Yes, there will be math.
As a matter of fact, the whole point is the math.
Christopher Monckton (PBUH) goes there.
Why are climate-prediction models so wrong?
I know this will be Greek to some (’cause, yeah, some’a ‘em letters are Greek), but this is an example of what happened when AGW became a pseudo-religion to those who wanted to believe the worst of socio-economic freedom and Western Civilization. As soon as the possibility of AGW opened up, they became infatuated with exploring “if” rather than “how.” “If” is sooo much easier to understand (i.e. We’re all gonna dieeee!). So’s the math.
Snide observation — any politician or activist who claims some kind of gnosis, here, needs to be asked one question:
Do you think the actual feedback factor is closer to 0.23 or 0.73 and why?
Nature does the math. Policy-makers don’t.
(What? Yeah, can’t wait for Monckton’s follow-on articles.)
Disclaimer: I have an MS(Eng) majoring in satellite feedback control systems; so I sort’a remember this stuff, but not enough to validate it. Good thing this math doesn’t deal with the stochastic processes, though; or I’d'a had a flashback seizure.