"Climate change" is a euphemism for global warming. It implies that the change might be either warming or cooling, but is in fact, only warming. Like Howard Cosell, I tell it as it is. You are caught up in the rhetorical games associated with your denial.

If you wish to show that you have an iota of credibility, at least learn proper typographic conventions. The number of spaces between sentences is not optional; it is one.

Complete Manual on Typography (2003): "The typewriter tradition of separating sentences with two word spaces after a period has no place in typesetting" and the single space is "standard typographic practice."

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2011/01/space_invaders.html

http://typographyforlawyers.com/one-space-between-sentences.html

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-you-should-never-add-two-spaces-after-a-period-2015-5

As soon as you show you have the intelligence to catch onto something that basic, the actual merits of what you write may come into consideration. Until then, you show only that even in many decades you could not learn the basics of writing.

Your comment is what some boxing commentators have called a combination foul.

1. You snuck in a volatile political opinion (denying global warming) into a discussion that is not in the Attic, where such issues are contested.

2. You snidely implied that the government, which has complicity in the mistaken and harmful information about sugar consumption, cannot be trusted on any matter, such as apparently anything that contradicts your belief that global warming is a hoax. This is an abject non sequitur. If it were not, then no person or institution would be a credible source on anything, because nothing and no one is always right.

3. Global warming is not an invention of the government's. It is the consensus of an overwhelming majority of climate scientists, corroborated by other scientists, like marine biologists, whose work is affected by climate change. The deniers of this are mostly a very small number of scientists who are funded by the fossil fuel industry, a few genuine intellectual dissenters, like Murry Salby, and millions of Republican voters who learned everything they know about it from right wing media.

4. The federal government did not author the anti-fat campaign, but promoted it based on false conclusions developed and promoted by the sugar industry.

RE #3: The past few summers have convinced me that we are experiencing some global warming, and I don't think it is the Fires of Hell rising to the surface of the earth. Is it caused by man, and do we want to revert to 18th century living? The honest discussions should be about whether there is really warming (or cooling), or are the changes just a natural cycle and not man made? The dinosaurs didn't die from over hunting but rather from global cooling, but a warming trend followed. Most of the reliable reports I've seen, not including those from Al Gore and cronies, have said the actual warming in the past half century or so has only been about one degree or less. I will concede the point that the third world (and China) are the major air polluters and are not helping the situation, and they have to recognize that the developed countries can't solve all the problems despite while they still pollute. The politicians aren't helping when they preach to extract more tax money that they can 'fritter away' on pet projects, not necessarily pollution related, or maybe the problem is just the researchers having found a new source or money; every report supporting warming or cooling gets them more funding!

Your comment is what some boxing commentators have called a combination foul.

1. You snuck in a volatile political opinion (denying global warming) into a discussion that is not in the Attic, where such issues are contested.

2. You snidely implied that the government, which has complicity in the mistaken and harmful information about sugar consumption, cannot be trusted on any matter, such as apparently anything that contradicts your belief that global warming is a hoax. This is an abject non sequitur. If it were not, then no person or institution would be a credible source on anything, because nothing and no one is always right.

3. Global warming is not an invention of the government's. It is the consensus of an overwhelming majority of climate scientists, corroborated by other scientists, like marine biologists, whose work is affected by climate change. The deniers of this are mostly a very small number of scientists who are funded by the fossil fuel industry, a few genuine intellectual dissenters, like Murry Salby, and millions of Republican voters who learned everything they know about it from right wing media.

4. The federal government did not author the anti-fat campaign, but promoted it based on false conclusions developed and promoted by the sugar industry.