First to the protesters trying to kick Raytheon out of Bristol and spending the period on a roof - a big thanks you and best wishes for your tenacious and inspiring actions.
Second a big well-done to the Bristol Blogger and other local bloggers for the plaudits achieved and recognition gained, it is well deserved, even if it does come from the old-media-in-eclipse.
Third a 'well done' to the new AnarchoBlog's new aggregator. Looks cool!
Fourth to the denialists of global warming, who along with the creationists, give me much enjoyable reading on the net. Sadly the quality of their debate has degenerated of late in to simply making claims without even the pretence of evidence. But I guess that was inevitable as the evidence for their 'cause' is simply no longer there. I did write about the similarity between the two before and I'm not the only one who thinks so....
Inhofe's list of 650 scientists that supposedly dispute the consensus on AGW reminded me of another list: The Discovery Institute's list of scientists who dissent from Darwinism, so I thought I'd compare the two lists.
First, numbers. The Discovery Institute's list has 751 names, while Inhofe's has only 604. (Not "More Than 650" as he claims -- there are many names appearing more than once.)
Second, how do you get on the list? Well, you have to sign up to get on the Discovery Institute's list, but Inhofe will add you to his list if he thinks you're disputing the global warming consensus and he won't take you off, even if you tell him to do so. Yes, there is someone less honest than the Discovery Institute.
Third, what sort of scientists are on the lists? Well, the Discovery Institute list has a distinct shortage of biologists, while Inhofe's is lacking in climate scientists. It does have a lot of meteorologists, but these are people who present weather forecasts on TV, not scientists who study climate.
Fourth, who is on both lists? There are five names, and two are from the University of Oklahoma.
Both are ideologies that have a set conclusion they then seek to 'prove' (the opposite of what science should be) both are pointless to argue against as they can never admit they are wrong and there is no evidence you can present that will sway them (see previous ideological point), both fight their battles with obfuscation 'cos they cannot win with the science, both claim there is a real debate to be had (there is just not where they are...) and both are funded by right-wing think tanks. Separated at birth? I think so.