Gavin Schmidt reviews Inhofe's last Senate hearing on climate change, which starred Bob "global warming ended in 1998" Carter.
Kevin Grandia also says good bye.
And while I'm posting links: Nexus 6 catches NSW politician Jon Jenkins peddling Peiser's discredited criticism of Oreskes and Eli Rabett goes the extra mile on Khilyuk and Chilingar, not just showing how wrong they are, but also explaining where all the outgassed CO2 went.
More like this
Senator Inhofe (R, Exxon) has responded to the AP story on how top climate researchers say Gore got it right. Drudge pimped the response, so it's all over the place now.
Inhofe's press release starts with a straight lie:
AP INCORRECTLY CLAIMS SCIENTISTS PRAISE GORE'S MOVIE
Top climate researchers…
In comments to my post at On Line Opinion Graham Young declares that it is his "dispassionate assessment" as the editor of On Line Opinion that I am "deeply dishonest" for stating that Peiser admitted his analysis was full of errors. Here are the relevant bits of the exchange (links added), with…
I agree with Barry Brook that Ian Plimer's approach to climate science in Heaven Earth is unscientific. He starts with his conclusion that there is no "evidential basis" that humans have caused recent warming and that the theory that humans can create global warming
is contrary to validated…
Schulte has published a reply to Oreskes' response. While Schulte claims not to be a contrarian, Kevin Grandia has been looking at his links with Christopher Monckton. Meanwhile, John Lynch posts on Shulte's reply and commenter "Chris" (who is, I suspect, Christopher Monckton) threatens lawsuits…
While Inhofe may be losing his megaphone, I'd still keep the bingo board handy.
Like Zombies, these people have a way of returning just when you thought they had been vanquished. (You have to cut off their heads to make them go away for good, if I am not mistaken)
[Inhofe's last salvo](http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=266711).
Ah JB, you first have to cut off their tongues and then bury them at a cross-roads at midnight.
According to the definitive source on Zombies (Night of the Living Dead"), cutting off the head would probably be categorized as "overkilling a Zombie", but it would do the trick nonetheless.
Killing a Zombie
1. Zombies can be killed by a bullet or sharp blow to the head. "Kill the brain, and you kill the ghoul".
http://ericlathrop.com/notld/
Then again, perhaps Inhofe is not a Zombie after all. By the above definition, he would already be dead.
Perhaps some Zombiologist (?) can shed further light on this conundrum.
Just so there's no confusion, I meant that by the definition, Inhofe would already be "dead dead" -- not "living dead".
"cutting off the head would probably be categorized as "overkilling a Zombie""
Not at all, the official governnment prescription from Night of the living Dead is "...removing the head or destroying the brain".
Of course, we might be dealing here not with Romero-Zombies (Night of the Living Dead)but with Raimi-Zombies (Army of Darkness) in which case the only effective remedy is to destroy the Book of the Dead - in this case that probably equates to the original text of the Oregon Petition.
Thanks Ian for that clarification. You clearly know more about Zombies than I.
I have always wondered whence the term Dead Head.
I guess these are all former Zombies?
Nope, the Dead Heads just liked to wear Jerry Garcia ties around their necks.
The above comments are an impressive display of reasoned rational discussion about the issues. NOT!
This sort of discussion can only damage the Anthropogenic Global Warming cause. Please lift your game, and deal with the science. Please.
The reason I think I may agree with Concerned of Berkeley is that CoB has me smiling harder than have the rest of you knuckleheads ... :)