High Schooler Teams Up with Clarinetist and Climate Deniers—You Won't Believe What Happens Next!

Last week, a controversial press release landed in inboxes, claiming to challenge the fundamental understanding of climate change by questioning the reliability of ocean heat content (OHC) measurements. This assertion comes from a study promoted by lead author Jonathan Cohler, who boldly declared on social media, “The IPCC’s central claims have now been torn apart.” He asserted that the oceans are neither “warming” nor “boiling,” calling the accepted science surrounding these issues “false.”

At the crux of this debate is the Argo program, which comprises nearly 4,000 robotic ocean floats used to collect essential data on ocean temperatures and salinity. The program has been pivotal in enabling scientists to track long-term ocean warming trends. However, the recent claims put forth by Cohler and his co-authors suggest these measurements are inadequate. They argue that there aren't enough Argo floats to accurately gauge how much heat has been absorbed by the oceans, proposing that the uncertainties are so significant that we cannot even ascertain whether the oceans are warming at all.

“It’s so easy to produce bullshit, and it takes so much energy to refute it.”

Henri Drake, a professor of Earth System Science at the University of California, Irvine, provided a counterpoint, noting, “What it’s claiming to show is that these Argo floats...are insufficient in their claim to constrain how much total heat has gone into the ocean.” He firmly stated the claims get “everything completely backwards,” highlighting that the designed number of Argo floats was deemed cost-effective to measure ocean warming accurately.

Climate scientist Kevin Trenberth, who has contributed to multiple reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), dismissed the paper as “absolute nonsense,” indicating that it lacks scientific validity. Despite this, the article has garnered significant attention, with over 5,000 posts about it circulating on social media platforms, reaching nearly half a million impressions in some cases.

The dilemma now arises: should such flimsy claims be ignored, allowing them to fade into obscurity, or should they be addressed to combat the spread of misinformation? This situation exemplifies the Bullshit Asymmetry Principle, also known as Brandolini’s law, which asserts that the energy required to debunk false information is often an order of magnitude greater than that needed to produce it.

Cohler’s affiliation with MIT adds a layer of complexity to the narrative. While he was indeed affiliated with the prestigious institution, his role was as a clarinet instructor in the Music and Theater Arts department, raising questions about his credibility as a “leading scientist” in climate research. MIT confirmed that his appointment lasted less than a year, and by the time of the study’s release, he was no longer connected to the university.

The co-authors of the paper also have controversial backgrounds. David Legates, a former professor of geography, has a history of questioning climate science. He was removed from his position as Delaware’s state climatologist after being asked not to use his title in public statements about climate change. Kesten Green works in marketing science but has also expressed skepticism toward anthropogenic global warming. Meanwhile, Willie Soon, an astrophysicist known for denying human contributions to climate change, has received substantial funding from the fossil fuel industry.

In a notable twist, the authors acknowledged that they utilized AI tools like Grok, Claude, Gemini, and ChatGPT for significant contributions to the manuscript's drafting and editing. They expressed frustration at academic standards that prevent non-human entities from being credited as authors. This raises questions about the future of research integrity as AI tools increasingly influence scientific discourse.

While the significance of this particular study may be minimal in the grand scheme of climate science, it highlights a broader issue: the increasing use of AI in research can facilitate the production of misleading information with ease. As misinformation about climate change becomes more prevalent, the urgency to address and debunk such claims becomes critical, especially as they serve as fodder for those skeptical of climate science.

The struggle against misinformation in climate science is ongoing, and as technological advancements enable the rapid spread of dubious claims, the responsibility lies with both the scientific community and the public to remain vigilant and informed.