>>So what is that it was pushed in order to keep people from being concerned about it, not to cover over evidence that warming wasn't really happening, as deniers tend to claim.
>>
>>Sorry. I do not understand the statement. Please explain what you mean by that.
>
>My sentence definitely didn't come out right. What I was saying is that Luntz told the GOP to start calling it "climate change" rather than "global warming" because the former sounded less alarming. Global warming deniers tend to claim that scientists and those who accept their conclusions made the change because warming wasn't really happening and they were trying to cover that up.
>
>FWIW, when I dug a little, I found that scientists have used both terms interchangeably for a long time.
>
>Tamar

And then there are global warming/climate change "skeptics", and I put myself in that category. The huge controversy involving the IPCC speaks volumes to the "activist" tendencies of those pushing unvetted positions.

Here's the bottom line - no one has yet established a temperature record over time that distinguishes human activity from activity in nature.

Even geophysical researchers have acknowledged it would take at least another 20 years of temperature observations to understand climate sensitivity.

Scientists haven't established a good record on climate forecasts. Current temperatures are at or below the low range of all of the climate models. Here's an interesting read..

https://judithcurry.com/2014/12/09/spinning-the-warmest-year/

My 2 cents: the global warming/climate change activists need to make some predictions, then come back in 20 years and we'll see how well they did.

So that's why I'm a skeptic. Not a denier, but a skeptic. Sadlly, we have men like the current president who proclaim that this is a "settled science". (Sigh)