[Ok-sus] Inhofe Premises NO. 2

Robert Waldrop bwaldrop1952 at att.net
Thu Mar 14 18:50:04 UTC 2013


Thanks for parsing these arguments and helping us understand how to refute them. 

Here and there on the internet, people are starting to refer to the "hockey 
stick" as a "scythe", which has the effect of bringing the issues into greater 
perspective, it seems to me.
 Bob Waldrop, Oklahoma City
http://www.ipermie.net -- How to permaculture your urban lifestyle

From: Harlan Hentges <harlan at organiclawyers.com>
To: ok-sus at lists.oksustainability.org
Sent: Thu, March 14, 2013 11:45:56 AM
Subject: [Ok-sus] Inhofe Premises NO. 2

I think that Inhofe’s second key premise is also obviously incorrect.  Could 
anyone support Inhofe’s claim? 

Inhofe’s second claim is that Dr. Michael Mann’s hockey stick graph was the 
result of Mann’s dishonest manipulation of the data.   
Inhofe states, “The most egregious flaw in the (IPCC’s) Third Assessment is 
undoubtedly the now infamous hockey stick graph …”(p. 31)  “problems with Mann’s 
study were immense” (p.32)…. “My (Inhofe’s) concerns …were validated”(p.34) …  
“It appears to be a case of selectively using data – that is, if you don’t’ like 
the result, remove the offending data until you get the answer you want.” 
(p.35)… This report refuted the hockey stick” (p.35)… “It confirmed what I had 
been saying all along: the hockey stick was broken.” (p. 36).
Mann’s finding of an historically large and significant increase in global 
temperatures in the 20th century was repeatedly confirmed. Although his 
statistical methodology was seriously and scientifically debated, this finding 
was never seriously challenged. In the wake of the “Climategate scandal” Penn 
State conducted an investigation of Mann’s conduct and concluded not only that 
he had done nothing wrong, but praised him for his work as a scientist.  
Inhofe’s claim that Mann was dishonest has been rejected by the institution that 
investigated the claim.  
Inhofe’s statement that the “hockey stick was broken” leaves the false 
impression that Dr. Mann’s finding had been contradicted.  
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:  Do not read, copy or distribute this e-mail unless you 
are the intended recipient.  This e-mail, and attachment(s), contains 
confidential and/or legally privileged information.  If you are not the intended 
recipient, please delete immediately.
Harlan Hentges
(405) 340-6554  Office 
(405) 808-7669  Mobile
harlan at organiclawyers.com
Hentges & Associates, pllc
102 East Thatcher
Edmond Ok, 73034
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/pipermail/ok-sus/attachments/20130314/43be5c43/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 602 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/pipermail/ok-sus/attachments/20130314/43be5c43/attachment.obj>

More information about the Ok-sus mailing list