""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 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.
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.
If one carbon 13 atom is added to the atmosphere, after a while some of it exchanged 1 to 1 with carbon 14 trapped in wood, but the net result is that there is one more carbon in the atmosphere.
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.