Does Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) really exist? AGW is the basic concept that humans are negatively impacting the earth’s environment, that this is increasing the earths overall temperature, and that is having an overall negative impact on the planet and life as we know it.
I’m writing this as an analytical researcher, so it is more an “experiment” in logic than an essay on scientific facts. I’m surely not well informed enough to make this a full proof examination of AGW and my understanding of some of the facts may be inaccurate, so I am also looking for both “corrective” feedback on both the scientific claims, I believe are true, as well as the logical methodology in use. The reason I’m doing it, is because I have never seen anyone else do it, at least from a logical standpoint, but I’m surely not saying that is even true, so unmalicious corrective feedback, if the TOADS can help themselves, is requested. FYI: TOADS are like trolls, just uglier and more obvious.
I believe the truth is, IMHO, “we don’t know” 1. if global warming is occurring or 2. if it is being caused by human actions and 3. If it is having an adverse effect on our planet. What I think everyone would acknowledge, is we are definitely polluting our planet, it is causing problems and we should definitely take the necessary actions to improve this. I think everyone also acknowledges climate change always occurs. The great debate is, if humans are negatively impacting it and what if any effects are serious enough to warrant taking drastic actions or curbing existing activities.
Does Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) really exist?
Despite the numerous studies by those claiming to have the proof, they all fall short in various ways of providing the required evidence and it’s actually pretty easy to understand this from a logical standpoint.
- All the temperature models are at best educated guesses. Why? Because the various “assumptions” that are being made are also, at best, educated guesses, as to each variable, that could potentially affect the climate’s temperature. The fact is, the models do not have all the variables even utilized in them, much less those still unknown. The concept that we are including all the potential variables that could potentially affect the earth’s temperature, would be ridiculously naïve, because of what little we actually know and can prove about the universe. As an example, we do not know how much the effects of electro-magnetism have on temperature or global warming or even how to effectively measure it to make such determinations. We can’t really even explain gravity, but only the results of it and many think the earth electro-magnetic field(s) play a significant role, if not the predominant role on gravity. Electro-magnetism is invisible to the eye, so we have to use various instruments to even envision it. Another example; scientists just discovered, a few years ago, an active volcanic range underneath the artic ice sheet, so all the temperature models prior to that, could not have had that variable in them. Additional the measurements of the temperatures of the ice sheet done taken by other scientists, may or may not have been affected by the volcanic activity. More unknowns that could not have been factored into the models, making them at best and educated guess.
- The modelers are also not very forthright with the full disclosures as to the specifics on this issue, claiming proprietary protections as their excuse for not allowing other mathematicians and scientists to look under the proverbial hood. How convenient. It surely stops the peer review process by anyone other than who they allow to review their models. We’re get to cronyism and corruption later.
- They must also make “assumptions” as the percentage effect, each variable, such as solar radiation and flares, have on temperature, another guestimate as it is jokingly called. Both Solar Radiation and flares are constantly changing in intensity and frequencies, so it is likely impossible to determine a 100% accurate measurement creating another educated guestimate.
- The amount of poor scientific examination and claims throughout history has been well documented, both past and present as human integrity is surely always in play. One source, has stated that not one prior “scientifically” backed claim, has ever been proven to be true, as to either temperature increases or decreases, or its effects. The total amount of unethical behavior is quite saddening and many of our most prominent institutions are collapsing, such as the Catholic Church and Hollywood’s affliction with the coercive nature of sexual predation on the young. Most of the MSM outlets are obviously direct mouth pieces of one or both of the two major political parties. It’s very obvious CNN is a Democratic voice and Fox is a Republican voice. I’ll let you decide on the other marketing and advertising agencies, we erroneously think are giving us the “news” and more importantly the truth. Here is a recent example: https://principia-scientific.com/state-climatologist-makes-fake-severe-weather-climate-claims/
Logic tells use, if the assumptions are wrong or some are missing, the potential of the conclusion(s) being correct, is extremely low. Despite our increases in knowledge, there is still so little we know about our world. We should however stop polluting our planet with things we know we can prove, without destroying the very technologies and benefits they have given us. Trying to micromanage pollution through government planning has not yielded the net benefits intended because of the ill effect they have caused. This has been proven and there is substantial written and verbal communication on this issue.