That human industrial activities are the primary direct causation of the currently observed climate change is a scientific fact, proven beyond any reasonable doubt.

What you show is that there are not many conservatives in academia. The reason for that is manifold. It could be that they are forced out. It could be that their views are changed with higher learning and turn progressive. It could be that conservatives self-select to not go into academia.

Pointing that out is not hand-waving.

When we are talking about a context in which affirmative action and diversity statements were normalized it absolutely is hand-waving

No it's not.

If scientific investigation shows that there are many causes that have a relevant impact on "A", then saying that "A has multiple relevant and possible causes" is not hand-waving. It's stating the fact.

Hand-waving is to pearl clutchlingly throw out vague terms like "affirmative action" and "diversity statements" without properly stating what the mechanism is supposed to be and without providing any evidence that it is relevant in the last.

You know, polemic tribal whistle-blowing like you are doing. That's hand-waving.

>vague terms like "affirmative action" and "diversity statements"

And this is circling the wagons. Sorry but I can't believe someone who is intellectually honest is capable of writing such thing. You are either blatantly ignorant on this matter (and shouldn't be talking about it at all) or taking me for a ride.

It's preposterous that I have to explain how requiring a document in which you state allegiance to leftist ideals has an impact on the political makeup of admissions. I don't have enough frontal lobe damage to take you seriously.

So you admit you were lying. Gotcha.

There are not many reasons for climate change, it is in fact just humans. That should be obvious.

Ok, so we establish that "Climate change could seem to have many causes, but educated people know that human activity is the proven cause of the majority of the change."

And now you have another situation where "there could be many causes for the change X".

And you think that because Climate Change followed that pattern above, X must necessarily have only one real cause, and that cause is your preferred pet theory.

Does not sound like a convincing argument.

Let's just talk about the recent (past 500 years) change in the insulation properties of the planet's atmosphere.

It's been in a constant burbling flux that has many factors, fires, volcanoes, etc all contribute to the steady level of churn.

The substantial change away from baseline is well recorded, tied back to sources by isotopes, and has a single cause - carbon dioxide by products from the combustion and release of previously sequestered carbon sources.

There's no doubt about that - there are multiple atmospheric libraries of gases from various parts of the world to back that up.

The data source sets for atmospheric makeup and ocean thermoclines are deeply tied into Cold War nuclear test monitoring and watching enemies, not some hippy dippy eco friendly new age hand wavyness.

What in my comment makes you think I'm disputing anthropogenic climate change? It's about the pattern of logic you are applying.

You seem to think that because Climate change is a messy topic with one real explanation, every other messy topic must also have a single true explanation. No, it doesn't work that way

Except we weren't talking about climate change. We were talking about you lying. You said one thing, and the link you provided did not support your claim.

If you make a claim, and the thing you say supports it does not support it, kinda sounds like lying. You trying to make this about climate change just proves even further that you know you are a liar.