Global Warming: A Critique of the Anthropogenic Model and its Consequences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
According to popular belief, recent global warming has been caused largely by greenhouse gases, primarily CO2, accruing in the atmosphere, and man is responsible for most of the ~120 ppm increase in CO2 over the last 100 years. This article cites a number of recent peer-reviewed scientific papers, and finds that contrary arguments by a growing body of scientists are generally supported by better empirical data than those that favour the ‘anthropogenic warming’ hypothesis. These arguments invoke the effects of solar irradiance and ocean–atmosphere interactions, both of which have been shown to have warming effects at least as great as those claimed for CO2, and to be based on sound, well-understood scientific theory. Furthermore, the global warming models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and others have in some cases been shown to be incorrect and contrary to current temperature statistics. For these and other reasons, the CO2-driven, anthropogenic warming hypothesis is regarded by many as suspect and lacking in empirical evidence. The difficulty of refuting this popular hypothesis is exacerbated by the IPCC’s United Nations mandate to advise governments on the severity of man-made global warming, a mandate that they have followed faithfully, encouraging the emergence of a large body of funded research that supports their view. This presents a problem for global society, as the human-caused warming scenario diverts attention from other, at least equally serious environmental impacts of our industrial society. Recently, however, there appears to be a tilting of public opinion away from global warming alarmism, which may fundamentally affect the direction of the climate change debate. Sommaire Selon la croyance populaire, le rechauffement climatique actuel aurait ete cause en grande partie par des gaz a effet de serre, principalement le CO2 s’accumulant dans l'atmosphere et, c’est l'homme qui serait a l’origine de l’augmentation de ~ 120 ppm de la teneur en CO2 au cours du dernier siecle. Dans le present article on cite un certain nombre d’articles scientifiques a comite de lecture, et on conclut que des arguments contraires presentes par un nombre croissant de scientifiques, sont generalement soutenus par de meilleures donnees empiriques que celles qui favorisent l’hypothese d’un « rechauffement anthropogenique ». A partir d’une theorie scientifique bien fondee, ces arguments montrent que les effets du rayonnement solaire et des interactions ocean-atmosphere ont un effet climatique de rechauffement au moins aussi important que celui impute au CO2. En outre, il a ete demontre que les modeles de rechauffement de la planete utilises par le Groupe d'experts intergouvernemental sur les changements climatiques (GIEC) et d'autres sont, dans certains cas averes errones et en contradiction avec les statistiques actuelles sur la temperature. Pour ces raisons et d'autres, nombreux sont ceux qui considerent que l’hypothese d’un rechauffement climatique anthropogenique par le CO2 est sujette a caution et manque de preuves empiriques. A noter qu’il est d’autant plus difficile de refuter cette hypothese populaire que l’Organisation des Nations Unies a confie au GIEC le mandat de conseiller les gouvernements sur la gravite du rechauffement climatique anthropogenique, mandat dont il s’acquitte avec application, ce qui favorise l'emergence d'un important volume de recherches financees, qui tendent a confirmer leur point de vue. Cela pose un probleme pour l’humanite entiere, en ce que le scenario d’un rechauffement climatique anthropogenique detourne l'attention d’autres problemes de notre societe industriel qui ont des repercussions au moins aussi graves sur l'environnement. Recemment, cependant, il semble y avoir un basculement de l'opinion publique qui tend a remettre en question l'alarmisme ambiant sur le rechauffement climatique planetaire, ce qui pourrait affecter fondamentalement le sens du debat sur le changement climatique.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".