[Ok-sus] Inhofe Premises NO. 2

John Miggins jmiggins at cox.net
Thu Mar 14 19:33:28 UTC 2013

Perhaps we can stage a great debate in the state of Oklahoma on this topic once and for all in lieu of a sustainability conference it would seem with the experts we have on both sides I would Pay to see Hentges  and Inhofe debate global warming, perhaps have it in Norman at the Weather Center.  


What could be more sustainable than that.


John Miggins



Harvest Energy Solutions

"renewable solutions to everyday needs"


1571 East 22 place, Tulsa OK 74114

jmiggins at cox.net



From: Ok-sus [mailto:ok-sus-bounces at lists.oksustainability.org] On Behalf Of Robert Waldrop
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 1:50 PM
To: ok-sus at lists.oksustainability.org
Subject: Re: [Ok-sus] Inhofe Premises NO. 2



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

cid:image001.png at 01CCEA24.D94E95B0

102 East Thatcher

Edmond Ok, 73034





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/pipermail/ok-sus/attachments/20130314/92f37d68/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 602 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/pipermail/ok-sus/attachments/20130314/92f37d68/attachment.png>

More information about the Ok-sus mailing list