO2.

Highly recommended!

[Jonathan Cohler @cohler]

Fossil fuel combustion drove essentially NONE of the atmospheric CO2 growth

[Jonathan Cohler @cohler]

@ClimateRealists There is no such thing as a temperature average for the Earth.