[Ok-sus] Inhofe Premises NO. 2

John Miggins jmiggins at cox.net
Fri Mar 15 14:02:24 UTC 2013

Since Inhofe is on the environmental committee, which directly affects
global warming, this might be a good avenue to allow others to formally
comment on his "ideas"




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
kelley C Smith
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 7:55 AM
To: ok-sus at lists.oksustainability.org
Subject: Re: [Ok-sus] Inhofe Premises NO. 2


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:




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






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



Harvest Energy Solutions

"renewable solutions to everyday needs"


1571 East 22 place, Tulsa OK 74114

 <mailto:jmiggins at cox.net> jmiggins at cox.net

 <http://www.harvestsolar.net> www.harvestsolar.net


From: Ok-sus [mailto:ok- <mailto:sus-bounces at lists.oksustainability.org>
sus-bounces at lists.oksustainability.org] On Behalf Of Robert Waldrop
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 1:50 PM
To:  <mailto:ok-sus at lists.oksustainability.org>
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


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> http://www.ipermie.net -- How to permaculture your
urban lifestyle




From: Harlan Hentges < <mailto:harlan at organiclawyers.com>
harlan at organiclawyers.com>
To:  <mailto:ok-sus at lists.oksustainability.org>
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

 <mailto:harlan at organiclawyers.com> harlan at organiclawyers.com


Hentges & Associates, pllc


102 East Thatcher

Edmond Ok, 73034





Ok-sus mailing list
Ok-sus at lists.oksustainability.org


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/pipermail/ok-sus/attachments/20130315/b5438738/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Ok-sus mailing list