Alright, so you all remember the Nye-Ham debate a while back? Specifically, the parts where Ham bitches about "observational science" and "historical science"? Well, now he's applying it to climate change (link goes to RawStory article that links to his blog. I refuse to link directly to that shill).
In his blog, he complains that scientists are using "historical science" to say that humans are the cause of climate change. As you'll recall, he defines this strange "historical science" thing to be "our interpretation of the data as opposed to the data itself" - a definition that directly conflicts with the claim that it is "science" to begin with. But of course, there's a small problem.
That problem is the actual fucking data. It's there. This is not "interpretation": to say that it is is akin to saying that we interpret that the sky is fucking blue. We are the cause, get over it you Australian slab of pig meat. This is why we call bullshit on your "observational vs. historical" bullshit.
Also, small note regarding CDMTGM: I will be skipping over Luke to deal with John, and then revisit Luke and Acts together to properly transition to the Epistles.