Word choice–that Achilles heel of many a politician–evidently applies, also, to scientific argument. If you want Sen. Jim Inhofe to take another look at global warming, for God’s sake, don’t call it “global warming.”

That’s the finding in a new study by the University of Michigan. The paper says, in part:

“Republicans were less likely to endorse that the phenomenon is real when it was referred to as ‘global warming’ (44.0%) rather than ‘climate change’ (60.2%), whereas Democrats were unaffected by question wording (86.9% vs. 86.4%). As a result, the partisan divide on the issue dropped from 42.9 percentage points under a ‘global warming’ frame to 26.2 percentage points under a ‘climate change’ frame.”

Could this mean that Americans are, in fact, less polarized by the issue than pols on either side appear to believe? As long as there is campaign money to be raised on the issue, don’t count on cooperative language.

Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) does not believe in global warming. He will not take it from the EPA. He will not take it any day. He would not take it from a pup. He would not go to a markup… All right, so our meter is slightly off. But Inhofe (an old pal of ours, as you can see here, here and here) might have shown the maturity of the average Seussian reader when he refused to attend the markup of the Senate climate bill in the Environment and Public Works committee.

I will not attend your global warming meeting, James I am

Committee chairwoman Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) can’t hold the markup unless at least two GOP senators are present. And this is where Inhofe—who says a real economic analysis of the bull hasn’t been completed—was able to rally all of his fellow Republicans to boycott the meeting (Sen. George Voinovich’s 15-minute appearance hardly counted).

It could be said that Inhofe is simply doing a grand job of representing his constituents. Or perhaps he is taking a cue from the bully wing of  his party, which is making it more difficult for moderates (those who play well with others) to serve even in moderate districts.

We were unable to find out for sure. Senator Inhofe declined to comment on this story.

- Michele Mitchell

America’s just burning to break its oil addiction but can’t figure out how. (We’d turn to Sen. James Inhofe, but he declined to comment on this story.)

For one thing, there’s a lot that Republican lawmakers oppose in the recently passed Boxer-Kerry climate bill, which proposes carbon emission limits and supports clean energy alternatives. However, it occurred to us there’s one thing that might just draw the dysfunctional congressional family together – nuclear energy.

In its current form, the proposal contains relatively little nuclear support. But with a number of on-the-fence Republicans being big nuclear proponents – and President Obama hoping for a bill passed before an international climate conference in Copenhagen this winter – critics have floated the option that Obama might lean a little nuclear if it meant getting a bill out of the gate.

There are already other players in the nuclear space. As we covered in an earlier post, Russia is developing floating nuclear generators that make the energy highly accessible – and relatively cheap. South Africa and others have been developing so-called “pebble bed” reactors – with a smaller size and revamped, safer cooling system. No surprise, then, that tech-savvy American companies want in on the action too. For example, Santa Fe-based Hyperion Power Generation is developing hot tub-sized nuclear “power modules” that would cost as little as $25 million and could be on the market by 2013.

But what about the nasty waste? That issue’s a bit more dicey. In the face of stark local opposition, the Yucca Mountain project in Nevada is dead in the water – in fact, Yucca funds have reportedly been cut out of the 2011 federal fiscal budget.

However, that doesn’t mean Nevada’s anti-nuclear power. Last month Jon Hickman, mayor of White Pine County in Nevada which neighbors Yucca, made an announcement that raised some eyebrows. He proposed forming a steering committee to examine – what do you know – the construction of a new nuclear power plant.

- Ivan Weiss

Our hearts beat as one...