I bet all those think tanks hold special seminars on sleeping at night. Otherwise, I don't know how they'd do it.

This indeed an apt criterion for arrival.  Still, although you didn't equate Inhofe with holocaust deniers, it is my long-held belief that we would all be better off abstaining from WWII as a means of hyperbole, a vice we liberals succumb to all too often.

Today, I have the dubious honor of being the target of one of these attacks. Not a dubious honor at all, David,. To be attacked by Inhofe and bracketed with Al Gore is a high honor.

even though you've got excellent points to make about the cynical manner in which industry and certain politicians on the right have deliberately tried to manipulate the science and public opinion to block open and honest policy discussions.

Now that you have the attention of the right (and probably others as well), may I suggest that you take maximum advantage of it?  This might entail discussing not merely the deliberate efforts at manipulation, but the elements of human cognition that makes denial of climate change so seductive and simple.  Didn't you indicate yourself in a recent post that Sen. Inhofe appears to be a true believer in his own position?  With a little more follow up, you can make them question their own denial and make it more difficult for them to sell denial to others - as Morano is already trying to turn you into a poster boy of the oppressive, radical left.

There is an advantage here to be pressed - as more and more the right sounds like whiners who can dish out the name-calling but find it unfair when they themselves are under attack.

You might find useful discussion of these matters at RP Jr's blog (especially on the RS letter and on the term "climate change denier"), although discussion there is more focussed on the perceptions of the poor oppressed, dissenting scientists, rather than on the deliberate abuse of the science by certain industrial and commercial interests.

I think that we all have problems keeping our minds open, and that our penchant for falling into opposing "camps" is very much at play and part of the problem.  But that said, you've got the quickly changing climate, the IPCC and all of the intermediate science on your side, against a narrowing group of iconoclasts.

To TariffDude:

Since I recently offended David Roberts himself with an ill-advised and "malodorous" reference to the Holocaust, it is only right and just that I defend his WWII usage in this case.

The moral imagery of WWII is vivid for many Americans.  It is easily re-utilized as a system of eloquent metaphors, to explain many matters of large and deep import.

It is certainly not true that only we liberals succumb to the "vice" (if it is that) of introducing WWII vocabulary too provocatively into our discourse.  (And I know, you did not exactly say that, you did not say "only.")  Consider how George W. Bush and his cohorts and allies have recently been using the term "fascism."  The effect has been more inflammatory apparently than anything any liberal's recent reference to WWII may have caused.

The basic moral significance of the trial of war criminals at Nuremberg, most simply understood, is that for self-serving reasons, some people cooperate in a system that they know will bring about the undeserved suffering and death of many others.

I think it is perfectly fair to say that the doubt-sowers, regarding both the dangers of tobacco and global warming, can be likened to the war criminals at Nuremberg, with respect to the trial's basic moral significance.

If it is true that Senator Inhofe from Mongo sincerely doubts that global warming is happening, then perhaps his responsibility is less.  Not certainly, only perhaps.  But there are plenty of others, much more learned in the sciences than he, who ought to know better.

To Biodiv:

"Bang, one foot shot clean through" is one of the greatest things you have ever written, style-wise.  And, alas, it might turn out to be true, if you mean that Gristmill will henceforth be hectored by Inhofe's and Morano's allies.

Chickens are our cousins! So are other sensitive animals! Enough is enough! No more factory farms!

A more appropriate historical analogy would be the trials of Galileo by the Catholic Church.  The goal is to silence all heretics to the Green (global warming) religion.  How else can environmental "morality" be maintained?  The proper beliefs must be forced upon those who are less enlightened.  Let's face it, people are stupid. Unless they are told what to do and what to think, they will do what ever they want.  Threat of punishment is the only thing that will keep them in line.

What a lovely phrase. It conjures up fainting couches and lace hankies, fluttering in the ceiling-fan breeze.

Congratulations David - it's always a good day when your enemies hate you.  Clearly, you're work is paying dividends.  I suggest you ask Chip for a raise.  

As for Mr. Morano, the "attack" was a bit weak, no? I expect more gnashing of teeth, renting of garments, foaming at the mouth.  Perhaps he is not eating his Wheaties.

Kaela

From the Blogs for Bush (could you think of a worse name for a blog??):

It is an asinine proposal from a man who clearly has some pyschological, spiritual and moral issues to work out - but it is typical of leftwing thinking these days. Here in a nutshell is all the narrow minded, hate-filled bigotry of the left - a mindset which holds that opposition to leftist opinion isn't just wrong, but is deliberately evil. In this poor man's line of thinking, it isn't just a difference of opinion on global warming, but that those of a different opinion are deliberately and with malice aforethought sabotaging efforts to halt global warming.

The more I see and hear the left these days, the more in favor of socialised medicine I become - its the only way I can think of to pay for the massive amount of pyschological counseling it will take to bring these people back to reality.

David, you are a "narrow-minded, hate-filled bigot" with "pyschological, spiritual and moral issues to work out." Huzzah!

The controversy over WWII analogies is over style, not substance. Frankly at this point, I welcome just about any debate. If we have to debate over style, then fine, because the debate over the substance won't be far behind. And they will lose hands down on that one, especially if they're debating someone as capable as David Roberts.

And I think Roger Pielke is being overly sensitive with his nitpicking the term "climate change denialists". If we can't use that term in this case, when can we, Dr. Pielke? If you argue that there's hyperbole involved, I think the denialists can take it. Again, the CEI can spend some of its copious resources helping their fellows process their grief over being labeled "denialists" or whatever.  

Denialism, Nuremburg, these are hyperbolic, but they're appropriate. You could argue over how hyperbolic, but then you have to get into matters of substance. If they want to debate that substance, please do. In prime time. With Inhofe and David Roberts as talking heads, any day of the week.

This is much better than an (ig)Nobel prize---it's a gift that keeps giving! Congratulations, all 'round. Make the most of it.

"A pedantic person cannot be enlightened by universal truth." _Michael Levy

In Love & Joy Michael Levy. Professional Optimist

along with the fainting couches and lace hankies, we must all murmur "Dear me, I have the vapors!"

I'm a noncomformist, just like everybody else ....

I don't really surf that much or read alot of blogs.  After linking to Neal Boortz and the Bush Blog, I'm blown away.  

So their strategy is to take an off-the-cuff blog comment and spin it into a full-blown story demanding we arrest people who deny Global Warming.  That's twisted in so many ways.

Maybe Dave could have phrased his sentiment better, but I totally understand his frustration.  And now he's the new target of this hate-filled crowd.  

I may never read another blog.

Aunt Phyllis

   David, not only are you attacked, but you have a crowd!!

   Letterman will be calling, the Daily show will be next....

patrick (remember us when you get your Oscar for best blog!)

You can tell because he uses the most capital letters.

www.grist.org

Truebeliever, don't listen to us talk, listen to the National Academy of Scientists, who were convened by the White House to study this issue:

Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising.

In science, it doesn't get much more clear than that.

I agree with senator Inhofe's Republican colleagues. The senator needs to study the issue before making remarks that mislead the country.

I, like most, receive lots of spam. It gets deleted right away. Today, though, a subject line caught my eye. Did it promise me CHE@P MEDS!!! No. Did it promise to enl@rge my member? No. (God, no.) It was spelled correctly, written in regular, lower case letters, grammatically correct, and did not contain any spurious ??? or !!!.

I almost kept it.