>The IPCC, NASA, NOAA, EPA, and Engelbeen, Hannon, and Burton (2024) say fossil-fuel combustion caused essentially all of the rise.

So, every scientist and agency on earth says it was fossil fuels.

A random AI-generated tweet says it wasn't.

I wonder which one is worth listening to.

X is not a trustworthy source period. This "hacker news" post is a shame in reproducing unscientidic desinformation. A waste of time. Leave X now.

the author's claims are not peer reviewed. Also apparently at one time he was a member of climate change denial group...

""Cohler’s connection to the university is limited to being a clarinet instructor. Jonathan Cohler is an acclaimed clarinetist with an undergraduate degree in physics from Harvard, but to call him a “leading scientist” would, in my opinion, render those words meaningless.""

https://thebulletin.org/2026/03/a-clarinetist-a-high-school-...

It’s like something I read a while ago in a newspaper (I don’t recall which one); it went something like this: "CO2 levels are dropping, trees consume CO2, therefore trees are in danger."

It’s depressing, not even worth the CO2 emitted to publish it, let alone the CO2 emitted to read it, -but- it works, time, resources, words, and reasonings are all squandered on complete nonsense, helping to keep afloat something that is, in intellectual terms, little more than a street brawl, but serves someone’s purpose.

In case anyone actually wants to debunk this, here is the problem with this argument:

They say fossil fuels only add 4% to the atmosphere. True, or at least, we'll accept it for the purposes of the argument because that number does not matter. Their argument assumes that 4% is meaningless. It is not. It is adding 4% to a closed loop ecosystem. This is not a one-time 4% fluctuation, it is a permanent 4% addition to a closed system. That is not trivial. That is not negligible.