"It's the closest I've ever seen to a cat's looking like Winston Churchill," says Tuck re the Babe, foreground in the Bachrach-like sibling portrait above, with Tiny's Madame Thatcher in the background.
"More cat pictures please!" emails the totally awesome Rick Moran of Rightwing Nuthouse. We'd asked him in his comments why he doesn't approve of one of our own heroes, Senator Inhofe -- blogged here. Here's what we wrote:
Inhofe made a lot of sense at the hearings -- and in things I’ve read at his web site . . . What is your problem with him?
Here's what Rick wrote back:
Calling global warming "the greatest hoax perpetrated on the American people" is thoughtless, irrational, and just plain wrong.
The most respected climate scientists, atmospheric physicists, environmental scientists from several disciplines on the planet -- all say that to one degree or another, the earth is warming and man is partly responsible. To refer to these people as hoaxers is not being serious and smears them unnecessarily.
As I made clear in the article, I am not convinced myself. But I respect the views and research of people who know a helluva lot more about the subject than I do -- or Inhofe for that matter.
Good points. Our reply:
In my view to say the earth is in a warming phase -- a factual statement -- and that man is partly responsible is a far cry from Gore's hysterical "the earth has a fever," we are the deadly germ and we must increase the size of government to show we care.
Therefore I found Inhofe's performance at Wednesday's hearing -- among a herd of lock-step fellow Senators pandering to Mr. Gore -- a refreshing voice in the wilderness. Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.
Your essay at The American Thinker ["Poiliticizing Science," a must read] on the subject is outstanding!
It's hard to separate the legitimate science of climate change from the hysterics like Gore (and others who stand to benefit enormously by the crackdown on industry and western industrial supremacy). It's just that Inhofe's denial that anything about global warming research is true makes him look silly. Debunking the irrational is one thing. Denying the tons of research that shows there is a problem is quite another.
Nice to have a worthy debater to present both sides of the debate for a change. 'Reminds us of that Colorado sixth-grade class that had a classic debate pro and con and voted that global warming is not caused by humans. Reading through the story -- linked by Drudge -- we were wicked impressed with the teacher's pedagogical methods until we learned at the end of the article that paleontology teacher Ken Poppe doesn't “believe in Darwinism either, but I can argue it as well as any Darwinist.” How can a paleontologist not be a Darwinist? Maybe it depends upon what your definition of Darwinism is?