Changes

<center><big><font color="brown">{{days until|2029|12|31}} Days Until Final Destruction of the Planet'''</font></big></center>

<center><big><font color="brown">{{days until|2029|12|31}} Days Until Final Destruction of the Planet'''</font></big></center>

'''Climate change''' is the new name used by [[liberal]]s for their [[global warming]] hoax, which they coined as it became obvious that there is no crisis in global warming.  The modification in terminology is identical to what [[liberals]] did in redefining "evolution" to be "change over time," which of course is a meaningless expression just as "climate change" is. Numerous past predictions of climatic catastrophes have failed to hold up.<ref>Multiple references:

'''"Climate change"''' is the new name used by [[liberal]]s for their [[global warming]] hoax, which they coined as it became obvious that there is no crisis in global warming.  The modification in terminology is identical to what [[liberals]] did in redefining "evolution" to be "change over time," which of course is a meaningless expression just as "climate change" is. Numerous past predictions of climatic catastrophes have failed to hold up.<ref>Multiple references:

*Lott, Maxim (March 19, 2019). [https://www.foxnews.com/science/10-times-experts-predicted-the-world-would-end-by-now 10 times 'experts' predicted the world would end by now]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved March 20, 2019.

*Lott, Maxim (March 19, 2019). [https://www.foxnews.com/science/10-times-experts-predicted-the-world-would-end-by-now 10 times 'experts' predicted the world would end by now]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved March 20, 2019.

*[https://www.wsj.com/articles/notable-quotable-the-art-of-climate-science-11552002661 Notable & Quotable: The Art of Climate Science]. ''The Wall Street Journal''. March 7, 2019. Retrieved March 20, 2019.

*[https://www.wsj.com/articles/notable-quotable-the-art-of-climate-science-11552002661 Notable & Quotable: The Art of Climate Science]. ''The Wall Street Journal''. March 7, 2019. Retrieved March 20, 2019.

Jack M. Hollander wrote:

Jack M. Hollander wrote:

*The planet has warmed since the mid-1800s, but before that it cooled for more than five centuries. Cycles of warming and cooling have been part of Earth's natural [[climate history]] for millions of years. So what is the [[global warming debate]] about? It's about the proposition that human use of [[fossil fuels]] has contributed significantly to the past century's warming, and that expected future warming may have catastrophic global consequences. But hard evidence for this human contribution simply does not exist; the evidence we have is suggestive at best. Does that mean the human effects are not occurring? Not necessarily. But [[Climategate media coverage#Climategate media coverage|media coverage]] of global warming has been so alarmist that it fails to convey how flimsy the evidence really is. Most people don't realize that many strong statements about a human contribution to global warming are based more on [[politics]] than on [[science]]. Indeed, the climate change issue has become so highly [[Politicization of science|politicized]] that its scientific and political aspects are now almost indistinguishable.<ref>http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-2875898_ITM Global Warming: Both Sides</ref>

*The planet has warmed since the mid-1800s, but before that it cooled for more than five centuries. Cycles of warming and cooling have been part of Earth's natural [[climate history]] for millions of years. So what is the [[global warming debate]] about? It's about the proposition that human use of [[fossil fuels]] has contributed significantly to the past century's warming, and that expected future warming may have catastrophic global consequences. But hard evidence for this human contribution simply does not exist; the evidence we have is suggestive at best. Does that mean the human effects are not occurring? Not necessarily. But [[Climategate media coverage#Climategate media coverage|media coverage]] of global warming has been so alarmist that it fails to convey how flimsy the evidence really is. Most people don't realize that many strong statements about a human contribution to global warming are based more on [[politics]] than on [[science]]. Indeed, the climate change issue has become so highly [[Politicization of science|politicized]] that its scientific and political aspects are now almost indistinguishable.<ref>http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-2875898_ITM Global Warming: Both Sides</ref>

==Questions==

==Questions==