Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Scroll down for Audio Version

How many times would you put up with being cheated on in a relationship? How many times would you tolerate being lied to? Is it one and done? Or maybe 2 – 3 – a half a dozen?

Obviously, this is a loaded question. It would depend on a number of factors. Independence vs. interdependence – or maybe just how forgiving a person is. Maybe it’s a relationship of convenience – like the Clintons – more a business partnership than a personal, loving relationship.

But what if the relationship were between you and cause? A cause you felt so strongly for, people considered you “wedded” to it. A cause like…oh…I don’t know…Global Warming.

What if you were all-in on man caused global warming because, as experts have oft-repeated, the science of global warming is settled? But then you found out that the cause you’ve been wedded to is almost entirely a lie? What would you do? You just may have to reevaluate your loyalty.

Last week the Daily Caller posted an article calling into question, “Nearly All Of The Warming In Climate Data.” The article centers on a recent “peer reviewed” study by two climate scientists and a “veteran statistician.” The study was reviewed and validated by seven respected Ph.Ds from the fields of meteorology, climatology, data analysis and atmospheric science. The scientists were attempting to validate the warming represented by “global average surface temperature (GAST)” data sets managed by “NASA, NOAA and the UK’s Met Office.” What they discovered was just the opposite.

Now we skeptics, or dare I say deniers, have always contended that relying on surface temperature readings, rather than more accurate and widely available satellite data, would invariably lead to incorrect conclusions – either mistakenly or worse – purposely. In other words – garbage in – garbage out.

Fear not. The “experts” that manage these surface temperature data sets are not concerned. Being that they are “experts,” they are skilled at making adjustments to the raw data, “to account for biases in the data.”

However, the study shows that the data set managers at NASA, NOAA and the Met Office, have been doing much more than just tweaking the data. Meteorologist Joe D’Aleo, a study co-author has proven that, “Nearly all of the warming they are now showing is in the adjustments.”

The study further reveals that these highly respected and infallible governmental scientists, of which we are not allowed to ever question, have “adjusted” the raw data to “cool past temperatures and warm more current records, increasing the warming trend.”

And, as it turns out, these departments haven’t been just “adjusting data. They’ve been able to show steeper warming trends as of late. We’ve all seen and heard the dire warnings, that this year is the hottest, which eclipses last year which was the hottest, etc.

These “experts” have duped the public and governments alike by “systematically removing previously existing cyclical temperature patterns.” In other words – they’ve literally scrubbed previous historical warming periods.

The study’s authors have gone a step further. Not only have they exposed data manipulation by the pro-warming nuts dressed up as government experts, but they now claim that, “the science underpinning the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) authority to regulate greenhouse gases ‘is invalidated.’” So much so, that the EPA’s evidence for controlling greenhouse gases, “simply does not exist in the real world.”

We deniers have insisted for years that man-caused warming is a scam and have trotted out reams of proof of cheating, lying and manipulation.

With the inclusion of this latest study, perhaps it’s time Trump started handing out pink slips at NASA and NOAA, like he has at the V.A. Better yet – prosecute these “experts” for fraud.

iPatriot Contributers


Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.


Need help, have a question, or a comment? Send us an email and we'll get back to you as soon as possible.


Log in with your credentials

Forgot your details?