Where was the skepticism when Bush started the GWOT?

Notice that people have been using "climate change", as opposed to "global warming", for terminology for quite some time now, but it took some years before this due change finally became common. I often criticised the use of GW for terminology, because there were plenty of places on this planet where people weren't experiencing and, therefore, weren't witnessing GW. In some caes, people were experiencing colder temperatures, and snow in places where even elderly people native to these areas had never before seen snow.

GW'ers were so fanatical in their thinking that they refused to understand that people experiencing colder temperatures couldn't relate to GW, a term that says the phenomenon was [global], which it wasn't. Global means the [whole] Earth! Meanwhile, GW was only based on taking or calculating a global [average], which, when we consider it in this sense tells us that the individual measurements can include colder areas. Averages usually consist of varying numbers or measurements, the range can be quite considerable. GW'ers "forgot" to [think] about this.

Climate change has been more evident than GW has been, which means it's a terminology that more people could related to. So it's about time that the correct terminology began to be used. I've been finding it's usage to be much more frequent than GW has been for quite some time, now, anyway.

And Maxwell Boykoff is right about denialists not having all held an identical, uniform view, as well as being right about the news media having been very professionally negligent in their disregard of treating the various views of denialists, of whom there were people who weren't really denialists, just people with different explanations for GW and/or climate change, as if they're all the same. F.e., some scientists didn't deny GW was happening; they only differed in terms of the causes; like the sun being more responsible for the GW effect than our CO2 emissions were or are. These people clearly weren't denying GW, and they had and, I believe, still have some, if not much, support from statements made by the head of NASA, or some scientits there anyway.

The latter people have said that the sun has been covered with spots and that this is a ten year cycle. When the spots are finally all gone, then, according to the little I've read about this, we can expect considerable warming, globally; but while the sun's covered with spots, then we can expect or will have cooling.

Some scientists argued that GW or climate change was happening, but that this was due to unusual or unusually violent activity with the sun and that this was found to be causing considerable climate changes on several other planets. The people argued that the sun was more greatly responsible for any GW, or any significant GW, effect on Earth than our CO2 emissions were or are.

These people, both of the above examples, are not denialists of GW, at all. They just have alternative theories on the causes. And, in their cases, cause is plural, for they, many of them anyway, didn't deny that our CO2 emissions contributed to GW; they just said that the sun was more greatly responsible, significantly so.

The GW'ers who refused to give mature consideration for the alternative theories also refused to ever mention them in any manner whatsoever; choosing to be totally silent about them. This attitude would of course, obviously, cause feuding or dueling. They were acting like denialists, real ones, for the others openly stated their theories while explicitly contrasting them to the fanatical and closed-minded GW'ers, who only wanted to push their own theory as if no others existed; besides the theory of the complete and real denialists, that is. The fanatical GW'ers only addressed the complete denialists, though not necessarily in explicit terms. They refused to acknowledge the theories of people speaking on sun vs our CO2 as causes.

A few of the sun theory people said our CO2 emissions weren't responsible at all, but most of the scientists I read about saying the sun being the greater cause did say that our CO2 was also a cause, just that it is less significant than the sun.

And from what I gathered, the news weren't the only ones that are guilty. The IPCC apparently also didn't address the theory that the sun was the greater cause, or at least a significant contributor to GW on Earth. This is [not] how true and, therefore, mature scientists work. The true, mature ones will also be open to considering alternative theories and will analyze and address them in mature manners. And while I have paid little to no attention to GW and climate change for ... plenty of time, now, I am not aware of any of the people claiming our CO2 emissions are the cause of GW, as if this is the only cause, addressing the theory that the sun is also cause and that, therefore, there are causes, instead of only one cause. If this is true, then it's wrong and is an example of being prone to committing negligent scientific research, etcetera.

I stay away from people who practice negligent scientific ... anything. Consider, f.e., that during the bogus A/H1N1 flu "pandemic" that some people came close to dying because doctors neglected to carefully diagnose the problems some people were suffering from. There were reports of two people who nearly died because the doctors who treated these patients gave them the H1N1 vaccine when what these patients had was a deadly condition that's treatable and totally unrelated to the H1N1 flu, as well as any other flu. I forget what the name of the condition is that these people had, for it was specified in the articles, but it's has nothing to do with the flus and is deadly, if and when it isn't promptly treated. I want nothing to do with people who practice their professions with unacceptable negligence; and this includes lawyers, judges, politicians, accountants, construction workers, etcetera.

In any case, when we have a campaign for some goal related to a problem and other people propose alternative theories about the causes of the problem, then these should be carefully considered, analyzed, for it can happen that the alternative theorists are right. When they're wrong and we conduct competent analysis, then we'll see that they're wrong and will not only be able to continue according to what we believe to be the cause of the problem to be resolved, we'll also be able to explain to other people why our assessment is right or more accurate than the alternative theories are. Usually, when people have campaigns to try to remedy problems, they want supporters, so it's important to keep in mind that some people will need to be convinced that we're right, before they agree that we are right and then choose to join us.

The IPCC, if it didn't give due consideration to the sun theory, was very negligent, unprofessional, and discredited itself. Also, some of the people whose names were placed on the IPCC's report as co-signatories were either wrongly included, or have retracted their support for the report. I've read about both of these categories of people whose names appeared as signers on this report. But neglecting professional consideration of the sun theory serious discredits the report and the work of the IPCC anyway. After all, it illustrates disregard for mutual respect, and it's never respectable when people do this.

Anyway, according to what I read about words of one or more NASA scientists, the sun's ten year cycle of spots is supposed to be completed around 2012 or 2013, after which, they say, we're to experience serious and real GW. IF GW scientists say this, then it seems to me that it's clear that the sun's a serious contributor. What's left is to determine which is and will be the greater cause of GW, the sun, or us.

Mike Corbeil