Using polling to discover not only what percentage of voters believe in man-made climate change but also how much they know about related scientific facts could prove worthwhile. Survey questions might include asking voters if they believe greenhouse gases exist and, if so, whether they think that \u2014 if possible \u2014 all greenhouse gases should be eliminated. One wonders whether most voters realize that without greenhouse gases in the atmosphere life on Earth would not be possible. Even man-made climate change advocates don\u2019t dispute this fact. They admit that water vapor is by far the most plentiful greenhouse gas; while conspicuously refusing to represent water vapor on their charts. The results of such polling could be fascinating. For instance, what if polling revealed that a marked difference in the level of scientific understanding exists between those who believe in man-made climate change and those who don\u2019t? Or, perhaps the polling might show that voters in general have so little understanding of the science involved that their opinions tend to be based on factors outside the realm of science. Man-made climate change dogma has been built on a mix of misinformation, mistruths, the threat of withholding research funding from scientists who publicly proclaim their skepticism, refusal to peer review and publish the studies of nonbelieving scientists, the labeling of nonbelieving scientists who have the guts to speak their minds as not being \u201creputable,\u201d and most important of all \u2014 political and other self-serving advantages of perpetuating the myth. During some recent internet surfing, this columnist watched a governmental hearing in Washington State that displayed another tactic of those who promote man-made climate change dogma. It is the use of trick statements. The hearing featured a scientist who argued that man-made climate change was a hoax. An apparently sincere lawmaker read a statement to the scientist and asked him to respond. The statement was basically that: \u201cSoon, no living person on Earth will have experienced \u2014 at any moment of their lives \u2014 a normal climate.\u201d Possibly believing the statement didn\u2019t deserve a response, the scientist ignored it. This was unfortunate and represented a missed opportunity for a teachable moment. The scientist should have answered the question and done so in detail. The point is that the statement was laced with double-layered deceit. First, the proper term would not be \u201cnormal\u201d it should be \u201caverage.\u201d As mentioned in a previous column, substituting the word \u201cnormal\u201d for \u201caverage\u201d can be either a commonplace mistake or willful manipulation. The classic example is that for decades the average family in the United States had 2.5 children; but obviously the number of families that actually had two and a half kids was zero. \u201cAverage\u201d does not mean \u201cnormal\u201d and \u201cnormal\u201d does not mean \u201caverage.\u201d Therefore an accurate answer to the question would have had to be \u2014 \u201cYes, that\u2019s true, but strictly speaking no animal or plant that ever existed on the face of this planet has experienced a \u201cnormal\u201d Earth climate, because there has never been such a thing as a \u201cnormal\u201d Earth climate. OK, so for the term \u201cnormal climate\u201d let\u2019s substitute the term \u201caverage climate.\u201d That will make the statement relevant. If the time period used for comparison was limited to the past 600 years, which was dominated by roughly 500 years of a relatively colder climate \u2014 referred to as the \u201cLittle Ice Age\u201d (a bad name because it wasn\u2019t an ice age) \u2014 then the answer would be that the people presently on Earth have lived during a warmer than average climate. But if the time period used for comparison was the past 3,000 years the people presently on Earth have lived during a cooler than average climate. If the time period used for comparison was the past 9,000 years \u2014 dating back to the retreat of the glaciers, the people presently on Earth have still lived during a cooler than average climate. However, if the time period used for comparison covers the past 2.6 million years (our current era) the people presently on Earth have lived during a much warmer than average climate, because most of those 2.6 million years consisted of a series of glacial ages, during which time where we are sitting right now was usually under a mile of ice. If the time period used for comparison covered the past 115 million years the people presently on Earth have lived during a drastically cooler than average climate, because about 110 million of those years took place in a different era during which there was no permanent ice cap on Earth, not even in Antarctica. Meanwhile, climate predictions of the scientists across the world who use the solar activity (sun spot) theory are proving more reliable than those of the man-made climate change crowd. But \u2014 possibly because little political advantage can be gained by admitting climate change is beyond man\u2019s control \u2014 most of these scientists honor the \u201cscientific method\u201d and call their theory \u201cjust a theory\u201d rather than proclaiming it an undeniable fact.