OFA Takes on the Denialists

(Seen via Maddowblog.)

I've noticed that I've been blogging this past week just a bit more about the climate change denialists--partly because I think it is true that congresscritters go back to their districts to reinforce whatever absurdities they originally spouted to get themselves into office in the first place, but also because I think that the "Just raising questions" or "But the argument could be made" lines of discussing the actual science are chock full of holes and need to be put away.  For the most part, denialists are raising questions that have either already been answered, or that aren't relevant to the broader question of "What is happening to the environment and what can we do about it?" Also, just because a given argument can be made, doesn't mean it is necessarily any good. I can argue that Jim Inhofe is an outer space alien. It might not be a great argument, but I can argue it. That does not mean that we have a controversy where Jim Inhofe is really to be considered an ET until more information comes in.

A lot of time and effort and money goes into the denialist line, but ultimately, is is wasted time, effort, and money. If the planet is warming (and it is) just saying it isn't won't change anything. Although the people who have decided to make inane statements about cow farts and sun spots and claim warming is great for the plants may find that the opinion people have of them is definitely subject to some changes.