M/cloudy
70°
M/cloudy
Hi 71° | Lo 42°

Talkback

Reference: "Without the agreement, the association must pay its property taxes in full, a total of about $45,000." Why? Because they did not opt out of the RSA Ch. 80:60 "implied consent" in having "committed" their property for such? All their property? Hey! These RSA Ch. 42:1 + 92:2 town officials took an oath to obey the law! That includes NOT to tax for what be un-lawful! re: the un-constitutional state-wide property tax slice of the property tax pie for education. See: the N.H. Supreme Court website at: : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Hampshire_Supreme_Court for The "Notable Cases" and "Educational Funding" footnote over to: http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme/opinions/1997/school.htm " The majority holds today that the present system of taxation to provide funding to meet this constitutional duty violates part II, article 5 of the State Constitution, because it is not reasonable or proportional. " nor wholesome. The abatement form reads for to file to abate for ANY "good reason". Did the Fair put this down as I suggested earlier this year? I doubt it. Unless you put it down neither the BTLA nor Superior Court will hear it. And even if you do put it down they still won't hear it as the word "any" to them is LIMIT-ed to only poverty and appraisal, so needing some State Rep. (or N.H. State Senator) to put in an LSR by next Friday's deadline (Sept. 26th) for the House if they are a current Legislator running for re-election in the November Election, to ask this question to the Supremes by Article 74 that even though nobody else has asked for such other than these two reasons in the past 150 years, does that limit people today to only those two reasons!? cc: to a State Senator with a business whose attorneys probably goofed up for this past year of maybe to be able to file for such by the end of March 2015 AND after an Article 74 opinion would be GREAT for him AND us too!! ...(full comment)

State Fair Association files complaint seeking tax exemption against town of Hopkinton

Thank you, Collie, for your positive post. And I apologize to you for any snippy comments I've directed to you. ...(full comment)

My Turn: Israeli-Palestinian conflict through Christian eyes

Fine, believe what ever spin on this non-issue you want, but this isn't about Mass politics. This is about why Scott Brown would be good for NH? I will admit that I initially liked Scott Brown. I have a problem with his much mentioned coddling of Wall Street, but after Sandy Hook he became the first GOP Senator to call for a federal assault weapons ban. So I am torn. However I believe Jeanne Shaheen has done a good job for NH so I will support her. If Brown were running against anyone else then it would be open, against Ayotte, I'd support Brown in a heart beat. This isn't about what's best for NH, this is 100% what's best for the national GOP. It's just rather ironic that NH republican's have to turn to out of state politicians with slim pickings that were available to us. ...(full comment)

Letter: Let’s elect Scott Brown

This is such wonderful news. Thank you, Mr. Hamel. Education is how I got out of the poverty of my childhood. I put myself through UNH. It took me seven years, but it was worth it. It's harder now because the cost of tuition is higher and grants and scholarships much more limited. We've stopped supporting access to higher education in the past 30 years or so. I wish the best in life to the UNH students who will benefit from this gentleman's generosity. ...(full comment)

Hamel’s $10 million donation to UNH aims to pay close to full tuition

Wrong again. As shown by the fact that if, as you've claimed, 46% of climate scientists are "skeptics" (in your understanding of that term), at least some of them should have shown up here. But they don't show up to "identify themselves" because they don't exist at a level greater than 5% (and that's being generous). That's why an overwhelming number of scientific bodies world-wide accept the consensus: because it's real. The second part of the study gave authors a chance to rate their own papers. Cook et al "emailed 8547 authors an invitation to rate their own papers and received 1200 responses (a 14% response rate). After excluding papers that were not peer-reviewed, not climate-related or had no abstract, 2142 papers received self-ratings from 1189 authors. The self-rated levels of endorsement are shown in table 4. Among self-rated papers that stated a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. Among self-rated papers not expressing a position on AGW in the abstract, 53.8% were self-rated as endorsing the consensus. Among respondents who authored a paper expressing a view on AGW, 96.4% endorsed the consensus." ...(full comment)

My Turn: Look north, look east to see cost of climate change

Working now. Just saw my wife with the pool boy. Very distressing, since we have no pool. ...(full comment)

Downtown: Hoping customers will follow suit, Main Street businesses back Discover Downtown campaign

Just tried it again, is it still updating? ...(full comment)

Downtown: Hoping customers will follow suit, Main Street businesses back Discover Downtown campaign

I wish the Monitor editorial board would take its comment that one party rule can lead to problematic decisions to heart when considering local candidates for the legislature. Because our delegation is from one party only it views it's job as supporting the governor ( democrat for 18 of the last 22 years. ) rather than looking out for the best interests of Concord. A few examples: not one member of our delegation raised one bit of complaint about the siting of the new women's prison in Concord despite the negative fiscal impact it will have on Concord. Not one member of our delegation did anything to oppose the Governor's budget despite the fact it left dozen of beds closed in the psychiatric hospital despite the huge impact that had on citizens who use Concord hospital and on our downtown. Not one member of our delegation complained when the state made hugely uneconomic decisions to renovate the Brown and Walker buildings on the old hospital campus, despite the fact that these projects helped drain our fowntown, had significant traffic impacts and cost taxpayers MORE than if the state leased long term. Not one member of our delegation has been successful in getting the abandoned highway garage eyesore removed on Stickney Avenue. Not a single member of our delegation has done anything to get the state to provide services to former prisoners or psychiatric patients in their former hometowns , instead leaving that burden on Concord. We have good people serving but because they are always from the same party as the governor they simply go along with that particular Govetnor's agenda rather than looking out for Concord's interests aggressively. A final note for the editorial board: when the financial recovery money spigot dried up, which added approximately $800 million to the NH budget in one 2 year cycle, can you tell readers of what the Democrat plan was to balance our budget? I am unaware of any plan offered by the Democrats up into the 2010 elections that indicated how they would deal with this. Please also keep in mind that it was the Democratic legislature that bonded current operating debt during the recession– probably the most irresponsible fiscal policy any legislature, controlled by any party, can ever do. ...(full comment)

Editorial: Kansas has a few lessons for New Hampshire

"Contributed to". You can contribute a single buck or a billion. The Cook paper is purposefully designed to be interpreted exactly as you have. But it is misleading. The 97% includes people who would definitely identify themselves as questioners or skeptics of CAGW. ...(full comment)

My Turn: Look north, look east to see cost of climate change

Nonsense. Friedman has done nothing of the sort. In his critique, Friedman mis-states two of the rubrics Cook used, in effect setting up a straw-man to bash. He also studiously ignores (as do you) the other part of Cook's study-- the authors' ratings of their own papers--which came up with the same 97% figure, and lends strong confirmation that Cook's results are accurate.. And Friedman--again, like you--chooses to ignore ANY of the other studies--such as Anderregg, Doran, or Oreskes, that come to the same conclusion--that an overwhelming number of climate scientists--in excess of 95% ,agree that the planet is warming, and that a human fingerprint is on at least 50% of the cause of the warming. Or as just one of dozens of scientific bodies put it: “The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." Here is Friedman's misstatement of the rubric Cook et al used for rating categories 2 and 3. “My objection was that the 97% figure lumped together categories 1-3, when only category 1 fitted Cook's "main cause." Categories 2 and 3 were papers saying or implying that human action was a cause—"contributed to" in the language of the example. “ But Cook's Category 2 rubric clearly reads: “Explicitly states humans are causing global warming or refers to anthropogenic global warming/climate change as a known fact.” Cook's Category 3 rubric reads: “Implies humans are causing global warming. E.g., research assumes greenhouse gas emissions cause warming without explicitly stating humans are the cause.” There is no way Category 2 can be understood as other than "main cause" while Category 3 assumed that research papers studying ghg implicitly accept the theory. As Cook et al point out in another part of their study, the theory of AGW is so widely accepted that specific mention of an author's acceptance in a particular paper is unnecessary. It would be like a planetary scientist writing that his paper supports the theory of gravity. Their final conclusion bears repeating: "Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research." ...(full comment)

My Turn: Look north, look east to see cost of climate change

"California in 2013 received less rain than in any year since it became a state in 1850. And at least one Bay Area scientist says that based on tree ring data, the current rainfall season is on pace to be the driest since 1580 -- more than 150 years before George Washington was born. The question is: How much longer will it last? Bill Patzert, a research scientist and oceanographer at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, says that the West is in a 20-year drought that began in 2000. He cites the fact that a phenomenon known as a "negative Pacific decadal oscillation" is underway -- and that historically has been linked to extreme high-pressure ridges that block storms. Such events, which cause pools of warm water in the North Pacific Ocean and cool water along the California coast, are not the result of global warming, Patzert said. But climate change caused by the burning of fossil fuels has been linked to longer heat waves. That wild card wasn't around years ago. "Long before the Industrial Revolution, we were vulnerable to long extended periods of drought. And now we have another experiment with all this CO2 in the atmosphere where there are potentially even more wild swings in there," said Graham Kent, a University of Nevada geophysicist". http://www.mercurynews.com/science/ci_24993601/california-drought-past-dry-periods-have-lasted-more ...(full comment)

My Turn: Look north, look east to see cost of climate change

I understand. Take care ...(full comment)

My Turn: Look north, look east to see cost of climate change

Itsy...at least my education was in Earth science. What was yours in? ...(full comment)

My Turn: Look north, look east to see cost of climate change