A few years ago I did a post about global warming. I pointed out the gaps in logic which I could see in this consensus driven "science". It seems that I couldn't have been too far off the mark because some scientists are starting to back me up, check out Cycle 25.

Pal Brekke, senior adviser at the Norwegian Space Centre, said some scientists found the importance of water cycles difficult to accept, because doing so means admitting that the oceans – not CO2 – caused much of the global warming between 1970 and 1997.

Why would scientists have and issue with something that doesn't support their hypothesis? That's the purpose of science is to find truth. Are the people pushing CO2 as the cause of Global Warming "real" scientists?

The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.

The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.

Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.

The East Anglia Climatic Research Unit consists of the same clowns whose emails were leaked showing that they doctored temperature readings to make it appear as if there were temperature increases when in fact there weren't. They were petitioned to release the raw data from which their predictions were made. It looks like they finally have; what do we see? We see that the data suggested the exact opposite of what we were told!

Meanwhile, leading climate scientists yesterday told The Mail on Sunday that, after emitting unusually high levels of energy throughout the 20th Century, the sun is now heading towards a ‘grand minimum’ in its output, threatening cold summers, bitter winters and a shortening of the season available for growing food.

Solar output goes through 11-year cycles, with high numbers of sunspots seen at their peak.

We are now at what should be the peak of what scientists call ‘Cycle 24’ – which is why last week’s solar storm resulted in sightings of the aurora borealis further south than usual. But sunspot numbers are running at less than half those seen during cycle peaks in the 20th Century.

Analysis by experts at NASA and the University of Arizona – derived from magnetic-field measurements 120,000 miles beneath the sun’s surface – suggest that Cycle 25, whose peak is due in 2022, will be a great deal weaker still.

Anyone who believes that the sun plays a minor role in this planet's climate is denying reality. What happens at night? The sun goes down and so does the temperature (with the exception of a warm front). Why do seasons change? Because the earth tilts on its axis causing sun to reach the surface at an increased angle (more radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere and the planet's magnetic field). Why is it colder at the north and south poles? This can easily be observed.

Dr Nicola Scafetta, of Duke University in North Carolina, is the author of several papers that argue the Met Office climate models show there should have been ‘steady warming from 2000 until now’.

‘If temperatures continue to stay flat or start to cool again, the divergence between the models and recorded data will eventually become so great that the whole scientific community will question the current theories,’ he said.

He believes that as the Met Office model attaches much greater significance to CO2 than to the sun, it was bound to conclude that there would not be cooling. ‘The real issue is whether the model itself is accurate,’ Dr Scafetta said. Meanwhile, one of America’s most eminent climate experts, Professor Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology, said she found the Met Office’s confident prediction of a ‘negligible’ impact difficult to understand.

‘The responsible thing to do would be to accept the fact that the models may have severe shortcomings when it comes to the influence of the sun,’ said Professor Curry. As for the warming pause, she said that many scientists ‘are not surprised’.

I agree; Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs are not going to cause a change in climate, neither will reducing cow emissions. There is absolutely no reason to pass legislation in an attempt to control the climate. Climate change legislation is absurd and is designed to slow economic growth in the U.S. and the rest of the developed world. I will cover this in depth later, for now, the link above is my source material.

Don't fall for it.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Follow The WindUpRubberFinger on Twitter!

Now we are hearing from Obama campaign manager Jim Messina that they're worried about Mitt Romney's "Smear Machine"? Hmm... I somehow doubt this. As I pointed out in the last post; the MSM and the Democrats are going to attack those who they fear. One thing you will never hear is who they are really fearful of politically.

This is the Main Stream Media's way of telling Florida voters, "Good job, you're voting the way we want you to. Here's a little bone to make you feel good about Romney".

I wonder when the MSM media attacks will start for Rick Santorum?

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Follow The WindUpRubberFinger on Twitter!

After reading quite a bit on both candidates and paying attention to who the MSM (Main Stream Media) is attacking. I think there are a few things at play here.

I think that most of the political analysts are hit with something they were never taught about in school. There is a huge swing in polling between Florida and South Carolina. Newt won SC but it looks like he might loose FL. Why? I don't know for sure. All of the same attack ads used now in FL were there in SC, but the outcome was different.

This I do know. There has never been (in modern history) a situation where people were truthfully scared for the country; not like now. I think that Republican voters know that Obama must go. Not because of partisan differences or whatever the media likes to call it. But because Republican voters sense that there is something wrong and that the nation might not recover from four more years of Obama.

Gingrich has the most attacks so far amongst any of the candidates. Romney is still left alone and that worries me. I want a candidate who is despised by the Obama camp. The left and the MSM will only act if they think that a candidate is a threat to their agenda, it only makes sense. Look what happened to Herman Cain.

The attacks on Newt Gingrich by former Reagan administration officials seems a little fishy to me also. Do these former officials keep such close ties with each other that they can all come out at the same time with damaging stories? What jogged their collective memory? It seems that they where incorrect in their portrayal of Gingrich.

“It does no one -- least of all Elliott Abrams or Governor Romney -- any good to try and say that Newt Gingrich, as loyal a friend and ally to Ronald Reagan as could be found in the day -- was somehow some crazed anti-Reaganite who got the Cold War wrong. Not only is this not true, its laughably untrue,” writes Lord in today’s American Spectator.

Abrams, Lord writes, was surely hoping no one would bother to “get into the weeds” and uncover the full record of what Gingrich said in 1986. But someone, a former Gingrich foreign policy staffer who now works in private industry, did, tracking down the Congressional Record for that year.

The record shows that Gingrich said of Reagan in a floor speech on March 21, 1986:

"Let me be clear: I have the greatest respect for President Reagan. I think he personally understands the threat of communism."

Gingrich, writes Lord, went on to praise Reagan for his understanding of Vladimir Lenin and applaud Reagan for understanding the threat posed by the Soviet empire and by Nicaragua, where $1 billion in assistance from Moscow fueled a Marxist revolution.

“The Newt Gingrich who spoke on the floor of the House on March 21, 1986, was thoroughly pro-Reagan, honestly engaging in a serious intellectual effort to assess the strengths and weaknesses of American foreign policy in the day from a hierarchy of vision, strategy, operations or projects and then, last but not least, tactics,” wrote Lord.

Lord calls Abrams’ criticism of Gingrich, published in a National Review Online article on Thursday, “shameful.”

In the end the vote is up to you and me. Just remember, things aren't always what they seem. These people are trying to convince others that Gingrich was anti-Reagan when he obviously was not. This is much worse than any corny attack add.

This proves that Gingrich is not the establishment candidate, and that establishment republicans are worried that Gingrich might call them out if elected. In my opinion establishment Republicans should be called out and voted out of office. Getting rid of the moderate Republicans is just as important as defeating the Democrats.

Now is not the time for moderates! Now is the time for Conservatives.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Follow The WindUpRubberFinger on Twitter!

I did a commentary of the State of The Union Address from 2011. I should do this for 2012 as well. I'll sum it up for you with one quotes from the debate with commentary.

Link to Transcript.

A return to the American values of fair play and shared responsibility will help us protect our people and our economy. But it should also guide us as we look to pay down our debt and invest in our future.

The United States of America was not founded on "fair play and shared responsibility." If Obama doesn't know that, he doesn't know America. That's why he's doing what he's doing, or is it?

There is little more to say. One of two possibilities exist. Either Obama simply doesn't get it when it comes to this country or its founding, or he does get it and he wants to change it.

Think about that for a minute.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Follow The WindUpRubberFinger on Twitter!

The MSM (Main Stream Media) might be a better judge of the "pulse of the people" as they say. Gingrich has been under attack by the MSM for quite some time now. He was asked about his ex-wife's accusations at a presidential debate. Juan Williams hit him with a racially charged question. He handled those attacks well, and made the attacker look foolish in the process. Gingrich isn't scared to say what he thinks, which lately has been what a majority of Conservatives have been thinking.

When the MSM finds a target there is usually a reason for it. I believe that Gingrich represents a much greater threat to Obama's second term than does Romney. Why you might ask? Because Gingrich is the only current candidate who can fluently articulate Conservatism. Romney is "too nice" and the Obama camp knows it. When the "too nice" guy gets angry it turns off the people who were on board because of his niceness. Calmness isn't always a sign of confidence; sometimes it's a mechanism to deflect stress.

Romney has a problem that I believe he cannot overcome. Romney sounds like he is reading from a teleprompter --even when he is not. Romney has that kind of used-car-salesman fakeness about him. Romney seems the same no matter the circumstance. Angry or happy; there seems to be little discernible difference. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against whoever the candidate might be, I just think that Romney will have a hard time taking on the left when in full power mode. To this day the MSM has given Romney a pass. That's a bad sign for Romney and I think people are starting to catch on to that.

Gingrich, while definitely not anyone's favorite seems to be the best choice for the time being. At least that's what I take from the debates.

What scares me is that Obama might just choose not to debate; regardless of who the Republican nominee is. In that case all bets are off. I don't know how well the Republican candidate is going to get the message across when nearly the entire MSM is backing Obama.

At the very least; maybe he can get Romney to stand up and swing instead of trying to be Ward Cleaver.

If you were wondering why nobody was cheering during the debate, here's why.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Follow The WindUpRubberFinger on Twitter!