I understood last week that Inhofe was going to come on TRMS sometime soon. I looked at that passage he was quoting and I don't understand how he can construct a good faith argument around it.

I don't know if anyone remembers their Sunday school or are familiar enough with the Noah story, but this comes out of the part where God makes a covenant with Man that he shall not attempt to destroy the world again.

Will Inhofe state his charge for the record: that climate scientists are asserting is that the world will be destroyed?

Inhofe: Well actually the Genesis 8:22 that I use in there is that ‘as long as the earth remains there will be seed time and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, day and night,’ my point is, God’s still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous. (source)

If Inhofe acknowledges that climate science is not claiming the world will end, then let's pin down he thinks climate scientists are claiming the bible passage is lying about?

• No more "Seed time and harvest"? Nonsense. Climate change will not stop seed time and harvest- they will be at different times, and some breadbasket regions will be turned to deserts without substantial irrigation.
• No more "cold and heat"? Nonsense. The ranges of cold and heat will shift upward in some regions and downward in others (Europe due to failure of the gulf stream bringing warm waters north).
• No more "winter and summer"? Poppeycock. Climate change states there will be more severe winters in some places. In others, the winter will be more like winters in southern states.

Inhofe is attempting to mischaracterize what climate change is claiming so that he can suggest that it is unchristian to believe in the science.

Science does in fact conflict with this passage, but it isn't climate science, but nuclear science. Inhofe claims it is an example of lack of humility to believe that mankind can change climate. Oh? Does he deny that nuclear weapons could destroy all human life on earth? Does he think that somehow Genesis 8:22 means that God won't allow us to destroy life on the planet with nuclear weapons?

Is it unchristian "arrogance" to believe that nuclear arms threaten human extinction?

Inhofe is trying to use the Bible as a blunt object to hammer his political opponents. It might be better to open it up and read it rather than throw it at people. Much earlier in Genesis, scripture tells us we must be good stewards of the earth. Being good stewards means taking responsibility for and understanding the effects of our actions. We are pumping enormous amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, and God gave us the gift of intelligence to understand what effect this will have on the global climate. Inhofe stays we should decline to be good stewards, that we should decline to use God's gifts to be good stewards.

This doesn't make Inhofe a bad Christian. It makes him someone who is making a particular representation of the Bible for the political advantage of oil company interests. Subverting the Christian message for this purpose is simply reprehensible.

Actually, Inhofe forgot about the passage that speaks about "man, being a good steward over the land"! But then again he is a GOPer, so he picks & chooses whatever he does manage to read to suit his position.....

Speaking of slutty talking, I wonder if anyone can set me straight on a euphemism being used on air. I know what the C word is, but what on earth is the T word? As in, they called Jane Fonda the C word and T word. Of course I get it if they were talking about her Ts but calling her a T? I guess I am just being dumb.

What does the T word rhyme with?

Tranny, short for transvestite. This might help you understand:

Op-ed: The T-word hasn't changed, we have http://www.advocate.com/Politics/Commentary/Oped_The_T_Word_Hasnt_Changed_We_Have/

I do not buy it.

I think "T" is for traitor.

I'm ol enough to remember what she was called and tranny doesn't fit

You're right. Jane Fonda is certainly no transvestite, and the use of "T" as a slur against her does seem out of place. However, I was answering his query about what the "T" represents as it might be interpreted today.