It's by Michael Mann and others. Sorry, but I'm a bit skeptical of anything by Mann.
I'm more than a bit skeptical of anything that Sen. Inhofe says about climate, so we're even. But why not evaluate the content and not the author? Compare and contrast what RealClimate says to other statements on the same subjects. Examine the expertise of those making the statements. (Argument from authority is precarious, but I'd probably be a little more respectful of statement about climate change from someone trained in a relevant discipline than a proctologist.) Examine potential biases and their likely influence. Etc.
That, after all, is what intellectual inquiry entails. Shooting the messenger doesn't accomplish much in the way of knowledge acquisition.
Inhofe provided a lot of content to evaluate. I've already done that for a lot of the subjects he touches on. I've concluded what I need to conclude about Inhofe's grasp of the subject and his potential biases.