[Ok-sus] Inhofe Premises NO. 2

kelley C Smith smithkc at riskiii.com
Fri Mar 15 12:54:48 UTC 2013


As satisfying as that might be to some of us, I am afraid that most people in Oklahoma just are not thinking rationally about this. Here's one question….(I have not seen Inhofe's book, but I recently checked out a Glenn Beck book from public library noting that it had NO footnotes) does Inhofe's book have ANY footnotes for his claims? I'm guessing it's much like the Beck book (which I did not bother to read once I saw it was footnote-free).

To most Oklahomans, this is something that affects them emotionally. They fancy the "wide open prairie" on which there is no overpopulation,etc. They believe in "rugged individualism" where no one's actions affect anyone else, thus there is no need for government or any collective action. They believe in theology that gives simple answers. 

Not meaning to slam your comment or ideas (and perhaps I am wrong, occasionally have been before  :-)  ….. I am at the point where I believe it is either  1> hopeless or 2> in need of an emotional / theological argument that employs some sort of different strategy. (I have become interested in George Lakoff's work if that means anything to you). Here's a link:

http://georgelakoff.com/

Certainly, not everyone in Oklahoma is an Inhofe fan, but he's been re-elected…how many times now?

Kelley



On Mar 14, 2013, at 2:33 PM, John Miggins <jmiggins at cox.net> wrote:

> 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
>  
> Principal
> Harvest Energy Solutions
> "renewable solutions to everyday needs"
> 918-743-2299
> 1571 East 22 place, Tulsa OK 74114
> jmiggins at cox.net
> www.harvestsolar.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
>  
> Harlan,
> 
> 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
> <image001.png>
> 102 East Thatcher
> Edmond Ok, 73034
>  
>  
>  
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Ok-sus mailing list
> Ok-sus at lists.oksustainability.org
> https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/ok-sus

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/pipermail/ok-sus/attachments/20130315/dfe835df/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Ok-sus mailing list