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.”

Obama Climate Czar Carol M. Browner, Committed Socialist

WASHINGTON: On Wednesday Obama Climate Czar Carol Browner rejected Climategate evidence leaked from the Hadley CRU showing that their global warming research was a hoax.

On November 19th a hacker, or as some have guessed a whistleblower, leaked files from the Hadley CRU. (You can download the Climategate evidence here.) The files showed how the environmentalists hid data that contradicted their position on global warming. Tuesday the NIP released analysis of prior studies (here) that showed how the researchers had cherry-picked samples thereby skewing global temperature models indicating a false rise when the entire data set showed nothing of the kind.

The Washington Times reported today:

Obama administration climate czar Carol Browner on Wednesday rejected claims that e-mails stolen from a British university show climate scientists trumped up global warming numbers, saying she considers the science settled.

… she said she will stick with the consensus of the 2,500 climate scientists on the International Panel on Climate Change who concluded global warming is happening and is most likely being pushed by human actions.   Stephen Dinan, Washington Times

Apparently though some of those very scientists admit that Climategate has blown their cover. Referring to the Hadley CRU emails, The Wall Street Journal reports:

Their correspondence show a claque of scientists massaging data to make it fit their theories, squelching scientists who disagreed, punishing academic journals that didn’t toe the apocalyptic line, and hiding their work from public view. “It’s no use pretending that this isn’t a major blow,” glumly wrote George Monbiot, a U.K. writer who has been among the fiercest warming alarmists. The documents “could scarcely be more damaging.” And that’s from a believer. Kimberly Strassel, Wall Street Journal

Now of course we would not expect a socialist to change course just because facts stand in her way. Until recently, though, we would have been surprised that a communist or socialist would occupy such a high post in the White House. In case you missed it somehow, Carol Browner was a member of Socialist International and a part of the SI Commission for a Sustainable World Society.

We here at the NIP are shocked that such a committed socialist would have her name scrubbed from the Socialist International web site (see evidence preserved by 24ahead.com) just because she became Obama’s Climate Czar. How unfair! Surely the prestigious Socialist International post was on her resumé, which undoubtedly contributed to her becoming Czar. What better place for her to ram her socialist agenda through than in Obama’s White House.

White House Czars answer to no one except Obama. That means when Carol Browner decides that she is going to put remote controlled thermostats in your home so she can decide how warm you can be, you will have no recourse. White House Counsel has made clear that not even Congress can question her authority:

White House Counsel Greg Craig has indicated that he will refuse to allow any of the 18 new “czar” positions created by President Obama to testify before Congress, according to Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), the ranking Republican on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. Chrisopher Neefus, CNS News

It seems the only way to get rid of a Czar is by exposing them enough in the media. That’s how self-avowed Communist Van Jones, Green Jobs Czar, was removed (or rather relocated to a less visible position.)

The NIP wonders why the White House would scrub Browner’s resumé. Why would it attempt to hide socialist and communist ties among White House Czars? Would it be to enable the Czars to more effectively stifle evidence like Browner is attempting to do with Climategate? Is their purpose to ram legislation through Congress that will break the back of our capitalist system and pave the way for an “incredible revolution, a democratic revolution” that will alter our country forever? If so, let’s not let facts stand in your way, right Carol?

NORWICH, England:

Turns out this is far from the first time that the Hadley CRU has been discredited. As early as 1995 these guys were bending data, using selective recursion to manipulate results of tree ring analysis to simulate the “hockey stick” graph. This graph supposedly showed an alarming increase in world temperatures during recent years. The increase was to coincide with industrial activity, “proving” the need for unsuspecting and ill-informed government policy-makers to pass draconian measures on industry to curtail CO2 emissions. (CO2- yes, that’s the stuff you breathe out and plants love to breathe in.)

As revealed in his article “Treemometers: A new scientific scandal” in the UK Register Andrew Orlowski explains:

A scientific scandal is casting a shadow over a number of recent peer-reviewed climate papers. At least eight papers purporting to reconstruct the historical temperature record times may need to be revisited, with significant implications for contemporary climate studies, the basis of the IPCC’s assessments. A number of these involve senior climatologists at the British climate research centre CRU at the University East Anglia. In every case, peer review failed to pick up the errors…

Scientists have ensured much of the measurement data used in the reconstructions remains a secret – failing to fulfill procedures to archive the raw data. Without the raw data, other scientists could not reproduce the results. The most prestigious peer reviewed journals, including Nature and Science, were reluctant to demand the data from contributors. Until now, that is.

At the insistence of editors of the Royal Society’s Philosophical Transactions B the data has leaked into the open – and Yamal’s mystery is no more…

In all there are 252 cores in the CRU Yamal data set, of which ten were alive 1990. All 12 cores selected show strong growth since the mid-19th century. The implication is clear: the dozen were cherry-picked. Andrew Orlowski, UK Register

As you read the copious analysis you will see that that these so-called “Researchers” picked the worst data to prove their pre-conceived assertions, using only 12 samples from a group of 252. This type of selective presentation is all too consistent with Hadley CRU “research” techniques. When the complete data set was factored into the analysis by other scientists a completely different picture emerged:

The revised chronology was simply staggering. The sharp uptick in the series at the end of the twentieth century had vanished, leaving a twentieth century apparently without a significant trend. The blade of the Yamal hockey stick, used in so many of those temperature reconstructions that the IPCC said validated Michael Mann’s work, was gone. Bishop Hill, The Yamal Implosion

So the “hockey stick” was whittled out of a few gnarled samples. When scientists examined the entire group of samples, Hadley’s hockey stick turned into an ordinary walking stick.

The files that are now being widely disseminated across the Internet show that the hockey stick fabrication is par for the course as far as “Climate Research” is concerned. Thanks to the hackers who penetrated the wall of obfuscation presented by the Hadley CRU we now have further evidence of Hadley fakery. Who can doubt the authenticity of the leaked documents when the director of the CRU admits that the documents “appear genuine,” especially when you consider the above Yamal prevarication.

You can download the files yourself here. A searchable online source where you can read the email (but not the additional files) is provided at EastAngliaEmails.com.  You can examine the evidence decide for yourself how much prevarication is going on.

Hadley CRU

NORWICH, England: The Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia (aka Hadley CRU) had its servers compromised Thursday and 1079 emails and 72 documents have been exposed to scrutiny on the Internet.

James Delingpole in today’s UK Telegraph opines that the release of these documents amounts to nothing less than “the final nail in the coffin of Anthropogenic Global Warming.”

Andrew Bolt in today’s Melbourne Herald Sun indicates that this scandal “is one of the greatest in modern science”, and that the director of the Hadley CRU admits the emails seem to be genuine:

The director of Britain’s leading Climate Research Unit, Phil Jones, has told Investigate magazine’s TGIF Edition tonight …”It was a hacker. We were aware of this about three or four days ago that someone had hacked into our system and taken and copied loads of data files and emails.”…

TGIF asked Jones about the controversial email discussing “hiding the decline”, and Jones explained what he was trying to say…. Andrew Bolt, Melbourne Herald Sun

Examination of the files seems to reveal the dissatisfaction with the researchers who acknowledge that the globe is actually cooling:

From the hacked Hadley CRU files: IPCC lead author’s private admission: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” AlGoreLied.com

The emails indicate that prevarication seems to be the norm among these researchers. Never let the facts get in the way of their political viewpoint disguised as science:

Some of the most embarrassing e-mails are attributed to Philip Jones, the Director of the CRU; Keith Briffa, his assistant; Michael E. Mann of the University of Virginia; Malcolm Hughes at the University of Arizona; and others. One such e-mail makes references to the famous “hockey-stick” graph published by Mann in the journal Nature:

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. [Emphasis added]  Terry Hurlbut, Louisville Examiner

We have uploaded the files to our NIP servers for preservation (FOI2009.zip, 65 mb here.) You can download them and read the files yourself. Be sure to leave your comments on what you discover here on this NIP post.

The original anonymous FTP site has been taken down. According to the Air Vent, the document links were left as a comment on a blog post on their server on the 19th:

This is the biggest news ever broken here. The first thing I have to say is that I have no connection to the source of these files. It was left as a link on my blog while I was hunting for cloaked deers (fruitlessly) in the Upper Penninsula. These files are real IMO but they cannot be one hundred percent verified as such. How can we be certain but IMO, real. They were potentially scraped from multiple computers in my opinion by a hacker or an insider involved in some of the endless FOIA requests.

I’ll say this delicately – this person risked one f..k of a lot to show us this data. Jeff Id, The Air Vent

We here at the NIP have exposed many of the lies of the global warming industry (here), but this revelation is certainly ground-breaking. We will need our readers’ help in going through the mass of data. Included are emails with trackable addresses that have been disseminated to climate prevaricators throughout the globe. Please download the zip archive here, examine the files and let us know your findings. A searchable online source where you can read the email (but not the additional files) is provided at EastAngliaEmails.com.

Editor’s Note: We have been informed that we can only have the files up a limited time. Please pass the word and download the files. If you have a web site please consider making the zip archive available for download also. The more sites that have the files out there protect those willing to make them available. It’s time to for the sun to shine on the East Anglia treetops and core samples.

For more evidence of Hadley CRU Fakery click here.

Senate Report on Global Warming

To start with, a warning: you will have to read original source material and think for yourself if want to analyze this topic. The links to the documents are here, but you will have to do some work.

Have you noticed they are now calling it “Man-Made Climate Change” rather than “Global Warming?” Turns out the globe is getting cooler. Guess what? The science isn’t “settled,” sorry Al.

I guess since Mr. Gore lost his Senate seat he hasn’t bothered keeping up with Senate research. You should read the US Senate’s own 2008 report: 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims. The report expands on the 2007 Senate Report which outlines objections made by 400 scientists.

You should also read the Science and Public Policy Institute’s report: Prejudiced Authors, Prejudiced Findings. Read these 2 reports and then you be the judge. You will realize the question is not who is misleading who, but the real question is why?