recount

This Sunday, May 25, HBO will present an original film based on true events -- Recount: The Story of the 2000 Presidential Election.

Recount stars Kevin Spacey, Bob Balaban, Ed Begley, Jr., Laura Dern, John Hurt, Denis Leary, and Tom Wilkinson as the various people that were involved in the controversial decision-making that led to the election of George W. Bush during November 2000.

View the trailer below, and then watch the movie on Sunday at 8 p.m. CST. The movie will replay on Monday, May 26, at the same time.

Planet Purgatory: Part II

Research any of the skeptics on global warming, and the name Fred Singer is sure to pop up. Among his many publications, Dr. Singer recently co-authored a book Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years.

As Don Erler notes in his recent editorial, Singer has a burr in his saddle about Al Gore.

Singer has called Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth, most "bunk," based on "really shoddy" science. For example, in attempting to show that global warming (which nobody denies) is man-made, Gore uses a "trick" by pointing to glaciers melting. According to Singer, "any kind of warming, from whatever cause, will melt ice. Whether it's natural or man-made warming, the ice doesn't care."

Now it's interesting that Erler concedes that global warming is now an accepted fact. Because Dr. Singer is on record denying that the earth's temperature is increasing. From a letter in 1998, Singer claims:

The weather satellite data, the only truly global data set we have, actually show a global cooling trend during the past 19 years.

And again, in testimony before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation in July of 2000:

There is no Appreciable Climate Warming. Contrary to the conventional wisdom and the predictions of computer models, the Earth's climate has not warmed appreciably in the past two decades, and probably not since about 1940.

Of course, Dr. Singer's testimony came before the sea change in public attitude that resulted once Hurricane Katrina gave us a preview of coming attractions. So now the skeptics are willing to admit that global warming is a fact, while still denying that human activity has anything to do with it. And as for shoddy science, Singer has been known to solicit a few critics himself. A climate scientist at realclimate provided a rebuttal of Singer's key points:

The existence of climate changes in the past is not news to the climate change scientific community; there is a whole chapter about it in the upcoming IPCC Scientific Assessment. Nor do past, natural variations in climate negate the global warming forecast. Most past climate changes, like the glacial interglacial cycle, can be explained based on changes in solar heating and greenhouse gases, but the warming in the last few decades cannot be explained without the impact of human-released greenhouse gases. Avery was very careful to crop his temperature plots at 1985, rather than show the data to 2005.

As a paid gun for corporate interests, Singer isn't new to attempts to influence public policy on controversial issues.

In 1995, as President of the Science and Environmental Policy Project (a think tank based in Fairfax, Virginia) S. Fred Singer was involved in launching a publicity campaign about "The Top 5 Environmental Myths of 1995," a list that included the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's conclusion that secondhand tobacco smoke is a human carcinogen.

Singer claims his studies are non-partisan, but he has extensive ties to the fossil fuel industry. Erler suggests that we should ignore the money being paid by these vested interests because the amount is insignificant. His article doesn't include specifics, but the money appears to come from several sources.

In a February 2001 letter to the Washington Post, Singer denied receiving funding from the oil industry, except for consulting work some 20 years prior. SEPP [Science and Environmental Policy Project], however, received multiple grants from ExxonMobil, including 1998 and 2000. In addition, Singer's current CV on the SEPP website states that he served as a consultant to several oil companies. The organizations Singer has recently been affiliated with - Frontiers of Freedom, ACSH, NCPA, etc. - have received generous grants from Exxon on an annual basis.

On the one hand is the testimony of a handful of industry shills, and on the other, decades of research by hundreds of the world's most prominent scientists. Denyers like Erler want you to believe that this constitutes a balanced debate.

Unless we are willing to educate ourselves at least somewhat on the science behind global warming, we will remain vulnerable to the snake oil sold by hucksters like Singer. When you weigh these arguments, it's important to remember what's at stake. As Joseph Romm describes it in Hell and High Water:

If we permit this Planetary Purgatory to occur, the nation and the world would be forced to begin a desperate race against time-- a race against the vicious cycles in which an initial warming causes changes to the climate system that lead to more warming, which makes adapting to climate change a never-ending, ever-changing, expensive, exhausting struggle for our children, and their children, and on and on for generations.

Surely the greatest threat to face humankind since the threat of nuclear annihilation warrants moving past the increasingly marginalized skeptics and their phony debates to a discussion of the hard choices we may face in the very near future.

Global Warming Tipping Point Only Ten Years Away?

Mention global warming recently, and the attention rightfully turns to Al Gore, who has been hitting the airwaves promoting his new book, The Assault on Reason. One of the topics highlighted in Gore's book is the attempt to subvert science for political purposes. And one man who knows this only too well is NASA scientist James Hansen.

Like Gore, Dr. Hansen has been a tireless advocate on the environmental front. He first testified before Congress to raise awareness of the issue back in the 1980's. As one might expect, Hansen has also been a vocal and determined critic of the Bush administration's policies, or lack thereof, regarding global warming.

In the University of Iowa speech, Hansen recounted how NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe told him in a 2003 meeting that he shouldn't talk "about dangerous anthropogenic interference" -- humans' influence on the atmosphere -- "because we do not know enough or have enough evidence for what would constitute dangerous anthropogenic interference."

But Hansen said that scientists know enough to conclude we have reached this danger point and that their efforts to get the word out are being blocked by the administration. "In my more than three decades in government, I have never seen anything approaching the degree to which information flow from scientists to the public has been screened and controlled as it has now," Hansen said. He added that although the administration wants to wait 10 years to evaluate climate change, "delay of another decade, I argue, is a colossal risk."

Hansen's concern is predicated on the concept of a "tipping point," the point at which the earth's biofeedback mechanisms kick in and warming becomes a runaway process.

As the tipping points pass, "there is an acceleration, potentially uncontrollable, of emissions of vast natural stores of greenhouse gas," according to Hansen.....

The melting ice caps are one example of a biofeedback loop. As warmer temperatures cause the ice to melt...

The disappearance of that bright sea ice and snow is uncovering more and more dark water and bare ground — creating another dangerous feedback loop.

These feedbacks all produce more heat, thus all reinforcing each other, leading to evermore thawing — and thus releases of natural greenhouse gases (including CO2 and methane) in a viciously accelerating circlering more and more dark water and bare ground — creating another dangerous feedback loop.

Given this scenario, some economic advisors are suggesting that the best course of action may be adaptation rather than prevention. Hansen disagrees.

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, scenarios modeled by scientists predict CO2 emissions rise to anywhere from a low of 450 ppm (parts per million) to as high as 650 ppm.

Hansen told ABC News today he believes the upper limit for avoiding dangerous climate change "could well be much lower" than 450 ppm.

In the NASA announcement, Hansen said, "'business as usual' emissions would be a guarantee of global and regional disaster."

Earth's CO2 concentration is currently 383 ppm, up from 280 ppm at the start of the industrial age.

Studies released earlier this month report human-made emissions now spiraling upward at an accelerating rate much faster than scientists expected only a few years ago.

But not to worry - after dilly dallying around for six years, President Bush has finally decided the government should take action - after he leaves office.

boxer reminds inhofe who's boss

Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., tried to stifle Al Gore from answering questions before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, a committee which Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., now chairs. She reminds him who's boss.

the oscars go green

After Leonardo DiCaprio and Al Gore announced that this year's Academy Awards ceremony was 100% green (a.k.a. environmentally-friendly), it was revealed that the voters of the Academy bestowed honors upon Al Gore's critically-acclaimed and eye-opening masterpiece with an Oscar for Best Documentary Feature.

Later it was announced that Melissa Etheridge's heart-felt song from that documentary, "I Need to Wake Up," was the Best Song.

NTL congratulates tonight's big winners! We hope that this esteem and recognition will bring this important documentary to a wider audience. The film is now on DVD, so if you didn't see it in theatres, buy it or rent it!

Together we can make a difference!

Global Warming's Political Spin

In the September issue of The Atlantic, Greg Easterbrook, a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institute, offers some thoughts on the prevailing debate on global warming (subscription required).

Easterbrook chastises Democrats and Republicans alike for inaction in the political arena, citing the gloom and doom of Al Gore's apocalyptic vision and the disingenuous arguments of Republicans who suggest that restrictions on greenhouse gases would cripple our economy. To prove his case, Easterbrook points to the successes of recent years in battling major problems in air pollution.

Since 1970, smog-forming air pollution has declined by a third to a half. Emissions of CFCs have been nearly eliminated and studies suggest that ozone-layer replenishment is beginning. Acid rain, meanwhile, has declined by a third since 1990, while Appalachian forest health has improved sharply......

One might expect Democrats to trumpet the decline of air pollution, which stands as one of government's leading postwar achievements. But just as Republicans have found they can bash Democrats by falsely accusing them of being soft on defense, Democrats have found they can bash Republicans by falsely accusing them of destroying the environment. If that's your argument, you might skip over the evidence that many environmental trends are positive. One might also expect Republicans to trumpet the reduction of air pollution, since it signifies responsible behavior by industry. But to acknowledge that air pollution has declined would require Republicans to say the words, "The regulations worked."

Last year's monster storms and this year's record-breaking drought have settled the debate. Global warming is now accepted as fact by most Americans. But compared with our foreign counterparts, Americans take the issue less seriously. Perhaps they are waiting to take their cue from our political leaders. As Easterbrook notes, "It only remains for the right politician to recast the challenge in practical, optimistic tones."

Recently, a disparate group of politicians is attempting to do just that.

This month, former president Bill Clinton launched an effort with 22 of the world's largest cities to cut their emissions, while Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, a Republican, and Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain said they would explore trading carbon dioxide pollution credits across the Atlantic.

And in his recent press release, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Chris Bell expanded his "Healthy Texas" environmental plan to include the following:

State regulation limiting the emissions of carbon dioxide, the number one cause of global warming. The goal of these new rules will be to reduce CO2 emissions by up to 80%.

Give the Texas Commission for Environmental Quality (TCEQ) the authority to require power companies to consider coal gasification (IGCC) as an alternative technology to the pulverized coal burning plants that threaten our air and our climate.

Give the TCEQ the authority to require that applicant for new air permits show that their newly permitted facilities will not negatively impact the ability of Houston and Dallas/Ft. Worth to meet the federal clean air requirements by the 2010 deadline.

Institute state requirements and incentive programs for commercial builders in Texas to use building materials and techniques that reduce the radiant heating of our urban areas.

To view the complete plan: http://www.chrisbell.com/issues/environment

Whether Texans are ready for this issue in the political debate, and whether the Bell campaign can strike the right balance between alarm and optimism, have yet to be determined.

Gore in 2008?

Ever since Al Gore sat in a hot tub on Saturday Night Live, and followed that appearance with an announcement that he would not run for president in 2004, conventional wisdom has been that his days of seeking political office are over. Following the chaos of the 2000 election battle, and seemingly freed from the constraints of worrying about public consensus, a new Al Gore emerged as a cogent and uncompromising critic of the Bush administration; dawned the hero's cape to rescue ailing patients from a Louisiana hospital during Katrina; launched a new media venture; and is gradually becoming the most recognized and respected international spokesperson on the dangers of global warming. Nowhere, it seems, is running for office even a consideration.

And although the democratic field of presidential candidates for 2008 is dense, favorites are already emerging. Hardball, along with much of the Republican leadership, has annointed Hillary Clinton the frontrunner; the blogosphere is fawning over Russ "Censure the President" Feingold; and the traditional media is looking for the next Clinton in Virginia Gov. Mark Warner. Al Gore, we're told, has found his niche and it ain't running for office.

And indeed, every spokesperson for Gore has echoed that, time and time again. But a recent article in The American Prospect leaves the door open just enough to speculate:

And it could be Gore, if he wants it. Here’s the scenario: Hillary Clinton continues rolling forward, amassing establishment support and locking down the large donors. Anti-Hillary voters prove unable to coalesce around a single champion, so Clinton is able to suck up all the oxygen but, as with most faits accomplis, attracts little genuine enthusiasm. At the same time, her hawkishness and ostentatious moderation sparks widespread disillusionment among the online activist community. Inevitably, the liberal wing of the party begins calling for a Bigfoot of its own to enter the primary, and the obvious prospect is Gore. DraftGore.com, which already exists, amplifies the drumbeat, collecting pledges and holding events. The press corps, sensing a Godzilla vs. King Kong battle, begins covering the events. As Marty Peretz, publisher of The New Republic and a longtime friend of Gore, says, “if he were to find that there was some groundswell for him, I think it would be hard to resist.”

So it seems a long shot at best. If he were to declare, would his new image and fund-raising capabilities make him the automatic front runner? Who knows? Republicans did a character assassination on Gore in the 2000 campaign, with the press as willing accomplices. As a result, Gore suffers from the same bane as Hillary Clinton - high unfavorable ratings from Republicans. In the long run, Gore may serve us better by continuing to focus on global climate change - a threat more serious than terrorism, and an issue seriously begging for a credible political spokesperson. But with a new movie on the issue coming in May, and "draft Gore" momentum building, speculation won't be dying down any time soon.