Anthropogenic Global Warming, AGW



Svante Arrhenius, a Swedish Scientist, was the first, in 1896, to claim that fossil fuel combustion might result in global warming.  He determined that the Earth’s surface temperature was about 15oC as a result of infrared absorption by Water Vapor and CO2.  Today this is erroneously called the “Greenhouse Effect”.  Arrhenius had originally thought that a doubling of CO2 concentration would lead to a 5oC temperature rise.  A belief that such doubling, leading to a temperature increase is called “Climate Sensitivity”, though a myriad of different values for the temperature increase have been postulated, and interestingly, with time there seems to be a significant down-trend, approaching zero!    Article Link


What follows in the subsequent sections under the AGW heading are discussions of the very significant fundamental and detrimental problems associated with the CO2-based theory of global warming, the violations of science, the completely invalid concept of an atmospheric “Greenhouse Effect”, fallacies of the “Flat Disk Model” (more extensive discussion of modeling is elsewhere in the website), the fictitious “Consensus”, and the on-going corruption of data to mask the fundamental deficiencies of CO2-based theory. This section finishes with a discussion of politics, policy, the IPCC, and the Paris Accord. 


There is also a significant accumulation of failed outlandish predictions, which have become quite humorous, as predicted dates for disaster repeatedly pass by the wayside, unfulfilled, none having happened.  One might think that AGW alarmists would learn, and stop making ridiculous predictions, but apparently that is not the case!


The selection of videos below is a short course in itself, presenting an overview of the many skeptical views on AGW.


Arguments for AGW

We should revisit occasionally what the proper role of government is.   As the constitution was a good sense of direction, we need a core set of principles to add in order to deal with the future.


So many want to engineer society, remove risk, assist certain groups, rather than let individuals thrive and raise communities.  Why?


Is Democracy where we all "get it good and hard" or is it the best means to a free society?


Should we roll with the special interests, or make the government achieve its proper role, what is that role, and how to do this?


When do deficits and governments become too large?


Government is becoming more elitist while trying to sell corrections to problems it created, what makes this possible?


Add Comments


Powered by Disqus