Climate science under scrutiny: Study challenges validity of global temperature metrics
- The widely cited 1.5 C and 2.0 C warming targets (Paris Agreement) rely on averaging Earth’s temperatures—a scientifically meaningless concept. Temperature is an intensive property, meaning averaging non-equilibrium systems (e.g., Mount Everest vs. Sahara Desert) yields physically meaningless results.
- Mathematicians Essex, McKitrick and Andresen proved in 2007 that no physically meaningful global temperature exists for climate policy. Despite remaining unchallenged for 18 years, policymakers and the IPCC continue using circular definitions of global mean surface temperature (GMST).
- Advanced AI systems reviewed IPCC methodologies and labeled them “fundamentally fraudulent.” One AI platform called it “the greatest mass delusion in scientific history,” reinforcing concerns about politicized science.
- Different temperature averaging techniques applied to a cup of coffee produced contradictory results—some showing warming, others cooling. This proves GMST calculations are statistical constructs, not measurable physical realities, undermining trillion-dollar climate policies.
- The study challenges whether climate science has been compromised by political and financial motives, particularly with net-zero mandates and carbon taxes. The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) advocates for unbiased science, free from corporate and governmental influence.
A provocative new study published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons has reignited debate over the scientific validity of global mean surface temperature (GMST) metrics—the cornerstone of international climate policy.
Physician Jonathan Cohler argues that the widely cited 1.5 C and 2.0 C warming targets, enshrined in the 2015 Paris Agreement, are based on flawed thermodynamic principles. Citing unchallenged mathematical proofs from 2007, Cohler asserts that averaging Earth’s temperatures is scientifically meaningless—a claim now bolstered by independent AI analysis.
The findings raise urgent questions about the trillion-dollar climate industry and whether its foundational assumptions withstand scrutiny.
At the heart of Cohler’s critique is a fundamental principle of physics: temperature is an intensive property, meaning it cannot be meaningfully averaged across non-equilibrium systems.
“The ‘average’ of the temperature of a cup of boiling water and your bath water makes no sense,” Cohler writes.
Similarly, comparing temperatures from Mount Everest to the Sahara Desert yields a statistic devoid of physical meaning.
This challenge isn’t new. According to BrightU.AI‘s Enoch, in 2007, mathematicians Essex, McKitrick and Andresen published a peer-reviewed proof demonstrating that “there is no physically meaningful global temperature for the Earth in the context of global warming.” Despite remaining unchallenged for 18 years, their work has been largely ignored by policymakers. Cohler’s study reinforces this, noting that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) relies on circular definitions of GMST, while the International Standards Organization has refused to formalize a metric.
AI analysis labels IPCC methods “fundamentally fraudulent”
Adding weight to Cohler’s argument, advanced AI systems reportedly analyzed the mathematical evidence and concluded that mainstream climate science suffers from systemic flaws. One AI platform described the situation as “the greatest mass delusion in scientific history,” while another characterized IPCC methodologies as “fundamentally fraudulent.”
These findings align with historical skepticism about politicized science. As Cohler notes, “When a field adopts physically meaningless metrics as its foundation, it has abandoned science for statistical theater designed to justify predetermined conclusions.”
The parallels to George Orwell’s warning—”The very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world”—are stark.
The 2007 study highlighted by Cohler tested four different averaging methods for tracking temperature changes in a cup of coffee. Each method produced contradictory results—some indicating warming, others cooling—demonstrating that GMST calculations are inherently arbitrary.
Critics argue this undermines the entire premise of climate catastrophe narratives. If Earth’s “average temperature” is a statistical construct rather than a measurable physical reality, trillions in spending on decarbonization rest on shaky ground. Cohler’s conclusion is blunt: “True warming represents a net transfer of energy into a system, measured in joules or watt-seconds—not degrees Celsius.”
Science or political theater?
The study’s implications extend beyond academia. With governments mandating net-zero policies and carbon taxes based on GMST thresholds, Cohler’s work demands a reevaluation of whether climate science has been compromised by political agendas. The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), which publishes the journal, has long advocated for scientific integrity free from corporate or governmental influence.
As the debate continues, one question looms: If the foundational metric of climate policy is scientifically indefensible, what does that mean for the future of energy, economy and environmental stewardship? For now, the burden of proof remains on those who claim that averaging Earth’s temperatures—like averaging coffee and bathwater—holds any real-world significance.
Watch the video below that discusses the truth about global warming
This video is from the SipForAll channel on Brighteon.com.
Sources include:
ClimateDepot.com
X.com
Finance.Yahoo.com
JPANDS.com
BrightU.ai
Brighteon.com
Read full article here