[WAR] A brief bit of Hillary history.

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 10:35:15PM -0400, John wrote:
> On August 16, 2016 5:13:16 PM EDT, juan <juan.g71 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Tue, 16 Aug 2016 14:47:38 -0400
> >Joshua Case <jwcase at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> There is abundant research, of the scientifically valid kind, showing
> >> that the climate is changing, and indeed it would be strange if it
> >> were not.
> >
> >	Yep. So all that 'scientific research' is, if not meaningless,
> >	pretty much irrelevant. 'Climate change' is a natural fact that
> >	has been acknowledged by humans for thousands of years.
>
> Anthropogenic climate change is what we are talking about. At least,

Then please be persistent in using that terminology (which correctly
names what you intent to be talking about).


> it's what im talking about. Not normal natural climate change or even
> climate change related to non human events e.g. a large asteroid
> hitting the earth.... Humanity has been and continues to accelerate
> the rate of change dramatically, and dangerously.

That's the kind of assertion, which those who value science, will always
kick back at.

The best "you" (those pushing the anthropogenic climate change
'science' agenda) have is computer "models" - which use as inputs
(demand) in this case assumptions, projections, and a lack of enough
detailed historical facts to otherwise avoid such assumptions and
projections, and so remain as scientific "theory" and not scientific
"facts".

Yes we are impacting the environment (pollution), yes we are pumping
various gases into the atmosphere, no we cannot be certain of
anthropogenic global warming OVER AND ABOVE 'natural' causes (the sun
cycles, natural/ cyclical changes in the earth, more?)

Vehemently claiming "theory" is not theory and is actually "fact" does
not make said theory, facts, and only serves to highlight the
possibility of "agenda". Now, in your case, the agenda may be nothing
more or less benign than an intention to "waking people up out of
ignorance", but is nevertheless, whatever it is, an agenda (thorougly
guilty of such vehemence myself in my younger years - such as at least 4
months ago...).


> All that "scientific research" is anything but meaningless. Since when
> do you put science in quotation marks like it's a big fucking joke?

Don't mix up "reasonable mathematical model giving weight to a
scientific theory", with "scientific fact". Around these parts (you may
have noticed) you'll keep coming unstuck on that one :)