The inconvenient truth is that science contradicts what he claims on more than a few points.

Many of the assertions Gore makes in his movie, ''An Inconvenient Truth,'' have been refuted by science, both before and after he made them. Gore can show sincerity in his plea for scientific honesty by publicly acknowledging where science has rebutted his claims.

For example, Gore claims that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame. Yet the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate reported, "Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame."

Gore claims the snowcap atop Africa's Mt. Kilimanjaro is shrinking and that global warming is to blame. Yet according to the November 23, 2003, issue of Nature magazine, "Although it's tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain's foothills is the more likely culprit. Without the forests' humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine."

Gore claims global warming is causing more tornadoes. Yet the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in February that there has been no scientific link established between global warming and tornadoes.

Gore claims global warming is causing more frequent and severe hurricanes. However, hurricane expert Chris Landsea published a study on May 1 documenting that hurricane activity is no higher now than in decades past. Hurricane expert William Gray reported just a few days earlier, on April 27, that the number of major hurricanes making landfall on the U.S. Atlantic coast has declined in the past 40 years. Hurricane scientists reported in the April 18 Geophysical Research Letters that global warming enhances wind shear, which will prevent a significant increase in future hurricane activity.

Gore claims global warming is causing an expansion of African deserts. However, the Sept. 16, 2002, issue of New Scientist reports, "Africa's deserts are in 'spectacular' retreat . . . making farming viable again in what were some of the most arid parts of Africa."

Gore argues Greenland is in rapid meltdown, and that this threatens to raise sea levels by 20 feet. But according to a 2005 study in the Journal of Glaciology, "the Greenland ice sheet is thinning at the margins and growing inland, with a small overall mass gain." In late 2006, researchers at the Danish Meteorological Institute reported that the past two decades were the coldest for Greenland since the 1910s.

Gore claims the Antarctic ice sheet is melting because of global warming. Yet the Jan. 14, 2002, issue of Nature magazine reported Antarctica as a whole has been dramatically cooling for decades. More recently, scientists reported in the September 2006 issue of the British journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Series A: Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences, that satellite measurements of the Antarctic ice sheet showed significant growth between 1992 and 2003. And the U.N. Climate Change panel reported in February 2007 that Antarctica is unlikely to lose any ice mass during the remainder of the century.

Now Al Gwhore and his supporters claim that there is a consensus behind his claims -- but either he is lying or he believes that "consensus" trumps truth. It may be inconvenient, but it is time for him to tell the truth.

UPDATE: Al Gore conveniently avoids correcting his errors/lies in this NY Times column -- I guess he believes that an assault on a inconvenient truths is OK if Earth's in the balance.

We've all seen some variation of this news report today.

Air strikes in the British-controlled Helmand province of Afghanistan may have killed civilians, coalition troops said yesterday as local people claimed that between 50 and 80 people, many of them women and children, had died.

In the latest of a series of attacks causing significant civilian casualties in recent weeks, more than 200 were killed by coalition troops in Afghanistan in June, far more than are believed to have been killed by Taliban militants.

It takes a while, however, to get to the reason for this tragedy -- and discern the moral responsibility for the deaths -- as well as where international law places the responsibility.

The bombardment, which witnesses said lasted up to three hours, in the Gereshk district late on Friday followed an attempted ambush by the Taliban on a joint US-Afghan military convoy. According to Mohammad Hussein, the provincial police chief, the militants fled into a nearby village for cover. Planes then targeted the village of Hyderabad. Mohammad Khan, a resident of the village, said seven members of his family, including his brother and five of his brother's children, were killed.

Oh, that is why the bombing tool place -- Taliban cowards hiding themselves among civilians.

What does international law say about such things. Since the terrorists and their supporters wax eloquent about the Geneva Conventions, it is convenient that the answer comes from one of them.

The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations. Article 28, Fourth Geneva Convention

The Taliban who attacked US and Afghan troops were a legitimate military target. Their hiding amongst civilians did nothing to make such an attack illegitimate -- and did, in fact, render them morally and legally responsible for any civilian casualties by violating this provision.

The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favor or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations. Article 51 (7), Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions

Now, if the Taliban wishes to claim the protections of the Geneva Conventions, then they are also bound by them -- and in violating these provisions, once again prove themselves to be beneath contempt.

But the media is too busy providing aid and comfort to our enemies to tell you such things -- because it does not fit their preconceived template for the news.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, The Random Yak, 123beta, Jeanette's Celebrity Corner, Webloggin, The Amboy Times, Cao's Blog, , Pursuing Holiness, CatSynth.com "catback" weekend, The Magical Rose Garden, Right Celebrity, Walls of the City, Nuke's news and views, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

But it is really all the fault of the Republicans for not rolling over and playing dead, you see.

The problem for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi isn't just President Bush. It's the Senate.

Pelosi sounded more apologetic than celebratory Friday when she announced with her Senate counterpart, Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democrats' list of accomplishments six months after they seized control of Capitol Hill and promised "a new direction" in Washington.

"I'm not happy with Congress, either," Pelosi, of San Francisco, conceded.

She pinned the blame on "the obstructionism of the Republicans in the United States Senate."

Immigration has joined Iraq, stem cell research, Medicare drug pricing, the 9/11 Commission's recommendations and other promises in the dustbin of the current Congress. Heading into a July Fourth recess after a bruising failure on immigration, Congress has a public approval rating in the mid-20s, lower than Bush's and no better than Republicans' ratings on the eve of their catastrophic election defeat in November, when the GOP lost control of the Senate and the House.

Seems rather hypocritical to me -- after all, this is the woman who promised "bi-partisanship" but has never tried to deliver on that -- and is faulting the GOP for daring to use some tactics that ought to be familiar to both her and the mobbed-up Senate Majority Leader who was standing beside her as she delivered her comments.

"The Republicans are doing what the Democrats did," said Julian Zelizer, a history and public affairs scholar at Boston University. "They're using the power of the Senate filibuster, and the power in the House when you have narrow majorities, to make a do-nothing Congress -- even when there's a lot of issues on the table, even when there's a lot of interest in accomplishing things."

In other words, she is angry that the GOP would dare use the powers that the Democrats insisted upon as a matter of right when they were in the minority. I believe that the proper response is "Payback's a bitch -- and so are you, Nancy."

Shocking. Appalling. Disgusting.

A 65-year-old St. Louis man is missing after Amtrak personnel, mistaking his diabetic shock for drunk and disorderly behavior, kicked him off a train in the middle of a national forest, according to police in Williams, Ariz.

Police said Roosevelt Sims was headed to Los Angeles but was asked to leave the train shortly before 10 p.m. Sunday at a railroad crossing five miles outside Williams.

"He was let off in the middle of a national forest, which is about 800,000 acres of beautiful pine trees," Lt. Mike Graham said.

Police said there is no train station or running water at the crossing, which is about two miles from the nearest road, at an elevation of about 8,000 feet.

If he was truly "drunk and unruly", the correct approach is to restrain him as would be done on an airplane, not dump him in the middle of a forest. That this could happen is sufficient reason for this diabetic to steer well-clear of any AMTRAK train.

Fortunately, Williams has been found dazed and disoriented -- four days after being unceremoniously dumped from the train. Here's hoping for criminal charges and a lawsuit against AMTRAK and the employees as individuals.

H/T Texas Fred

Sponsored Post

My wife and I have had the same furniture since for over a decade. I mean just about all of it -- dining room, living room, bedroom. It is getting a little worse for wear in some cases, though we have done our best to keep up with it. Still, we talk sometimes about what we would like our next house full of furniture to look like – and more than once I have taken the time to browse around an online furniture store just to get some ideas of what we might do when we do finally find ourselves ready to buy new furniture.

I mean, let's consider the living room furniture for a moment. We definitely need a new sofa -- and my wife would really like for us to go with a sectional sofa this time around, preferably one with a chaise. We are unlikely to go for a leather sofa, though, both due to aesthetics and the fact that we have an indoor dog that could damage the leather with her claws

And what about the bedroom furniture? Well, she might not want the sleigh bed any more because of some of the practical issues one would present in our home due to her mobility issues. Personally I'd like to get us a couple of twin or full beds so that my tossing and turning does not disrupt her sleep by setting off her ache and pains but still allows us to share the same bedroom.

There is definitely one non-negotiable aspect of our home office furniture. One piece has to stay -- Dad's old marble-top roll-top desk that he and mom bought in Asia 20 years ago. However, a new computer desk that harmonizes with that family piece, and some comfortable desk chairs would certainly be appreciated by both my darling wife and I.

Of course, I am talking about a pipe dream right now -- but someday, maybe sooner than I expect, we will make the change.

The winning entries in the Watcher's Council vote for this week are A Stunningly Dishonest Piece of Advocacy Writing About the Supreme Court by Bookworm Room, and The Rupture by Seraphic Secret.  Here is the link to the full results of the vote.

Here are the full tallies of all votes cast:

Sponsored Post

We all know people who like to get stuff for free -- and maybe you are one of those folks. Well, you can get lots of Free Samples and SavingsFree Samples and Savings over at MySavings.com. And the site really does offer an interesting variety of free samples and savings for you if you take a few minutes and browse through what is there.

But the really interesting thing about MySavings.com is that they have tried to make it into a community, not just a website with Free Samples and Savings. They have also established an online community and forum with prizes for folks who post about free offers. In addition, there is a regularly updated entertainment blog.