Please explain to me how Fourier and later Tyndall were wrong about the effect of (misnommed) greenhouse gases on the atmosphere, and how 200 years later no one

Please explain to me how Fourier and later Tyndall were wrong about the effect of (misnommed) greenhouse gases on the atmosphere, and how 200 years later no one disproved them. Your analogy is creative, but if you really think the IPCC have no statistician (or that you are a better statitician than them), you might want to read more about the work of IPCC WG1, that will cure the Dunning-kruger while allowing you to work the statistics by yourself. And yes, the IPCC WG3 is alarmist and ignore some conclusions from the WG2, but their job is to push the politicians. I was like you (well, i was skeptical about the WG3 conclusions and the human greenhouse contribution) so i did something really special: i read the rapports! Yes, i know, its crazy, but this is something i think every skeptic should do: read. This is crazy that learning to read scientific papers is not taught until year 3 of college (at least in my country), but i assure you its not that hard, even if you never went to college.