Perspective on AGW Climate Change

Perspective on AGW Climate Change – This is a perspective on AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) or GHE (the Greenhouse Effect) from someone who is not a scientist. This, to me, is not about science. This is the perspective of a layman with secondary education in engineering. An outsider looking in on the people involved in producing the science that is now effecting policies in governments all over the world. To me, the answer to all this is simple and I will cover this despite the complexity of the subject.

The Scientific Method

The Scientific Method Wiki

We’ll start with the basics and the foundation of traditionally accepted science. The Scientific Method has been accepted method going back to the 17th century. Scientists have used to formulated theories and have been internationally accepted for centuries. Here is a flow chart for how it works:

Perspective on AGW Climate Change


Therefore, based on the above chart and applying the rules of the scientific method, we must have a hypothesis that is tested using observations. If our hypothesis passes the empirical processes then it can become a scientific theory. With AGW or GHE we must also recognize what is empirical and what is not to pass the scientific method processes. We need to have empirical evidence to satisfy all the requirements to elevate our hypothesis to a scientific theory.

Problem One | Perspective on AGW Climate Change

Hypothesis Sold as Theory

Anyone pushing AGW or GHE is either a fraud or they are ignorant of the scientific method process. There is NO empirical evidence to elevate the hypothesis of AGW or GHE to a scientific theory because no one has empirical evidence (using the scientific method) to establish those hypotheses as a scientific theory. Here is the “evidence” they present:

  • Computer models – computer models are not empirical. They rely on human programming and input of empirical data. Often, with the programming, it is incorrect because, as Professor Edward Lorenz proclaimed, “climate cannot be predicted beyond a very short term (about three weeks) because our atmosphere is a complex, non-linear system”. Edward Lorenz was a professor at MIT and is considered the modern “Father of the Chaos Theory”. In short, he stated our climate is impossible to predict more than three weeks in advance because it is a chaotic system.
  • Collected data has been corrupted – See our climate change front page or this video for proof NASA and NOAA have been busted changing the historical temperature data.

Therefore, any data that you put in the computer models will be wrong. Let us recap what they use as evidence and what they present to the public to proclaim the truth about AGW and GHE.

computer models AGW GHE

Problem Two | Perspective on AGW Climate Change

Silencing of Scientific Consent

As mentioned above along with the video proof of the manipulation of historical temperature data, the fraud involved in AGW and GHE has corrupted science. If you are a scientist and you depend on research grants or funding the approval of that grant or funding should not be dependent on the outcome of your research. Here is one example where a professor was fired from a university because his “science” did not agree with the dogma of the alarmist.

Peter Ridd fired for truth

Therefore, agree with us or we will fire you. Too many examples of respected scientists getting fired because they didn’t agree with the consensus. Here is another example:

Jusith Curry AGW

Therefore, agree with the consensus to satisfy a political outcome or be banned and denigrated. They will assassinate your character if you do not agree with the consensus. Years of work down the tubes because you did not agree with the alarmist consensus cult.

These examples signal others in the fields of science concerning the climate that if you go against the consensus you will not be respected and will likely lose your job and any positions you held before you went against the alarmist cult. It is scary for someone who has worked so hard to achieve so much to lose everything in an instant because you spoke the truth based on the evidence you collected and presented. This is a modern form of “Lysenkoism”.

Lysenkoism AGW GHE


Problem Three | Perspective on AGW Climate Change

Data Manipulation and Fraud

As mentioned previously, data manipulation is a problem. This subject gets complex so I will attempt to keep it simple. Here is a booklet about the Climategate emails and what they contain. It was two scientists discussing how to manipulate the data to get a favorable outcome for their computer model. “Hide the decline” and massage the data to manipulate a computer model. Here is but one example of the many emails from Climategate:

Climategate email jones mann

These emails show the utter contempt these people have for science and experimental outcomes. In most other disciplined professions, if you were caught lying or manipulating as these guys were, you’d be removed from your job and likely charged with fraud.

Conclusion | AGW and GHE Alarmists are Frauds

As presented above, you can see why I don’t believe the propaganda presented by anyone for AGW or GHE. They have sharpened their game and changed the wording to mince words in an effort to sell their fraud further. Don’t be fooled by them. They essentially have resorted to using and manipulating children (Greta) and Marxist groups (Extinction Rebellion et al) to further their cause of fictional science.

  1. They present their hypothesis as if it is a scientific theory when they don’t have empirical evidence
  2. They fire people who disagree with the consensus
  3. They manipulate data to show a favorable outcome for their hypothesis

I could add more but for now, that is my basis for why AGW and GHE are a fraud.

%d bloggers like this: