The Rules of Blogging

As I peruse blogs around the Internet, I have come to notice some very distinct patterns. Based on these patterns, it is very easy to tell which blogs are worth reading, and which are not. Good blogs will generally consist of a clean-looking format, easy-to-read language, and a logical approach to the subject matter. (Notice, a good or bad blog is not defined by the particular viewpoint presented on the blog, but rather by the presentation itself.)

Consequently, bad blogs will contain none of the things listed above. Bad blogs conform to a different style. They ignore some basic rules of blogging.

I should note that some of these rules do not apply to “diary” blogs. When you are writing about your daily life, or a vacation that you just took, you are obviously not expected to approach your subject matter with any logical perspective. It is what it is. These rules apply specifically to blogs of a political nature. If you are going to interject your voice into the forum of public debate, it is highly recommended that you pay close attention to the following. Now, without further adieu…

The Rules of Blogging:

1. A clean-looking format. This can include several things like color schemes, font style, etc. But, the main thing to focus on is making it easy to read. When someone is visiting your blog for the first time (or the 50th time), they do not want to be required to scroll up, down, sideways, diagonally, and every other direction, just to read what you have written. Don’t use insanely large fonts which make your blog three times longer than it should be. Don’t make you page so “busy,” and full of unnecessary junk, that it is difficult to find what you have written. Keep it simple.

2. Keep the profanity to a minimum. This seems to be the biggest problem with bad blogs. The heavy use of profanity calls the writers emotional stability and rationality into question. Profanity is used to indicate a strong emotion. When it is used excessively (such as being used in every paragraph, or even in every sentence), the writer is clearly not approaching the matter from a logical or rational standpoint. They are approaching it from an emotional one. Opinions based on emotion are rarely well-informed or well-thought-out. Opinions based on logical reasoning and rational-thinking are generally much more valid.

Please understand, I am not denouncing the use of all profanity. I have used it in my blogs from time to time. It can serve a purpose. But, when it used excessively, chances are that the writer has very little understanding of what they are talking about.

3. Educate yourself about logical fallacies…and steer clear of them. Far too many writers use logical fallacies in their writing when they are trying to make a point. The most common, in my opinion, is the ad-hominem fallacy. An ad-hominem fallacy is when you attack a person in way that is unrelated or irrelevant to the subject at-hand. It is a personal attack, as opposed to an attack on a statement or claim. For instance, if I were debating Hillary Clinton’s stance on healthcare, and I said, “Don’t listen to Hillary. She lied about the Rose Law Firm billing records. She’ll lie about anything.” The Rose Law Firm case has nothing to do with the issue of healthcare. That statement was simply used to discredit anything Hillary had to say. If a statement or claim is false, point out why it is false. Do not resort to irrelevant personal attacks to make your case.

4. Do not make claims that you can not back-up. When making an assertion about something or someone, cite evidence that proves, or at least supports, your point. Blanket statements with no apparent basis in fact lend nothing to the debate. I see this all the time concerning the debate over illegal immigration. Statements are made such as “Illegal immigrants do the work that American citizens won’t do.” This is a very specific statement about two groups of people. I would like to see some evidence to back this up. (Consequently, there is evidence that contradicts that statement.)

I also see this problem when someone is trying to refute a statement made by someone else. They will hear President Bush say, “Things are improving in Iraq.” Then, their only response to this statement is, “That’s not true. Things aren’t getting better. They are getting worse!” OK…prove it. Show me some evidence to back-up what you are saying, show me quotes from legitimate sources on the subject, link to a newspaper article…something…anything. Don’t just make a claim like that, and move on.

This rule also applies to labels. If you label a person or a group of people facists, Nazis, racists, liars, etc. you had better provide some evidence which speaks to this. The “racist” label gets thrown around a lot, however many people don't truly know what the word means. The same applies to the word “fascist.” People use these words without really knowing their meaning. Educate yourself on the meaning of words, and show why the label you are using is applicable. Otherwise, it amounts to nothing more than name-calling.

5. Use proper grammar and spelling. What has happened to basic grammatical structure? Too many writers have discarded the need to use capitalization at the beginning of their sentences and periods at the end. They have forgotten how to use commas, ellipses, parentheses, and quotation marks properly. Their sentences are so badly mangled that it is difficult to tell where one sentence ends and another begins.

it is hard to read a sentence like this it has no punctuation i dont understand it

What is wrong with applying proper grammatical structure to blogs? I’m not saying that every single rule must be followed, or that the rules can’t be bent. I bend them occasionally for effect. But, it gets to a point that the entry becomes unreadable.

And, for crying out loud, use a spellchecker. It is included on all computers for a reason. Mistakes and typos will happen to everyone. But, spelling can speak volumes about the intelligence level of the writer. Check it before you post it.


Who needs the First Amendment anyway?

In the past, I have firmly stated my position on the burning of the American Flag. While it is a despicable act of disrespect, it is NOT, nor should it be, illegal. Actions such as that are given full protection under the First Amendment. They are nonviolent acts of protest, and should be given all of the Constitutional protections afforded to it.

That principle applies across the board, no matter what symbol is being burned, destroyed, or otherwise defaced. As long as that symbol is the property of the one who is defacing it, no crime has been committed.

However, in this day and age, such Constitutional protections are only given when the symbol being defaced is an American or Christian symbol. If that symbol belongs to the Islamic faith, all bets are off. Such is the case at Pace University.

“A 23-year-old man was arrested Friday on hate-crime charges after he threw a Quran in a toilet at Pace University on two separate occasions, police said.

Stanislav Shmulevich of Brooklyn was arrested on charges of criminal mischief and aggravated harassment, both hate crimes, police said.”

This arrest is utterly outrageous. While Shmulevich’s alleged actions are quite offensive to Muslims, they are not, and should not be, a crime. Provided that Quran was his property, no crime was committed. Even if he stole that Quran (which I suspect is the case), the only crimes he is guilty of would be theft and destruction of property, both misdemeanors. Yet, Stanislav Shmulevich is being charged with 2 counts of the ever-looming “hate crime,” which are, by the way, felony charges.

This is a prime example as to why hate crime legislation is a travesty to justice. They are not punishing action, they are punishing thought. In this case, they are punishing thoughts and actions which are protected under the First Amendment. But, that is the beauty of hate crime legislation. Constitutional protections be damned. We must criminalize the act of offending people!

Do you not see a problem with this? Nowhere are we guaranteed the right to not be offended. It doesn’t exist. The only rights being violated here are those of Stanislav Shmulevich.

Of course you can guess who pressured the school administration and the police to take action:

"Muslim activists had called on Pace University to crack down on hate crimes after the incidents. As a result, the university said it would offer sensitivity training to its students.

The school was accused by Muslim students of not taking the incident seriously enough at first. Pace classified the first desecration of the holy book as an act of vandalism, but university officials later reversed themselves and referred the incident to the New York Police Department's hate crimes unit."

Muslim “activists” were outraged by the desecration of their holy book. Apparently, their outrage overrides the Constitution of the United States of America. And, you just know that CAIR had to get involved:

"Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the national CAIR office in Washington, D.C., has said the organization receives frequent reports of Quran desecrations in the United States, especially postings on Internet sites, but seldom makes them public.

He said CAIR decided to speak out about the Pace incidents because Muslim students are impacted by the creation of what could be viewed as a hostile campus environment."

You might be interested to know that Ibrahim Hooper has stated in the past that he would like to see America subject to Islamic law:

"I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future. But I'm not going to do anything violent to promote that. I'm going to do it through education."

I’d say that with cases such as this, Hooper is winning some major victories in realizing his dream. When the First Amendment is set aside because Muslims are offended, we have a serious problem.


Supporting the Troops...Daily Kos Style

Not only does this recent Daily Kos diary post outline a new leftist conspiracy theory, but it also illustrates Daily Kos’s unwavering support (i.e. complete contempt) for our men and women in uniform. Just take a gander at the title of this entry:

Martial Law Threat is Real: Good Thing the Military is Breaking Down

Read the full entry if you feel so inclined. But, the writer is basically suggesting that President Bush has every intention of declaring Martial Law here at home. The author, Dave Lindorff, writes:

“From the looks of things, the Bush/Cheney regime has been working assiduously to pave the way for a declaration of military rule, such that at this point it really lacks only the pretext to trigger a suspension of Constitutional government. They have done this with the active support of Democrats in Congress, though most of the heavy lifting was done by the last, Republican-led Congress…

As we go about our daily lives--our shopping, our escapist movie watching, and even our protesting and political organizing—we need to be aware that there is a real risk that it could all blow up, and that we could find ourselves facing armed, uniformed troops at our doors.

That certainly is a frightening assertion! Naturally, the author backs-up his position with talking points about the Patriot Act, illegal spying programs, and government-sanctioned torture. You know…the usual leftist mantra.

(I, myself, have reservations about the aforementioned “scandals.” But, I have neither the time nor the inclination to debate those issues right now. Perhaps in another blog.)

So, the author lays out his theory for the impending military takeover of our country. However, he simultaneously takes comfort in the fact that our military is, in his words, “broken.”

“If we are headed for martial law, better that it be with a broken military. Maybe if it’s broken badly enough, the administration will be afraid to test the idea.”

Not only does the author refer to our military as broken, but he also calls their heroism into question. Near the conclusion of his entry, he writes:

“If ordered to turn their guns and bayonets on their fellow Americans, would our "heroes" in uniform follow their consciences, and their oaths to "uphold and defend" the Constitution of the United States? Or would they follow the orders of their Commander in Chief?”

Do you see the snide little quotation marks around the word “heroes?” Quotation marks in this context are used by writers to indicate that the term they are using is either used loosely or in complete sarcasm. I know. I use this technique as well.

The writer also makes a very questionable claim. While he was in the process of slandering our “broken military,” Lindorff writes:

It has to be a plus that National Guard and Reserve units are on their third and sometimes fourth deployments to Iraq, and are fuming at the abuse. It has to be a plus that active duty troops are refusing to re-enlist in droves—especially mid-level officers.

I’m not entirely sure where he got his information from. He certainly didn’t get it from the Department of Defense, which reported in June of this year:

Active duty recruiting. Three of the four services met or exceeded recruiting goals for June. The Army recruited 7,031 soldiers, which is 84 percent of its goal of 8,400. The Navy finished with 3,999 recruits for 102 percent. Their goal was 3,924. The Marine Corps recruited 4,113 new Marines reaching 110 percent of its goal of 3,742, and the Air Force met its goal of
2,233 recruits.

Active duty retention. Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force met or exceeded overall retention missions.

Reserve forces recruiting. Five of the six reserve components met or exceeded their recruiting goals in June. The Army National Guard recruited 5,342 soldiers surpassing its goal of 5,338. The Army Reserve and Navy Reserve finished at 108 percent with 5,255 and 1,013 recruits, respectively. The Marine Corps Reserve recruited 1,078 Marines surpassing its goal of 986 at 109 percent. The Air National Guard was the only reserve component to miss its goal finishing at 75 percent with 779 of its goal of 1,036. The Air Force Reserve met its goal of 597 recruits.

Reserve forces retention. For June, Army National Guard retention was 107 percent of the cumulative goal of 26,405, and Air National Guard retention was 98 percent of its cumulative goal of 8,430. Both the Army and Air Guard are currently at 101 and 99 percent of their end strength, respectively. Losses in all reserve components for May are well within acceptable limits. Indications are that trend will continue into June.

But, that’s par for the course at Daily Kos. Conspiracy theories. Slanders against the troops. Falsified statistics. You know…the usual.

Interestingly enough, Daily Kos is the website that NPR’s Juan Williams recently referred to as politically centrist.

Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards have also been known to pander to Daily Kos and its base. Will anyone call them on it?


Advice for Lindsay Lohan

Let me say this upfront. I don’t care one iota about Lindsay Lohan’s latest legal troubles. Celebrity news and gossip is at the bottom of my priority list. Wait. Let me correct that. It isn’t even ON my priority list.

But, a Los Angeles Defense attorney has spoken out concerning the case. And, unfortunately for him, he has made a statement which is so stupid that I cannot ignore it. To do so would be a wasted opportunity for good comedy.

While trying to advise Lohan on what her next move should be, attorney Barry Gerald Sands actually made the following statement:

“Whatever you have done in the past, do a 360-degree turn and go the other way.”

Folks, this man has a law degree. Be afraid. Be very afraid.


Government Schools at their finest

Shall we delve once again into that ridiculous world known as our Government school system? Sure. Why not?

I’ve pointed out examples in the past of absurd school policies where the punishment does not fit the crime. If you haven’t read them, you should. They are very eye-opening:

4-year-old Suspended for Sexual Harassment
5-year-old Charged with Sexual Harassment
Student Suspended for “Hate Crime”

These are just isolated incidents, right? Well, it’s happened again. This time, it was at a Middle School in Oregon:

“The two boys tore down the hall of Patton Middle School after lunch, swatting the bottoms of girls as they ran -- what some kids later said was a common form of greeting.

But bottom-slapping is against policy in McMinnville Public Schools. So a teacher's aide sent the gawky seventh-graders to the office, where the vice principal and a police officer stationed at the school soon interrogated them.”

They were INTERROGATED by the police! Typically, police only “interrogate” when they are investigating a serious crime. What exactly were they trying to investigate? The situation seems pretty cut-and-dry to me. They slapped some girls on the butt. CASE CLOSED!

Oh, it gets better:

“After hours of interviews with students the day of the February incident, the officer read the boys their Miranda rights and hauled them off in handcuffs to juvenile jail, where they spent the next five days.

Now, Cory Mashburn and Ryan Cornelison, both 13, face the prospect of 10 years in juvenile detention and a lifetime on the sex offender registry.”

Did you read that? 10 years in juvenile detention and registration as SEX OFFENDERS! Tell me exactly how that punishment fits the crime of slapping someone on the butt. This is nothing less than a travesty of justice. This is a disgusting misuse of the judicial system and a prime example of the ignorant nature of school administrations.

I have said before, concerning these cases, we should never encourage this type of behavior in students. Students engaged in actions like this should be reprimanded. But, a stern lecture from a Principal is punishment enough. Their punishment should go no further than a trip to the front office. That would fit the “crime.”

When we start viewing boys as young as 4 and 5 years-old as “sexual predators” we have lost all sense of reality. These kids were not trying to sexually harass anyone. They were not trying to sexually violate anyone. They were acting like typical adolescent jackasses.

Accept it, and move on.


Nope. No bias here.

We’ve heard it all before:

“Radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam.”

Those were the brilliant words of Rosie O’Donnell. But, the same sentiment is being forced upon us day in and day out. Multi-culturalists would have you believe that no religion is better than another. None of them has a claim on truth. All are equally valid. And, all are equally dangerous.

This world-view is a scary thing because it puts zealous Christian youth groups in the same category as a Muslim terrorist who slaughters innocents. You think I’m taking that a little too far? Think again.

CNN is promoting a new six-hour special entitled “God’s Warriors.” The intent of this program is to explore the “rise of religious influence on political power.” But, in doing so, they attempt to equate the “religious right” in America with Islamic jihadists.

Yeah. That’s the same thing.

One of the Christian groups they will focus on is BattleCry, an organization that reaches out to Christian youths. This group attempts to empower youths to stand firm in their faith in the face of temptation. It also encourages them to spread the gospel of Christ to the rest of the world.

That’s pretty dangerous, don’t you think? After all, these youths are probably being taught to convert unbelievers by any means necessary. They are being trained to take up arms against those who have not placed their faith in Christ. No doubt they believe submission, tyranny, and oppression are perfectly acceptable forms of discipleship.

Of course not. These youths are being taught a message of love. They are being encouraged to LIVE the message of Christ.

CNN, however, feels that BattleCry is on the same level as Islamic radicals who shoot school children in the back and saw the heads off of infidels like Nick Berg.

For them to equate these two groups is, at best, journalistic dishonesty, and, at worst, an exercise in the repulsiveness of moral relativism. The two are simply not comparable.

I’m sure some will write this off by saying that CNN is not equating the two groups morally. It is simply showing that both groups are trying to use their religion to influence politics. That may indeed be one focus of the program.

But, it is undeniable. CNN is attempting to communicate that the radical nature of both groups represents a commonality – a shared intent.

Reality does not bear that out. Christians, no matter how “radical,” do not seek a total seizure of world power. They do not seek political world domination. Radical Islamists do. And, they intend to meet that goal by any means necessary.

The goals of Christians and Muslims are not them same. The methods are not the same. The philosophies are not the same. The messages are not the same. But, to CNN, they are. They are both equally valid. And, they are both equally dangerous.

Oh, and do you want to see exactly how CNN promotes this new program? Here is a lesson in Media Bias 101. Take a look at CNN’s page containing video clips and images of the program. Notice anything strange? Look closer.

Under the pictures of families of Palestinian terrorists the captions read:

The sisters of a Palestinian martyr in the town of Jenin on the West
Credit: Brent Stirton/CNN

The mother of a Palestinian martyr in the town of Jenin on the West
Credit: Brent Stirton/CNN

Now, look at the pictures related to Jewish terrorist groups:

Amanpour interviews Yehuda Etzion, a founder of a terrorist group known as the Jewish Underground, in Ofrah.
Credit: Brent Stirton/CNN

Yehuda Etzion, a founder of a terrorist group known as the Jewish Underground
planned to blow up The Dome of the Rock.

Credit: Brent Stirton/CNN

Interesting. Wouldn’t you agree? According to CNN, Jewish terrorist groups are rightly called terrorist groups. But, Palestinian terrorists are simply “martyrs.”

Anti-Israeli bias at its most disgusting.


Somebody's Gotta Say It

Yes, it’s true. Hard to believe, but it’s true. I, David Simms, am reading a book.

Now that you have picked yourself up off of the floor, I’ll elaborate. I am in the process of reading “Somebody’s Gotta Say It,” by my favorite radio host of all time, Neal Boortz. For those of you not familiar with Boortz or his show, look him up. Some may write him off as another “right-wing, fascist talking-head.” But, give him a listen before you judge. You might be surprised by what you hear.

He is a confirmed Libertarian. Though he has a lot of conservative leanings, he often sides against the Republicans. Truly he is beholden to no particular political Party. As Boortz is so fond of saying, “I am an equal opportunity offender.” He is the High Priest of the Church of the Painful Truth.

I enjoy his radio show. So, naturally, I was interested in reading his newest book, “Somebody’s Gotta Say It.” I picked up a copy last week, and, for the life of me, I can’t put it down.

The book is filled with several incredible chapters discussing everything from Government Schools to the alleged “Right to Vote.” Though all of the chapters are entertaining, a few are truly enlightening.

There is one particular quote from his book that I just had to share, which brings me to the point of this blog. He begins the book by discussing his entry into the talk radio world. I’ll spare you the details, in case you want to read the book for yourself. But, in the midst of recalling his first job in radio, Boortz makes the following statement:

“Luck is opportunity met by preparation.”

How true. We would all do well to remember that. People do not succeed in this world by mere happenstance. It is not good fortune shinning down on them. It is through hard work and preparation. It is through intelligent and reasoned decision-making. When an opportunity arises, they are prepared to take advantage of it. And, they go after it no matter the obstacles in their way.

Think about it.


More Global Warming News

Gee, I wonder if the mainstream media will report this:

Scientists who probed two kilometers (1.2 miles) through a Greenland glacier to recover the oldest plant DNA on record said Thursday the planet was far warmer hundreds of thousands of years ago than is generally believed. The samples suggest the temperature probably reached 10 degrees C (50 degrees Fahrenheit) in the summer and -17 C (1 F) in the winter.

They also indicated that during the last period between ice ages, 116,000-130,000 years ago, when temperatures were on average 5 C (9 F) higher than now, the glaciers on Greenland did not completely melt away.

"These findings allow us to make a more accurate environmental reconstruction of the time period from which these samples were taken," said Martin Sharp, a glaciologist at the University of Alberta, Canada, and a co-author of the paper.

"What we've learned is that this part of the world was significantly warmer than most people thought."

With all of the hype that the media is generating for the Live Earth concerts, they don’t have any time left to report the other side.


Cheese-Eating Surrender Monkeys

People often wonder why I, and those like me, insult the French. I guess the most obvious answer is that…The French make it so easy. I need not look any further than a recent article in The Australian for a wealth of comedic material at the expense of France.

According to this article, the new French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, is being condemned by French intellectuals for being “un-French,” “right-wing,” and attempting to “brainwash his citizens.”

What did Sarkozy to reap such mean-spirited attacks from his countrymen? He jogged. That’s right. He jogged.

I don’t use the word "jog" as a euphemism for a cruel act of barbary. It isn’t a new slang term to describe an unthinkable practice of evil. It means exactly what you think it means.

He engaged in an act of light running. For this, he has been accused of “brainwashing his citizens.”

I need to sit down. You can read the article for yourself:

FRENCH President Nicolas Sarkozy has fallen foul of intellectuals and critics who see his passion for jogging as un-French, right-wing and even a ploy to brainwash his citizens.

Attacks on Mr Sarkozy's pastime, which he has made a symbol of his presidency, began on the internet as soon as he bounded up the steps of the Elysee Palace in shorts when he took office in May. That has become the icon of his hyper-energetic administration. The grumbling has now moved to television and the press.

"Is jogging right-wing?" wondered Liberation, the left-wing newspaper.

Alain Finkelkraut, a celebrated philosopher, begged Mr Sarkozy on France 2, the main state television channel, to abandon his "undignified" pursuit. He should take up walking, like Socrates, the poet Arthur Rimbaud and other great men, Mr Finkelkraut said.

"Western civilisation, in its best sense, was born with the promenade. Walking is a sensitive, spiritual act. Jogging is management of the body. The jogger says I am in control. It has nothing to do with meditation."

Mr Sarkozy's habit infuriates his critics - and some supporters - because he flaunts it so hard…

Until "Speedy Sarko" won office, French heads of state shunned physical exercise in public…Jogging caught on in France, as elsewhere, in the 1980s and eight million claim to indulge. But Mr Sarkozy has rekindled a French suspicion that the habit is for self-centred individualists such as the Americans who popularised it.

"Jogging is, of course, about performance and individualism, values that are traditionally ascribed to the Right," Odile Baudrier, editor of V02 magazine, a sports publication, told Liberation. Sports sociologist Patrick Mignon noted that French intellectuals had always held sport in contempt, while totalitarian regimes cultivated physical fitness.

Beyond the self-promotion, some commentators see something sinister in the media fascination with le jogging de Supersarko. The "hypnotic" daily images of presidential running are not innocent, said Daniel Schneidermann, a media critic.

He said Mr Sarkozy used the video images of his jogging as "a major weapon of media manipulation."

It’s things like this that makes the French people such an easy target for comedy. You can’t make this stuff up, folks.


More bad news for Gore

I don’t know why I have to continually come back to this subject. I suppose it’s just compulsive. Or, perhaps it’s due to the non-stop hype surrounding the Church of Global Warming. With all of the religious indoctrination taking place in the media, it’s important to balance the fantasy with reality. So, once again, I have some bad news for the Global Warming believers.

James Taylor, with the Heartland Institute, wrote a piece for the Chicago Sun-Times. In his article, he calls on Al Gore to practice what he preaches – honesty.

In the book, “The Assault on Reason,” Al Gore writes:

“We must stop tolerating the rejection and distortion of science. We must insist on an end to the cynical use of pseudo-studies known to be false for the purpose of intentionally clouding the public's ability to discern the truth.”

Based on this passage, you would assume that Al Gore would be willing to issue immediate corrections if scientific studies refuted many of the points that he made in his documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth.” Well, scientific studies have done just that. Have you heard Al Gore admit flaws or scientific distortions in his film? I haven’t.

In his article, James Taylor points out many of the studies that are in direct contrast too many of the claims in “An Inconvenient Truth.” Read on:

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.

Will Gore offer retractions or corrections for these points? Will he admit that the science in his film was distorted “for the purpose of intentionally clouding the public's ability to discern the truth?”

Don’t hold your breath.