Perhaps we can now start making "global warming causes hurricanes" more than a flimsy shock tactic:

Global warming's effect on wind patterns and sea temperatures have nearly doubled the number of hurricanes a year in the Atlantic Ocean over the past century, says a new study by US scientists.

Excerpts from the study by Greg Holland of the National Center for Atmospheric Research and Peter Webster of Georgia Institute of Technology were released in the United States late Sunday.

[...]

"These numbers are a strong indication that climate change is a major factor in the increasing number of Atlantic hurricanes," Holland was quoted by AFP as saying in a
statement.

Surely this must gain us traction in Florida, a battleground'08 state?

If Gore runs and was nominated, the fact that he already "won" Florida once, combined with a strong link between global warming and hurricanes, should bag him Florida.  That, in turn (especially with the recent news about North Carolina's proportional electoral votes), means he should win the general.

It's best to fight a battle, such as global warming, on multiple fronts.

While many have been following the rise of global warming activism on the left, for a long time now I've been hoping and praying for a similar rise on the right.  Why?  Once both ends of the political spectrum begin to act, things will really happen.  (Example: the 90-something-to-1 FDA vote in the senate today.)  It's tough to get a risk-averse politician to spend political capital.  Solution: get the value of that capital down to zero.

If we can get the GOP on board, our struggle is over.

Follow me below for a recap of this "Fight on the Right" --- and some absolutely mindblowing breaking news.  Trust me: your jaw will smash your space bar.

(Oh, and a dire warning to all you pessimists out there: this is a ROSY, OPTIMISTIC DIARY!)

Search "Al Gore" at Google News and the top four hits, displayed prominently because they have images (while the remainder do not), are:

(1) Al Gore's Science Called Fiction
(2) Town Official Defends Al Gore's Energy Efficient House
(3) Some Criticize Al Gore's Profits from Toxic Mining
(4) Polar Bears Agree to Settle Suite Against Publisher of Al Gore's An...

Link to search results.

Over time, this is becoming less and less tin-foil hat territory:

ABC NEWS

Electronic Voting Machines Could Skew Elections

Researchers, Candidates Have Little Confidence in Machines Designed to Make Elections Easier to Call

By JAKE TAPPER, REBECCA ABRAHAMS and EDUARDO SUNOL

Oct. 22, 2006 -- Cheryl Kagan, a former Maryland Democratic legislator, was shocked when she opened her mail Wednesday morning. Inside, she discovered three computer discs. With them was an anonymous letter saying the discs contained the secret source code for vote-counting that could be used to alter the votes cast through Maryland's new electronic voting machines. "My understanding is that with these disks a malicious person could skew the outcome of an election," Kagan said.

The new Democracy Corps poll is out.  I've spent considerable time digging into it, and I found something to warm the hearts of all environmentalists.  The issue

Create tax incentives for alternative energy/wind/solar/biofuel

polled as significantly more important than "Implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission / inspecting 100% of containers".

WAKE UP DEM LEADERS: GET AHEAD OF THE ALT ENERGY CURVE BEFORE THE REPUBLICANS STEAL IT FROM US!

Let me repeat: Alternative Energy is more important in voters' minds than port security.  Hello?  Hello?  Are any of you dumbass Dem consultants listening...?

Polling data below.

Is it my imagination, or could this Kirkpatrick piece at the NYT be ever so slightly right-wing biased?

Kerry Urges Alito Filibuster, but His Reception Is Cool
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
January 27, 2006

WASHINGTON, Jan 26 -- Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts could not attend the Senate debate on the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. on Thursday. He was in Davos, Switzerland, hobnobbing with international business and political leaders at the World Economic Forum.

My bold highlights. More below.

From Reuters, in the Toronto Globe & Mail:Around here we all know Iraq is at least as catastrophic a blunder as Vietnam.  But not so with the media, so far.  Could this journalist death toll, surpassing Vietnam, be just the ticket to drag the media kicking and screaming into our "Iraq is even worse than Vietnam" frame?

So, I was wondering whether or not the "Hurricane increase caused by global warming" idea might actually catch on this year.  So I searched for

   dennis "global warming" hurricane

at Google News.  I was horrified to see the top results was redstate.org.  Here were the top search results:

Should we go for Chimpeachment or not?

To chimpeach or not to chimpeach?  That is the question.

Obviously, there's a huge buzz about this these days, seemingly incited by the recent Zogby poll.

[Sidenote: if we really want to influence the media, we ought to start an ostensibly neutral polling organisation.  It's not about the results: the power comes from the ability to choose the questions.  This Zogby poll is a nice example.]

The liberal talkshow host Ed Schultz is incredibly against it.  There are some pretty strong views.  What are the pros and cons?  I even heard Olbermann discussing it.

Would chimpeachment cause too much of a backlash, making us look like whiners?

Tale the poll (which is the main point of this diary, afterall).

Behavioral Neuroscience reports that gay men tend to navigate like heterosexual women, using landmarks instead of spatial directions.  This boosts the evidence that sexual orientation is partly biological in nature.  The evidence against the Right-Wing self-righteous Theocratic Mantra "homosexuality is an evil sin" is mounting.  (Not that evidence, scientific or otherwise, will ever make a difference to that crowd, alas...)

Some extracts from a New Scientist summary:

Unbelievable!  In the UK Sunday Times (datestamped tomorrow, GMT):

Why did I have to go to the Canadian media to see this?

Caption: Iraqi demonstrators stage a mock reenactment of Abu Ghraib Prison abuses during a rally in Baghdad, Saturday.

Delaware Dem flipped out a little, but I forgive him/her. We all reach breaking point sometimes, and get a bit emotional. Same goes for the retort diary. No hard feelings here.

This diary is (essentially) a copy of a comment which miraculously had slews of 4s rained down upon it earlier. Being the incoherent goon that I am, this happens rarely. Since the comment apparently contains some value, I'm reproducing it here as a diary, for greater visibility, in the hope that it might calm or reconcile the two sides of the Ohio debate.

Personally, I'm not really the F-word type (neither F--K nor FR--D). I believe there is subtlety at work with the Ohio issue on dkos. Sensible folk among us realise Ohio may not be overturned. That's not the point. The point is, publicizing the flaws in the voting system, so that we don't get shafted in 2008.

Consider this:

Nader's New Hampshire recount matched the original optical count.  So in one state at least, we do not have to fear e-voting fraud.

Furthermore, the exit polls in New Hampshire match the verified (ie recounted) outcome.  Thus:

This may sound trivial, but I believe it is exceptionally important.

The Right Wing Noise Machine is vehemently attempting to blame the Florida/Ohio exit poll mismatches on the exit polls.  The fact that the exit polls match a verified vote in New Hampshire is a powerful point to make to disrupt the RWNM.

In other words, the New Hampshire exit poll match is a fulcrum for opening up a full investigation in Florida and Ohio.  I feel this point has been woefully overlooked.

[x-posted at mydd]

Each of us has our own opinion as to the rigor with which we ought to pursue an investigation to confirm that there was no e-voting fraud/hacking.

For those who do advocate pursuing the investigation rigorously, there is the problem of gaining traction for the idea, especially in the mainstream media and Democratic party.

Here is a possible solution for gaining traction.  There is a critical distinction between: investigating whether or not BUSHCO hacked the election, and investigating whether or not SOMEONE hacked the election.

It is easier to advocate the latter, as it is less accusatory.  Furthermore, that SOMEONE may be a terrorist, e.g., Bin Laden. Therefore we can

There seem to be two kinds of people:

 (a) Those who think investigating the possibility of voting fraud makes us look like whacko consiracy theorists, and therefore is a mistake: "Get a life you sad bastards, WE LOST, quit whining and get over it. Face reality!"

 (b) Those who believe voting fraud may have happened, and we must do everything in our power to check for it, even if we initially look like conspiracy theorists: "I'm a computer engineer, I know how easy it would be to hack the election, so I think it was hacked by the Evil Republicans; this could be the end of democracy as we know it. Face reality!"

We don't have to have a wedge driven between the two camps (a) and (b), if we frame things correctly. Here's the frame:

Why is this a good frame?

This diary is a look at the potential for e-voting fraud, from an academic's perspective.  I have a PhD in Computer Science, with publications in computer security.  I am not a US citizen.  I am employed at one of the top computer science departments in the US.

Below, I summarize the paper Analysis of an Electronic Voting System by Tadayoshi Kohno (Security and Cryptography Group, UC San Diego), Adam Stubblefield (Computer Security and Applied Cryptography, Johns Hopkins), Avi Rubin (Computer Science professor and Technical Director of the Johns Hopkins Information Security Institute, and Dan Wallach (assistant professor of computer science, Rice University).  I have simply lifted extracts which I believe can be readily understood by the lay(wo)man.

I finish with some links to additional information on e-voting problems, and some comments about Bev Harris.

As a foreigner, it is fascinating to see the empirical trend in the US of fraud used to hold onto power: JFK (Illinois?), Nixon, Reagan (Iran). What makes some people assume Bush/Rove will buck the trend?

There is lots of hyperbole about electronic voter fraud.  At the other end of the spectrum, there are those who refuse to be open to the possibility.

I am a PhD computer scientist, with papers in computer security (anonymity and privacy).  It is totally logical to attempt to verify that electronic fraud did not occur.

It would be irrational not verify the voting.

Nixon, Reagan (Iran), JFK (Illinois ballot stuffing).  What makes you think Bush/Rove is any less likely to attempt to hold onto power?

Prof David Dill at Stanford CS has an outfit similar to blackboxvoting.org, called VerifiedVoting.org.