That dishonest term "climate change" again

People are still being hoodwinked by the dishonest term "climate change", which I previously discussed at http://peacelegacy.org/articles/rose-rose-really [2] . Here's a comment I added to an article at Wattsupwiththat [3] to inform yet another misled innocent:

Kip Hansen says:

"It’s not as bad as it seems. They would just like to shut down the obvious nonsensical ” ‘debate’ over whether climate change is real or a hoax, however, should be confined to conspiracy websites and political blogs where truth takes a backseat to ideology.”

Sorry Kip, you've been tricked by your friends good and proper. "Climate change" is 100% caused by humans, and it is a real question whether there is lots of it or only a minuscule irrelevant amount.

Confused? I don't blame you. But here's the official definition:

"Climate change" means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.

That's from the official UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/background/items/2536.php [4]). The term specifically excludes all natural climate change, and even excludes any caused by humans due to, for example, land clearance or city building, considering only atmospheric changes.

So you've been hoodwinked thoroughly. Of course that's the idea. They can make all sorts of horrendous claims about "climate change" (assuming their definition), which people like you assume to apply to, not "climate change", but to a change of climate (meaning any change, whatever the cause or mechanism). So if they say, "climate change" is 1000 times more than it was 100 years ago, that may be true, but it might still be that the change of climate is negligible.

Do you see now how the hoax is perpetrated?