Right-wing pundit Ann Coulter appeared on Fox News this afternoon to discuss the war in Iraq. Coulter derided the lawmakers who have called for a redeployment strategy from Iraq, questioning whether “FDR [had] to deal with this during World War II.” She argued that the only type of politician she “admires” is someone like Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) because he “does want to defend America and fight the war on terrorism.” Lieberman has argued “our troops must stay” in Iraq. Watch it.

Full transcript: Read more

The 2005 North Atlantic hurricane season was the most active in recorded history, and caused an unprecedented level of damage.

Now, in the second major global warming study released today, the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) has found:

Global warming accounted for around half of the extra hurricane-fueling warmth in the waters of the tropical North Atlantic in 2005, while natural cycles were only a minor factor.

… The study contradicts recent claims that natural cycles are responsible for the upturn in Atlantic hurricane activity since 1995. It also adds support to the premise that hurricane seasons will become more active as global temperatures rise.

Some background: Last year, sea-surface temperatures in the tropical Atlantic “were a record 1.7° F above the 1901-1970 average.”

Previous studies had suggested that the more intense hurricane activity was largely due to a 60-to-80-year natural cycle in sea-surface temperatures. But according to the study released today, less than .2° F of the rise was due to this natural cycle. Global warming, on the other hand, caused roughly half (about 0.8° F) of the rise, more than any other factor.

Is clean-burning, domestically-produced ethanol the reason that gas prices are topping $3 per gallon? That’s what Big Oil and the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) are saying. From Monday’s WSJ:

Demand for ethanol as an additive has caused its price to soar about 65% since early May to around $4.50 a gallon in U.S. spot markets, according to the Oil Price Information Service. That makes it far more expensive than gasoline, which costs about $2.90 a gallon at the pump on average, according to the AAA driving club. “¦ “We’d probably have retail gasoline prices between $2.30 and $2.40 a gallon if not for ethanol,” estimates economist James Glassman of J.P. Morgan.

Actually, ethanol is reducing the price of gasoline. Here’s why:

1. Ethanol is a liquid fuel that displaces 2 percent – or 4 billion gallons – of the transportation fuel market. That’s four billion gallons of fuel that is not petroleum based – which is good news with oil selling over $70 per barrel.

2. Ethanol’s high octane rating means that less crude oil is used in the refining process to generate higher octane gasoline. A conservative estimate would suggest that ethanol extends the supply of clean-burning, high octane gas and increase the volumes of finished gasoline by as much as 10 percent.

3. 85 percent of ethanol is sold on long-term, fixed price contracts – the average price for existing contracts at the moment is between $2.00 and $2.50 per gallon – not on spot market prices that the Journal cites.

Bottom line? If we did not have the more than four billion gallons of ethanol to extend our limited gasoline supplies, prices at the pump would be even higher than they are now.

Help fight back — join Kick the Oil Habit today.

– Denis McDonough and Stephen Geer

A 60-second American-made public service announcement aimed at discouraging suicide attacks is currently in production. The ad is slated to air on Iraqi television this summer.

Editor & Publisher’s Greg Mitchell: “[A]ll major polls show that the public favors withdrawals, with strong support for a timeline or total pullout within a year. … It’s one thing when polls are dismissed, ignored or twisted by political or media spinmeisters. But when journalists in their news stories do it, it is downright misleading.”

The National Academy of Sciences, an independent organization created by Congress to provide scientific guidance, has released an important new study. The AP leads with the Academy’s conclusion that the “recent warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia.” It’s an alarming fact, but ultimately, not the most significant. An excerpt from the study:

It should also be noted that the scientific consensus regarding human-induced global warming would not be substantively altered if, for example, the global mean surface temperature 1,000 years ago was found to be as warm as it is today.

Why is that? Because there are other things beside increased carbon dioxide emissions that can cause temperatures to rise. These factors “include volcanic eruptions, variations in the intensity of incoming solar radiation.”

Here is the really important point:

In particular, the numerous indications that recent warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia, in combination with estimates of external climate forcing variations over the same period, supports the conclusion that human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming.

In other words, the Academy factored in the natural variations in temperature — volcanic activity, solar radiation etc. — and concluded that these can’t explain the warming trend. What does explain it is increased carbon dioxide emissions from human activity.

Climate skeptics routinely point to other periods of time where there were temperature changes — the early 20th century, the “medieval warm period” — as “proof” that global warming isn’t real. This fundamentally misunderstands global warming science. The scientists have taken natural variations in temperature under consideration and concluded that the current warming trend is different. Human activity is driving it.

Fight back with the facts. Pledge to see An Inconvenient Truth.

[inconvenienttruthwidget]

(Note: Even if you’ve already seen the film, make sure to pledge and be counted.)

The Senate has voted 60-39 against an amendment to begin redeploying U.S. forces out of Iraq by the end of 2006. See how your senators voted.

The White House strategy on Iraq — to smear critics as favoring “retreat and defeatism” — has provided “a much-needed psychological boost” to conservatives in Congress. At a fundraiser on Monday, President Bush himself got in on the act:

It is important to have members of the United States Congress who will not wave the white flag of surrender in this war on terror.

It apparently doesn’t matter at all to the right that their smears are completely untrue. Yesterday on NBC, Matt Lauer gave Bush councelor Dan Bartlett the opportunity to point out one person “calling for the white flag of surrender.” Bartlett couldn’t do it.

LAUER: The white flag of surrender — that’s a very dramatic and harsh expression to use against the Democrats. Have you heard any Democrats calling for the white flag of surrender?

BARTLETT: Well, I have heard a lot of Democrats call this President a liar, saying we’ve gone into Iraq for the wrong reasons, saying that he’s incomptent. So there is a lot of heated rhetoric in Washington. But what we see in the heart wrenching developments, when we see our 2 soldiers lose their lives in such a horrific way, is that we’re up against a very determined enemy. This is an epic struggle in which we have to be committed to winning.

A major new 155-page report by the National Academy of Sciences has found that Earth’s rising temperature “is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia,” and that “human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming.” Read the full report.