All this arguing over politics and global warming seems to be similar to people arguing over religion - what that saying; "There are two things you shouldn't talk about in mixed company or at a cocktail party... " What is totally unfortunate is that Global Warming is now the third thing you can't talk about? Why? One side hijacked the conversation, told the world; "The science is settled, and 97% of scientists agree - discussion over," essentially that's it, no more talk, and they are steamrolling their agenda. Even the scientists in the field were taken-aback.
Indeed, I say if the science is settled then it is time to STOP ALL RESEARCH FUNDING to prove Global Warming Theory, as we have political impasse, so the fight is on, the war is started and it's time to get busy fighting it, if that means putting all the socialist politicians, heads of IPCC in jail, and arresting corrupt academics so be it. Why such a hard line you ask? Well, simple, we have Global Warming Alarmists calling skeptics of the Global Warming Theory evil. No, not evil, just skeptical of the science, which in fact does have some serious holes in the theory - remember it is still a theory.
Since the Global Warming Alarmists cannot seem to find any real proof or shake off the scientists that point out the obvious, that the Sun provides 97% of the heat to our planet, the IPCC changes the entire name to "Climate Change" something no one can refute merely because the "climate" is always changing, and would be changing whether mankind existed on said planet or not. "Change is the only constant," or someone once said.
Who Chooses The Names For The IPPC's Climate Agenda? Not scientists, but politicians and agenda driving folks at the UN. What's in a name? Well if it is a brand name, sometimes everything. A fellow think tanker noted to me; "What Does "Climate Change" Mean? Does A Lack Of Preciseness In Its Definition Discourage Effective Discussion Of The Risks From Climate On Key Societal And Environmental Resources?"
Yes, I do believe "Climate Change" and "Global Warming" phrases are totally inadequate and misleading, perhaps purposely. Why do I think this? Because "Global Warming" to anyone hearing it for the first time suggests the "planet" is "warming" but is it? Sometimes some parts do and sometimes some parts don't but the overall average appears to be, thus, we are in a warming period, period.
However the IPCC says that their terminology "Global Warming" means that mankind's CO2 is causing catastrophic warming. That was an over-reach, then coupled with 97% scientists disagree - like 4 out of 5 dentists like Crest Toothpaste - type wording. That is not what the science shows or the scientists say. the IPCC is a political group, they hijacked the message for an agenda. Changing the phrase to "climate change" is akin to re-branding, since the climate always changes (aka change is the only constant) again is hard to disagree with even if the planet's temps take a time out now and again.