Does anyone have a citation for the Nature article that Mr. Inhofe was talking about?

Senator Imhofe does not accept that the United States is a secular nation, as illustrated in his comments regarding global warming. Why would we mess with God's work? He is another illustration of the three Stooges running for the GOP's nomination. Karl Rove wanted a permanent majority of the GOP....of these clowns? I don't think this is what our Founders imagined.

There's a problem when you call Nature Magazine "a very liberal publication, or a publication on your side". It's a reflection of Senator Inhofe's thinking to accuse science of having a liberal bias.

Rachel, you know the question about the igloo chapter was designed to catch you in a lie that you didn't really read his book, and thus reduce your credibility, don't you?

Rachel, you know Mr. Inhofe's question about the igloo chapter in his book was designed to catch you in a lie and thus reduce your credibility (as you said you read the whole book), don't you? Unfortunately you spoiled the fun by knowing about the chapter. I thought his disappointment was palpable. Crafty fox, Mr. Inhofe.

A US Department of Health and Human Services spokesperson told reporters on Thursday that the Obama administration's hands are tied on the issue. “Medicaid law is very clear; a state may not restrict patients’ choice of providers of services like mammograms and other cancer screenings, if those providers are qualified to deliver care covered by Medicaid. Patients, not state government officials, should be able to choose the doctors and other health care providers that are best for them and their families. In 2005, Texas requested this same authority to restrict patients’ choices, and the Bush Administration did not grant it to them either.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/15/texas-loses-entire-womens_n_1349431.html?1331847590

I was curious to know whether Mr. Inhofe's publication references (Financial Times, Newsweek, etc.) were published before or after the release of the various reports Rachel mentioned that cleared the institution.

Also, I don't think Mr. Inhofe was claiming that Michael Moore et al had more money than the oil companies, but rather that the liberal side had spent more money on the issue than the conservative side had, so it seemed like maybe Rachel missed the point there. He wasn't saying that environmental groups *had* more money, only that they *spent* more on promoting their side of this issue.

Nevertheless... good show!

On further reflection regarding the Inhofe interview, I think Inhofe is the perfect embodiment of the conservative id. He believes what he believes, and will believe it more if confronted with inconvenient facts. No reasoned debate is actually possible, and there is actually no value in trying - because in the end it is a he said she said thing and no light is shed on the subject being discussed.

Rachel did a perfectly acceptable job, and the interview was quite civil (other than the Uganda moment), but there is no positive purpose to this. A platform is provided to a man who believes things that are not true, but is an expert at presenting his position in a manner that may convince some that there is a debate here. The only people who are actually qualified to debate this topic are scientists who work in and are actually publishing in the field. And the ratio of access to the media should be proportional to the level of consensus within the field.

One thing that's important to understand while watching the Inhoffe interview is that in Oklahoma, the word "Liberal" is considered an insult. When Inhoffe keeps hammering that Rachel etc are "liberals," he's basically dropping the L-bomb intentionally. I mean, he even goes on to describe how "some of his best friends are liberal" and go out of his way to say that he likes Rachel (even though she's a liberal). It doesn't really matter too much that Rachel's core audience doesn't consider the word Liberal to be that scandalous, but it really helps you to understand the headspace that Inhoffe is working in during the interview.

This guy is crafty as a fox. He didn't really answer the Uganda question, did he, and reverted immediatly to playing the victim. Wow, I learned a few VERY good tricks, by parrying, and not answering direct questions. And shifting the issues, very quick, and using his family. THis guy is really a toad....but ya can't help but like him. And yas, he wants the gays to die. Sorry.