Based on what I'm hearing about Oklahoma's acceptance of the other controversial sciences, such as the "question" of evolution, I believe Inhofe is doing an excellent job of representing his state.

Unfortunately.

Actually, and utmost tragically, that Ameche meme is not Inhofe, that's the whole god damn planet, thanks greatly to Inhofe and his more reasonable colleagues on both side of the clown car aisle.

Hint: They all tolerate his insanity because they don't have the courage (and decency) to do anything about it and they aren't insane, and they know at least a little better than Inhofe what is really happening.

a claim that's patently ridiculous.

"Patently ridiculous" is also a perfect way to describe James Inhofe.

I'm from Oklahoma and I have called his office and begged him not to run again. He is as much an embarrassment as Tom Coburn. I am thinking of leaving Oklahoma just to get away from these right wing crazies.

You know I'm sure that there are some great people and smart people in Oklahoma but have you ever driven through the place. There are more porn shops and churches scattered around that state than anyplace on earth. I'm not sure what it says about Oklahomans but maybe it explains Inhofe.

Small quibble: Ameche was screaming about turning the stock exchange trading machines not voting machines.

If a scientist has requested Inhoffe strike their name from his list and he refuses and is misrepresenting them, isn't that grounds for a lawsuit?

Um, the percentage of Americans who believe the earth is getting warmer is down 20 points in the past three years, according to Pew. The crazies are making pretty big gains. It's not just Inhofe.

Small quibble: Ameche was screaming to have the stock exchange machines turned back not voting machines.

Inhofe is a non-factor in The climate change debate. Lomborg on the other hand is a voice that is fueling a lot of these voices. He is a real pain in the ass, as he has some actual scientific cred.

... and dana milbank is still a heavyweight contender for the nobel arrogant asshole prize.

just sayin...

If even David Vitter can see, in a dim, confused way, the writing on the wall.... well, poor Jimmy Inhofe must feel like the last dinosaur to walk with Jesus....

Inhofe distilled

Corrupted software running on corrupted hardware.

Most of Inhofe's compadres have merely switched from outright denial mode to 'it's going to cost too much' mode. Exact same position just a different tack. I guess Jimmy volunteered to stay behind and hold down the first line of defense, giving cover, while his buddies hurry to set up the second line.

Small quibble: Ameche was screaming about turning the stock exchange trading machines not voting machines.

Um, right. Steve was using the Ameche example as the basis for a joke, not as a parallel-in-every-detail analogy.

So if fire chiefs told Sen. Alexander that his house was about to burn down, he'd buy some fire insurance?

This explains so much on so many levels.

More Trading Places references please. For the next farm bill: "What do those stupid old ethanol subsidies have to do with mumsy's party?"

I took the time, once, long ago, to look through Inhofe's list of "experts". I am not a climate scientist; but am a practicing physical/chemical scientist. On that list are many TV weathermen, and women - - few if any, are anything more that weather readers 2-4 times/day. There are a number of engineers, and physical scientists, but NOT climate researchers, and some mathematics and statistics types. Most of them [and a few I even know} are WAY WAY out of their league in the statements they make. I don't expect climate scientists to make definitive statements about earthquakes; conversely, I make no statements about climate.

But sadly, polls show that the public's support for the idea of AGW is going down. No, Inhofe is not the last flat-earther. There are plenty of them - the scoffers have been well-funded and working hard.

We need more people explaining why recent cooling (such as it is ... or isn't) is no big deal. Try saying: "A person who thinks a ten-year cooling trend casts doubt on AGW is like a person who thinks a ten-day cooler spell in May casts doubt on the effect of axis tilt on the seasons." (And there's stock market comparisons, etc.) Also, risk avoidance does not require the intuitive 50% chance of being true, to warrant defensive action.

Give Inhofe credit, he's from an oil state and he's advocating his constituents' interests down to his last breath. He's even willing to look dumb as a bag of rocks to make his case.

Something else coming down the pike for Oklahomans -- I just saw a segment on BBC that focused on a 2006 UN Food and Agriculture Organization report documenting that worldwide livestock farming generates 18 percent of the planet's greenhouse gas emissions, 5 percentage points more than the 13% accounted for by all of the world's cars, planes, trains and boats.

The reason the livestock industry's greenhouse gas emissions are so high is that first, forested land is cleared for cattle grazing or for agricultural operations that generate livestock feed. Then there’s the methane emitted by burping (and farting) cows and the nitrous oxide in their manure. And finally there are the energy costs associated with slaughtering the cows and transporting the meat.

If I were James Inhofe I would start working on my broccoli stimulus bill.

pj in jesusland wrote: "I just saw a segment on BBC that focused on a 2006 UN Food and Agriculture Organization report documenting that worldwide livestock farming generates 18 percent of the planet's greenhouse gas emissions ..."

According to a new study published by WorldWatch Institute, raising animals for food generates more than half of all anthropogenic GHG emissions:

The environmental impact of the lifecycle and supply chain of animals raised for food has been vastly underestimated, and in fact accounts for at least half of all human-caused greenhouse gases (GHGs), according to Robert Goodland and Jeff Anhang, co-authors of "Livestock and Climate Change".

A widely cited 2006 report by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, Livestock's Long Shadow, estimates that 18 percent of annual worldwide GHG emissions are attributable to cattle, buffalo, sheep, goats, camels, pigs, and poultry. But recent analysis by Goodland and Anhang finds that livestock and their byproducts actually account for at least 32.6 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year, or 51 percent of annual worldwide GHG emissions.

Meanwhile, British Lord Stern, former chief economist of the World Bank, currently a professor at the London School of Economics, and author of a 2006 study of the economic costs and benefits of addressing anthropogenic global warming, stressed the importance of vegetarian diets for reducing GHG emissions in an interview published this week: "Meat is a wasteful use of water and creates a lot of greenhouse gases. It puts enormous pressure on the world’s resources. A vegetarian diet is better."

Secular Animist Returns!

"I'm from Oklahoma and I have called his office and begged him not to run again. He is as much an embarrassment as Tom Coburn. I am thinking of leaving Oklahoma just to get away from these right wing crazies."

I sympathize. BTW - Don't drive south!

"More Trading Places references please." - Rob

I'll bet you a dollar I can get rich while destroying the country at the same time! - Roger Ailes

Yes, Inhofe is a tragic Don Ameche indeed.

Steve:
So if fire chiefs told Sen. Alexander that his house was about to burn down, he'd buy some fire insurance?

This explains so much on so many levels.

Yes, it's unintentionally revealing about the meaning of "the science isn't settled" argument -- that argument is equivalent to arguing that you don't have fire insurance because you aren't sure that your house is going to burn down. It's rare that one of them admits it, though.

Animist:

"A widely cited 2006 report by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, Livestock's Long Shadow, estimates that 18 percent of annual worldwide GHG emissions are attributable to cattle, buffalo, sheep, goats, camels, pigs, and poultry. But recent analysis by Goodland and Anhang finds that livestock and their byproducts actually account for at least 32.6 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year, or 51 percent of annual worldwide GHG emissions."

I do believe in worldwide climate change and that it is at least partially anthropogenic. However, I have a question about the above. We have been raising livestock for 1000s of years. So either raising livestock does NOT account for more than 50% of the climate change, or it's not the raising per se, but the methods for doing so, particularly reliance on heavy mechanical equipment. Reliance on petrochemicals for pest control could also contribute. Thus, I'm somewhat skeptical about the estimates from the WorldWatch Institute.

At least the world is relatively flat in OK.

Wolfdaughter wrote: "We have been raising livestock for 1000s of years."

Raising livestock on a large scale has repeatedly caused degradation and destruction of ecosystems all over the world, throughout human history.

And the scale of modern livestock production is unprecedented in human history. In the USA alone, more than NINE BILLION animals are slaughtered for food every single year, according to USDA figures. Animal agriculture on that scale has only been practiced for decades, not millennia.

Wolfdaughter wrote: "I'm somewhat skeptical about the estimates from the WorldWatch Institute."

Have you actually read the study? If so, please explain the flaws that you have found in the estimates. Or are you "skeptical" of the estimates simply because they are not in accord with your preexisting beliefs?

SecularAnimist, You're back! You were missed.