Christ, what a farrago of obfuscation. If Inhofe did not agree with your ideological predilections, you would rightly condemn that speech as the utterly bankrupt, misleading, crass piece of political gamesmanship that it is. But he does, so you give him a pass. James Inhofe is your scientific hero. Doesn't that give you pause? Don't you worry about being so predictable?

Well if I was an Assistant Editor at Grist, Mr. Roberts, at least I'd have the decency to point it out when I put up a flame about predictability.

Why? I'm not speaking for Grist, or in my capacity as an editor there.

Mr. Roberts, I personally don't care if you speak for Grist here or not, but at least you could identify yourself rather than hiding behind a psuedonym ('Realish'--give me a break)--otherwise nobody knows per-se if your comments are remotely credible or the ranting of a lunatic. At least if you identify yourself we can evaluate that question on the merits of what you say. Anonymity is fine in some cases, but does come with some responsibility.

Tom, I'm confused. If my comment was tagged "Dave Roberts," how would that help you assess its credibility? In particular, how would that help you "evaluate the question on the merits"? What do the merits have to do with my name, or where I work?

As an illustration, I'm pretty sure I could have identified the absurdity of Inhofe's speech even without knowing who gave it.

Mr. Roberts, in blogging, anonymity is usually the first shelter of those who have less than honorable motives as has been recently shown in the Dean Campaign revelations...certainly, not all psuedonyms are sinister, but all sinisters will take a psuedonym.

Tom