A little over a year ago, the journal Science published a paper co-authored by researchers from the University of Arizona and the University of Bristol. It revealed a blatant chink in the climate alarmist’s armor pointing out the global average temperature is 58.96°F (14.98°C), which is considerably cooler than the 96.8°F (36°C) average observed roughly 100 million years ago. That said, the study highlighted a steady decline in Earth’s temperatures over the past 50 million years.

What was significant is the study was highlighted by mainstream media outlets but it really undermined their blaming humans as revealed by the graph included in their reports.

Amid the effort to emphasize global warming and the climate crisis, various political stories and pessimistic forecasts have been circulated for more than three decades. Meanwhile, Americans have grown increasingly doubtful about the very existence of a climate crisis, not to mention whether emissions from SUVs and cow flatulence are driving temperature shifts—and now evidence shows that skepticism toward human-caused climate change is indeed valid.

In the wake of recent developments, The New York Times (which regularly publishes climate change propaganda) is beginning to admit defeat. However, instead of admitting they are defeated, the Grey Lady blames (you guessed it) fossil fuels.

As delegates wrapped the annual United Nations climate talks last Saturday, those who have campaigned to reduce the use of fossil fuels expressed growing alarm that forces arrayed against them are gaining ground in the information war.

The oil, gas and coal industries continue to downplay the scientific consensus that the burning of fossil fuels is dangerously heating the planet. It’s a strategy that has been echoed by oil-rich countries such as Russia, Saudi Arabia and — under the Trump administration — the United States.

President Trump mocks global warming as a hoax, cheered on by a chorus of influencers online who regularly promote disinformation on social media platforms that once tried to curtail it. While such views have long been dismissed as conspiracy theories, their influence on the global policy debates has clearly grown.

The Times article is hilariously entertaining and seems like it was penned by a woke weirdo indoctrinated in gender ideology. It argues that climate-skeptic viewpoints frequently present themselves as logical and manly, while depicting climate supporters as hysterical, doomsaying, and faith-based.

Political campaigns deploy the same playbook. Republicans frequently claimed the Biden administration was trying to “emasculate” American drivers by forcing them into electric vehicles. Lee Zeldin, Mr. Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency administrator, has labeled climate change a “religion” instead of what it is: a matter of physics.

Oh and its not just The New York Times throwing in the towel.

When done properly, science is driven by hard data that is reproducible and there are many science-based explanations for climate phenomena that the media has hidden from public discussion.

A sensible individual recognizes that even if every environmental policy advocated by activists over the last four decades had been completely enacted, it wouldn’t have prevented even one flood, hurricane, or tornado. Yet, we’d undoubtedly be far worse off financially.

This points to yet another cause for the decline of climate cultists: when their ideas are totally impractical, folks just stop paying attention. No one’s about to abandon the luxuries of modern living, their house, their own tomorrow, or that of their kids.

What it comes down to is that climate realists or skeptics prevailed in the Information War by delivering authentic, scientific investigation rooted in evidence, instead of political agendas masquerading as science.