The Democrats have also done their own research and figured out who their “clients” are, where they live, and the issues that are their hot buttons. For them, it is simple, really. The Democratic constituents live in the big cities. Click on the 2008 presidential election map from the Washington Post and you’ll see it was the big cities that put Obama on the map.

If you added up the land mass of every blue and red county you’d see something really striking—the Republicans won 80 percent of this country, when measured by acreage. John McCain got a majority of votes in 2,417,000 square miles of the United States. Barack Obama, by comparison, won in just 580,000 square miles.

Ah, but now let’s look at the population numbers for each county. McCain still came out ahead, but not by much. The total population of counties won by Republicans was 143 million, while the population of counties won by Democrats was 127 million.

Basically, the Democrats swept the populations centers—the cities and more populated suburban areas—while the Republicans won everything else. Chip Wood, Personal Liberty Digest

So how did the Democrats win the big cities? Simple. By identifying the key issues of importance to their constituents. The “have-nots” in those cities are interested in handouts. Give them money and you win their votes. But you can’t win an election only with the have-nots. You need the monied and educated class. The “haves” in those cities are interested in the environment.

It’s easy to sell the “haves” on environmental issues. Most Americans have little contact with pollution. Much of our country is sparsely inhabited where pollution is non-existant, but the voters live in the big cities which they themselves pollute as these two maps from Pollution Scorecard illustrate:

Air Pollution Map of US

Chemical Pollution Map of US

By giving more electoral votes to the cities where Demo-crats control the “Demos,” the outcome is certain. Just like retailers know exactly what to offer their customers and control their market, the Democrats know how to control the election. If the rest of the country is interested in avoiding Democratic despotism they better get involved in the political process in a profound and persistent manner. It’s going to take more than laundry detergent to clean up this mess.

Would you be just as willing to say that there is no connection between Communism and the environmental movement?

Even though the United States leads the world in environmental protection, the world clamors for draconian penalties on the US while giving free passes to China, India, and polluting third world countries. Of course that’s only fair you say, the US can afford to give its wealth to countries that really need it. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” Such a warm and cuddly statement from Karl Marx.

That brings to mind some of Lenin’s most popular quotes:

A lie told often enough becomes truth.

One man with a gun can control 100 without one.

The goal of socialism is communism.

Give us the child for 8 years and it will be a Bolshevik forever.

It is true that liberty is precious – so precious that it must be rationed.  Vladimir Lenin

I’m guessing you didn’t see the coverage below of the global warming conference in Copenhagen. Watch the video and then you can tell me that there is no connection between Communism and the environmental movement.

Himalayan Glacier Safe

HIMALAYAS: One more “climate scientist” has come forward and admitted faking a study in order to provide the IPCC with scare tactics used to alarm the general public. Who hasn’t heard of the Himalayas? What a great high profile target, one valuable for its shock value. Turns out it was all a sham.

First the scare tactics, from the IPCC’s 2007 report:

Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world (see Table 10.9) and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate. Its total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 km² by the year 2035 (WWF, 2005).

The receding and thinning of Himalayan glaciers can be attributed primarily to the global warming due to increase in anthropogenic emission of greenhouse gases. The relatively high population density near these glaciers and consequent deforestation and land-use changes have also adversely affected these glaciers. The 30.2 km long Gangotri glacier has been receding alarmingly in recent years (Figure 10.6). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Look Out Santa!

Oooh… scary stuff, and so official-sounding, too. Can’t you just hear the tree-huggers with their gritted teeth screaming that we have to enact legislation RIGHT NOW to save the Himalayas! The only thing that could be worse than the balding of the Himalayas is defrosting Santa’s North Pole. (They’re scaring us about that too.)

Turns out this bogus claim was made strictly out of ideological reasons:

The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.

Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.

In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.

‘It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.’  David Rose, UK Daily Mail

We wonder how the IPCC and those reporting IPCC’s phony “research” will set about correcting the false impression they have created in the minds of the public. The NIP bets Al Gore will shortly be convening a news conference to correct the misinformation.

COPENHAGEN

If a post-Kyoto climate agreement fails to act on avoiding tropical deforestation, the achievement of overall climate change goals will become virtually impossible. The lives and livelihoods of millions of people will be put at risk, and the eventual economic cost of combating climate change will be far higher than it needs to be.

For these reasons, the next agreement must create meaningful incentives to remunerate forest nations for the valuable climate services they provide to the world. The Little REDD Book, multiple languages here, NIP archive here.

So we get it. Big Bad USA is supposed to send money to small jungle countries to pay them to not develop land that they wouldn’t develop anyway because they don’t have the energy, brains, property rights and freedom to do so. This is silly. We have more forests in the US than most of these smaller countries combined. And we can and do plant more trees every year. So we have to send them money? The US has done more than any other country in reducing emissions. They should send us money.

The Little REDD Book is a guide to the UN negotiations on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD). REDD aims to help halt deforestation, which causes around 20% of the world’s carbon emissions – more than the entire global transport sector. In addition, the mechanism could help fight poverty while conserving biodiversity and sustaining vital ecosystem services. GCP

Chairman Mao's Version

If this claim is true, we’re all for it here at the NIP. Junk Cap & Trade and start planting trees. We compliment the GCP on such a creative title for their book. We’ll watch it as it climbs the best sellers list. We wonder though what Mao’s trustees will have to say about it, since his Chairman Mao’s Little Red Book has been a big seller for some time now. We wonder if his family has sued the GCP yet for copyright infringement.

This reminds us of that line from Men in Black II: “Dennis Rodman, he’s from that planet… Rodman? You’re kidding. Not much of a disguise.”

The new Little REDD Book is not much of a disguise either. It’s just the same old communist schtick, take money from those who produce it and give it to those who don’t.  The intention is clear. They think we’re such dopes that we’ll fall for that garbage all over again. They played that song in Eastern Europe and they won’t dance to it anymore. So their band has moved to the west, and the Obama administration is giving them great air time.

From the Climategate Files - How Climate Researchers Look at Us

On his show Glenn said he wished he had the slide being shown by the environmentalist. We found it in the Climategate files. Here you go, Glenn.

Q: How damaging to your argument was the disclosure of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University?

A: To paraphrase Shakespeare, it’s sound and fury signifying nothing. I haven’t read all the e-mails, but the most recent one is more than 10 years old. These private exchanges between these scientists do not in any way cause any question about the scientific consensus.

That’s the problem with these scientists like Al Gore. Time and space are completely relative when it comes to stretching the truth. The emails in fact have time stamps from as recent as this one by Phil Jones from November 12th, 2009. There are dozens more from just last month.

Q: What’s your view on the medieval warm period and the charge that the East Anglia e-mails suggest data was manipulated to “contain” that anomaly?

A: I haven’t read those e-mails in detail, but the larger point is that there are cyclical changes in the climate and they are fairly well-understood, and all of them are included in the scientific consensus. When you look at what has happened over the last few decades the natural fluctuations point in the opposite direction of what has actually occurred. When they run the models and plug in the man-made pollution, the correspondence is exact. Beyond that, the scale of natural fluctuations has now been far exceeded by the impact of man-made global warming.

Well Al, you can run the models based on bogus data, and of course the correspondence is exact. Take out the bogus data, and poof, the correspondence is gone. The NIP has previously reported that back before the Hadley CRU dumped their data to prevent peer review, scientists who reviewed their data and reran the models found out that Hadley skewed the data to produce bogus results.

So Al, what’s up with you? Jimmy must have told you by now that the NIP frowns on awarding one recipient multiple Prevaricator of the Year awards. Inventing the Internet not enough for you?

But the story just keeps getting better and better. If you watch the video below you will see Ed Begley arguing with Stuart Varney. This smarmy actor keeps saying to check “peer reviewed studies” to find the facts, in other words ignore the leaked files, and don’t read them or think for yourself.

What happens though when reputable scientists want to review the data and perform those “peer reviewed studies” and are told by the Hadley CRU that the data was dumped, and they no longer have it? That’s right, they dumped their own data to prevent others from reviewing their work.

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years…

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building…

The CRU is the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible. Jonathan Leake, UK Times

So much for peer reviewed studies. What self-respecting researchers would dump their own data? Only ones who didn’t want to have their conclusions reviewed. Thank you Hadley CRU. The NIP acknowledges your creativity in fabricating results. Certainly a marvelous example of prevarication at its finest, right next to “the dog ate my homework.”