Talk:Jim Inhofe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
Jim Inhofe is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, which collaborates on the United States Congress and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, visit the project page for more information.

This article is part of WikiProject Oklahoma, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Oklahoma.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.

Contents

[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)

[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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/i/m/Talk%7EJim_Inhofe_d9a6.html"