Global warming is the latest gimmick by some establishment politicians (on both sides of the aisle) to gain more control over the way Americans live. Somehow all of the suggested solutions will cripple healthy economies, limit personal freedom in America, and give money to dictators in banana republics. The major polluters–China and India–remain unaffected by any suggested solutions. Those of us who are skeptical have been called everything from morons to the modern day flat earth society. Again I would like to mention that the best scientific website on climate is wattsupwiththat. Meanwhile, some of the scientists forced to skew their results to promote the idea of global warming are beginning to speak out.

A website called JoNova has posted an article about the skewing of science to support the political theory of global warming.

The article states:

David Dilley, NOAA Meteorologist, tells how for 15 years work on man-made climate change was pushed while work on natural cycles was actively suppressed. Grants connecting climate change to a man-made crisis were advertised, while the word went around to heads of departments that even mentioning natural cycles would threaten the flow of government funds. Speeches about natural cycles were mysteriously canceled at the last minute with bizarre excuses.

But jobs are on the line, so only retired workers can really speak, and no one can name names.

We can corroborate David Dilley’s remarks. Indeed, he is probably just one of many skeptics hidden in the ranks of NOAA.  Way back in 2007, David Evans got an email from a different insider within NOAA, around the time he started talking publicly about the missing hotspot. The insider said, remarkably: “As a Meteorologist working for [snip, name of division] it has been clear to me, as well as every single other scientist I know at NOAA, that man can not be the primary cause of global warming and that the predictions of “gloom and doom” due to rising temperatures is ridiculous”.

…Dilley was invited to speak about natural cycles (at the University of Maine), but just before the event mysterious “staff shortages” meant his speech was canceled. Oddly, a different speech suddenly appeared in it’s place.

Considering the cost of college tuition these days, shouldn’t students be allowed to hear both sides of an argument?