The entire IPCC/NASA/NOAA/EPA climate narrative rests on a claim that just got mathematically falsified

The paper is real and recent: Jonathan Cohler and Willie Soon, 'Mathematical Falsification of the Fossil-Dominant Hypothesis for Rising Atmospheric CO2 Using the Keeling Relation', dated October 21, 2026, listed under DOI 10.53234/scc202612/05. You can read it at the authors' page. Its core argument is about the carbon isotope signature (δ13C) of the net CO2 being added to the air. The authors report an intercept of about -13.2‰ and read it as showing that fossil carbon is a small share of the net rise.

The post goes much further than the paper. The paper says it does not claim fossil fuels stop emitting CO2; its claim is about how the net rise is attributed. Critics, such as this Substack analysis, argue that the Keeling intercept is not a reliable way to identify sources, and that the paper does not resolve that problem.

The wider evidence points the other way. Fossil emissions are roughly double the amount that stays in the atmosphere each year, atmospheric oxygen is falling in step with fossil burning, and the fossil fingerprint in the air (the Suess effect) has been growing. Those are separate lines of evidence, so one paper challenging a single method does not overturn them. I could not confirm journal peer review beyond the listing, and the paper is only days old, so expect the debate to continue. Read the paper and the critiques, and check the method yourself.