Talk:Jim Inhofe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

This page is about an active politician who is running for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

Jim Inhofe is part of WikiProject U.S. Congress, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the United States Congress. You can help by editing this article. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject U.S. Congress articles.

	This article is part of WikiProject Oklahoma, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Oklahoma.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid	This article is of Mid-importance within WikiProject Oklahoma.

Contents 1 Inhofe's college education 2 External Links 3 bias in the article 4 Recent edits by Protector67/68.230.183.51 5 Global Warming 6 Request for Comment 7 Lead Section 8 Holocaust Denier? 9 Anyone know where he lives, how much energy his house uses? 10 Non-reversal

[edit] Inhofe's college education

From the main article:
"Inhofe received a B.A. from the University of Tulsa in 1973, at the age of 38."
and
"He was a member of the Oklahoma House of Representatives from 1967 to 1969, and a member of the Oklahoma Senate from 1969 until 1977..."

Was Inhofe a college student while he was a state senator? How could he be a full-time legislator and pursue a college degree on a full-time basis? Or did he start his education earlier and only finish in 1973? Poldy Bloom 04:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know the answer, but it appears that the Oklahoma legislature is not a full-tim job. See Oklahoma_Legislature#Term. -Will Beback 04:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe a lot of state legislature jobs are part-time. I know Texas is that way. Littleman TAMU 18:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Being a member of the Oklahoma Legislature is NOT a full-time job; back then, the Legislature typically met from January to about the middle of June (and Monday through Thursday; the Legislature always gave itself a three day weekend). Today, Oklahoma's Legislature is limited to meeting from February to the last Friday in May (at 5 pm). Oklahoman and Wikipedia user ProfessorPaul 03:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

who gives a shit? he's a stupid white supremacist moron anyhow. The way he violates the seperation of Church and State is enough reason to remove him from office forcefully. He is just as bad as any terrorist, and men like him are part of the same circle of suffering that the terrorists belong to. They compliment eachother, and as long as they do, citizens will never be free. If he wants to preach, he should take his ass to church. My country is not your alter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.255.91.210 (talk) 02:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] External Links

I removed the link to the counterpunch.org article as it violates the reliable source criteria by having an extreme bias. Littleman TAMU 18:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the Counterpunch article in wikipedia, it's not that clear to me why you think the publication is automatically to be considered unreliable. Would you mind citing the exact words in the wikipedia policy that you're referring to, and then an authoritative source that shows Counterpunch does not meet the policy? John Broughton 20:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, if you're not going to respond, I'm going to put the link back in. I welcome further discussion. John Broughton 20:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I linked to "Issues to look out for" which asks, "Do they have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report?" This source obviously does. Also note that I cited extreme bias in my explanation. Wikipedia says that "Partisan political and religious (or anti-religious) sources should be treated with caution" so even though they say "political bias is not in itself a reason not to use a source", I saw the inclusion of a link to an article I'm already supposed to be cautious about right under Inhofe's official website, as bias. The link is an opinion piece but in the wording of the link, it's not presented as such. This is not CNN, NY Times, or even a local news publication that would automatically have credibility. It isn't like the NY Times interviewed both Inhofe and Bruce Jackson and included the debate. That said, criticism is important and should be included. The only thing that made me remove it was the labeling of the reference made it obvious that the person who added it did so because they think Inhofe is dumb and included a biased article to that end. This is evidenced by the contributor including an alternate link title, but choosing instead to label the link "Inhofe Stupidest Senator...". This is related to the linked article's title, but it introduces a bias rather than a more neutral wording. I was probably a little hasty in deleting the whole link as criticism should be included, so I've reworded the link instead since I think the result is more NPOVish than the original wording or just removing the link. Littleman TAMU 22:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Fine with me. Thanks. John Broughton 13:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] bias in the article

I can't quite put the finger on it but something is wrong (somewhere between non-encylopedic to fallacious) with this article it's like "we're trying to be objective but we just hate the guy" something with the global temperature graph with one of his quote to make him out to be a liar while the thruth isn't that black and white ... I'm not exactly sure what but somehow it just doesn't feel right, as much as I hate the guy I won't steep as low as having double standard for him (like he does for the haibu graib prisoners when he said essentially that it was ok to torture them because if they were in cell block 1A then they we're murderers and terrarist probably with american blood on their hands (has if the nationality of who they killed mattered, or as if they actually had a trial or as if just because they did something wrong in the eyes of their captors they were suddenly sub-human .... what a pig that guy is ! :( )) ~~ wikipedia ate domn dot net —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.113.99.108 (talk • contribs). 06:52, 22 July 2006

Uh, ignoring your rant at the end, yeah I agree - especially regarding the graph, that's just unacceptable. It's just a subtle jab at him - it is certainly sufficient to note that his statement is in opposition to the scientific concensus, and link to the article on global warming itself. The way it is now is outrageously unencyclopedic - it's tantamount to captioning a picture of the dead in Jonestown with "they thought they were going to paradise." I'm removing it; if anyone feels it should be re-added, leave a comment explaining why... -Elmer Clark 10:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

He claims there has been no warming; this is objectively, demonstrably false. I added the picture to hte article to show as much. This is perfectly acceptable - our articles are not supposed to give people free passes on their beliefs. Raul654 16:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I certainly agree that it should be clearly stated that his claims are demonstrably false, but is it really necessary for this article to show evidence of it with a graph? Wouldn't a comment along the lines of "however, the overwhelming majority of the scientific community strongly disagrees with his views" (with a source cited), along with a link to global warming, which goes more in-depth, suffice? On Holocaust deniers' pages, you don't see photographs of bodies from concentration camps captioned with "x claims that the Holocaust did not take place." They just point out that the deniers' claims are at odds with the overwhelming majority of the historical community, and provide sources backing that up. It is not within the scope of this article to prove Inhofe wrong; rather it should cite sources (external or Wikipedia articles on the subject) that provide evidence that shows he's wrong.

Even if you do not agree, I still believe that at the very least the caption needs to be changed to something more "direct" such as "recent global temperature data, graphed here, contradicts Inhofe's statements."

Anyway, I suppose I'll let it drop, as long as this doesn't show up on the main page ;)--Elmer Clark 09:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with the argument against the graph. A statement seems more suited to an article about a person. This isn't a page for debate about global warming. Mentioning things Inhofe has said about global warming and critical articles that mention him is fine, but just link to the article about global warming, don't introduce things more suited for an article about the debate/controversy on global warming. I say the caption be added to the article itself and the graph or an article linked to instead and I might do just that unless I get a really good reason not to. Littleman TAMU 00:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The article on global warming is not the place for every politicans' take on the subject; the indiivudal politicans' articles are. The fact of the matter is that he claims there has been no warming; the graph gives the absolute, indisputable data and lets the reader make up his mind, and yes, it certainly belongs in this article. Raul654 00:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

then why not put up "indisputable" evidence that God doesn't exist on the pages about theological matters or similarly "indisputable" evidence that God does exist on every scientific page. wikipedia is not a place to debate, it's to offer information on the topics for which people are searching, and not extraneous, unnecessary information that is obviously riddled with liberal bias--Karkaputto 14:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, reality does have a well-known liberal bias. If this politician is going to claim there has been no warming, we would be remiss not to point out that 130 years of temperature measurments contradict him. Raul654 17:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

then i would strongly suggest that you go and "point out" that there is little scientific evidence for god on every single saint's and pope's biography, since they all claim that there is a god, contrary to what science has thus far been able to prove. you would be "remiss" not to undertake this duty. this is absolutely ridiculous. it's not the goal of wikipedia, nor should it be the goal, to provide counterevidence to claims made by a person on his page. it is only to inform, as an encyclopedia, of the background and opinions of that person--Karkaputto 21:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps Inhofe does not consider any of the observed or predicted effects of global warming "significant." If that is what he meant by his statement - which is not an unreasonable assumption - the graph doesn't prove him wrong at all. In his opinion, that amount of warming might not be meaningful, and putting the graph there is pointless. I think drawing that conclusion from that data is pretty stupid, as you clearly do as well, but it's not our place to criticize his opinion, just to point out that it's at odds with the scientific concensus. The graph does not show that meaningful global warming has occurred/is occurring, since "meaningful" is in the eye of the beholder. This is why I, and apparently the majority of the people involved in this discussion, support its removal. -Elmer Clark 22:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

We are *not* criticizing him - we are giving the relavant data to the reader and letting the reader decide whether or not Inhofe's position is wrong. The fact that any reasonable person looking at that graph would consider him to be wrong *is* extremely revalant; we would be remiss not to include it.

Futhermore, in science, "meaningful" has a very specific definition - it is synonomous with 'statistically significant'. Inhofe is wrong about that too. Raul654 00:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

this is not a point-counterpoint debate here. this is a page about the senator from oklahoma and his opinions. the wrong or rightness of his position is completely irrelevant to the topic --that is, jim inhofe-- at hand. furthermore, you have yet to respond to my challenge to point out the scientific dubiousness of god on every page relating to people who claim that there is a god (including this one)--Karkaputto 00:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[after edit conflict] Really? I was not aware of such a definition of "meaningful," and neither Wiktionary nor Merriam-Webster cites anything but the vague definition of having some meaning or significance. Furthermore, even if a more technical definition of "meaningful" does exist, I see no reason to assume he meant anything other to than the common definition. Also, regrettably, not all "reasonable people" would see anything worrisome in that graph - in the opinions of some, including, it would seem, our friend Jim Inhofe, these effects are nothing to worry about. As I see it, Inhofe was merely expressing his personal opinion of the significance effects of global warming, not necessarily expressing doubt as to the validity of the data shown on the graph. -Elmer Clark 00:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, as a (related) aside - regarding "He did not explain why nineteen of the hottest twenty years on record occurred between 1980 and 2005," was he asked to explain them? Neither the article nor the cited source indicate that he was, and if not, this really doesn't seem worth mentioning. I assume he also didn't explain why ice shelfs are breaking off, etc, but unless there was some noteworthy reason why he didn't field one of those questions, it's not really worth putting. Sorry I've been so harsh on this article, but in general I think Wikipedia does a great job of staying neutral, and this really jumped out as an exception. -Elmer Clark 22:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Raul654, I haven't yet objected to the graph because of the quote provided. You mischaracterize the quote in your reply above. He said "no meaningful warming has occurred..." (emphasis added). You may still think it's rubbish, but there's no need to mischaracterize it by removing that qualification. He also quotes the AGU regarding the "two distinct warming periods" in the 20th century, so he would probably acknowlege the shape of the graph. --Spiffy sperry 15:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Its worse than that, in a way, since the quote as given on the page is "satellite data, confirmed by NOAA balloon measurements, confirms that no meaningful warming has occurred over the last century. There is not 100 years of satellite record - it begins in 1979 (well late 1978 to be picky). The ballon record starts in the 1950s. So his statement, as given, is demonstrably drivel - though not for the reasons on the page :-). To analyse a bit further, notice the strawman about catastrophic GW - that isn't the consensus position, since what "catastrophic" might be is unclear, and isn't predicted William M. Connolley 20:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so having jumped in unwittingly by editing the article page before reading this thread on the talk page, I deserved to have my edit reverted. I agree that it's hard to avoid POV in this article. On the other hand, Inhofe is citing hard scientific data to back his assertion, and a comment on what that data actually says (with a reference to the NOAA page describing the data) seems within reason, and falls within the realm of fact-checking. It could probably have been worded better than my attempt, which may have come across as POV-laden, but is there an objection to somehow summarizing and referencing the data which Inhofe cited? MastCell 07:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Inhofe is citing hard scientific data to back his assertion - really? Since what he says is false, this seems unlikely. Which data do you think he is citing? William M. Connolley 08:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if that is true, please cite a source. Because if he is citing data that's in dispute/proven false, we can neutrally point that out, which, believe me, I would be more than happy to do. I had gotten the impression that his point of view was "yes, temperature is rising, but in my opinion the temperature rise is not significant enough to worry about," which is simply an opinion statement and we cannot call it "wrong" neutrally (which is why I reverted your addition). Incorrect data that is cited, however, is fair game :) -Elmer Clark 08:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't my intention to get into the legalistic discussion about what's "meaningful". What I meant to say was, Inhofe is citing NOAA satellite and balloon data. The conclusion he draws from the data is at odds with the conclusion drawn by the scientists at NOAA who compiled the data. When scientific data are used in support of a statement (as in ""satellite data, confirmed by NOAA balloon measurements, confirms that no meaningful warming has occurred over the last century"), I don't think it's POV to link to the actual data. In my reverted edit, I didn't make any claims about the "meaningfulness" of the temperature change; I just said that the satellite data indicates a temperature increase which corresponds to the surface temperature increase, and cited a source (the NOAA website). But really, if the consensus here is that the statement should be left as is, I can accept that. MastCell 08:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh! No, you misunderstand, that graph isn't used in support of his statement, the graph has nothing to do with Inhofe. Raul and others (?) just think it should be there as "evidence" that Inhofe's views are "wrong" (despite my and others' arguments that it's an opinion statement). I think this is all the reason we need to remove the graph - it's only tangentially related to the article, does not "disprove" anything, and is potentially misleading. Does anyone other than Raul, after reading this section of this page, think the graph should still be there? -Elmer Clark 08:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess I did misunderstand. I agree with the majority of the group that the graph should go. Images have inordinate weight, and for one of the few images on Inhofe's page to be the temperature graph is unbalanced. I think we should get rid of the graph. My point was separate from the graph issue - it's that when Inhofe is quoted as saying that NOAA's data demonstrates X, then it's reasonable to have a fact-check and include a sentence about what the NOAA data actually says. The graph is overkill, I agree. I hate to use analogies, but if we were to (hypothetically) quote Inhofe as saying that "the National Cancer Institute data show no meaningful link between secondhand smoke and lung cancer", then wouldn't it be appropriate by encyclopedic/Wikipedia standards to include a sentence/citation to what the data actually say? That's all I was getting at, and that was really the point of my edit. It doesn't have to be my way; I can accept the arguments of the group, but I just wanted to clarify. MastCell 18:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

After looking over it more carefully, I agree with what you're saying, although I still think it perhaps should be slightly rephrased (something like "Scientific concensus, however, is that the satellite record does indicate a meaningful level of global warming). I also think this makes the graph even less necessary. -Elmer Clark 21:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. MastCell 22:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The graph is horrible bias. The hockey stick graph has also been cast in doubt by Canadian researchers Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick [1][2] Regardless, the graph has no place on the page.

Additionally, "Inhofe is a strong critic of the scientific consensus that climate change is occuring as a result of human activities", should be rephrased for a more neutral point of view, "Inhofe is a strong critic of the scientits who believe that climate change is occuring as a result of human activities". Raul654 will probably just try to block anyone that disagrees. Barney Gumble 16:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

You do know that the graph *isn't* the HS, don't you? William M. Connolley 18:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Barney, there is scientific consensus that most of the warming seen over the past 50 years is attributable to human activity. Describing it as such is not POV. Note the definition of scientific consensus does not mean that EVERY last scientist agrees. Finally, Raul654 is a member in good standing of the Wikipedia community; please assume good faith. MastCell 19:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Will, I know, but I thought it looked basically the same. Now that you mention it, that graph goes back only to 1860. So the graph ignores the previous fluctuations in global climate. The comment infers that Inhofe is stupid because he doesn't want to base national energy policy on the last 150 years and for some silly reason wants to evaluate cycles going back futher. As an analogy, I could show you a chart of Microsoft stock over the last 5 years [3] and say anyone who ever owned the stock was a moron. However you'd be ignoring the year 1986-2001 [4].

Mastcell, everyone on this discussion board except Raul654 agreed that the graph was POV. Raul654 had stopped responding to any points made by users. So I took it off and he immediately bans me. Raul654 has said on another page that " 90% of the banned users permanently leave..." so he is trying to dictate the direction of the page by banning people friviously and instead of coming to a consensus on the talk page. Barney Gumble 19:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, again I'd have to agree with the majority of commentators that the graph seems unnecessary/extraneous so long as Inhofe's claims are held up to the cold light of reality (as they are, for the most part, in the text of the section). I do feel more strongly that a scientific consensus should be described as such, as I mentioned above. Barney, I was unaware, until I did some digging, of the issues surrounding your block, as you had removed the relevant discussion on your talk page, but your comments make more sense now, in context. MastCell 20:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

So we are still at the same point. Everyone agrees the graph is wrong, except Raul, but since he's an admin, he gets to keep it or he'll start banning people? This is why there are current limitations on the acceptance of Wikipedia. The average person will look up Inhofe and realize that the graph is bullocks and assume the same is to be said about the rest of Wikipedia. Barney Gumble 17:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure we're all on the same page here. I certainly don't think the graph is wrong, I just don't think it should be on this page for the reasons I and others have given above. I have little doubt that it's accurate, and I certainly believe it should be a part of the article on global warming or something else which it is more directly relevant to. Also, Raul (or anyone else agreeing with him), in light of the recent points and apparent concensus supporting the graph's removal, why do you still think it should be included? -Elmer Clark 23:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm in total agreement with Elmer about the graph; it's not that it's inaccurate, just that it's overkill for this particular article. I think we really need to hear something from Raul654, since he seems most invested in keeping the graph here. My sense is that the consensus here on the talk page is to remove the graph. MastCell 18:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits by Protector67/68.230.183.51

Protector67 (aka 68.230.183.51) was recently making edits to this article. Some of them were good (gramatical fixes and whatnot), but he also did a major whitewashing to the enviromental section; in addition, he added a graph - Image:Long term temperature graph.JPG (which is really a dumbed down version of Image:2000 Year Temperature Comparison.png using older data). He also added false scientific claims made by Inhofe ("This trend... return to a baseline mean."), presenting them as facts. When I reverted, he edit warred to keep them in, so I have reblocked him. Raul654 14:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted Image talk:Long term temperature graph.JPG for reasons explained there. Note that the images provenance is explained in MWP and LIA in IPCC reports William M. Connolley 15:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Raul654, you still haven't made a case for why to include the graph. The graph is horrible bias. Like I said earlier, imagine I showed you a chart of Microsoft stock over the last 5 years [5] and say anyone who ever owned the stock was a moron. However you'd be ignoring the year 1986-2001 [6]. You graph proves nothing and furthermore, wikipedia isn't a place for proving anything. It is completely inappropriate to put that graph there and you are dumbing down wikipedia into a partisan political site. Likely you won't even respond, just try to ban people that make any changes. Barney Gumble 17:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Inhofe says that over the last century the earth hasn't gotten warmer. The graph gives the reader the actual temperatures, and let's him decide whether or not that is the case. As far as the dating on the graph goes, Inhofe's claim is for the last century, and that's what the graph portrays (ok, it goes back slightly further than that; if someone wants to crop it to show just 1900-2000, I won't object). Raul654 17:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Inhofe says no such thing. He says the Earth's warming and cooling cycles are not related to mankind. From his speech which he gave recently on the Senate floor, here are a couple prevalent paragraphs:

"The National Academy of Sciences report reaffirmed the existence of the Medieval Warm Period from about 900 AD to 1300 AD and the Little Ice Age from about 1500 to 1850. Both of these periods occurred long before the invention of the SUV or human industrial activity could have possibly impacted the Earth’s climate. In fact, scientists believe the Earth was warmer than today during the Medieval Warm Period, when the Vikings grew crops in Greenland....Second, what the climate alarmists and their advocates in the media have continued to ignore is the fact that the Little Ice Age, which resulted in harsh winters which froze New York Harbor and caused untold deaths, ended about 1850. So trying to prove man-made global warming by comparing the well-known fact that today's temperatures are warmer than during the Little Ice Age is akin to comparing summer to winter to show a catastrophic temperature trend."

Where are you getting your information? Please provide a link to back up your claims. Barney Gumble 19:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Here are Inhofe's own words (emphasis mine): "What have scientists concluded? The Kyoto Protocol has no environmental benefits; natural variability, not fossil fuel emissions, is the overwhelming factor influencing climate change; satellite data, confirmed by NOAA balloon measurements, confirms that no meaningful warming has occurred over the last century; and climate models predicting dramatic temperature increases over the next 100 years are flawed and highly imperfect.”" -- http://inhofe.senate.gov/pressapp/record.cfm?id=206907 Raul654 19:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

in that case, would you object, raul, to a graph that plotted the temperature data on a kelvin scale starting at absolute zero?--Karkaputto 00:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I object. Climate variations occur on the order of tenths of a degree C/K (or, at the most, a few degrees). Showing a kelvin graph starting at zero would obscure any variations at all, rendering the graph meaningless - which is, I can only presume, the whole reason you are proposing it. Raul654 01:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Barney - let's not rehash the global warming arguments (after all, the graph shows that temperatures have risen since 1900, so Inhofe's "Little Ice Age" comment is irrelevant, and you'll only convince people that maybe we do need the graph after all). This is more a stylistic argument about whether the graph belongs; I think the majority of editors who've expressed an opinion feel that Inhofe's claims about "meaningful warming" need to be fact-checked (as they are in the text of section), but that the graph is overkill, inflammatory, and doesn't really make the article any better. The discussion is really on the merits of including the graph, not on the merits of the data in the graph itself. MastCell 19:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Having been a ambivalent, I now find myself in favour of the graph. That section is about GW; the graphs succinctly points out that Inhofe is talking nonsense about the recent temperature change (the only way to rescue him is to quibble about the phrase "meaningful" which could be interpreted as almost anything). As Raul has demonstrated (and the quote on the page says) the graph is fully in context William M. Connolley 19:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussing "meaningful" is not just quibbling. Meaningful means it hasn't made a significant impact to life on Earth. Inhofe is saying and I've reference a bulk of it, that today's temperature changes are no different than the previous "Little Ice Age", "Medievil Warm Period" and other temperatures changes that the Earth has experienced over the course of the last few thousand years. Regardless of whether global warming is man made or not, the graph along with the quote is blatant POV. Mark Twain said there are three types of lies: Lies, Damn lies, and Statistics.... meaning that you can twist statistic (show a graph from 1860-2000) in order create a POV. Barney Gumble 21:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

No, actually he was quite explicit in saying the last century. Raul654 21:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[after edit conflict] I do not understand [William Connoley's] argument. I don't even think it's fair to call him "wrong" due to this ambiguity of the term "meaningful," but even if we accept that he is, isn't it enough simply to say so and link to global warming, where proof is given? It seems like overkill to present the "evidence" right on his page; it'd be like putting pictures of concentration camp victims on the pages of Holocaust deniers. Why is this necessary? -Elmer Clark 21:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is a very good point. Wikipedia isn't the place for prooving points of view or trying to contrast statements with "evidence." Barney Gumble 17:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Raul/William Connolly/anyone else supporting the graph: Could you please address these points I and others have made earlier?

• First of all, I agree that Inhofe's views go against the scientific consensus. He's made those views very public and they absolutely should be mentioned, and it absolutely should be made clear that the scientific community disagrees with him.
• Inhofe's words were "satellite data, confirmed by NOAA balloon measurements, confirms that no meaningful warming has occurred over the last century."
• Wiktionary defines the word "meaningful" simply as "having meaning, significant." Merriam-Webster says "full of meaning : SIGNIFICANT." I think it's fair to extrapolate that this is the common definition of meaningful. It does not mean "statistically significant." It is completely subjective concept: nothing can be "proved" meaningful or not meaningful. Inhofe is almost certainly aware of the data, since he cites it. He simply does not believe that its indications, roughly a 0.8 degree increase since 1860, are "significant." The scientific community disagrees, sure, but Inhofe is hardly alone in this view -- plenty of people, misguided as we may believe them to be, are well aware of this trend but also feel it's simply part of Earth's natural cycle. Inhofe cannot be said to be wrong on this issue, simply to be in the minority.
• The conclusion of the above point is that Inhofe disagrees with the scientific consensus on an issue. We link to an article going into more detail about the issue and an external link presenting his comments in context. Why do we need this graph?? Not to illustrate that Inhofe is wrong or misguided, if you consent with the above point. Simply to show what the object of dispute is? Why is that necessary, given that we already have those links?? Do we put pictures of cladograms on the pages of intelligent design advocates? Carbon dating results on the pages of Young-Earth creationists? Pictures of bodies on the pages of Holocaust deniers? Of course not. We present their view, the majority view, and links to articles which explain the issues themselves. This page is about Inhofe and his views on the issues, not the issues themselves, and showing a graph that, as far as we know, Inhofe does not dispute the validity of, is outside the scope of this article, and subtly hints that "Inhofe is wrong," a statement we cannot validly make.
• As Inhofe is an active politician, and a very controversial one at that, I think it's prudent to err on the side of caution regarding potentially non-neutral material at any rate.
• Also note that my concerns are different from User:Barney Gumble's and I do not necessarily agree with everything he is saying.
• Sorry this got so long! -Elmer Clark 04:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

No - Inhofe is wrong. He is wrong because he is intentionally misinterpreting data. He was called global warming a fraud. His backers, the Gaylord family, on a daily basis bombard us with misinformation about global warming (through what is allegedly called the "News"). Inhofe has, for political reasons, chosen to attempt to deceive the public. That's obvious.

It's appropriate to include the graph because that's what the section is about. You can split hairs about what "meaningful" means, but if, as you argue, it's "in the eye of the beholder", then it's appropriate to demonstrate what Inhofe considers "no meaningful change". One can say that he is dishonestly misrepresenting the truth, but that would be difficult to verify. It makes much more sense to just show people what he is talking about.

As for the comment "Do we put pictures of cladograms on the pages of intelligent design advocates? Carbon dating results on the pages of Young-Earth creationists? Pictures of bodies on the pages of Holocaust deniers?" - this isn't the same issue. Inhofe has presented his interpretation of this data, and said "there is no meaningful change". It does a disservice to our readers to just present a series of "he said/she said" points and counterpoints. This is what he is talking about, show it. Guettarda 04:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Inhofe is not "wrong," nor is there proof he is trying to be deceptive. All his statement indicates is that his interpretation of this data is that the recent warming, .8 degrees over 140 years, is not significant in the long term. He may be right -- it's unlikely if you believe the scientific consensus, but we've pointed that out. What his backers do or believe is not relevant to this point. That section is NOT about that graph, it's about his environmental views in general, and his statements about the graph are simply on of very many examples cited. Also, I do not see why you don't consider my analogies valid -- creationists "interpret cladistics" to be wrong, young-earth creationists "interpret carbon dating" to be wrong, Holocaust deniers "interpret evidence of the Holocaust" to be wrong. Why not show what they are talking about? Because it's outside the scope of their articles, and more appropriately placed in an article discussing this issue itself (in this case, global warming or a page on some specific aspect of it). -Elmer Clark 05:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

No, Inhofe is "wrong" - he is wrong because he says the data says things which it does not say. His deception is obvious, it's systematic, and it's part of a much bigger picture driven by his being in the pocket of big energy and the Gaylord family.

Like Inhofe, many creationists cherry pick science and use it out of context to support their agenda. But very few of them actually take a piece of evidence and deny that it says something. They usually speak in broad generalities that are impossible to tie down. In the even where a diagram could make the error obvious we should include it in the article. It's absolutely not outside the scope of the article - since Inhofe is saying that night is day, it's worth including a figure which shows readers what night and day look like. Guettarda 05:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

All he said was "satellite data, confirmed by NOAA balloon measurements, confirms that no meaningful warming has occurred over the last century." In his eyes, the evidence confirms his views: he may well consider .8 degrees not meaningful. I don't see any deception? He didn't say anything untrue, like "NOAA balloon measurements indicate that there has been no warming." His simply stated that he felt the data showed a level of warming which is within acceptable parameters. How is that in any way saying that "night is day?" -Elmer Clark 05:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

"In his eyes, the evidence confirms his views" - interesting that you can get into his thought processes here, while saying that everything else is just circumstantial. So you are able to state conclusively that it is a fact that he uses his extensive scientific training (which all real estate agents have) to come up with a unique take on the data, which is totally opposed to that of the scientific community (or rather, the "rest of the scientific community", since obviously Inhofe's expertise makes him a key part of the community), and that it is simply a coincidence that his interpretation matches that of his major financial backers - the Gaylord family and the energy industry? I see. So I take it I am speaking with Senator Inhofe (since he's the only person who would be able to speak to his motivation in the way that you just did). Guettarda 06:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

If you want to assume his motives are insidious that's fine, but all we can fairly go on here is his statement which leaves open the interpretation I gave (that he means that the amount of warming that has happened, indicated by that graph, isn't significant). It's a moot point anyway -- he said nothing which directly conflicts with that graph. -Elmer Clark 06:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about your motives, you were talking about his. I was talking about the fact that you are confidently saying "this is what Inhofe was thinking". He denied that the last century of warming, as shown by the graph, happened. In other words, his statements are at odds with reality. So it makes sense to show that reality. That should be simple enough. Guettarda 11:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Ugh, I just meant that COULD have been his motive, I meant it's by no means "obvious" that he was trying to deceive. And he simply did not deny that warming happened! He simply said the warming was not significant. This is his opinion, and not at odds with reality, simply at odds with scientific consensus. -Elmer Clark 12:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with everything Guettarda and WMC have said. Raul654 17:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with everything Elmer Clark has said. --Spiffy sperry 17:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I share Spiffy sperry's viewpoint.--Karkaputto 05:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Once again, I'd like to point out that Inhofe is giving his interpretation of the data. Can anyone here notice .8 degrees of a temperature difference in the air around him? Okay then, so Inhofe has a reason to say that such a temperature difference is insignificant. Without scientific knowlege, I would be willing to bet that every single member of Wikipedia debating here would agree that the .8 degree of different is insignificant. Furthermore, the entire point of Raul et al is moot, as we are not arguing over the validity of the graph itself or the correctness of Inhofe's statements, but because it is obvious and blatant bias on the part of Wikipedia to include the graph. Wikipedia ought to be a viewpoint-neutral publication, and including such a graph gives away a certain viewpoint on the part of Wikipedia and its contributors. We oppose the inclusion of this graph for the same reason we would oppose including proofs against the existence of God on "Christianity," or discources on romanticism or absurdism on "Rationalism" or "Age of Enlightenment," or a commentary on the failures of communism in "Karl Marx." The goal of this article on Inhofe is to talk about Jim Inhofe, and not to bring up questions (or answer questions) about the validity of his opinions.--Karkaputto 05:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The facts that, in his role as Chairman of the Senate Committe on the Environment and Public works, Inhofe (a) takes ridiculous amounts of money from the Gas lobby, and (b) that Inhofe just happens to have an understanding of science that is based entirely on what the Gas Company shills tell him to say -- both of these facts are quite pertintent to this article and worth of inclusion, your baseless assertions to the contrary not withstanding. Raul654 06:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

and what, might I ask, does that have anything to do with the inclusion of the graph?--Karkaputto 03:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Since nothing's really coming of this, would anyone object to me bringing it up at WP:RfC? -Elmer Clark 01:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I am doing so now. -Elmer Clark 06:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Global Warming

I changed the wording from "a strong critic of the scientific consensus that climate change is occurring as a result of human activities." to "a strong critic of the notion of a scientific consensus that climate change is occurring as a result of human activities." The former implies that there is a scientific consensus on global warming, when the article itself seems to place doubt on such a consensus. By adding "the notion of a scientific consensus" the article sounds much more objective by not taking a side either way. Thorburn 00:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I reverted it. There is a concensus; if any part of the article sheds doubt that a scientific concensus exists, please point it out, because it needs to be changed. See global warming. -Elmer Clark 00:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The Oregon Petition places doubt on a scientific consensus. Is there a petition or survey that shows most scientists believe Global Warming is man made? If so I'd be satisfied if such a source could be cited to back up the sentence I previously edited. The lack of such citation is why I thought it was appropriate not to make the assumption that there is a consensus. Thorburn 00:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe the Oregon Petition is taken too seriously by the scientific community. From the article: "The term "scientists" is often used in describing signatories, but the petition [7] did not require signatories to have a degree, or a degree in a scientific field, or to be working in the field in which the signatory had received a degree. The signatory was not asked to provide the name of his/her current or last employer or job. The distribution of petitions was relatively uncontrolled: those receiving the petition could check a line that said "send more petition cards for me to distribute"." And the global warming article states "Only a small minority of climate scientists discount the role that humanity's actions have played in recent warming." For a list of several statements from organizations and polls of scientists see Scientific opinion on climate change. -Elmer Clark 00:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

There definitely is a scientific consensus on climate change. If you read the Oregon Petition article, it shows that 90% of the signatories did not claim to have PhDs, that there was no way to verify the names and qualifications, and it's got a 1999-2001 vintage. A lot has changed since then - while there was overwhelming support back then, there's a lot more data and a lot fewer holes for doubters to try to squeeze through. Guettarda 04:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment

Does the graph in the environment section simply provide context for one of Senator Inhofe's controversial statements, or does it violate WP:NPOV by implying criticism of his opinion, as well as being outside the scope of this article?

Relevant sections of this talk page are bias in the article and Recent edits by Protector67/68.230.183.51. I believe I have made my viewpoint fairly clear, but would be happy to further clarify any part of it. It seems at the moment that the majority favors removal of the graph, but there is by no means consensus, hence this RfC. -Elmer Clark 06:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Remove graph. Even if it doesn't violate NPOV, the graph is still not relevant to the article as a whole and is still not specifically pertinent to Rep. Inhofe himself.--Hemlock Martinis 07:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Remove graph. The statement contrast with what the graph purports, creating a POV. It seems like the only person who continues to support this is Raul654. Barney Gumble 22:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Remove Graph, clearly violates POV, article is bio of Inhofe, not a forum for discussion global warming. Inhofe's statement and a brief discussion of why it is notable is sufficient. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Remove graph. The graph has no context...what is the criteria for saying that the change and/or trends depicted in the graph are, in fact, meaningful? A caption that some could describe as sarcastic is not enough.--G1076 20:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lead Section

I think there should be a source labeling Inhofe as a Christian fundamentalist. I imagine that he is one, but has he ever claimed to be one? A discussion would be fine elsewhere in the article. I've heard him called that. I'm sure someone's said it in a reliable source, but I just don't think uncited claims should be in the lead. Even cited I'm not sure if it belongs in the lead given the inflammatory nature of the label. If there's a consensus on both sides about it, or if he's claimed to be a Christian fundamentalist, then it's probably noteworthy enough to be in the lead. Otherwise, I think it should be relegated to the article body, maybe under "Political Views".--Littleman_TAMU ^(talk) 19:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Holocaust Denier?

"I have been called -- my kids are all aware of this -- dumb, crazy man, science abuser, Holocaust denier, villain of the month, hate-filled, warmonger, Neanderthal, Genghis Khan and Attila the Hun," he announced. "And I can just tell you that I wear some of those titles proudly."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/02/AR2007030201619.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.48.200.13 (talk) 13:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

Wikipedia is not a list of quotations (see WP:NOT#DIR). We don't need to be adding every stupid thing a politician says on their article without any context whatsoever (as has been done here). If there is some fallout from What he said, then that fallout needs to be discussed (in other words, I don't think what he said is notable enough to mention here). So, for now, I'm going to remove the quote from the article. If you want to add random quotes, check out Wikiquote instead. And just another observation, this quote does not do enough to show that he is a Holocaust denier. -- Ash Lux ^{(talk | contribs)} 02:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, the article isn't saying he's a Holocaust denier, any more than it's saying he's Genghis Khan or Attila. It's hyperbole. The quote doesn't seem relevant or noteworthy enough to include. MastCell ^Talk 22:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anyone know where he lives, how much energy his house uses?

This is of interest because of his recent request to Gore to take a pledge to reduce his energy use to that of the average American. Without that information I don't know if this is worth quoting or not. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=7616011f-802a-23ad-435e-887baa7069ca

This was a fake accusal that Inhofe threw at Gore, one that has been debunked for several weeks, if not months. Some low-life rooted around in Gore's trash and got an energy bill from one of his homes. Since Gore pays extra for green energy, and also purchases offset credits for the part of his energy usage that he can't cover with green energy, his energy bill is larger than the average citizen's bill. The global-warming deniers tried to make a charge against Gore that he "uses" more energy than the average home; they counted on the general public being as ignorant as their supporters, and unable to read a simple sentence or two, and tell the difference between cost and usage. That's all it took to debunk this lazy and amateurism claim - the same one Inhofe unsuccessfully tried to revive against Gore during the hearing. I would say that unless you're willing to make a list of Inhofe's unsuccessful attempts to outmaneuver progressives (and it's rather long), this incident isn't worthy of inclusion here. Info999 03:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-reversal

Just for the record, Inhofe has made no reversal on his position on global warming. The quote being pointed at is: "The issue is: is it man-made gasses? Anthropogenic gases...uh...CO2 that's - that is the issue." This is - at best - an indeterminant statement.

One the other hand, at the very same hearing, he said "It is my perspective that your global warming alarmist pronouncements are now and have always been filled with inaccuracies and misleading statements... The poor would pay if what you recommend was implemented. And there is no science there. We just can't do that in America.".[7] He also said to Gore "How come you guys never seem to notice when it gets cold?" He then confronted Gore with the number of record cold temperatures measured at U.S. weather stations during the month of January. (This would be the same January that was part of the warmest Northern Hemisphere winter on record.) [8]

In short, there is no reversal. Raul654 01:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there is a clear reversal, and that's why it's back in the article, where it belongs. That someone of Inhofe's standing on this issue would do a 180 is relevant to his bio.

Here's how you can understand what he did: say I go around the country for years stating emphatically that there is no such thing as the moon, that it's a fantasy, that it's a completely made up thing that doesn't exist now, never has existed before, and won't ever exist - period. Then one day, in "debating" one of the world's pre-eminent lunar authorities on national television, I say, "people think the issue is: "does the moon exist?" That's not the issue - the issue is whether or not the moon is a natural phenomenon, or is something man-made" I will have unequivocally stated that the moon existed, and challenged its origin, not is existence. This is exactly - precisely - what Inhofe did at the hearing. He stated flatly that the issue isn't whether or ase cite a reliable external source that makes this claim (that he reversed his position), instead of your own spin on a cherry-picked comment. Raul654 03:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

PS - here's a third quote I just found - "He said that the East, Antarctica, might melt and this could raise levels -- sea levels by 20 feet, so we're all going to die. However, according to many scientists, the Antarctica is gaining ice mass, not losing it." Sounds like the same 'old Inhofe to me. Meanwhile, I could not find a single article that agrees with your claim that he's changed his position (which makes it original research by definition) Raul654 03:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you're really missing the point, and this is causing you to delete something that really should be in the article. Not one of your quotes has anything to do with the fact that Inhofe said what he said, and clearly. I don't need an external source saying that it's a reversal simply to be able to include the statement as a relevant factual statement that he made. It may have even been unintentional on Inhofe's part. You seem to think that I'm somehow giving him "credit" or something - I'm not, and not injecting opinion either way, as you seem to be ("...same ol' Inhofe to me"). The way it's worded now (please look at it before reflexively deleting it again), there is no hint of OR. Because of who he is, and when he said it, it's absolutely relevant.Info999 04:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Just because you say it's a reversal doesn't make it so. Just because you say his statement is clear doesn't make it so.

I don't need an external source saying that it's a reversal simply to be able to include the statement as a relevant factual statement that he made. - except that you aren't presenting the statement as is - you are claiming it is (to use your own words) a 180 degree reversal of his position. So you had better do a heck of a lot better than your own unsupported interpretation of his position based on a single out-of-context, cherry-picked sentence. So I'll make it pretty clear - put up or shut up. Find something that corroborates your claim of a reversal or drop the issue. Raul654 04:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think your tone is aggressive and unhelpful, and I would appreciate it if you toned it down. I don't want to have to report this. You don't have the right to treat people any way you wish, no matter what your position. You apparently haven't even looked at the latest edit that I did, or you would see that I removed the wording about the reversal; according to your logic directly above, the quote now belongs, as it contains absolutely no "claims" of a reversal. And you apparently didn't even read my last post in this discussion, above (written after I had removed said "claim"), where I said, "I don't need an external source saying that it's a reversal simply to be able to include the statement as a relevant factual statement that he made." Which is exactly what I did, and yet you apparently reflexively reverted it. And to paraphrase you above, just because you say it doesn't belong doesn't make it so, and just because you tell someone to "drop it" doesn't mean they must; if you think that, I don't think you get this site.Info999 04:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You apparently haven't even looked at the latest edit that I did, or you would see that I removed the wording about the reversal

I did read it. It says: After years of claiming that global warming did not exist... Inhofe acknowledged that it exists So yes, you are stating he has reversed himself, without actually using the word 'reversed' - a distinction without a difference.

according to your logic directly above, the quote now belongs, as it contains absolutely no "claims" of a reversal. - uh, except for the fact that it DOES? Raul654 04:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that some mention of this ought to be made - I was very surprised when I heard him say it on CSPAN, and I certainly didn't get the impression it was intended to mean less than it seems to - and I think it is quite significant whether or not it's truly indicative of a change in position, as it is a departure from his previous stance, even if accidental. However, I don't think Info999's edit was the right approach - even the revised version is doing too much drawing of an unsourced conclusion. I think a compromise is in order, something like:

During a March 21, 2007 Senate Environment & Public Works Committee hearing, Inhofe stated during his questioning of former Vice President Al Gore, "I hope people understand what the issue is...because a lot of people don't know the issue. A lot of people think the issue is...is...uh...is global warming taking place? The issue is: is it man-made gases? Anthropogenic gases...uh...CO2 that's - that is the issue," contesting merely the cause of global warming rather than the existence of the phenomenon.

I'm still not really satisfied with that version, but I do feel something needs to be said. Either of you have any suggestions on what should be put in? -Elmer Clark 04:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This statement totally ignores the multiple (much clearer) statements he made at that very sitting denying or downplaying global warming - "there is no science there", Antarctica "is gaining ice mass", "How come you guys never seem to notice when it gets cold". And I don't think it's a coincidence that not a single media outlet has picked up on this alleged reversal. Raul654 05:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Elmer...although I think Elmer should do the edit he suggests, as methinks my posts may well continue to be sent back from whence they came.  :) What's interesting, and what Elmer understands (bravo!) is that Inhofe may not have meant to say something like this. But in fact he did. It's kind of funny, in a sad way, that anyone actually thinks that by including this quote, we're somehow giving something to Inhofe that he doesn't deserve...some credit or something. I for one am not; while I personally find his denials and tactics abhorrent, I (unlike others) am trying hard to not allow my personal opinion to influence my edits here.

As far as his other statements, they're not relevant to this point, and it's not helpful in any way to keep hammering on them when they do no good in the debate...they don't mitigate the fact that he apparently acknowledged global warming as a fact. And Raul: thanks for completly ignoring my plea for civility, and instead ratcheting up your vitriol another notch.

I just want to point out two very important things about Elmer's great post...first, he pointed out cleary what was wrong with the original paragraph, and he did so without being snotty or aggressive - two tricks that seemed to have escaped previous participants in this topic. Second - and this is the more important of the two - he did it in a way that made the article better, which is the point, isn't it? If he had simply arbitrarily deleted the item, others could never have collaborated on it, making it better. I have found far too many autocratic deletions, especially among people who overemphasize their position and history on wiki, and in particular due to personal/political opinions, as seems to have been the case with these deletions. Thanks Elmer! Info999 05:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

One more thing for Raul: you should really become familiar with the following text (it's only the first rule in Resolving Disputes), because everything you did tonight violates this policy, in spirit and in letter - including your protection of the page:

"Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it. Provide a good edit summary when making significant changes that other users might object to. The revision you would prefer will not be established by reverting, and repeated reverting is forbidden; discuss disputed changes on the talk page." Info999 05:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Info, I understand what you're saying, but let's go ahead and focus on the issue at hand.

Raul, how about appending something like "Other comments made by Inhofe during the hearing, however, such as [whatever], expressed doubt as to the existance of global warming at all." I think that even when one takes this caveat into account, his statement is worth mentioning. Is this acceptable? -Elmer Clark 05:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Elmer: agreed. As Raul isn't responding here, and may not have seen the most recent postings, I've contacted him through his User Talk page. FYI - wiki rules prohibit an admin from indefinitely protecting a page like this (which Raul did) as well as prohibit admins from protecting pages in a dispute in which they are involved (which he did as well). I hope we can all discuss this and resolve it. Thanks. Info999 05:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The big problem with the current edit is that it includes completely irrelevant quotes, things that Inhofe has said in the past repeatedly; the quote about the issue not being does global warming exist but what causes it is noteworthy specifically because he had never said anything like it in the past...if we're going to start quoting every senator and member of Congress on everything we say (in order to pretend to provide "balance") then wiki will soon thereafter go off the rails. In addition, there is no need to provide yet another example of how Inhofe has been a global warming denier. I think the appropriate compromise is to include his astonishing statement, without editorial comment or additional, clearly irrelevant comments. And if anyone agrees or disagrees with me, I sure would appreciate it if they said so here, instead of petulantly blocking us all from editing the article (or, heck, even blocking us outright!)  :) Info999 07:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I just took a look at the "sources" for the irrelevant quotes that the last edit added...WorldNetDaily and Mission Christian News...now there are two reliable, reputable, non-POV sources for you! POV has no place in wiki, whether or not it's disguising itself as "the need for balance." Or is that "fair and balanced"?  :) Info999 08:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The big problem with the current edit is that it includes completely irrelevant quotes, things that Inhofe has said in the past repeatedly - no, actually he said them at the VERY hearing where you clean he supposedly did a 180 on his beliefs.

if we're going to start quoting every senator and member of Congress on everything we say (in order to pretend to provide "balance") then wiki will soon thereafter go off the rails - A non sequitur. nobody has suggested quoting anybody but Jim Inhofe in the Jim Inhofe article.

In addition, there is no need to provide yet another example of how Inhofe has been a global warming denier - if you are going to add a quote that implies he has reversed his position, we are REQUIRED by our policy to add balance to it - that is, statements he made at that same sitting denying it.

I think the appropriate compromise is to include his astonishing statement, without editorial comment or additional - in other words, you find no compromise to be an acceptable one.

And if anyone agrees or disagrees with me, I sure would appreciate it if they said so here - I have done so repeatedly. You have refused to engage on the issues. You simply claim "OH LOOK! HE REVERSED HIS POSITION!" and ignore all evidence (supplied by Inhofe himself) to the contrary. Raul654 16:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

PS - as to the reliability of the sources, 5 seconds of googling turned up many hits for all three quotes. I have now added them to the article. Raul654 16:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Can I add a perspective? The problem with Inhofe appears to be that he is so scientifically illiterate on this issue (or possibly, so cunning) that much of what he says to sound skeptical is either meaningless or actually quite in accord with the std.consensus. For example "According to many scientists, the Antarctica is gaining ice mass, not losing" - perfectly defensible. "the threat of catastrophic global warming" - orthogonal to the science. Its only the *way* he says it that makes him deceitful. On the issue of reversal... I think Inhofes position is so confused thats its pretty hard to tell. [9] asserts that Inhofe has claimed GW doesn't exist (but with no cites; if info999 thinks this is "something he has always previously outright denied" then a cite should be easy to find) and that he now states that it does. I think the latter is dubious: Inhofe merely says that the issue is anthropogenic CO2. There should be something better than this available William M. Connolley 16:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

William: There are several issues here. First, when I first added Inhofe's latest quote, I included something about this being a reversal of his position. Instead of debating whether or not it was a reversal, and editing the entry to make it better, Raul repeatedly simply deleted the entire entry, and would not hear any argument as to keeping it. I then removed ALL commentary on whether or not this was reversal, and Raul continued to delete the entry, claiming that since it wasn't a reversal, I couldn't claim that it was - even though I had removed all trace of such a claim. Then, Raul added superfluous quotes, claiming that he "had" to due to a wiki policy about "balance."

The _fact_ of this statement clearly belongs in this article. It may have been the first time Inhofe acknowledged that global warming exists. If people agree that pointing that out violates NPOV or OR, then, while I do not believe that it does, I won't challenge it.

I don't need to cite anything additional regarding Inhofe's denials; no one seems to be reading the Environment section that this entry was included in. It contains at least four specific and at least three other indirect items that have Inhofe categorically denying global warming exists. In the _same_ section! The latest quote - the one I added originally - is the one that provides the _balance_ that Raul claims is missing! And in no other part of the entire article are attempts made to "balance" each and every quote from Inhofe with a contradicting quote (perhaps because A. they don't happen very often and B. his stance is well-documented in the article!) In fact, this whole notion is ridiculous. If Al Gore makes a statement tomorrow that says, "the issue isn't whether or not global warming is man-made, the issue is whether or not it exists" then that quote should and must be added to his wiki article. Because of his long-standing and long-documented stand on global warming, we wouldn't need to add several other quotes from the same session that seem to contradict the main quote, as his record is well-documented. The same applies here.

I think that we sometimes paint ourselves into a corner before we realize the mess that we have made, and instead of just admitting it and moving on, we try to cover it again and again with irrelevant nonsense. Happens to me, happens to all of us. I think this time it happened with an admin, who had the power to protect and block and abused it. The quote is real, it's different from all the other quotes in the article - the ones that already existed and already provided "balance" - and I think it should remain, by itself, without any confusing commentary or additional, redundant and unnecessary quotes. If I should be in the minority, however, the article should just be changed - I don't think I should be abused and threatened by an admin. Thanks. Info999 19:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you leave out the complaints against Raul, please? It won't help here. lets just look at the article. OK, I've looked at the env section. It says of Inhofe: "offered compelling evidence that catastrophic global warming is a hoax" - this is a strawman and says nothing about actual GW (its what I meant by him being either cunning or incompetent). I would say that only "satellite data, confirmed by NOAA balloon measurements, confirms that no meaningful warming has occurred over the last century." says that no actual GW has occurred. OK, so I'm prepared to accept that: one is enough.

Now, as to, say [10] - I don't think you're right to say its *clear* Inhofe has reversed his position. I think though that the implication is there.

In more general terms, I think the para there is not good. I'm going to try to rewrite it and make everyone happy (ha ha). BTW, to my slight amusement, I can't tell if you're a GW believer or skeptic or neither based on what you're saying and editing William M. Connolley 19:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I *have* hacked it. Apart from taking out some excess date-linking and over-precise dates (my personal pref; revert if you care) I've added some phrasing around the "reversal" bit. It is, I think, correct; I also think it would hardly survive an attack of the OR zealots. I also cut the other things he said: they seem like trivia to me. I don't know who added them in, so I don't know whose toes I'm treading on.

My personal opinion on this is that the article should make it clear that he disagrees strongly with "GW", whatever that means and thow in some kind of ref to the wiki article about the scientific opinion. The details of his absurd position aren't of any great interest. To me. William M. Connolley 20:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

William: FYI - I dropped the "clear reversal" almost immediately, and haven't been advocating that. I agree with you that the other things he said that Raul included should go. I think your edit is fine, as it's pretty much what I was originally going for, substituting "may be" for "clear." And I think you're right about the OR concerns of others. But I support it.

Regarding my own position: when it comes to clearly verifiable - and verified - scientific consensus, I personally don't think one can "believe" in it: it's true, and one can certainly - and misguidedly - "disbelieve" in hard science, as apparently almost half of Americans do in the hard scientific fact of evolution. As to my political beliefs and their place here: they don't belong. At all. Which is why it _should_ be hard for you to determine my personal stance. And if this project (wiki) is to survive, then we need to agree on principles and then carry them out. I think an editing decision should not be based upon attempting to support or attack anything or anyone, even in some disguise. (By the way, I don't think you were doing that in any way; I was simply commenting on what I see here quite often). If you're asking, I'll say I personally think that Inhofe is a disgrace to the Senate and the state of Oklahoma, not because of his positions, but because of the deceitful and despicable manner in which he conducts himself as a Senator. The Gore "questioning" is but the latest, and not even the worst, example. However, I try very hard not to have that influence my edits and suggestions here. Thanks. Info999 20:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

In fact I wasn't asking, just... well, quite surprised. Normally its fairly clear from the editing, so I think I must congratulate you on yours. I hope Raul will be OK with the current version William M. Connolley 20:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and marked the statement as possibly being dubious and possibly being OR since a couple of us have an objection to it. The current paragraph reads:

During a 2007 hearing of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Inhofe stated "I hope people understand what the issue is...because a lot of people don't know the issue. A lot of people think the issue is...is...uh...is global warming taking place? The issue is: is it man-made gases? Anthropogenic gases...uh...CO2 that's - that is the issue,". This somewhat ambiguous statement may represent a shift from denying the existence of warming (no meaningful warming has occurred over the last century, see above) to accepting the warming but denying any attribution to human activity.

My problems are:

1. The quote is not cited. I could not find the quote to successfully cite it. Therefore, I must question whether this was really said or not.
2. The conclusion of the quote being "ambiguous" and "may represent a shift" in Inhofe's stance is not cited. I could not find any instance of anyone saying such a thing - no one - regardless of the source's quality.
3. This seems to be clearly original research.
4. An article should not reference itself by saying "see above".

-- Ash Lux ^{(talk | contribs)} 21:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

One more point: at this time, unless there is some fallout or notability for the quote, it belongs in Wikiquote, not in Wikipedia. We'll have to do better than zero hits on Google and Google news. -- Ash Lux ^{(talk | contribs)} 21:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I knew that would happen. Hey ho. I found http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Hearing&Hearing_ID=51628af6-802a-23ad-4588-bc4a4a94607a but thats not whats needed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by William M. Connolley (talk • contribs) 21:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

Ashlux: I'm kind of new here, so I don't know how this would be handled: I was watching the hearing live, and I have a DVR; I rewound and copied the quote verbatim, going back several times to make sure it was complete. That may not be enough for wiki (although I've seen many many articles with superscript references that a citation is needed, and the quote isn't removed due to a lack of a citation). So, gpoaccess.gov publishes transcripts from congressional hearings, but it takes at least two months after they occur. How about we - in good faith - keep the quote until it can be cited by the published transcript? Also, I do not agree that "fallout or notability" should be the sole requirements for including quotes...neither are they in practice, even in this article. Thanks. Info999 22:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Ash, I agree with your second point (and by extension the third to some extent). I think this is reintroducing the original problem Raul objected to: giving our own commentary and drawing our own conclusions. I'm also quite surprised that finding a citation has been difficult; I thought such things were officially recorded somewhere. I'll take a crack at finding one. -Elmer Clark 01:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)