by Kevin Tetter

Created on: September 03, 2010   Last Updated: September 04, 2010

The terms "global warming", and "climate change" are interchangeable. Global warming was used first to describe alleged changes in global temperatures. Recent evidence now shows that  the earth may not be warming at all, but may actually be in a cooling cycle.

When the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published their much heralded report on global warming, the mainstream media heralded the report as the definitive proof of the existence of global warming. Then came the

"climategate" scandal, where hacked e-mails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at East Anglia University in the U.K. indicated that not only was some of the data rigged, but conflicting data was left out of the argument. Now, the custodian of those documents, Professor Phil Jones has admitted that what "evidence" they had to support global warming or climate change has been lost. This includes data that supported the now infamous "hockey stick" graph, that shows global temperatures spiking wildly upward in recent years. In fact, Jones concedes that the earth may not presently be heating up, but actually cooling, and may have been warmer during other historical periods. This is coming from the man that holds or did hold the data that other scientists used to prove their theories.

The CRU is where climate scientists from around the world gleaned their data in proving global warming. That includes the scientists that sat on the U.N.'s IPCC panel. Now that same panel is being forced to admit that not only were their dire predictions erroneous, but were based on false data. The real data, if there is any, has been lost by Phil Jones. The scandal has prompted India to walk away from the IPCC and do their own research into climate change. Losing the trust of a country one billion strong is a severe blow to the United Nations. They may be down, but not out though.

The global warming theory was in flames (no pun intended), and the promoters of the theory had to think fast. What they came up with was "climate change". Now, any kind of temperature change can be attributed to man. The agenda is still exactly the same. The Copenhagen Conference last year made this painfully clear. Virtually all the conversation revolved around money. How much, who would get it, and who would distribute. There was very little talk on the science, because in fact, unless Phil Jones can pull it out of a hat, there is very little science. The recent Geneva Conference was more civil than Copenhagen, but again, the entire conversation was about distributing the money, not the science. In the end, it is all about the money. The U.N. wants $45 trillion dollars to fight climate change, even in the face of scandal that all but debunked the entire theory. Global warming was too rigid a term to perpetuate. Climate change is much more flexible.

Learn more about this author, Kevin Tetter.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.