The bill board states, "Global warming equals worse hurricanes. George Bush just doesn't get it," and also shows a satellite image of a hurricane approaching the Florida coast.

FACT: Science simply doesn’t support the claims that there is a link between hurricanes and global warming. A team led by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Dr. Landsea concluded that the relationship of global temperatures to the number of intense landfalling hurricanes is either not present, or is very weak.

In fact, if we examine hurricane records for which we have good data going back to the 1800s, there is much evidence supporting the conclusion that we have had more hurricane activity historically than in the last few decades, so an increase the last several years should perhaps be expected as part of natural variability. The overall number of hurricanes and the number of the strongest hurricanes fluctuated greatly during the last century, with a great number in the 1940s. In fact, through the last decade, the intensity of these storms has declined somewhat.

Outrageously, Environment2004 uses the recent hurricane devastation to scare voters. According the Hill newspaper, “The LCV’s main focus has been on such swing areas as Orange, Seminole, Osceola and Lake counties, where the group identified voters with high “persuade-ability” rankings. LCV, a member of the Environment2004 coalition promises to spend $3million dollars in targeted counties in Florida. The Hill further reports, “The LCV says it’s a operating off a new election playbook, however, that could add the environment to the list of secondary issues that might end up giving Kerry the final push he needs to win this dead-heat election.” Unfortunately, their playbook is to promote a lie, and they know it.

FACT: Unfortunately for Senator Kerry, the Kyoto Protocol is a no flip-flop treaty. As he well knows the United States can either ratify or reject the treaty. As defined by the terms of the treaty, Kyoto is nonnegotiable and cannot be modified. This leaves Senator Kerry in a troubling position. Senator Kerry agrees with President Bush that the treaty is flawed and joins Bush’s decision not to support ratifying the treaty. On the flip side however, he attacks President Bush for rejecting the treaty even though he says he himself would have rejected Kyoto. In the end, does this mean Senator Kerry is attacking his own position hoping to fool everyone else?

FACT: President Putin’s decision to ratify Kyoto has nothing to do with improving Russia’s environment and everything to do with politics. Putin knew he could accommodate European powers by beginning the process to ratify Kyoto. A Reuter’s article makes this point clear quoting Russian Economic Development Minister German Gref saying, “The protocol hardly has any real impact on improving ecology. It is fairly symbolic.” The reporter added that Graf believes, “the cabinet aimed at setting a good international precedent rather than focusing on economic or environmental concerns.”

Just how much will the Kyoto Accords help stop climate change? Not much! A Reuter’s article reports scientists need at least a 70 percent reduction. The article explains, “But without the United States -- which withdrew in 2001 -- and with loopholes designed to entice Russia and Japan into ratifying, Kyoto may ultimately only cut emissions by as little as one percent, some analysts say.” Even Greenpeace’s Steve Sawyer admits just how little of a difference saying “The 5-percent (the originally proposed reduction) was a baby step; this is an even more baby step.”

Considering the limited environmental impact, how much will the Russian economy be forced to suffer? According to Andrei Illarionov, Russian President Vladimir Putin's top economic adviser, “We should call the Kyoto Protocol an interstate gulag,” and further stated, “In the gulag, though, you got the same ration daily and it didn’t get smaller day by day. In the end we had to call the Kyoto Protocol an international Auschwitz.”

Here in the United States Kyoto faces bipartisan opposition. Following negotiations with then President Clinton, the United States Senate sent the President a clear message passing a unanimous resolution against the Kyoto Accords. Even Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry voted against implementing the Kyoto Accord. On July 25, 1997, the U.S. Senate sent President Clinton a clear message in passing the Byrd/Hagel Resolution by a vote of 95 to 0.

While Kyoto supporters may soon celebrate implementation of the Kyoto Accords, they along with everyone else understand implementation means insignificant environmental progress. Signatories to the Kyoto will be forced to suffer economic hardship while seeing only minimal if any movement in reductions of greenhouse gasses. Russia’s steps yesterday should in no way be seen as a victory for the environment and must be seen for what it is: political appeasement.

Two examples of Kennedy’s claims:

CLAIM: “It's now unsafe to eat any freshwater fish in Connecticut because of mercury contamination. The New York City reservoir system is so contaminated with mercury that no fish in them can be safely eaten. Most of the fish in New York state can no longer safely be eaten. All the fish in 17 states can no longer safely be eaten because of mercury contamination.”

CLAIM : “One out of every six American women of childbearing years now has so much mercury in her body that her children are at risk for permanent IQ loss, kidney and liver damage, blindness, and possibly autism because of the mercury.

FACT: The question is: are pregnant women and children being poisoned today? The answer is an emphatic “NO!” As with many things found in nature, mercury exposure can be lethal in sufficient quantities. At lower doses, there is no health effect. In short, the dose makes the poison. Because mercury is an element found in nature that can neither be created nor destroyed, it has been in fish in small quantities since before humans first discovered fire.

Of the two biggest studies ever conducted on the health impact of mercury on Island fish-eating populations – who consume far more fish than Americans – one found no ill effects and the measured a very slight effect at very high mercury levels in the blood stream – 58 parts per billion.

Not a single woman or child in the United States NHANES database has recorded that much mercury in their bloodstream. All of Kennedy’s claims stem from the number of women exceeding an extremely stringent “just in case” standard that is ten times lower than the 58 parts per billion where even a modest impact was observed in one study.

Jonathan Adler, an assistant professor of law at Case Western Reserve University, is right in his recent column when he writes, “It's a shame that in their efforts to stop environmental pollution, Kennedy and other activists have become so willing to pollute the truth.” These types of attacks by liberal special interest groups are coming all too common.

The Wall Street Journal further comments on this polluted truth saying, “The silver lining here may be that these environmentalist scares are becoming so routine and over-the-top that they are having less public impact. Americans are figuring out that green activists have abandoned any claim to scientific objectivity as they pursue political power.” Let’s hope they are right.