Global warming deniers aim to hold New Hamsphire back

New Hampshire Governor John Lynch has struck a climate change task force to craft an action plan with the goal of finding ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that are good for the state's economy.

Great news for New Hampshire, the solutions to reducing greenhouse gas emissions are the same ones that reduce America's dependence of foreign oil and make the necessary shifts in the economy to make the country a world leader in the development of sustainable energy technology. Any State that gets out ahead on this issue will reap the rewards of new green jobs and less money going out of the country to oil producing nations.

“Currently, imported fossil fuels cost the state more than $1 billion a year, all of which goes out of state since New Hampshire has neither oil reserves nor refineries,” said Robert R. Scott, director of the air resources division at the state Department of Environmental Services.

But a small fringe group (well known to DeSmogBlog) called the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) wants to hold New Hampshire back. One of SEPP's members, Joseph D'Aleo claims that Legislation capping greenhouse gas emissions would negatively impact the state's residents and workers. D'Aleo also claims that warming is due to “natural climate change”

But even D'Aleo's colleagues at the American Meteorological Society do not support his position:

“The position he [D'Aleo] is taking on these issues are not the position of the American Meteorological Society and are not the position of the bulk of the scientific community,” executive director Keith L. Seitter said.

“We endorse the science that there is climate change. And we endorse statements that it is unequivocal and that there is a very high likelihood that a significant fraction of the warming that has occurred are due to human activities,” Seitter said.

You can go here to find more information in our research database on the Science and Environmental Policy Project and its founder Fred S. Singer. 


“finding ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that are good for the state’s economy”

if they can do that - good for them. Why shouldn’t they endeavor to keep more of their money. D’Aleo figures it won’t work. He could be wrong. I wonder what they can possibly do in a practical way to reduce oil imports and keep the economy from going cold at the same time. Sounds like a challenge. It’s an oil economy.

New Hampshire is an oil importer and anything they can do to get off oil is good for the economy. Last time I checked it is a dwindling and very expensive way to use. Here’s one example of how they could do it in a big way:

This article blew me away. The rewards for those companies and governments that look forward and anticipate a world with a lot less oil will are massive.

Now that is a truely unequivocal statement.

“And we endorse statements that it is unequivocal and that there is a very high likelihood that a significant fraction of the warming that has occurred are due to human activities,” Seitter said.”

Like…. Who on earth can disagree with a statement like that? It doesn’t say anything!

And they wonder why we are skeptical…. sheesh!

so why do AGW proponents reject the clear uncertainty in scientific language? Why do you guys hate and misrepresent the science? Why do you call probabilities - certainties and possibilities - facts?

you serious scientific person you!

You have just exposed yourself once & for all as someone who does not understand the scientific process. The ‘uncertainty’ you find in scientific language is actually more precise and clear than all of your blether. Go back to school. Find out what you do not know, and then come back to the discussion.

Fern Mackenzie

Hi Fern,

Is there a science discussion going on here? I don’t think I would be here if there was.

The program, as I understand it is this: Various contributors put up articles in which they point to a variety of things which they believe support their firm contention regarding climate, politics and fraud and foolishness of skeptics.

Then skeptics hold forth in the comment section and deride one or more points in the article.

Sometimes we score a point, sometimes not.

It’s all about the points.

Thats my understanding of desmog.

normally I wouldn’t point out the misspelling of blather, but I know you like to get the spelling right. :)

It’s not about points. It’s about how the message gets out. It’s about people understanding the science without the spin. It’s about finding a way to live our lives without destroying the things that sustain us. A lot of people think that they can just carry on doing what they do without having any detrimental impact on their environment. They don’t think that a little increase of twice the CO2 (that would be 200%) in the atmosphere from industry and transportation could possibly upset anything. We are, after all, so so small and insignificant in the greater scheme of things that we couldn’t POSSIBLY have an impact on climate. Never mind the fact that life on this planet stands on the edge of a knife, between what will support us, and what will not.

Well guess what. We have multiplied to such a degree that we are a scourge upon the earth. The garbage that we spew out is more than the earth can absorb. If we do not curtail reproduction and industry, we will go extinct.

So suck it up, buddy. The earth is a finite resource.

Fern Mackenzie

I believe you are incorrect about the points. It is about the points.

However - as far as getting the AGW message out, It’s done.

You’ve got Bush (yes even evil George sings from the song book), McCain, Obama, Letterman and everybody else with a mic singing about AGW.

So that means desmog can be about the points.

Hey Fern:
You said: “earth is a finite resource”

Care to explain that one from a scientific point of view?

Take care to consider the laws of physics.
Like metter and energy can not be destroyed.

Show me how anything is being “used up”.

As far as I know, none of it is leaving the planet in any way.
All we are doning is changing it.
Suck it up. Its still there in some form.

technically oil is a renewable resource. It just takes time to form.

I suppose you could say oil is the left over refuse of ancient plant matter and we’re finally cleaning up the planet by getting rid of this gooey mess. Good planetary hygiene!

lets suck it up!

Fern. You have just hit the nail on the head. Both of the motives of the AGW community and what is actually happening between us and the planet.

This isn’t about CO2 emissions, this is about trying to curb human activity on the plant. Since CO2 comes from fossil fuels, and fossil fuels are ESSENTIAL for this modern civilization, then curbing CO2 by curbing FF will mean a collapse of this civilization and the vast majority of the population with it. Hence you get your less “scourge upon the earth.” Thus you ultimiately want to cull the human population by 90%.

The emperor has just been exposed.

BTW, want to see a real “scourge upon the earth” go to over populated Africa where their CO2 footprint is far less than ours and see the encroachment into National Parks by millions of refugees burning everything they find, eating everything they find. Now that’s a “scourge upon the earth.”

I’m not always serious, but I am a scientist.

I’m not sure what your comment is supposed to demonstrate.

Meanwhile: Back at the ranch… I mean Climate Audit.
Michael Mann is once again being humiliated by real methodical science.

Any bets on whether he attempts Hockey Stick 3.0?

Or will he finally recede into anonymity and hope people forget him.

Check it out:

well - Mann is an accomplished hockey stick artist. I expect he will continue in his work of stylized hockey stick reproduction works.

And From the “You Just can’t make this stuff up” department come this lettle jem of absurdity:

The Increase in Antarctic Sea Ice (they are admitting it now) is caused by Global Warming.

Well …. What a revelation.
EVERYTHING is caused by Global warming!!!!

I get how global warming leads to more ice. GW causes more snow to fall on Antarctica. But even if Antarctica were to raise it’s average temp 20 degrees in the warmest part of the year - it would still be too cold to melt. It’s -30 there in the summer. The continental ice is staying put and will even increase for a long long time.

Rick: Sorry but you missed the obvious here.

The Antarctic ice can melt at -30.
It has been conclusively proven that the special new type of CO2 (anthroprogenic) causes all the heat from the tropics to be transformed into heat trapping hot pockets.
These hot pockets are transported by the global warming trade winds to the poles where they are deposited in the ice during winter and activated by the sun in summer.
once activated they melt all the ice around them and will eventually cause the seas to engulf all of north america.
Europe will be spared of course because they have embraced socialism.

Sorry mate.

It’s morons like this that are holding NH back. Global warming is merely a ploy to get more tax dollars transferred to the UN and to make Al Gore and the rich Democrats even richer.


Speaking of party of the rich, our out of touch governor is one of these. He has NO CLUE how to run a state!

$500M deficit, 25 new taxes, draconian laws that take away rights, Lynch the boy governor needs to be put in stocks in the town square and his legislature marched off a short pier.

If you really want to make yourself sick, go read what Hodes and Porter (those two clowns) did with HB 3036 – your kids are being brainwashed as we speak into this and the ONE campaign.

I say, DEFUND ALL PUBLIC schools until they get back to the task of EDUCATION, NOT INDOCTRINATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh PS:

In 1960 we had 5,000 polar bears.

In 2007 we counted 20,000.


That’s a 400% increase in my math.

Stop trying to brainwash our children with the cute polar bears (who eat people by the way) and their big sad eyes, when they are thriving.



I’m not too worried about the Bears. They are adaptable and mobile. There was a sob story recently about how a polar bear attacked and ate another polar bear in a den. The story was to show how bad the bears have it.

But you know what. Bears are nuts. Cannibalism is part of what they do. Polar Bear, Black Bears, Grizzlies. They don’t mind chomping down on Bear.

There are no Polar Bears, what you are seeing are computer generated animations.
All the polar bears DIED during the last three global warming spells.

Gary too funny! That’s about how ludicrous the liberals’ stories are.

Check this out too:


I saw what they do to our kids in the public schools and it is criminal.

Good God!! Those morons better not be blowing my pension fund on that crap.
Got to look into it. I pretty close.
I just hope most of this nonsense is past before I retire.
Mexico…. here I come.