Nobel Prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman explained “the key to science” this way:

In general we look for a new law by the following process. First we guess it. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right. Then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is—if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. That is all there is to it.

We have pointed out again and again that the computer models on which the warning of catastrophic global warming driven by CO2 emissions from the use of fossil fuels greatly overstate CO2’s warming effect. Drs. Roy W. Spencer (a Cornwall Alliance Senior Fellow) and John R. Christy, of the University of Alabama, who handle the data from NASA’s global satellite temperature monitoring satellites, issue a new report of global temperature data every month. Their report for June, just posted, shows that the models continue to be wrong.

As Spencer points out, “The linear temperature trend of the global average lower tropospheric temperature anomalies from January 1979 through June 2018 remains at +0.13 C/decade.” Total increase in global average temperature for the 3-1/2 decades, then, has been 0.455 degree C.

But the models, on average, call for 0.216 degree C warming per decade, or 0.756 degree over the 3-1/2 decades. I.e., the models call for 1.66 times as much warming as actually observed. So they exaggerate CO2’s warming effect by at least that much.

That by itself would be enough to falsify them. But there’s more reason to reject them than that. As Christy and co-authors point out, once you control for solar, volcanic, and ocean current variability, there’s no warming left to blame on CO2 anyway. In other words, all global temperature variability over the relevant period can be explained by solar, volcanic, and ocean current variability. Although CO2’s warming effect, inferred from the basic physics of infrared absorption and radiation, to be real, it also appears to be so tiny as to be undetectable.

That’s why I said the models exaggerate CO2’s warming effect by at least 1.66 times. That assumes that all the observed warming comes from CO2.

Factor in the natural causes and the case for the models only gets worse. If solar, volcanic, and ocean current variability explain one-fourth of the warming, leaving three-fourths to be explained by CO2, then the models exaggerate CO2’s warming effect by 2.2 times. If nature accounts for half, the models exaggerate by 3.3 times. If nature accounts for three-fourths, then the models exaggerate by 6.6 times. Take your pick of any ratio of natural versus anthropogenic CO2 as cause of the actually measured warming, the models are wrong, wrong, wrong.

It’s long past time for governments the world over to stop formulating policy based on them.