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.
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.”