I read an article about Nathan Myhrvold in which he had gone back and looked at original documents in the field of dinosaur evolution. He was able to find serious mathematical errors in published documents and announced his findings. The erroneous articles had to be retracted.
I wondered what someone with his research staff and mathematical competence would say after looking at the global warming data.
I realized that this is a field filled with bigotry and hatred for anyone who disagrees with the ‘consensus’. If Myhrvold looked at the data he would have to be very careful or else be labeled a lunatic.
He solved the problem brilliantly. This article examines all of the computer models that have been used to create the global warming fantasy.
He finds a specific equation parameter that is most powerful in determining the connection between CO2 and global temperature. He then looks at the 20 established equations that are used to make the published ‘disaster on the horizon’ results. He examines how each equation treats this powerful parameter.
The parameter has one dimension that shows how strong the connection is between CO2 and global warming and another dimension that determines how long a time lag there is between a rise in CO2 and a rise in the global temperature.
You can see what he found by looking at almost any one of his charts in this published paper.
The 20 equations are plotted and scattered evenly all over the charts. That means they all use a different powerful parameter and they all have different outcomes.
The simplest thing to understand is that the scientists who created these 20 equations don't know what they're doing. They have no idea how long the interval is between a rise in CO2 and its impact on global temperature. One year or one century. No idea and no evidence.
So Myhrvold has found a brilliant way to show the global warming hysteria is nonsense and he did it in a scientific paper that only someone who is bold, brave, open-minded and persistent would be willing to read.
(Here is similar data to the kind Myhrvold examined. No connection to reality over 40 years.)