Changes

It should be noted that these scientists are motivated by a need for grant money in their field of climatology.  Therefore, their work can not be considered unbiased, though no more than any scientist in any other field .<ref>FOX News: "On Global Warming: Follow the Money Indeed!" Feb 12, 2007[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251458,00.html]</ref>. Also, these scientists are mostly liberal athiests, untroubled by the hubris that man can destroy the Earth which God gave him.<ref>Gloval Warming & Evolution[http://atheism.about.com/b/a/238739.htm]</ref>

It should be noted that these scientists are motivated by a need for grant money in their field of climatology.  Therefore, their work can not be considered unbiased, though no more than any scientist in any other field .<ref>FOX News: "On Global Warming: Follow the Money Indeed!" Feb 12, 2007[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251458,00.html]</ref>. Also, these scientists are mostly liberal athiests, untroubled by the hubris that man can destroy the Earth which God gave him.<ref>Gloval Warming & Evolution[http://atheism.about.com/b/a/238739.htm]</ref>

There are some scientists among the critics of the theory that global warming is caused by human activity.  As they have sought funding from the very industries that face regulation, thier bias is real and thier conclusions should be suspect. For example, Dr. Fred Singer observed that "CO₂ changes have lagged about 800 years behind the temperature changes. Global warming has produced more CO₂, rather than more CO₂ producing global warming."<ref>S. Fred Singer and Dennis T.

There are some scientists among the critics of the theory that global warming is caused by human activity.  As they have sought funding from the very industries that face regulation, thier bias is real and thier conclusions should be suspect. For example, Dr. Fred Singer observed that "CO₂ changes have lagged about 800 years behind the temperature changes. Global warming has produced more CO₂, rather than more CO₂ producing global warming."<ref>S. Fred Singer and Dennis T.

  The suggestion of climate change by the Left is considered by many to be part of a larger, more sophistocated plot to increase the size of the federal government. By focusing on the long-term effects of the yet unproven theory, liberal politicians would have the ability to impose higher taxes (especially on carbon), enforce more regulation on corporations' production policies, and create any number of bureaucratic agencies necessary to further promote a big-government agenda. This type of strategy would require the general American public to buy into radical fear-mongering- something that it proved itself capable of during the post-9/11 terrorism paranoia incited by big-goverment Neoconservatives.