Every GOP New Hampshire Senate candidate is a global warming denier

Posted on  

"Every GOP New Hampshire Senate candidate is a global warming denier"

NH GOP Sen candidates
NH GOP Senate candidates (l-r): Jim Bender, Gerard Beloin, Bill Binnie, Kelly Ayotte, Dennis Lamare and Ovide Lamontagne

Every single Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) is a global warming denier.  Wonk Room Brad Johnson  has the story in this cross-post.

Appearing at a debate hosted by the Seacoast Republican Women in Portsmouth, NH on Wednesday, the six candidates “” from millionaire businessmen Bill Binnie and Jim Bender to former attorney general Kelly Ayotte “” were unanimous in their denial of man-made climate change, despite the overwhelming scientific evidence and the obvious changes that have already hit New Hampshire:

It was symbolic when the six Republican candidates for U.S. Senate stood up together side-by-side during a debate Wednesday. It resembled their positions on major issues. All said they would have voted against extending long-term unemployment benefits. All argued Elena Kagan should not have been appointed to the Supreme Court. All said man-made global warming hasn’t been proven.

With greenhouse pollution from fossil fuels building up in the atmosphere at an increasing rate, the world is now hotter than it has ever been in recorded history. New England is unambiguously warming. Fueled by the warmer world, catastrophic rainfall is rising, as “exemplified by the ‘100-year’ floods that have occurred in southern New Hampshire in 2005, 2006, 2007.” It also seems that the crop of anti-reality Republicans fueled by allegiance to coal and oil polluters is also on the rise.

Related Posts:

« »

32 Responses to Every GOP New Hampshire Senate candidate is a global warming denier

  1. mike roddy says:

    It’s hard to tell if these candidates are deniers or not, since they are just goosestepping to Mitch McConnell and the RNC.

    Why in the world don’t the Democrats aggressively use this as a campaign issue? Do they think that the American public is that dumb, or have they not read surveys showing that the people realize that, duh, global warming is a dangerous fact of life?

  2. Peter Mizla says:

    The effects of AGW in New England are occurring rapidly and are changing the regions unique cultural & historic legacy.

    The Providence Journal there is an article on blue crabs taking up habitat (the same soft shell crabs found much further south in the Chesapeake) http://www.projo.com/news/content/NEW_NARRAGANSETT_BAY_08-21-10_CLJJV93_v108.2537110.html

    The Democratic party should use climate change in New England races against the GOP- because in this region we have had the most aggressive and progressive stance with AGW-

    The populace in New England according to polls says there is a strong correlation with human induced greenhouse gases and AGW.

    Why the Democratic in the region is so afraid of this as an issue against the GOP is perplexing.

  3. fj2 says:

    Deniers eat your heart out!

    Look what you’re missing by not embracing the rapidly advancing science and technology of climate change:

    “NASA Launches Unprecedented Drone Mission to Study the Mysteries of Hurrican Formation”

    An unmanned Global Hawk recon drone will join a team of aircraft — all equipped with advanced weather instrumentation — to observe the 2010 storm season closer than ever before.

    This is a really nice article with lots of pix from Popular Science.

    Besides getting lots of useful information about tropical cyclones, these extraordinary weather events contain such an incredible amount of energy, who knows what we will ultimately be able to do?

    http://www.popsci.com/node/47794/

  4. Bill W says:

    Denial has become an official plank in the GOP’s platform.

  5. homunq says:

    Fivethirtyeight.com shows an 81% chance that one of these clowns will win. In other words, there is some hope. This would be a good place for climate activists to devote some energy.

    (I’m not involved with the Paul Hodes campaign myself, nor do I know much about him, but I think that a post like this should have an action item.)

  6. _Flin_ says:

    Aren’t there some republican voters able to speak out against this nonsense?

  7. Lewis Cleverdon says:

    Mike at 1 –

    “Why in the world don’t the Democrats aggressively use this as a campaign issue?”

    For the majority of democratic candidates – who are neither so corrupt nor so politically inept as to overlook the polls and the highly potent campaign issue they offer,
    the third and logical explanation is that someone has used their power to have the candidates instructed not to make climate a campaign issue.

    Just like that same power centre has the EPA maybe doing something next year to regulate carbon a bit, when the demise of the senate bill means that executive action could now be applied to whatever target it chooses –

    Just like it declines to do anything at all about public education on the degree of our climate jeopardy and the moral imperative of action –

    Just like it declines to expose the corruption of the deniers’ funding system, that could radically transform public opinion, and voting intentions too –

    Just like it declines to shield scientists, leaving them totally undefended and hung out to dry under the political attacks of the deniers –

    Just like it declines to make the seminal change of declaring climate destabilization to be “A real and present danger to the security of the nation” –

    From an international perspective, with Pakistan’s economy already wrecked and bankrupted with further massive flooding still to come, and needing desperately both to borrow more and to reschedule its debt, just how will its negotiating independence in the UNFCCC be affected ?

    How many other nations are already facing the same coercion, and how many more will do so in the coming years ?

    When will people realize that US domestic politics of climate are merely the circus to deflect attention from the real driver of the policy of inaction, which is America’s (inherited) international climate policy ?

    Until that recognition dawns, there will be no coherent pressure for the essential review of that Bush-era policy, and no particular reason why the last ten years’ stasis should not continue through the coming decade. If the calculus is that:
    “the greater the climate losses in developing nations the stronger US leverage becomes,”
    and nobody challenges its immoral nationalism and reckless miscalculation, why should it be changed ?

    Regards,

    Lewis

  8. Paul Hodes has been a topnotch congressman on these issues. He’s a smart guy and a committed environmentalist. Send him some coin: https://hodes.zissousecure.com/contribute

  9. homunq says:

    bill@8: Good to know. Though it’s pretty clear, you should mention that Hodes is the NH Democratic senate candidate against the GOP denier fools of the post.

  10. mike roddy says:

    Lewis Cleverdon, #7:

    Well said, and well thought out, too.

  11. peter whitehead says:

    ask them if BP people told them climate change is a myth. Do they have links with coal? oil? (just asking the question in a meeting makes people wonder.

  12. Christophe says:

    If the calculus is that:
    “the greater the climate losses in developing nations the stronger US leverage becomes,” and nobody challenges its immoral nationalism and reckless miscalculation, why should it be changed ?

    I’m afraid it’s just a matter of time until a terrorist organization like Al Quaeda figures out they can exploit the climate crisis to stir up even more anger towards America.

  13. Sasparilla says:

    I have to second Mike Roddy, excellent comment #7, Lewis Cleverdon. Your assessment of the situation fits the (in)actions we’ve seen over the last 2 years….

    A shorter answer to #1 is – they don’t want to (as their actions over these last 2 years have shown).

  14. Mike says:

    Senator Judd Gregg has a fairly good position on climate change.

    http://gregg.senate.gov/priorities/priority/?id=7230cf39-d4ab-4119-bd49-566012f2c0a9

    So, this is a set back. Maybe the Democratic candidate Paul Hodes might be able to use that.

  15. PIng Yoo says:

    Oh wow OK that makes a lot of sense dude.

    Lou
    http://www.privacy-tools.eu.tc

  16. Robbert says:

    Ahh, our poor ‘RepubliCon’ brothers; they have lost their honor. They seek campaign donation by genuflecting to their fossil fool masters to finance their campaigns. Their hands are soiled from the dole of the pollution industry. The public has long since figured out their motives! They care not for being truthful and responsible by addressing the dire consequences that AGW is causing. They choose to cling to their old warn-out ‘party’ lies. They shun the science and sew the confusion of the deniers. They must be confronted at every opportunity for their corrupt acts. Show, those who will listen, the Real Climate ‘Proof of AGW’ science report on Carbon 14 (C12/C13) and Global Warming. Science is on our side. They only have the GOP (Grand Oiled Party) talking points, that they don’t understand, and their weegie boards!

    See the C14 proof of AGW at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/

  17. Bob Wright says:

    So many Republican voters completely trust their candidates. Even those who might realize GW is serious stuff are taking home the message that so many other things are more important right now. They believe, at a minimum, GW can wait. At the worst they believe its just another excuse for “creeping socialism”. Not good.

  18. BBHY says:

    Going to seriously look into moving to another country. The United States of Stupid is just getting waaaay to hard to take anymore!

  19. Deborah Stark says:

    The denial contingent is composed of the fossil fuel industries, the politicians and scientists funded by those industries and the percentage of the American public in whose direct economic interest it is to make sure the increasingly observable evidence of pollution-driven climate destabilization is NEVER directly connected with its root cause.

    Those at high levels in the corporate and political sectors have been briefed for decades regarding what the research community has indicated can be expected if we do not cut back on greenhouse gas emissions. They know exactly what is going on and why. This is why their insidious public perception management activities have been so consistently effective. They know exactly what to say and when to say it. Their activities are meticulously well-organized, generously funded and unfailingly focused.

    The fossil fuel entities have worked very hard and spent a great deal of money to ensure that they will ultimately have as much control as possible over emerging technologies for alternative energy sources (wind, solar, geothermal, etc.) They are still in the process of getting their ducks in a row in this regard. They mean to profit handsomely from the inevitable emergence of reality and will brook no interference at this late date. Meanwhile, they are determined to squeeze every last bit of profit possible, for as long as possible, from the continued procurement and widespread use of oil and coal in particular.

    We are now at the point where the denial contingent (particularly the politicians) will stop at nothing to protect their investment in a system that has thus far generously rewarded them for being less than honest (to put it civilly) with the American public. They will now FLAT-OUT LIE to the public, over and over, in order to achieve the only goal to which they are truly committed: WINNING. This is going to be an extremely difficult (and ugly) election season coming up.

    On the brighter side, this round may also be the one in which those in the way of genuine progress FINALLY overrun themselves in the dirty-and-deceptive tactics department thereby exposing themselves as the callous sharkrats most of them are.

    It’s time.

  20. Deborah Stark says:

    Lewis Cleverdon__Post #7 wrote:
    “…..the greater the climate losses in developing nations the stronger US leverage becomes…..”

    ***
    That I am in complete agreement with this assessment unfortunately doesn’t make it any easier to say so.

    It’s an exceedingly ugly truth to face. But there it is. No way around it.

    I do not say this lightly.

    I must also say that I’ll bet I’m not the only one here who somehow never quite expected to see it come to this IN MY OWN LIFETIME.

  21. Mike says:

    “All said man-made global warming hasn’t been proven.”

    In a technical sense this statement is true; you don’t ever have proof in an empirical science like you do in mathematics. I haven’t seen direct quotes from these candidates, but they should be asked narrower questions:

    (1) According to mainstream scientists how likely is it that GHG are warming the atmosphere? Do you agree with this? What do you think the risk is? (Very likely, somewhat likely, not likely, highly unlikely – I wouldn’t expect them to give numbers)

    (2) At what level of risk should we take action to reduce GHG emissions?

    (3) Are you aware of or concerned that the world’s oceans have become more acidic because of CO2 emissions?

    (4) Are you aware of or concerned that open ocean phytoplankton has declined by 40% since 1950 and the research shows global warming as the most likely cause?

    (5) Have you studied the CBO’s estimate of the cost of the HR2454 C&T system? How does this cost compare to likely cost of unmitigated climate change?

    (6) If climate change continues to cause massive flooding is Asia, how many millions of refuges should the U.S. take in?

    Another tactic might be to quote rational statements by prominent Republicans and ask them if they agree and if not why do they think so-and-so got it wrong?

  22. richard pauli says:

    Was there a memo that went out?
    All the ‘Publicans seem to be in sync.

    Does anybody have a copy of the memo? What did it say exactly?

  23. jgiven says:

    They can deny all they want, but in-state money will stop funding them and voters will stop supporting them at a certain point: NH Ski tourism generates more than $400M annually, and as ski seasons (continue to) shorten the more than 17,000 people in NH with ski related jobs will be hit harder and harder.

    See http://bit.ly/9rmcmp (NH Dept of Environmental Services)

  24. Florifulgurator says:

    Time to call these jokers >reality deniers< …

  25. Mike#22 says:

    meanwhile, over in Colorado, the Governor’s race:

    “Republican gubernatorial candidate Dan Maes is warning voters that Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper’s policies, particularly his efforts to boost bike riding, are “converting Denver into a United Nations community.”” http://www.denverpost.com/election2010/ci_15673894

    “”This is all very well-disguised, but it will be exposed,” Maes told about 50 supporters who showed up at a campaign rally last week in Centennial”

  26. Ben Lieberman says:

    Economic self-interest is a major factor in West Virginia, but there are other causes for the strength of denialism: it seems to have become tied up with a kind of identity politics.

  27. Lewis Cleverdon says:

    Many thanks for the multiple affirmations of my post at #7 – the loneliness of the long-distance analyst is not something I relish, and your generous responses are heartwarming.

    In that post I asked:
    “When will people realize that US domestic politics of climate are merely the circus to deflect attention from the real driver of the policy of inaction, which is America’s (inherited) international climate policy ?

    Until that recognition dawns, there will be no coherent pressure for the essential review of that Bush-era policy, and no particular reason why the last ten years’ stasis should not continue through the coming decade. If the calculus is that:
    “the greater the climate losses in developing nations the stronger US leverage becomes,”
    and nobody challenges its immoral nationalism and reckless miscalculation,
    why should it be changed ?”

    These weren’t rhetorical questions but direct calls to effective action.

    The inherited US climate policy of a “Brinkmanship of Inaction” with developing nations, and most particularly with China as the rising superpower, could not be for higher stakes. While the policy goal is to employ climate damages to maintain US hegemony, the future global climate mayhem being imposed in the name of the American people is potentially on a scale that only a major exchange of WMD could match.

    The US offer at Copenhagen, that would have meant each American having around three times the GHG emission rights of each Chinese – in forty years time (!), was, entirely predictably, rejected, allowing western propagandists to rant about “Chinese intransigence”. But it also demonstrated to the world community the actual US intransigence with regard to serious negotiations. Perceptions of “belligerent aggression” by the US, and discussion of codifying a treaty to which laggards could accede at a later date are growing steadily, but neither offers much hope of the policy’s early review.

    That can only come from within the US, specifically by sufficient pressure on the Whitehouse. In this regard the policy is distinctly vulnerable on at least two fronts.

    First, the fundamental sticking point in the UNFCCC has been over US historical emissions of around 85GTC, which it acknowledges but brazenly denies liability for, preferring to harp on the fact of China’s current output of ~1.7GTC/yr compared to the US ~1.6GTC/yr, while staying silent on the per capita ratios.

    Neither party has yet shown awareness of the potential resolution of this impasse in the affordable form of the US funding its share of a global carbon recovery program, specifically by the establishment overall of a gigahectare of native forestry optimised for the decentralized production of biochar and fuels. In this manner US carbon debt could be amortized over several decades, thereby avoiding unfeasible treaty constraints on its rate of ending GHG outputs.

    Promoting awareness of this diplomatic option within the US would clearly negate a large portion of the imperative rationale for persistence with the reckless ‘brinkmanship of inaction’, thereby empowering those within the establishment who recognize its deep and counter-productive imprudence. I suggest that this is the first part of the mission for those looking to unlock US co-operation and creativity.

    The policy’s second vulnerability is more direct. As Prof. Donald Brown has rightly described, there is a huge untapped moral dimension to the climate issue, and the policy of a ‘brinkmanship of inaction’ is morally indefensible – most particularly by a Democratic administration that has sat on its hands. It cannot be acknowledged and has only endured this long by being hidden behind the circus of opposition, but even that veil no longer explains the extent of the stasis in light of the growing climate jeopardy.

    Therefore the second part of the mission is to promote awareness of the ‘brinkmanship of inaction’ as widely and as fast as possible across both web and corporate media, and by correspondence with friendly scientists, politicians, businesses and NPOs. We do not need a majority public recognition to be effective – government cannot afford the utter disgust and shame of the US public that that would generate – even a small rising public recognition of the policy will be potent in getting it put under review. – At which point, wiser heads will have a chance to prevail.

    The necessary complement to these two efforts is the study and promotion of the requisite framework for an equitable and efficient treaty, whereby the US can shift from obstructionism to negotiating a fair and effective deal for its undoubted potential to contribute to the resolution of the climate issue.

    I’ll not go into detail here beyond saying that the framework is entitled “Contraction & Convergence” [C&C] and is described by its originators in the briefings at http://www.gci.org.uk, and has received widespread official endorsement by many nations who now base their positions on it. As the chair of the Kyoto conference, Ambassador Raul Estrada Oyuela, later described it:
    “Contraction & Convergence is the logical conclusion of an equitable approach to resolving climate change.”

    And in the final hours of that conference over a decade ago it was characterized by the lead US negotiator, Jonathon Pershing, as follows:
    “ . . . . It does seem to us that the proposals by for example India and perhaps by others who speak to Contraction and Convergence are elements for the future, elements perhaps for a next agreement that we may ultimately all seek to engage in . . . .”

    Personally I’d describe “C&C” as the long-ignored ladder which we’ll use to get out of the hole, once we decide to stop digging.

    With apologies for the length and my thanks again,

    regards,

    Lewis

  28. Chris Winter says:

    Somewhat related is this essay from Saskatchewan’s Prairie Dog Magazine:

    http://www.prairiedogmag.com/archive/?id=317

    Check out their “Global Warming Skeptic’s Declaration.”

  29. Berbalang says:

    I think a good question to ask denier politicians is “What would have to happen for you to believe that Global Warming is taking place?”

  30. Bob Doublin says:

    Re#12: I’d hate to have it happen, but I’m totally surprised that Al Qaeda and the other terrorist orgs haven’t had an influx of members from The Maldives. After all the West is showing how they could give a shit about the fact that country will disappear under the waves. Just another big reason for all the hatred to rise.
    Back in the 1990’s,remember all the talk about the Peace Dividend that was supposed to be available after the fall of the USSR? Well, the Military-Industrial Complex sure put the brakes on that one pretty dam quick. What better way than to fuck up a country of 26 million and get a religion of a billion pissed at us? They’ve guaranteed enemies for several generations. Pakistan is just gravy. Now they don’t have to blow up as many wedding parties. Just make sure the flood rescue tends more towards the Katrina end of the competency scale.

  31. Wit'sEnd says:

    Lewis, your comments are always revelations and very well written. I have posted some on my blog – I wish you would start your own – then we all could bookmark it!

  32. Bigfoot says:

    Shun the non-believers!