The Aug. 9 "Climate foolishness" letter stated global weather and manmade climate damage are complicated and that: "There's no possible way someone can truly comprehend these topics without advanced mathematics." The problem with that statement is, you can do anything with math and it does not have to reflect reality.
The U.S. has many climate models that work off of government owned supercomputers. Computing power for those models have increased 100 million times since the 1970s. So as climate analyzing models became increasingly more complex, "unknown" unknowns became "known" unknowns and uncertainties remained. What they found is that they cannot get a good handle on what the clouds are going to do. So they "parameterize" climate science with "rule of thumb" equations. Stratocumulus clouds forming off the coastlines can turn the global temperature up or down by a few degrees over a century of time; and the "climate models" cannot predict which way it will go. I got this from my July 2018 issue of Science.
Observers note that CO2 has been climbing since recording began in 1958, with a slight downturn when volcanic air pollution blocked some of the solar energy, thereby cooling the ocean enough to allow absorption of CO2 into the water. Note that when the pollution haze clears off, temperature goes up and then CO2 levels in the air go up as the ocean heats up and releases it's dissolved CO2. This seems to agree with the February 2015 AAAS conference geo-engineering scientists saying we may have to look at ways of increasing cloud cover for blocking the sun's rays to cool the planet. And that "even if we completely stopped carbon dioxide emissions today, the earth will continue warming over the next several decades."
In summary—"Man-made global warming via CO2 is fake science."