# Is the AGW debate about Results or Science?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-agw-debate-about-results-or-science/454390>\
**Category:** Great Debates\
**Created:** [June 27, 2008, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-agw-debate-about-results-or-science/454390 "2008-06-27T02:23:18Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 6

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\
**Post date:** [July 2, 2008, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-agw-debate-about-results-or-science/454390/101 "2008-07-02T21:54:21Z")

</div>

[QUOTE=Sage Rat]  
A priori means “an assumption.”  
[/quote]

Lol. No it doesn’t. You’ve completely missed the point.

Let me rephrase my point without any latin:

In advance of considering the specific evidence offered by warmists (i.e. simulations), there is no independent reason to believe that the CAGW hypothesis is correct. The models themselves fail to convince. That’s why I don’t believe the hypothesis.

> [@](#):
>
> So…what evidence do you have that AGW falls in this range of things that can’t be pinned down? It’s a simple question.

I don’t understand the question at all. In a chaotic system, many causes cannot be pinned down. AGW (as I have defined it) is a possible effect of human activities. So I have no idea what it means to claim that “AGW falls in this range of things that can’t be pinned down.”

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-agw-debate-about-results-or-science/454390.md?page=5)