Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:01, 15 January 2010

Template:Community article probation

Biography: Politics and Government C‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the politics and government work group.

U.S. Congress C‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article has not yet been assigned a subject. The options are: "Person", "People", "Place", "Thing", or "Events".

Oklahoma: Tulsa C‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oklahoma, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oklahoma on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OklahomaWikipedia:WikiProject OklahomaTemplate:WikiProject OklahomaOklahoma C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Task-force Tulsa.

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-time 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 Misplaced Pages user ProfessorPaul 03:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Just wondering, a he received a B.A. degree in what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.210.150 (talk) 23:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

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. Misplaced Pages 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)

Jim Inhofe For U.S. Senate official website OKSooners 04:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Requested edit

{{editprotected}} In the "See Also" section it says Inhofe has been Chairman of EPW from 2003-2007, when in fact the correct window is 2002-2006. Could this please be updated to reflect? Thanks! Ryancassin 19:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you give a soiurce for this? Od Mishehu 07:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

This page is semiprotected; any username more than a few days old can edit it. There is no need for administrator assistance to edit this page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

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 — Preceding unsigned comment 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

I've been reading this thread, and I'm not going to touch the primary topic being discussed -- after all, it is extremely old. However, I am compelled to say the following: Elmer Clark, regarding the definition of the word "meaningful" in scientific contexts, your suggestion is incorrect. The word is mainly used as a near synonym for "statistically significant." I say it is not an exact synonym because the scientific community only officially defines the phrase statistical significance. But, nonetheless, the word is de facto defined in the same manner. One sees this time and time again in scientific journals across the spectrum (from biology to physics to medicine to chemistry, etc. etc. etc.). In fact, if one uses the word "meaningful" in a way that does not indicate statistical or informational significance, then one may be excluded from publication in major scientific journals. Years ago, when I was at university, a fellow student was chided for using the word incorrectly and almost wasn't graded for his thesis because the prof found his use of the word to be misleading. That's how established this de facto definition is. It is just one of those words that scientists use to distinguish significant information from statistical rubbish. Elmer, you may not have found this in the Merriam Webster definition, but it is common knowledge in the scientific community and is evidenced every week in the journals of the Nature Publishing Group, the AAAS, the National Academy of Sciences and countless others. ask123 (talk) 23:26, 18 December 2009 (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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 and say anyone who ever owned the stock was a moron. However you'd be ignoring the year 1986-2001 .

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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

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 and say anyone who ever owned the stock was a moron. However you'd be ignoring the year 1986-2001 . 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)

I do not understand 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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages to include the graph. Misplaced Pages ought to be a viewpoint-neutral publication, and including such a graph gives away a certain viewpoint on the part of Misplaced Pages 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)

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 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)

Request for Comment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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 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)

Keep Graph. The graph provides specific counterpoint to the claims of Inhofe. Because Inhofe has made his career on his radical and extreme denial of climate change, he has opened the door to this comment on that stance and made a limited discussion of the issue of climate change in his bio fair commentary.Woody Tanaka (talk) 22:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Lead Section

I think there should be a source labeling Inhofe as a Christian fundamentalist. I imagine that he is one, but has he ever claimed to be one? A discussion would be fine elsewhere in the article. I've heard him called that. I'm sure someone's said it in a reliable source, but I just don't think uncited claims should be in the lead. Even cited I'm not sure if it belongs in the lead given the inflammatory nature of the label. If there's a consensus on both sides about it, or if he's claimed to be a Christian fundamentalist, then it's probably noteworthy enough to be in the lead. Otherwise, I think it should be relegated to the article body, maybe under "Political Views".--Littleman_TAMU 19:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Holocaust Denier?

"I have been called -- my kids are all aware of this -- dumb, crazy man, science abuser, Holocaust denier, villain of the month, hate-filled, warmonger, Neanderthal, Genghis Khan and Attila the Hun," he announced. "And I can just tell you that I wear some of those titles proudly."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/02/AR2007030201619.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.48.200.13 (talk) 13:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

Misplaced Pages is not a list of quotations (see WP:NOT#DIR). We don't need to be adding every stupid thing a politician says on their article without any context whatsoever (as has been done here). If there is some fallout from What he said, then that fallout needs to be discussed (in other words, I don't think what he said is notable enough to mention here). So, for now, I'm going to remove the quote from the article. If you want to add random quotes, check out Wikiquote instead. And just another observation, this quote does not do enough to show that he is a Holocaust denier. -- Ash Lux 02:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, the article isn't saying he's a Holocaust denier, any more than it's saying he's Genghis Khan or Attila. It's hyperbole. The quote doesn't seem relevant or noteworthy enough to include. MastCell 22:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyone know where he lives, how much energy his house uses?

This is of interest because of his recent request to Gore to take a pledge to reduce his energy use to that of the average American. Without that information I don't know if this is worth quoting or not. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=7616011f-802a-23ad-435e-887baa7069ca

This was a fake accusal that Inhofe threw at Gore, one that has been debunked for several weeks, if not months. Some low-life rooted around in Gore's trash and got an energy bill from one of his homes. Since Gore pays extra for green energy, and also purchases offset credits for the part of his energy usage that he can't cover with green energy, his energy bill is larger than the average citizen's bill. The global-warming deniers tried to make a charge against Gore that he "uses" more energy than the average home; they counted on the general public being as ignorant as their supporters, and unable to read a simple sentence or two, and tell the difference between cost and usage. That's all it took to debunk this lazy and amateurism claim - the same one Inhofe unsuccessfully tried to revive against Gore during the hearing. I would say that unless you're willing to make a list of Inhofe's unsuccessful attempts to outmaneuver progressives (and it's rather long), this incident isn't worthy of inclusion here. Info999 03:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Non-reversal

Just for the record, Inhofe has made no reversal on his position on global warming. The quote being pointed at is: "The issue is: is it man-made gasses? Anthropogenic gases...uh...CO2 that's - that is the issue." This is - at best - an indeterminant statement.

One the other hand, at the very same hearing, he said "It is my perspective that your global warming alarmist pronouncements are now and have always been filled with inaccuracies and misleading statements... The poor would pay if what you recommend was implemented. And there is no science there. We just can't do that in America.". He also said to Gore "How come you guys never seem to notice when it gets cold?" He then confronted Gore with the number of record cold temperatures measured at U.S. weather stations during the month of January. (This would be the same January that was part of the warmest Northern Hemisphere winter on record.)

In short, there is no reversal. Raul654 01:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there is a clear reversal, and that's why it's back in the article, where it belongs. That someone of Inhofe's standing on this issue would do a 180 is relevant to his bio.

Here's how you can understand what he did: say I go around the country for years stating emphatically that there is no such thing as the moon, that it's a fantasy, that it's a completely made up thing that doesn't exist now, never has existed before, and won't ever exist - period. Then one day, in "debating" one of the world's pre-eminent lunar authorities on national television, I say, "people think the issue is: "does the moon exist?" That's not the issue - the issue is whether or not the moon is a natural phenomenon, or is something man-made" I will have unequivocally stated that the moon existed, and challenged its origin, not is existence. This is exactly - precisely - what Inhofe did at the hearing. He stated flatly that the issue isn't whether or ase cite a reliable external source that makes this claim (that he reversed his position), instead of your own spin on a cherry-picked comment. Raul654 03:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

PS - here's a third quote I just found - "He said that the East, Antarctica, might melt and this could raise levels -- sea levels by 20 feet, so we're all going to die. However, according to many scientists, the Antarctica is gaining ice mass, not losing it." Sounds like the same 'old Inhofe to me. Meanwhile, I could not find a single article that agrees with your claim that he's changed his position (which makes it original research by definition) Raul654 03:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you're really missing the point, and this is causing you to delete something that really should be in the article. Not one of your quotes has anything to do with the fact that Inhofe said what he said, and clearly. I don't need an external source saying that it's a reversal simply to be able to include the statement as a relevant factual statement that he made. It may have even been unintentional on Inhofe's part. You seem to think that I'm somehow giving him "credit" or something - I'm not, and not injecting opinion either way, as you seem to be ("...same ol' Inhofe to me"). The way it's worded now (please look at it before reflexively deleting it again), there is no hint of OR. Because of who he is, and when he said it, it's absolutely relevant.Info999 04:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Just because you say it's a reversal doesn't make it so. Just because you say his statement is clear doesn't make it so.

I don't need an external source saying that it's a reversal simply to be able to include the statement as a relevant factual statement that he made. - except that you aren't presenting the statement as is - you are claiming it is (to use your own words) a 180 degree reversal of his position. So you had better do a heck of a lot better than your own unsupported interpretation of his position based on a single out-of-context, cherry-picked sentence. So I'll make it pretty clear - put up or shut up. Find something that corroborates your claim of a reversal or drop the issue. Raul654 04:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think your tone is aggressive and unhelpful, and I would appreciate it if you toned it down. I don't want to have to report this. You don't have the right to treat people any way you wish, no matter what your position. You apparently haven't even looked at the latest edit that I did, or you would see that I removed the wording about the reversal; according to your logic directly above, the quote now belongs, as it contains absolutely no "claims" of a reversal. And you apparently didn't even read my last post in this discussion, above (written after I had removed said "claim"), where I said, "I don't need an external source saying that it's a reversal simply to be able to include the statement as a relevant factual statement that he made." Which is exactly what I did, and yet you apparently reflexively reverted it. And to paraphrase you above, just because you say it doesn't belong doesn't make it so, and just because you tell someone to "drop it" doesn't mean they must; if you think that, I don't think you get this site.Info999 04:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You apparently haven't even looked at the latest edit that I did, or you would see that I removed the wording about the reversal

I did read it. It says: After years of claiming that global warming did not exist... Inhofe acknowledged that it exists So yes, you are stating he has reversed himself, without actually using the word 'reversed' - a distinction without a difference.

according to your logic directly above, the quote now belongs, as it contains absolutely no "claims" of a reversal. - uh, except for the fact that it DOES? Raul654 04:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that some mention of this ought to be made - I was very surprised when I heard him say it on CSPAN, and I certainly didn't get the impression it was intended to mean less than it seems to - and I think it is quite significant whether or not it's truly indicative of a change in position, as it is a departure from his previous stance, even if accidental. However, I don't think Info999's edit was the right approach - even the revised version is doing too much drawing of an unsourced conclusion. I think a compromise is in order, something like:

During a March 21, 2007 Senate Environment & Public Works Committee hearing, Inhofe stated during his questioning of former Vice President Al Gore, "I hope people understand what the issue is...because a lot of people don't know the issue. A lot of people think the issue is...is...uh...is global warming taking place? The issue is: is it man-made gases? Anthropogenic gases...uh...CO2 that's - that is the issue," contesting merely the cause of global warming rather than the existence of the phenomenon.

I'm still not really satisfied with that version, but I do feel something needs to be said. Either of you have any suggestions on what should be put in? -Elmer Clark 04:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This statement totally ignores the multiple (much clearer) statements he made at that very sitting denying or downplaying global warming - "there is no science there", Antarctica "is gaining ice mass", "How come you guys never seem to notice when it gets cold". And I don't think it's a coincidence that not a single media outlet has picked up on this alleged reversal. Raul654 05:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Elmer...although I think Elmer should do the edit he suggests, as methinks my posts may well continue to be sent back from whence they came.  :) What's interesting, and what Elmer understands (bravo!) is that Inhofe may not have meant to say something like this. But in fact he did. It's kind of funny, in a sad way, that anyone actually thinks that by including this quote, we're somehow giving something to Inhofe that he doesn't deserve...some credit or something. I for one am not; while I personally find his denials and tactics abhorrent, I (unlike others) am trying hard to not allow my personal opinion to influence my edits here.

As far as his other statements, they're not relevant to this point, and it's not helpful in any way to keep hammering on them when they do no good in the debate...they don't mitigate the fact that he apparently acknowledged global warming as a fact. And Raul: thanks for completly ignoring my plea for civility, and instead ratcheting up your vitriol another notch.

I just want to point out two very important things about Elmer's great post...first, he pointed out cleary what was wrong with the original paragraph, and he did so without being snotty or aggressive - two tricks that seemed to have escaped previous participants in this topic. Second - and this is the more important of the two - he did it in a way that made the article better, which is the point, isn't it? If he had simply arbitrarily deleted the item, others could never have collaborated on it, making it better. I have found far too many autocratic deletions, especially among people who overemphasize their position and history on wiki, and in particular due to personal/political opinions, as seems to have been the case with these deletions. Thanks Elmer! Info999 05:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

One more thing for Raul: you should really become familiar with the following text (it's only the first rule in Resolving Disputes), because everything you did tonight violates this policy, in spirit and in letter - including your protection of the page:

"Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it. Provide a good edit summary when making significant changes that other users might object to. The revision you would prefer will not be established by reverting, and repeated reverting is forbidden; discuss disputed changes on the talk page." Info999 05:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Info, I understand what you're saying, but let's go ahead and focus on the issue at hand.

Raul, how about appending something like "Other comments made by Inhofe during the hearing, however, such as , expressed doubt as to the existance of global warming at all." I think that even when one takes this caveat into account, his statement is worth mentioning. Is this acceptable? -Elmer Clark 05:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Elmer: agreed. As Raul isn't responding here, and may not have seen the most recent postings, I've contacted him through his User Talk page. FYI - wiki rules prohibit an admin from indefinitely protecting a page like this (which Raul did) as well as prohibit admins from protecting pages in a dispute in which they are involved (which he did as well). I hope we can all discuss this and resolve it. Thanks. Info999 05:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The big problem with the current edit is that it includes completely irrelevant quotes, things that Inhofe has said in the past repeatedly; the quote about the issue not being does global warming exist but what causes it is noteworthy specifically because he had never said anything like it in the past...if we're going to start quoting every senator and member of Congress on everything we say (in order to pretend to provide "balance") then wiki will soon thereafter go off the rails. In addition, there is no need to provide yet another example of how Inhofe has been a global warming denier. I think the appropriate compromise is to include his astonishing statement, without editorial comment or additional, clearly irrelevant comments. And if anyone agrees or disagrees with me, I sure would appreciate it if they said so here, instead of petulantly blocking us all from editing the article (or, heck, even blocking us outright!)  :) Info999 07:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I just took a look at the "sources" for the irrelevant quotes that the last edit added...WorldNetDaily and Mission Christian News...now there are two reliable, reputable, non-POV sources for you! POV has no place in wiki, whether or not it's disguising itself as "the need for balance." Or is that "fair and balanced"?  :) Info999 08:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The big problem with the current edit is that it includes completely irrelevant quotes, things that Inhofe has said in the past repeatedly - no, actually he said them at the VERY hearing where you clean he supposedly did a 180 on his beliefs.

if we're going to start quoting every senator and member of Congress on everything we say (in order to pretend to provide "balance") then wiki will soon thereafter go off the rails - A non sequitur. nobody has suggested quoting anybody but Jim Inhofe in the Jim Inhofe article.

In addition, there is no need to provide yet another example of how Inhofe has been a global warming denier - if you are going to add a quote that implies he has reversed his position, we are REQUIRED by our policy to add balance to it - that is, statements he made at that same sitting denying it.

I think the appropriate compromise is to include his astonishing statement, without editorial comment or additional - in other words, you find no compromise to be an acceptable one.

And if anyone agrees or disagrees with me, I sure would appreciate it if they said so here - I have done so repeatedly. You have refused to engage on the issues. You simply claim "OH LOOK! HE REVERSED HIS POSITION!" and ignore all evidence (supplied by Inhofe himself) to the contrary. Raul654 16:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

PS - as to the reliability of the sources, 5 seconds of googling turned up many hits for all three quotes. I have now added them to the article. Raul654 16:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Can I add a perspective? The problem with Inhofe appears to be that he is so scientifically illiterate on this issue (or possibly, so cunning) that much of what he says to sound skeptical is either meaningless or actually quite in accord with the std.consensus. For example "According to many scientists, the Antarctica is gaining ice mass, not losing" - perfectly defensible. "the threat of catastrophic global warming" - orthogonal to the science. Its only the *way* he says it that makes him deceitful. On the issue of reversal... I think Inhofes position is so confused thats its pretty hard to tell. asserts that Inhofe has claimed GW doesn't exist (but with no cites; if info999 thinks this is "something he has always previously outright denied" then a cite should be easy to find) and that he now states that it does. I think the latter is dubious: Inhofe merely says that the issue is anthropogenic CO2. There should be something better than this available William M. Connolley 16:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

William: There are several issues here. First, when I first added Inhofe's latest quote, I included something about this being a reversal of his position. Instead of debating whether or not it was a reversal, and editing the entry to make it better, Raul repeatedly simply deleted the entire entry, and would not hear any argument as to keeping it. I then removed ALL commentary on whether or not this was reversal, and Raul continued to delete the entry, claiming that since it wasn't a reversal, I couldn't claim that it was - even though I had removed all trace of such a claim. Then, Raul added superfluous quotes, claiming that he "had" to due to a wiki policy about "balance."

The _fact_ of this statement clearly belongs in this article. It may have been the first time Inhofe acknowledged that global warming exists. If people agree that pointing that out violates NPOV or OR, then, while I do not believe that it does, I won't challenge it.

I don't need to cite anything additional regarding Inhofe's denials; no one seems to be reading the Environment section that this entry was included in. It contains at least four specific and at least three other indirect items that have Inhofe categorically denying global warming exists. In the _same_ section! The latest quote - the one I added originally - is the one that provides the _balance_ that Raul claims is missing! And in no other part of the entire article are attempts made to "balance" each and every quote from Inhofe with a contradicting quote (perhaps because A. they don't happen very often and B. his stance is well-documented in the article!) In fact, this whole notion is ridiculous. If Al Gore makes a statement tomorrow that says, "the issue isn't whether or not global warming is man-made, the issue is whether or not it exists" then that quote should and must be added to his wiki article. Because of his long-standing and long-documented stand on global warming, we wouldn't need to add several other quotes from the same session that seem to contradict the main quote, as his record is well-documented. The same applies here.

I think that we sometimes paint ourselves into a corner before we realize the mess that we have made, and instead of just admitting it and moving on, we try to cover it again and again with irrelevant nonsense. Happens to me, happens to all of us. I think this time it happened with an admin, who had the power to protect and block and abused it. The quote is real, it's different from all the other quotes in the article - the ones that already existed and already provided "balance" - and I think it should remain, by itself, without any confusing commentary or additional, redundant and unnecessary quotes. If I should be in the minority, however, the article should just be changed - I don't think I should be abused and threatened by an admin. Thanks. Info999 19:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you leave out the complaints against Raul, please? It won't help here. lets just look at the article. OK, I've looked at the env section. It says of Inhofe: "offered compelling evidence that catastrophic global warming is a hoax" - this is a strawman and says nothing about actual GW (its what I meant by him being either cunning or incompetent). I would say that only "satellite data, confirmed by NOAA balloon measurements, confirms that no meaningful warming has occurred over the last century." says that no actual GW has occurred. OK, so I'm prepared to accept that: one is enough.

Now, as to, say - I don't think you're right to say its *clear* Inhofe has reversed his position. I think though that the implication is there.

In more general terms, I think the para there is not good. I'm going to try to rewrite it and make everyone happy (ha ha). BTW, to my slight amusement, I can't tell if you're a GW believer or skeptic or neither based on what you're saying and editing William M. Connolley 19:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I *have* hacked it. Apart from taking out some excess date-linking and over-precise dates (my personal pref; revert if you care) I've added some phrasing around the "reversal" bit. It is, I think, correct; I also think it would hardly survive an attack of the OR zealots. I also cut the other things he said: they seem like trivia to me. I don't know who added them in, so I don't know whose toes I'm treading on.

My personal opinion on this is that the article should make it clear that he disagrees strongly with "GW", whatever that means and thow in some kind of ref to the wiki article about the scientific opinion. The details of his absurd position aren't of any great interest. To me. William M. Connolley 20:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

William: FYI - I dropped the "clear reversal" almost immediately, and haven't been advocating that. I agree with you that the other things he said that Raul included should go. I think your edit is fine, as it's pretty much what I was originally going for, substituting "may be" for "clear." And I think you're right about the OR concerns of others. But I support it.

Regarding my own position: when it comes to clearly verifiable - and verified - scientific consensus, I personally don't think one can "believe" in it: it's true, and one can certainly - and misguidedly - "disbelieve" in hard science, as apparently almost half of Americans do in the hard scientific fact of evolution. As to my political beliefs and their place here: they don't belong. At all. Which is why it _should_ be hard for you to determine my personal stance. And if this project (wiki) is to survive, then we need to agree on principles and then carry them out. I think an editing decision should not be based upon attempting to support or attack anything or anyone, even in some disguise. (By the way, I don't think you were doing that in any way; I was simply commenting on what I see here quite often). If you're asking, I'll say I personally think that Inhofe is a disgrace to the Senate and the state of Oklahoma, not because of his positions, but because of the deceitful and despicable manner in which he conducts himself as a Senator. The Gore "questioning" is but the latest, and not even the worst, example. However, I try very hard not to have that influence my edits and suggestions here. Thanks. Info999 20:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

In fact I wasn't asking, just... well, quite surprised. Normally its fairly clear from the editing, so I think I must congratulate you on yours. I hope Raul will be OK with the current version William M. Connolley 20:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and marked the statement as possibly being dubious and possibly being OR since a couple of us have an objection to it. The current paragraph reads:

During a 2007 hearing of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Inhofe stated "I hope people understand what the issue is...because a lot of people don't know the issue. A lot of people think the issue is...is...uh...is global warming taking place? The issue is: is it man-made gases? Anthropogenic gases...uh...CO2 that's - that is the issue,". This somewhat ambiguous statement may represent a shift from denying the existence of warming (no meaningful warming has occurred over the last century, see above) to accepting the warming but denying any attribution to human activity.

My problems are:

1. The quote is not cited. I could not find the quote to successfully cite it. Therefore, I must question whether this was really said or not.
2. The conclusion of the quote being "ambiguous" and "may represent a shift" in Inhofe's stance is not cited. I could not find any instance of anyone saying such a thing - no one - regardless of the source's quality.
3. This seems to be clearly original research.
4. An article should not reference itself by saying "see above".

-- Ash Lux 21:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

One more point: at this time, unless there is some fallout or notability for the quote, it belongs in Wikiquote, not in Misplaced Pages. We'll have to do better than zero hits on Google and Google news. -- Ash Lux 21:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I knew that would happen. Hey ho. I found http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Hearing&Hearing_ID=51628af6-802a-23ad-4588-bc4a4a94607a but thats not whats needed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by William M. Connolley (talk • contribs) 21:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

Ashlux: I'm kind of new here, so I don't know how this would be handled: I was watching the hearing live, and I have a DVR; I rewound and copied the quote verbatim, going back several times to make sure it was complete. That may not be enough for wiki (although I've seen many many articles with superscript references that a citation is needed, and the quote isn't removed due to a lack of a citation). So, gpoaccess.gov publishes transcripts from congressional hearings, but it takes at least two months after they occur. How about we - in good faith - keep the quote until it can be cited by the published transcript? Also, I do not agree that "fallout or notability" should be the sole requirements for including quotes...neither are they in practice, even in this article. Thanks. Info999 22:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Ash, I agree with your second point (and by extension the third to some extent). I think this is reintroducing the original problem Raul objected to: giving our own commentary and drawing our own conclusions. I'm also quite surprised that finding a citation has been difficult; I thought such things were officially recorded somewhere. I'll take a crack at finding one. -Elmer Clark 01:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

What the?

I just have one, honest question, and its not a joke I would truely appreciate if someone could explain this to me: How does someone like this get elected? I live in a democracy (australia) and for some reason people like this never manage to get elected to anything, for some reason we have higher standards and these people get filtered out and though we may not like our politicians atleast they're intelligent reasonable people It seems to me american politicains belong more to a fascist third world country than a modern democracy. Why is there such a difference between every other developed and democratic nation (canada, EU, Australia...) and the USA? Esmehwp 15:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Uh...British National Party, National Front, etc...extremism isn't limited to America. At any rate, this isn't an appropriate topic to discuss here. -Elmer Clark 01:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

"God Loving"

He is very devoted to god. That is why I believe that title is appropriate. 70.246.19.5 16:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the article makes that clear via sourced examples, which is probably more appropriate than the proposed label. MastCell 22:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Political Views

Homosexuality

This section would be better titled same-sex marriage or gay marriage -- that would more closely match usage throughout Misplaced Pages. OKSooners 04:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Scientific consensus

I've undone this edit. If MSTCrow is uncomfortable calling it a "scientific consensus", I've reworded it to be a little more specific. Regardless, surely we can agree that citing a paper from the early 1990's as if it proved there was no consensus today, 10+ years later, is a misuse of the source to advance a position. MastCell 00:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be returned to simply saying "consensus." Numerous articles throughout Misplaced Pages refer to it as such, and, despite this report he cites and his frankly ludicrous claim that "the "consensus" is someting on the order of 1 in 10 climate scientists," recent studies such as the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report have left no reasonable doubt that a clear consensus exists on this issue in the scientific community. Perhaps this was not so in the early 1990s - but even the IPCC First Assessment Report from 1990 clearly states that "emissions resulting from human activities are substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gases: CO2, methane, CFCs and nitrous oxide. These increases will enhance the greenhouse effect, resulting on average in an additional warming of the Earth's surface." I call this consensus, and unless MSTCrow can provide some pretty solid evidence to the contrary, I think the article should continue to do so as well. Your "compromise" solution is unnecessarily wordy, in my opinion. -Elmer Clark 21:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Contributions

The article says that Inhofe has received over a million from the Energy and Nat. Resource sectors, but the given source says only about 590K. Looking for some clarification. Thanks. ~ UBeR (talk) 21:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

From Inhofe's Open Secrets career profile:

$972,973 from gas/oil

$337,313 from electricity

$133,300 from mining

Put it together and it's close to $1.5 million. Raul654 (talk) 21:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Err?

What's the reason for the "Conspiracy theorist" categorization? 68.39.174.238 (talk) 00:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Conservative ?

I took out the "conservative" description since when referencing John Kerry or Ted kennedy I did not see the word "liberal" or "progressive" to describe them. Let's keep it fair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.163.255.1 (talk) 20:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Seattle SuperSonics

What is this doing in the "LGBT rights" section? Currently it says "Inhofe has generally been seen as hostile by LGBT advocacy groups. He is one of the few people who support the Seattle Sonics moving to Oklahoma City." This seems like a total non sequitur to me, unless somebody can explain what moving a pro basketball team from one city to another has to do with gay rights. 71.203.209.0 (talk) 00:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, yeah there was a big controversy regarding the Supersonics because as they were looking at getting public financing to build a new arena, it was discovered that the two owners had each given $1.1 million to a group aimed at stopping same-sex marriages. I think that the team threatened to move to Oklahoma City if they couldn't get public financing in Seattle. Basically it was a bunch of intolerant Democrats blocking these "undesirables" because they have a religion. -Brad Kgj08 (talk) 17:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

That's the most ridiculous thing I've read on a talk page in a long time. Seattle taxpayers decide not to give a big welfare check to some rich businessmen from Oklahoma, and you say they are being intolerant? I'm afraid to ask what you think of those teabagger tax protesters. 205.175.113.90 (talk) 20:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

This article seems strongly biased

The statement "Global average temperature measurements over the last 150 years. Inhofe claims that "no meaningful warming has occurred over the last century" using an image not related to the actual claim that "satellite data, confirmed by NOAA balloon measurements, confirms that no meaningful warming has occurred over the last century" is clearly propaganda. If you want to reject a statement, at least you should try to be relevant. A good start to would be to try to learn to distinguish between bullshitting and rejection. --85.165.67.8 (talk) 17:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The graph should probably go. Imhofe obviously is wrong on the science, but that's better explained in text that cites reliable sources instead of using a graph. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, this entire article shifted from a Bio to slamming him and his environmental stances. Even 90% of the comment on this discussion page is by people who are otherwise decent content editors, but have taken this time to debate the merits of global warming. The article itself has false information such as atributing many of his stances to biblical references. It even has a false quote in there that I am correcting about ""compelling evidence that catastrophic global warming is a hoax. That conclusion is supported by the painstaking work of the nation's top biblical scholars.". The link goes to senate excerpt page that clearly shows that is not what was said...no biblical references of any kind were made. He said "top climate scientists", not biblical scholars.

In the middle of the environmental section there is a paragraph which might be true, but has nothing to do about environmental issues track records; it is about an alleged scheme to transfer public property for free to his former campaign director thru the usage of Native American corporations. I thought the wiki gods tended to lock articles like this just so this kind of political slandering wouldnt seep in. I had only recently heard of the guy but this entire thing reads like its from a mud-slinging phamplet from his opposition.

On anyone elses page, the section would be titled something like 'pro family' or family rights or something like that, but here the section it titles LGBT and launches into him being a bigot. I dont see this on the pages of popular people with the same stances. Lightertack (talk) 06:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Some of it is legitimate, some of it is overboard, and some is obvious vandalism (like the "biblical scholars" bit on global warming). Such is life on Misplaced Pages. Raymond Arritt (talk) 14:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The image seems to be there just there to "prove him wrong." This isn't the article where the merits of global warming should be discussed. If there seems to be a consensus, then we should start making some changes.Masebrock (talk) 17:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

This aritcle is not here to prove him wrong. This article is not here to pick aprt his speeches and try to point out flaws in the things he said. This article is here to compile notable information about this Senator. If you take issue with my edits, the talk page is here waiting for you.Masebrock (talk) 21:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

No, this article doesn't prove him wrong, reality does. Its rather hard to talk about what he is saying without running up against this. We can't just report his nutty views without noting that they are hopelessly wrong. The most NPOV way of doing that seems to be to just present the data. As the anon that started this section points out, Inhofe said "satellite data, confirmed by NOAA balloon measurements, confirms that no meaningful warming has occurred over the last century". This statement is very hard to interpret meaningfully - as the article says William M. Connolley (talk) 22:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that he is wrong, but I don't see the practice of pickng apart speeches, examining them for thier flaws on other people's pages. It's not enugh for the quote to be wrong, you have to prove that ths partcular segment of the speech was NOTABLE. Then it can stay. Masebrock (talk) 22:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Two other thnigs. There has already been a vote concering the graph. The results were four remove to zreo keep. Also, putting corporate contributions under the enviormental catagory is inferrng that there is some sort of conspiracy, and my fall under WP:NOR. Masebrock (talk) 22:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Inhofe is notable for one thing more than any other - his rabid, detached-from-reality anti-environmentalism. Inhofe+hoax gets 66,000 hits on Google! That more than justifies both that section and the graph. Raul654 (talk) 01:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Inhofe is notable for his unusual stance on global warming, so naturally that justifies the paragraph here. What concerns me is the cherry pickng of his speeches for flaws that may or may not be notable. I can pour over pages and pages of Al Gore's speeches, and eventualy I'm going to find a mistake. That dosen't mean I should use Misplaced Pages as an outlet to show the world what I found. It dosen't matter if that section of his speech was wrong, you have to prove that particular segment of his speech was NOTABLE. Also, you still havn't exaplained why the graph is nescessary other than "because he is wrong". Are we just going to ignore the voting that took place earlier? Why not put ths graph on every global warming denier's page then? Masebrock (talk) 05:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

We're not cherry picking. What we have in this article really is representative of his views on global warming - he really does think it's a hoax, based on evidence that is completely at odds with reality. Just go to his website and read his most recent speech on the subject. It's not like the denialism is hard to miss - it's the whole speech.

As far as why the graph is necessary -- it's necessary because there's a lot of disinformation surrounding the topic of global warming. When people hear him say things like 'global warming is a hoax' or 'global warming hasn't happened since 1998', the reader should be given the tools to judge the accuracy of that statement. That's why we include the graph. Raul654 (talk) 11:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying that he doesn't deny global warming, what I'm saying is taking specific quotes out of his speech and proving how he is incorrect may constitute original research. It's not enough for his quotes to be incorrect, they have to be NOTABLY incorrect. Newspapers, scientific journals, or organizations have to also have noticed the statement and pointed out it's inconsistency. Misplaced Pages is not a scientific journal, it's not the place were facts are synthesized to form an argument. This is an encyclopedia, were information is collected not because it's interesting, but because it is notable. I'm talking specifically about the sentances concerning satellite data.

Concerning the graph, I can see three reasons why it should go, though any of them alone would be sufficient enough.

1. It deviates from the set encyclopedia style. If the graph is on Inhofe's page, then why isn't it on the rest of the global warming denier's pages? Notice how no such graph is even on the Global Warming Controversies Page. Instead, they use this one: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a2/Climate_Change_Attribution.png which provides more data, and TRULY lets the reader decide.
2. This is not the page to discuss the global warming controversy, this is a page about a senator. Notice on the Jeremiah Wright Controversy page, the section on AIDS only has a quote from him, not extensive graphs, analysts, or quotes to prove him wrong. Misplaced Pages provides enough links on the page for the reader to direct themselves to more information if they desire, they reserve the content of that page to be directly about the pastor.
3. There has already been a general consensus that the graph is a sarcastic, personal attack on Infone and clearly violates NPOV.(see the rest of the talk page) Only a small minority of persistent editors is keeping it alive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Masebrock (talk • contribs) 16:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think any of that makes sense.

1. There is no set style. The GWC page is poor. It probably would be a good idea to add it there. I can't see how you think the attribution pic would be any better.
2. This page doesn't discuss the GWC. Are we reading the same page?
3. The "vote" was ages ago and no-one here participated and has no force. The graph is data. If its a sarcastic PA on Inhofe, then its because what he is saying is crap. The best way for wiki to deal with that is precisely to put up some neutral data.

William M. Connolley (talk) 21:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

You guys are still on the graph? I thought it was decided a long time ago that the graph was (in this context) OR and a PA. We've been through this many times. If you don't like Inhofe/think he's wrong, then cite RS saying exactly that. This is not the page on which to debate global warming. If the reader wants more information on GWC, they can go to that page. This article is biased and it's because of the graph and statements like, "Only Texas senator John Cornyn received more campaign donations from the oil and gas industry in the 2002 election cycle. The contributions Inhofe has received from the energy and natural resource sector since taking office have exceeded one million dollars." With something like that, you're basically saying Inhofe is paid off. The statements themselves are true, but no RS seems to care. There are many quotes by Inhofe, but few from RS that address his statements. Why can't the editors here just ignore him like, it seems, all the RS have? The "for the good of the reader" argument is crap. If a reader is convinced of something by reading this article, which is basically a collection of Inhofe's opinions, they won't be able to defend that position intelligently anyways. The article is supposed to be neutral on its subject. Presenting Inhofe's quotes and any RS talking about him or addressing his statements is doing so. Adding the graph and similar things basically says, "Inhofe is teh wrongz!!1!" exactly like that and is not neutral. Again, this is not the place to debate GWC or accuse Inhofe of being a oil/gas flunky or anything else, unless a RS does it.--Littleman_TAMU 19:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

If you don't like Inhofe/think he's wrong, then cite RS saying exactly that - that's what we're doing. We give his statement (that global warming isn't happening), and we supply a reliable source (a graph made from Hadcrut data - about as reliable as it gets) showing that he's full of crap.

With something like that, you're basically saying Inhofe is paid off - Of course he's being paid off. What's your point? That we should pretend he isn't? Sorry, but we're not here to write his hagiography. Raul654 (talk) 19:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Raul654, you have a professional stake in the advancement of AGM. In addition, you have exhibited personal animosity to Inhofe ON EVERY SINGLE COMMENT YOU HAVE MADE. You are a biased administrator picking biased sources to reinforce one side of an argument. Recuse yourself from editing (censoring) information on this article. People like you are giving wikipedia the reputation that it has currently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelseanhof (talk • contribs) 17:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought someone might make this argument. You are using RS, but the manner you use it is basically OR. You can't find a RS criticizing Inhofe so you make/use a graph made from RS data basically saying, "Look! Warming has occurred, he's wrong!" You don't address the "meaningful" part of his statement. It's not a good critique. I'm not a fan of Inhofe, but this article is biased. Surely there is a newspaper article somewhere wherein a reporter asks a climate scientist about Inhofe's comments and they shoot him and his views down. As far as the political contributions, you clearly hate Inhofe, maybe you should rethink your editing here. We need neutral editors or at least editors who can edit neutrally, not people who hate or love the subject of the article. I don't know about Oklahoma, but Cornyn and Landrieu come from states with a lot of oil and gas companies in them. There's no context with a source like that. What percentage of those candidates' total money came from oil/gas? What percentage of oil/gas companies' offices/refineries are in the politician's area? That's the problem with using RS data in an ORish way. If someone criticizes Inhofe in an article, you have the reasoning and context there in the article. When you just state data with no context to imply something, it's prejudicial and certainly not encyclopedia-like.--Littleman_TAMU 20:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Will a blog of climate scientists do? (RC is considered a RS for climate article.) Jason Patton (talk) 20:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

"You are using RS, but the manner you use it is basically OR." - Inhofe says that warming isn't happening. (The "meaningful" qualifer is a red-herring. He has, on several occasions, said outright that global warming is a "hoax". Therefore, by his own words, he doesn't think the earth is getting warmer) It is not original research to call his lie a lie. What you are trying to do is stretch the OR rules like taffy to whitewash this article.Raul654 (talk) 20:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to stretch anything. I'm not on a "side". The article seems biased and I'm trying to make it better. Your accusation that I'm trying to whitewash the article is definitely not assuming good faith. If you hate Inhofe so much, find some RS articles that agree with you and put 'em in. I don't care if you do, in fact, I'd welcome it, but the way Inhofe's views are attacked in this article is biased and not encyclopedia-like at all.--Littleman_TAMU 04:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

find some RS articles that agree with you and put 'em in. - for the 3rd time, the graph *is* the reliable source. It was generated from the 3rd hadcrut data set. And by taking it out, you are whitewashing the article and making it worse, not better. Raul654 (talk) 04:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

First, a graph is not an article. Second, I've already said several times that the graph is a RS, but is not being used as such. It's being used in a non-encyclopedic way. You say it's "calling his lie a lie", but he didn't lie, he stated his opinion. The graph isn't stating an opinion, it's data. It's being used to imply that Inhofe's opinion is wrong, but it comes across as bias because there's no context. The sources and statements about the satellite and balloon records accomplish the graph's aim (refutation of Inhofe's statements) in a far less biased manner.--Littleman_TAMU 05:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be having trouble grasping the difference between opinion and fact. The earth is getting warmer. This is an objective fact. You can pull out a thermometer and measure it. (Which is what the people at East Anglia did when they took the measurements used to make the graph!) Inhofe says that this is not happening. Inhofe is objectively wrong. Raul654 (talk) 05:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

From what I've read of Inhofe's statements, he doesn't deny that the earth has warmed (i.e. he doesn't deny the graph). He denies that the warming is 1) a real threat to the earth and 2) caused primarily by humans. Even this article quotes him using qualifiers like "catastrophic" and "meaningful" and says the "threat...was exaggerated". Using the sources already in the article and other statements Inhofe has made, it is clear to me that Inhofe doesn't deny the graph's data. This is my point, that simply putting the data in without addressing Inhofe's objections about the meaning of the warming is not using the source in an encyclopedic manner. It's basically a straw-man. In addition, as I already mentioned, the statements about satellite and balloon records accomplish the task of showing the "other side" in a less biased manner. If you have a RS that attacks Inhofe and uses the graph data to do so, put it in. If you have a RS that addresses his qualifiers ("meaningful", "catastrophic", exaggerated threat), put it in. Otherwise, the graph is a straw-man and has no place in the article. --Littleman_TAMU 00:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

There's no context with a source like that. What percentage of those candidates' total money came from oil/gas? - it's not my job to make your argument for you. Had you spent a modicum of time reading the source provided you'd see that he's pocketted $999,023 from oil and gas, and $143,600 mining interests ("Natural resources" refered to in this article), out of a total of $8,626,535 coded (the actual total is $9,726,359 but $1,099,824 is not classified). That's 13.2% - far larger than any other single donor - and that's an underestimate (because it doesn't cover money donated under by electric utilities or lobbyists, both of whom have an interest in seeding global warming disinformation). Raul654 (talk) 20:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to make any argument. I'm trying to show that one particular statement, while coming from two RS, is not being cited in an encyclopedic manner. The way it is right now implies Inhofe is being paid off by the oil/gas companies, a claim no reliable source that I'm aware of has actually made. There is a difference between a RS actually making that claim and implying that claim using RSes. I want the article to be better, not for Inhofe to look like a saint or like he's always right. If you can find RS that make the claims that are implied by the several statements I've mentioned, I would encourage you to quote and cite them.--Littleman_TAMU 04:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I've softened the graph caption a bit - its pretty obvious even without it. I also added an RC link that says hes talkin' tosh, if that helps. The lack of sources (on the page) opposing Inhofes views is a bit odd - I would have expected his political opponents to have said so, if no-one else William M. Connolley (talk) 20:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's better, but I still think removing the graph is the right thing unless we can find a RS that talks about Inhofe and uses the graph data or similar data to refute him. It's better though. I'm extremely surprised at the lack of opposing sources. The article would be much better if we could find some. Maybe the source Jason Patton found has something? I don't have time to read it right now.--Littleman_TAMU 04:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

There are no opposing sources because nobody takes what he says seriously. His comments have absolutely nothing to do with reality. Raul654 (talk) 04:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

(EC) Looks like William already added it, but the ref. needs to be fixed so it actually shows up in the reference list instead of being a hanging external link. I can do that... Jason Patton (talk) 04:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I am placing a dispute tag in the article to direct people to this discussion since the article, especially the part about environment reads like a moveon.org hit piece rather than an objective encyclopedic article. There is by no means a scientific consensus that global warming is happening or, if it is, that it is anthropogenic. The IPCC report is not evidence that there is a scientific consensus, it is merely a consensus of the scientists that wrote it. It really isn't even that, as many scientists who are listed on it dispute its conclusions. It is really a document of political consensus.Jkhamlin (talk) 02:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

There is unquestionably a scientific consensus that global warming is occurring and that it is caused by human activity. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the science academies of the major industrialized nations explicitly use the word "consensus" in this regard. You can make other arguments that the article is biased, but arguing against the existence of a scientific consensus is a non-starter. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

There most certainly is not a scientific consensus. There is a consensus among scientists who have already agreed global warming is happening and is caused by man, and anyone who doesn't agree is kicked out of the group. This is called 'cherry picking' and is not science, it is politics. This helps explain why 650 international scientists recently protested to the UN about the IPCC. Far more scientists dispute this myth than back it, yet again Misplaced Pages's strong liberal bias allows myth to masquerade as fact (and the page is locked to disallow changes). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brainiacgames (talk • contribs) 23:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Late to the party, but I'll repost what I wrote in a previous talk page:

Even Inhofe admits his views aren't part of the scientific mainstream.

Asked in writing whether Inhofe agrees that he's at odds with the scientific mainstream, his committee staff retorted, "How do you define 'mainstream'? Scientists who accept the so-called 'consensus' about global warming? Galileo was not mainstream."

Inhofe has conceded that the majority of scientists reject his views.--The lorax (talk) 03:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Bad wording

"In a 2006 interview with the Tulsa World newspaper, Inhofe compared environmentalists to Nazis."

I removed this line because it could be debated whether or not he actually compared environmentalists to Nazis. He is saying that the tactic of repetition is used by both environmentalists and Nazis. I think it is much more appropriate to just simply quote what Senator Inhofe said, then let the readers interpret his comments. We don't need wikipedia to interpret the comment for them, especially before they even read what Senator Inhofe has said. I also removed the line "Inhofe's consistent citing of the Bible as the source for his stances on various political issues, such as gay rights, desegregation and United States' support of Israel has made him very popular among Christian fundamentalists." First of all, there was no citation. It seemed purely anecdotal. Second of all, a much more biographical way to address the issue would be to include statistics of his Christian/Evangelical support. However, you cannot automatically link the fact that a high number of Christians vote for him to the fact that he quotes the Bible. Misplaced Pages cannot draw assumptions like that. It may simply be because he shares the same values and the same worldview as Christians. The line that was included in wikipedia almost suggests that Christian fundamentalist voters blindly support Senator Inhofe because they hear him quote the Bible, regardless of what he is actually saying. - Brad Kgj08 (talk) 05:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I think those are good changes. I think the environmentalist-Nazi link is probably worth mentioning simply because people got upset about it even though, as you point out, he was comparing tactics and didn't specifically call the environmentalists "Nazis" so it could be debated whether he "compared" the two groups. If I remember correctly it did cause an uproar and that uproar probably should be mentioned if someone finds a RS that mentions the controversy. --Littleman_TAMU 01:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

so what are the problems with saying that? Something like "This person bla bla bla bla has draws ire from the scientific communities by claiming...." instead of arguing your drum-beating in here and making an annoyance of it in this persons Bio? Lets not mince words, that is exactly what a lot of people are doing. Debating. You are debating. Let me type that again, you are debating. You are debating an issue that should only be a mention on this persons bio. You are debating an issue. It is a wholly unprofessional reflection on your wikicontributions.

(dis)honourable discharge?

I don't see info to settle either way William M. Connolley (talk) 21:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm - its old vandalism, that hasn't been reverted. This article has had a rather persistant vandal for some time. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Which is the vandlaised version? The dis-version? What is the source for the hon-version? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The dis- version was vandalism. I have no reasons to suspect anything else. The SP4 and private part are probably also correct, but currently not verifiable (unless someone fixes the link). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The correct link is http://www3.ausa.org/govaffairs/onceasoldier.pdf however there is nothing about his discharge only that he received a Good Conduct Medal. rlmmlr 26 March 2009

Inhofe's Aviation Credentials

An active pilot for more than 50 years, aircraft owner and AOPA member, Sen. Jim Inhofe has been at the forefront of every aviation debate since arriving in Congress in 1986, offering his real-world perspective. He was a major force behind passage of the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 that is credited with reviving aviation manufacturing in America. During the current battle over user fees, Senator Inhofe spent countless hours working behind the scenes to educate his colleagues in the Senate about the negative impacts of a user fee-funded system. He even took the unusual step of testifying before the Senate’s aviation subcommittee to explain his opposition to user fees and the detrimental impact it would have on general aviation.

LGBT Rights

Very strong bias against the Senator here. He would describe himself as pro-marriage or pro traditional marriage, not "anti-LGBT". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.66.95 (talk) 04:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I elaborated on it in the article, heavily sourced. For most politicians what you say is true - that's how they would *describe themselves* publicly. I'm not so sure about Inhofe. While I don't think he would speak directly on the matter for sake of tact, interpolation of his position from his statements and actions place him closer to the latter terminology than the former. No bias is needed.Lesqual (talk) 22:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Cites the Bible...Who cares?

I object to this statement in the first paragraph:

"Inhofe often cites the Bible as the source for his positions on various political issues."

This seems to be an insignificant point meant as a political jab. The statement, "cites the Bible" is not relevant versus the more accurate "looks toward his Christian believes" in the same sentence. The former related to a few instances were this may be true. The later refers to his constant, overriding belief. This is an instance were bias is used to highlight a minor point, while ignoring the major fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daveog (talk • contribs) 14:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, Dave. While apparently true, it is hardly the second most important fact concerning Inhofe. There is already another section where regarding regarding Inhofe and the Bible. I've removed the textMadman (talk) 23:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

A Blog is not acceptable as a Reliable Source

A couple of editors have tried to insert this statement:

Inhofe has a history of making inflammatory and incorrect claims about the science of climate change.

"Senator Inhofe on Climate Change". RealClimate. 2005-01-10.

Whether or not this statement is true, blogs are not reliable sources, no matter who writes the blog. See WP:RS.

Remember also that this is a biography of a living person and so we need to be careful, particularly since this statement is rather inflammatory itself. Madman (talk) 22:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that is NOT what RS says. There is NO blanket prohibition on blogs. Read RS again. Gamaliel (talk) 22:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is: "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, forums, blogs or tweets as sources for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below). " See Misplaced Pages:BLP#Self-published_sources. If you don't agree, let's bring it up on the talk page over there. Madman (talk) 22:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

That still is NOT a blanket prohibition. The question is, should RealClimate fall under the "self-published" prohibition and, if so, should it apply to a well-regarded and award-winning publication like RC? Gamaliel (talk) 22:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, RealClimate is certainly well-regarded and award-winning, but it's a blog (some of those awards were in fact for best science blog) and so we can't use it for BLP. Sorry, Madman (talk) 23:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The fact that it is a blog is not the issue, there is no such blanket prohibition, sorry. Gamaliel (talk) 00:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

That it is a blog is a secondary issue. The source itself does not make the claim which was written. Nowhere in that source is any statement that Inhofe has a history of making incorrect and inflammatory claims regarding climate change. Furthermore that article is written by some of the primary pushers of AGW, thus they already have a biased point of view and can hardly be viewed as independent. Additionally, that article mentions Inhofe's criticism of the hockey stick graph which has since been shown to be faulty (this is an old article), thus the premise of the statement itself is untrue with regards to current information. Finally, this article is already used later in that very paragraph stating that Inhofe's views have been opposed by climate scientists. So, in short this is redundant, it makes claims not backed up by the source, and some claims within the source have been shown to be untrue (hockey stick graph). Arzel (talk) 04:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually the statement "Inhofe has a history of making inflammatory and incorrect claims about the science of climate change" is a direct quote from that RC article. Your statement "written by some of the primary pushers of AGW" is your personal POV, and has no place here. That the hockey-stick should be faulty is also your personal POV, which is not supported by the NAS report that was tasked with examining it --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but if you read WP:SPS you will find that RC is covered under the exceptions for self-published sources. Its written by experts on their expertise topic science on climate change). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Folks, this is a Biography of a Living Person (BLP) and Misplaced Pages:BLP#Self-published_sources says that blogs are never ever to be used on BLP articles. I will raise this at the BLP noticeboard to ensure that I understand this correctly. Madman (talk) 15:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry folks, this is a cut and dry case here, no blogs means no blogs. WVBluefield (talk) 15:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

This is not such an issue since there is no prohibition. The prohibition concerns self-published blogs and other works, and in this case SPS allows the use of self-published works by recognized experts. Gamaliel (talk) 17:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It is still an issue. The subsection in full reads as follows (I have emphasized relevant portions)

Never use self-published books, zines, websites, forums, blogs or tweets as sources for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below). "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g., "Jane Smith has suggested..."). Posts left by readers are never acceptable as sources

While there is an exception with regard to self-published works by recognized experts on general articls, there is no exception on BLP's. WVBluefield (talk) 17:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not an issue since this is a different issue. Your first statement incorrectly claimed that there was a blanket prohibition on all blogs. The exception to the actual prohibition regarding self-published material - if we consider RC self-published, an issue we haven't really examined here - would seem to be covered by SPS. Gamaliel (talk) 17:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

My first statement dealt with this article specifically, and, correct me if I am wrong, but this article is a BLP. Secondly, as I reiterated above, SPS’s are prohibited on BLP’s. You can quote the WP:RS policy all you like, but this article, and all the sources in it, have to conform with WP:BLP. WVBluefield (talk) 17:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Gamaliel, I noticed that you just now removed some verbiage from Mark Levin because it was sourced to NewsBusters. If NewsBusters doesn't qualify, why should RealClimate?? They are both blogs. Can you explain this apparent contradiction?? Madman (talk) 17:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Because "blog" isn't the issue, as I've repeatedly stated. It wouldn't matter if they were both blogs, newspapers, or holograms. RC is a publication by recognized experts, allowable under SPS. Newsbusters is a fringe partisan outlet, not allowable under RS and BLP. Gamaliel (talk) 17:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Self published sources of any kind, be it blog or book or newsletter, are not allowed under WP:BLP. No way around it. As far as Newsbusters goes, its under the Media Research umbrella and does appear to be an RS. WVBluefield (talk) 18:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Simply having a publisher doesn't make it an RS. Gamaliel (talk) 20:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Please stay on topic. How do you argue that a self published source is acceptable for a BLP, when the policy explicitly forbids it. WVBluefield (talk) 20:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

You and Madman are the ones who wanted to talk about Newsbusters. As for the rest, I've already said my piece and I concur with KDP. Gamaliel (talk) 21:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

You have not yet addressed how a self published source is acceptable for a BLP, when the policy explicitly forbids it. WVBluefield (talk) 21:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The current text of Misplaced Pages:BLP#Self-published_sources states:

"Never use self-published books, zines, websites, forums, blogs or tweets as sources for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below). "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs."

RC is clearly a self-published group blog and as such, is unusable in a BLP except for articles published there by one of the contributors about themselves. Since this exception does not apply in this case, RC is not usable. --GoRight (talk) 21:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Inhofe and Global Warming

Because of his controversial stance on AGW, Inhofe has his detractors but he also has people who like him and praise him for his contrarian views. This is not expressed in the article and should be. My inclusion of Bob Carter’s statement was meant to address this. WVBluefield (talk) 17:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The undue weight prohibition prevents us from singling out and elevating out of the mainstream viewpoints like this. If you want to include this you have to, at minimum, spell out that he is a small contrarian voice against the unified consensus of the entire scientific community. Gamaliel (talk)

Bob Carter's response does not talk about science but about the debate. Madman (talk) 17:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Good point. WVBluefield (talk) 17:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Lots of people have something to say about the debate. Why single out Carter when he is such a minority voice in the community of climate science? Gamaliel (talk) 17:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Carter is "singled out" because he's in an RS. WVBluefield (talk) 18:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

So why pick that RS? Undue weight is undue weight. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Who are these other WP:RS that you speak of? --GoRight (talk) 20:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

If its about politics - then Carter is even more irrelevant, he's an Australian, and as such is an extreme minority view in US politics. If its about the scientific debate - then the above comment on being a small contrarian voice is the same. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Kim, are you stating that NPR is not a reliable source and that no one like Inhofe because of his AGW stance? WVBluefield (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

No, Kim is (presumably) saying that this particular RS is unsuitable for inclusion in this matter because of the undue weight clause of NPOV. Gamaliel (talk) 18:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

How many RS would be needed? WVBluefield (talk) 20:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - But your statements make very clear that you aren't trying summarizing the literature/praise - but instead are cherry-picking to fit your needs. That is exactly what WP:UNDUE says that you shouldn't do - and thus its not even close to NPOV.

Now lets get back to the issue at hand: Why are you picking Carter? He is not a figure in US politics - nor is he a figure in science (except in a tiny minority way). What makes his opinion be due weight about Inhofe? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Can I assume from this statement that we you agree that we need to find a WP:RS for balance per WP:UNDUE, and that we are now only trying to identify the proper WP:RS? --GoRight (talk) 20:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. Try again. Its not enough that something is in a WP:RS - it also has to be due weight, balance per weight is not equal time to two sides. That is why i'm asking you about Carter and relevance - can you please answer? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be acknowledging that there are so many WP:RS praising Inhofe that we have to justify the WP:WEIGHT of Carter relative to the rest (of the plethora of WP:RS that are praising Inhofe). Or are you saying something different than that?

For the sake of this discussion, how about we pick Carter simply because a notable WP:RS chose him over everyone else. Let's rely on the secondary source's assessment of his weight (by selecting him) rather than our own. --GoRight (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Is Carter generally quoted on US politicians? How is he relevant here? And no i'm not acknowledging that, since i have no idea whether its correct or not. I suspect that there might be - but i'm also rather certain that very few of these (both pro/contra) mention Carter as a relevant source. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

"Is Carter generally quoted on US politicians?" - Don't know, but I dispute it's relevance.

"How is he relevant here?" - He is relevant here because he represents an existence proof that there is a category of WP:RS opinion that have praised Inhofe and which has been, per WVB's claim, apparently excluded from this article. Inclusion of his quote is important to represent that category of opinion. If you feel that you have someone who better represents this category of opinion then please point them out. We may prefer that WP:RS instead. Barring that, Carter will do for now. We are not seeking equal time, but rather due weight for this currently under-represented category of opinion. --GoRight (talk) 21:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

If that category of opinion is really so prevalent, that it must be mentioned, then it must also be possible to find a US commentator to quote instead. If that isn't possible - then by default it is WP:UNDUE, and someone had to scour the Earth for someone to at least comment positively on a US politician who has next to no relevance outside the US. (at least he is very seldomly quoted outside the US). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Kim, you seem to support including Johann Hari, from the UK, so I am puzzled over your concern about an Aussie.

In any case, I have included a scientist from the US. I have made explicit who is being quoted so that the reader can better evaluate the sources. Look good everyone?? Madman (talk) 22:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Fine with me. --GoRight (talk) 22:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, why this one scientist? He is not representative of scientific views of climate change or Inhofe. What country he comes from is immaterial. Gamaliel (talk) 23:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

If you don't like Deming or Carter, why don't you suggest a quote that we could use to counterbalance the two you inserted. Madman (talk) 23:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

If you want Deming's or Carter's minority dissents, then you need to specify what they are dissenting from, the mainstream of climate science. This is precicsely why we have an undue weight policy, so a Deming or a Carter does not fool the reader into thinking he represents the scientific consensus on an issue. Gamaliel (talk) 23:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Deming is labelled in the article as a global warming sceptic and what he is dissenting from is detailed in the sentence right before the Deming sentence. OK with you? Madman (talk) 23:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Protected

To prevent disruption from multiple edit warring accounts, I have locked this article for one week. As this is not primarily a climate change article, I would really appreciate if everyone would agree to stop the revert warring so this can be unprotected. Continued disruption may be met with blocks. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should focus on the two recent issues of edit waring, namely the removal of the David Deming sentence with the following reasons. Opinions about people do not outweight or supplant scientific evidence and rm per undue - you can't represent a small minority when you don't represent the majority view of climate science By the logic of these two editors, disenting opinion about global warming is not viable if it is from a minority view, which are some of the strangest circular logic statements I have ever read. So now we have an article that violates NPOV. One can only come to the conclusion that noone believes Inhofe's view on AGW, which is not only not true, there are reliable sources that clearly back him up. Arzel (talk) 16:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

If you want to represent the minority view, the majority view must be represented as well. The problem here is that a couple editors are trying to highlight the minority view while ignoring the majority view. If you want that quote in, do the work of making sure it is represented with due weight. Gamaliel (talk) 17:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Among scientists who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes the view that Inhofe is correct isn't just a minority, it is largely nonexistent. Fringe viewpoints do not belong here.

The fact that WMC, KDP, and I do not live on this page should not be interpreted as a consensus that the fringe viewpoint should be included,even the mainstream viewpoint is included.

Inhofe's biggest source of contributions is the oil and gas industry. His opponent in the 2008 election, Andrew Rice claimed "Jim Inhofe took over a million dollars from big oil and gave them billions in tax breaks.", and according to KOTV "Rice's claim is true."

I consider the following misleading: "In a July 28, 2003, Senate speech, Inhofe stated that "compelling evidence that catastrophic global warming is a hoax. That conclusion is supported by the painstaking work of the nation's top climate scientists." It should be removed or followed by a clarification that vitually all climate scientists do not agree with Inhofe that global warming is a hoax.

Gamaliel is correct that The problem here is that a couple editors are trying to highlight the minority view while ignoring the majority view.Sagredo 19:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The first link in the preceding post 404ed for me, but I believe the paper is here: Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the first link which goes to the PDF of the entire paper. I might add that if we use a quote by scientist with his credentials, then the frame of reference is not the percentage of the general public that believes global warming is not taking place, but the percentage of the community of climate scientists, where portion is so tiny it is a fringe viewpoint. Sagredo 22:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Since this entire discussion is focused on NPOV issues, please put up the POV template, {{POV}}, until this matter is resolved. --GoRight (talk) 23:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone here object to putting the NPOV template up given that this is fundamentally a dispute about NPOV? If so, please state your rationale. Silence shall be constured as consent. --GoRight (talk) 01:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Please note that per 2/0's suggestion on his talk page I have started the following: . --GoRight (talk) 20:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The protection is due to expire tomorrow. The issues underlying the previous edit warring do not seem to have been resolved. Please discuss at this page before making any potentially contentious additions or removals. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The article as it stands is very biased against Senator Inhofe, and a violation of wP:BLP. Two quotes were added to this article just before protection:

" In The Republican War on Science, Chris Mooney stated that Inhofe "politicizes and misuses the science of climate change" while in the UK, Johann Hari stated that Inhofe's statements have been "repudiated" by "even the handful of contrarian scientists Inhofe constantly cites.""

I thought that these additions were reasonable as long as an opposing viewpoint was added. There have been two proposed, but they have been continually reverted. These quotes are:

However, in contrast, global warming sceptic and geophysicist David Deming stated that "Sen. Inhofe is not only correct in his view on global warming, but courageous to insist on truth, objectivity and sound science".

On the other hand, Inhofe has been praised by Australian geologist, palaeoclimatologist, and skeptic Bob Carter who says that Inhofe “has been instrumental in making sure that some of the other side of the story on climate change remains in the public domain.”

On a biographic article such as this, Misplaced Pages cannot publish negative comments without any positive comments. So, either the two recent additions (above) should be removed or a positive comment be added. Which would you prefer??

As mentioned, I consider this a WP:BLP situation and needs to be corrected ASAP. Madman (talk) 23:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no requirement of an "opposing view" in WP:BLP, and "views of a tiny minority have no place in the article -WP:BLP and inside the scientific community, "out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and 75 out of 77 believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Using Deming or Carter with scientific credentials is representing 3 or 4 percent of the scientific community, clearly a tiny minority. If we were to try to put the appropriate ratio of quotes the it would be 25:1 or 30:1. That is clearly impractical. It makes sense to follow the suggestion of Science Apologist below, i.e. State Inhofe's beliefs and positions, and state that they are contrary to mainstream science. Sagredo 03:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Certainly the view that Inhofe “has been instrumental in making sure that some of the other side of the story on climate change remains in the public domain.” is not a minority view. Has he not been the most vocal climate sceptic in the US Senate? This is a fact, and it is supportive of Inhofe. Has it come to the point where we cannot add a fact in support of a person to his biography?? This is why it is a WP:BLP issue. Madman (talk) 05:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

But you aren't proposing to add a fact. If you added a neutrally worded, reliable sourced statement that stated only that he was "the most vocal climate sceptic in the US Senate", then no one would object. But what you are actually proposing to add are two gushing quotes from climate contrarians who represent, as noted above, about 3-4 percent of the scientific community (a number which I think is greatly exaggerated as I would place it at about 1-2 percent) while not representing at all the other 96-97 percent of that community. You have yet to address the issue of undue weight or propose an addition incorporating Deming and Carter which does not violate this rule. Gamaliel (talk) 06:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not proposing to add two, only one. I'll even let you choose the one. The Carter quote says nothing about the science, and even (now) identifies Carter as a sceptic. Madman (talk) 14:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. The number of quotes or how he is identified isn't the issue, undue weight is, as we've repeatedly pointed out to you. Gamaliel (talk) 16:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I think this makes a decent start: "Inhofe, former chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works has one of the most anti-environmental records in Congress according to the League of Conservation Voters. Inhofe position is that global warming is occurring, and he believes that it is a hoax perpetrated on the American people. He is the most vocal proponent of this view in the U. S. Senate. This view is in opposition to the consensus of the scientific community that global warming is occurring and that it is caused primarily by human CO2 emissions." I don't like the use of the word skeptic because it implies scientific skepticism, and many of his statements seem to show a total lack of understanding of science. Sagredo 08:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Although you were able to include the words "deny", "anti-", and "contrary" you somehow left off the word "evil". Madman (talk) 14:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Inhofe has repeatedly stated that any variation in climate is natural, and that, "God is still up there." Sagredo 14:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

So do a lot of people. In fact, "46% of Americans say global warming is a major problem. However, 36% disagree, and 18% remain undecided." And "Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Americans say it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming. " Since Oklahoma is tends to be more conservative state, I would describe Inhofe as actively representing his constituents' views. Madman (talk) 14:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps he does, but then an Australian geologist isn't one of his constituents. Gamaliel (talk) 16:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Gamaliel, well, Australia recently rejected an Emissions Trading System after a big row, so I think that that quote is certainly germane to the climate change debate. On the other hand, Deming is a constituent of Inhofe's, so perhaps that's the better quote?? Madman (talk) 14:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Give me a little credit, I didn't use "Dirty Dozen" or some of the other inflamatory wording in the source. If you read the source, you might note that what I wrote was bland in comparison. There, I re-wrote it and removed "denies" and "contrary," but I think anti-environment should stay, as it's part of the title of the article, and really isn't inflammatory.

I've spent some time in Oklahoma, and would agree that Inhofe views are consistent with a majority of his constituents. Obviously that would apply to every member of Congress. But that has no relevance to the scientific consensus on global warming. If you read any of the sources for "God is still up there," you will note that in each instance this follows Inhofe's claim that observed variations in climate are natural variability. The relevance being that Inhofe appears to rely on religion (and novelists) for information regarding a scientific debate. Which seems to explain some of his other statements. Sagredo 02:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

His reliance on religion is already documented in this article.

Regarding POV words, I do think that "denial" is too strong and it seems that standard usage around here is "sceptic". I would however agree that an honest NPOV rewrite of this section is in order. Madman (talk) 15:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Madman (talk) 14:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the Ramussen Survey, that is a survey of the U. S. and this is the English Misplaced Pages.

Tulsa has the nickname "Oil Capital of the World." The opposition of the oil industry to the concept of global warming is well documented, and it would follow that the belief of many Oklahomans that global warming is fraudulent probably comes from the influence of the oil industry. Also, Inhofe has received large amounts of money from the oil industry. Terms such as "deny global warming" and "climate change denial" have been used since 2000 to describe business opposition to the current scientific consensus. A denier has a closed mind, but a skeptic is open to being convinced by the facts. Inhofe does not seem to even be getting the facts, at least he certainly has trouble repeating them, and his errors seem always to be in a manner that favors his benefactors. There are reliable sources labeling the senator with the term. So while derivations of deny are perhaps generally not used in BLP's, I think there's a case for using it in this article.

Regarding religion as a basis for political positions - Certainly this is expected in Oklahoma, and is acceptable to a lesser but still considerable degree in the U. S., but, again, this is the English Misplaced Pages. Additionally I think worldwide using religion as a basis of moral issues such as the treatment of criminals is far more acceptable than injecting religion into a scientific issue. I think: Inhofe frequently states his claim that recent variations in climate are part of a natural cycle, followed by his belief, "God is still up there." is an accurate representation of Inhofe's statements. After all, I found 7 transcripts with that exact phrase in the same context. Which suggests to me that the senator has probably said it dozens of times, when it wasn't on camera. When he says this frequently, how could he have possibly a problem with it being repeated? Sagredo 02:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

I think that the level of detail documenting Inhofe's views on global warming is unwarranted because 1) his views are contradicted by scientific facts and 2) he relies on biased sources almost entirely in the formulation of his opinions. WP:FRINGE and WP:ONEWAY in particular tells us that we should limit the amount of exposition so as to avoid coatracks. Let's try to do that.

I suggest removing all the quotes from Inhofe as unnecessary. We can simply summarize his opinions regarding his pseudoscientific beliefs, his conspiracy theory accusations, and his general animosity towards all things conservationist. Outlining his attempts to "document" his beliefs can be done through simple fact-based statements rather than quotes or he said/she saids. Let's also remove the things that are obvious red herrings like his reference to weather balloon data and long-term temperature trends since Inhofe is not qualified to comment on them anyway.

ScienceApologist (talk) 21:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

A updated quote from the League of Conservation Voters, which has been previously used as a source:

Dozen Member # 1: Senator Jim Inhofe

“Our future will be significantly impacted by how we work to fight global warming, yet Senator Jim Inhofe won’t even acknowledge that global warming exists,” LCV Senior Vice President Tony Massaro said. “During his tenure in Congress, Senator Inhofe has made it his mission to vote against commonsense solutions to global warming and our nation’s energy challenges, earning an abysmal 5 percent lifetime LCV voting score and a place on our ‘Dirty Dozen’ list.”

As Ranking Member and Former Chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Jim Inhofe has earned his place at the top of the Dirty Dozen for consistently voting against important environmental protections. In fact, Sen. Inhofe doesn’t even believe the world’s best scientists on global warming. This belief puts Sen. Inhofe at odds with President Bush and members of his own party. When it comes to his voting record, he has voted against any amount of progress on addressing global warming pollution or investing in clean, renewable energy. Sen. Inhofe not only continues to vote against policies to set America on a cleaner, more sustainable energy path, but he has vowed to filibuster any climate change-related legislation that comes to the Senate floor. In addition, Sen. Inhofe has frequently voted on the side of polluters, not for the health and safety of Oklahoma families. Since 2001, Senator Inhofe has taken $636,965 from polluting energy interests."

This was written for the 2008 election, and is dated 10/09/07, but seems to be the most current on the LCV website. Also, we should mention that Inhofe has a history of making inflammatory statements without quoting them. Sagredo 19:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the quotes serve to best describe Senator Inhofe's outlook. Madman (talk) 23:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Quoting Science Apologist "...reference to weather balloon data and long-term temperature trends since Inhofe is not qualified to comment on them anyway." As ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, is it not his responsibility to educate himself on the environment? Because this position gives him a "bully pulpit" and he uses it to make irresponsible and erroneous statements, this should be pointed out. For example we should keep the statement about satellite data and balloon records and point out that the records do not even cover the time period Inhofe cited, and that they do show warming during the periods that they cover. If this misstatement were a single isolated incident, it should not be included, but unfortunately, the senator gets it wrong more often than he gets it right. Sagredo 16:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't know much about Senator's Inhofe's pronouncements on environmental science. I'm not sure whether he's "wrong" or whether he's challenging scientific orthodoxy (and there is a difference, I'm sure you'd agree). My goal is to ensure that this article is NPOV. Madman (talk) 21:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we don't know that Inhofe's erroneous statements are deliberate misrepresentations of the science, We can only point out that they do exist, that they are frequent, that he has received oil industry money, etc. I think the best way to do this is to WP:IAR and use Real Science as a source:

Inhofe has a history of making inflammatory remarks and incorrect statements that support his claim that global warming does not exist.

"Senator Inhofe on Climate Change". RealClimate. 2005-01-10.

This seems much better to me than the alternative of listing a number of the inaccurate scientific statements, with the rebuttals, and an number of the inflammatory statements. The writers of the blog are all qualified scientists, and we can see that the statement is accurate from the other sources. I think a mention of the oil company contributions to his campaign fund is also appropriate.

Here's an interesting bit. It shows that he did something pro-enviroment, and that it surprised everybody.

"Inhofe astonished both conservatives and liberals by joining with Democratic senators in putting forward a bill for an official review of the dangers of soot or "black carbon" to public health and the environment."

Sagredo 02:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Fishy Quote

Inhofe, claiming uncertainties related to climate science and the adverse impact that mandatory emissions reductions would have on the U.S. economy, voted on June 22, 2005 to reject an amendment to an energy bill that would have forced reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases and created a mandatory emissions trading scheme. "Global warming is still considered to be a theory and has not come close to being sufficiently proven," he said

I did some digging on the above quote, and the only thing even remotely close to an RS was this, published in 2007. Since this section and this quote existed in the article as far back as 29 June 2005, and the Science Week reference is a word for word match, I think that the quote is not real and might be a circular reference. I am going to remove it unless anyone objects or can find a reliable source for it. WVBluefield (talk) 18:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Tokyo Rose

I find this editcomment incredulous, it took a few seconds with Google (search) to find several sources to this particular item. Here is the NY Times' biography on Inhofe (which is excerpted from National Journal's Almanac of American Politics) - there is even a book reference:

• Riley, Dennis D.; Brophy-Baermann. Bureaucracy and the Political Process. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. ISBN 0-7425-3811-7. (chapter 6, pg 228) "James Jeffords (I-VT) was replaced as Chair of the Committee on Environment and Public Works by James Inhofe (R-OK). Senator Inhofe once compared the then EPA Administrator Carol Browner to Tokyo Rose, and the EPA itself to Gestapo" {{cite book}}: More than one of |first1= and |first= specified (help)

So exactly what verification are you attempting to do here? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we have got a Tokyo Rose running the EPA. No reliable sources for this quote, and none in google news archive. The closest I could find in the news archive was an American Prosepect Article from 2002. If the quote was from 1997, why are there no sources from 1997? WVBluefield (talk) 20:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

How about checking the reference given in the article? It took me around a minute: Schafer, Shaun (Nov 18, 1997). "Farmers Hear Inhofe Rip EPA". Tulsa World. - and of course it contains the exact quote.

So i will ask again: How exactly are you attempting to verify things? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I didnt realize that the paper had archives going back that far. Re-insert the quote if you feel it adds to the article. WVBluefield (talk) 20:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

That is your job - you're the one who is "checking the references". The quote is apparently notable, since its mentioned in biographies about Inhofe (ie. NYT & Almanac of American Politics) as well as books. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Added quote

The section on Environmental issues lacked any mention that Inhofe was widely supported by the global warming sceptic community - at present it contains on negative opinions. I have included a quote from a notable scientist from a Reliable Source praising Inhofe for representing the sceptical viewpoint. I chose an Australian to show that Sen. Inhofe has international support for his position. All articles should be balanced and we should take particular care that BLP articles contain both positive and negative opinions. Madman (talk) 19:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Sagredo reverted this, stating that somehow this is showing WP:UNDUE weight. I don't follow this argument, since climate sceptics are a strong force in Australia (which recently saw defeat of an emissions trading scheme) as well as the US (where "A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 50% of likely voters now believe that global warming is caused primarily by long-term planetary trends"). .

It is hardly undue weight to include a notable sceptic praising Inhofe's stand on this issue. Madman (talk) 00:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Public opinion polls do not dictate either scientific fact or the content of Misplaced Pages articles. And you aren't quoting a poll, you are quoting a scientist who does not represent the mainstream viewpoint of science. So by either a numerical standard or a scientific consensus standard, this viewpoint is a tiny fringe. Gamaliel (talk) 04:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I mentioned polls because they show that global warming scepticism is a majority opinion among the US electorate, and is certainly not a "tiny fringe".

The quote praises Inhofe for his activism on behalf of global warming scepticism, and to say that WP:UNDUE prohibits such a quote is rather absurd.

Just to be clear, are you are saying that we are not allowed to have a favourable comment from a notable global warming sceptic in this article about Jim Inhofe, a prominent sceptic? Are you saying that all that we can put in the article is opinion trashing Inhofe's stand on the issue?

Madman (talk) 05:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Arguing that GW skepticism is a fringe POV on a scientific page is one thing, but to argue it in a political context is something else, as is evidenced by the views of the public and of many politicians. There is no evidence presented that the reception of Inhofe's views by reliable sources or by the public has been predominantly negative, and therefore there is no evidence that a positive reception of his views is a fringe POV. Oren0 (talk) 05:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

But the quote isn't from a representative of the public, but a representative of the scientific community, and thus gives undue weight to a tiny minority of that community without representing the consensus viewpoint. Update: I should note that there has been no effort to actually address the undue weight issue other than to deny it exists. Some of the same editors advocating the inclusion of this tiny minority viewpoint also advocated removing a source representing the mainstream of scientific consensus. If there was some effort to include both, at the appropriate weight for each, perhaps we could make some headway here. Gamaliel (talk) 07:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Carter is both a member of the public as well as the scientific community. In this case it is his public persona that is being relied upon, much like when James Hansen acts as a private citizen rather than a government employee. --GoRight (talk) 07:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

If you want to represent the public viewpoint, quote an opinion poll. To pretend that we're not citing him as a skeptical scientist is absurd. If you want to represent the minority, do the work of representing the majority first so as to be in compliance with WP:UNDUE. Gamaliel (talk) 07:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Replay previous discussions. --GoRight (talk) 07:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

If you found the previous discussions unsatisfactory, you could listen to the concerns raised in those discussions and work to avoid UNDUE issues. Gamaliel (talk) 07:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I fail to discern any valid weight issues from the previous discussions. --GoRight (talk) 07:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how Gamaliel can honestly claim undue weight when he is continuously adding a gratuitous adjective to describe politicfact; seriously, does their winning a 2009 Pulitzer have anything to do with their conclusion regarding Inhofe? Additionally, he continues to add the anonymous response that Inhofe is ridiculous, how is that not undue weight from an unknown person? Arzel (talk) 18:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Limited Power of Attorney: For the limited purposes of this discussion regarding the inclusion of a quote praising Inhofe by a notable skeptic, I hereby grant to Madman a limited power of attorney to represent my personal position in the matter and to !vote my interests accordingly, excepting any direct violations of policy. --GoRight (talk) 07:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Which of course is invalid, and thus should be ignored. Delegated proxies have been turned down by the community (and GoRight knows it). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:00, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I don't. Can you direct me to where this has made it into policy? Or where there is a serious discussion thereof? --GoRight (talk) 02:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Do check your good friend Abd's contributions. As for your question: Mu --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

What type of quote would you accept?

I'd like to ask Gamaliel what type of quote you would accept. Madman (talk) 13:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't speak for Gamaliel, but, following the link to Carter's article, one finds this: According to an article in the Sydney Morning Herald, "the retired James Cook University professor Bob Carter, whose background is in marine geology, appears to have little, if any, standing in the Australian climate science community... Professor Carter was not a credible source on climate change."

This backs up the position that within the scientific community the skeptic/denier position is WP:FRINGE so any quote using scientific credentials to imply scientific authority is inappropriate.

It would be appropriate to find something to the effect that many (quite likely most) Oklahomans hold similar views. This can be inferred from the fact that he won several elections, but it might not be obvious to those who live in other places where the public perception of AGW is more inline with the scientific community. --Sagredo 00:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, please, global warming scepticism is hardly fringe science. "The term "fringe science" refers to matters which purport to be science, or use its trappings and terminology but are not usually regarded as such by the general scientific community; and to matters which do not claim to be scientific but nevertheless make claims that are normally considered within the purview of science." see this Arbitration case. Legitimate and respected scientists have published peer-reviewed papers in academic journals honestly contesting the idea that there is global warming and global warming is man-made. The latest such paper can be found here: ].

And the "green" columnist in the Sydney Herald is hardly an unbiased source for whether Carter is accepted in the scientific community.

WP:UNDUE as well as WP:BLP demands a balanced article and minority viewpoints. Madman (talk) 01:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

If you actually read the source, you'll find:

A former CSIRO climate scientist, and now head of a new sustainability institute at Monash University, Graeme Pearman, said Professor Carter was not a credible source on climate change.

Inhofe's statements certainly do purport to be science, using scientific trappings and terminology and are not usually regarded as such by the general scientific community. I think you make my case. Sagredo 02:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I would oppose inclusion of any stand-alone quote from a skeptic without inclusion of the majority viewpoint of climate science. You said above "WP:BLP demands a balanced article and minority viewpoints." But here you are attempting to represent the minority without representing the majority. Gamaliel (talk) 02:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Please see "Fringe science is scientific inquiry in an established field of study which departs significantly from mainstream or orthodox theories, and is classified in the "fringes" of a credible mainstream academic discipline. Mainstream scientists typically regard fringe concepts as highly speculative or strongly refuted, as opposed to frontier science which is plausible emerging science." Qing-Bin Lu's paper on cosmic rays may not be the pseudoscience like Inhofe spouts, but it's still fringe. Sagredo 03:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Response to Gamaliel: The two sentences right above the disputed sentence both represent the mainstream viewpoint and attack Inhofe. Therefore, would you accept a sentence from a sceptic supporting Inhofe?? Madman (talk) 19:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I would accept (without variation): "On the other hand, Australian climate change skeptic Bob Carter who says that Inhofe “has been instrumental in making sure that some of the other side of the story on climate change remains in the public domain.” With the provision that the other statements are kept. Sagredo 22:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

No, they are the assessments of professional journalists from mainstream publications, not the opinions of climate scientists. My suggestion would be something like this, with appropriate sources, of course, "Inhofe is considered a negative and uninformed influence by the majority of climate scientists but he is praised by climate skeptics like Bob Carter and Deming." Gamaliel (talk) 01:50, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I like that, but don't know a source. The only thing I'm aware of is:

"Inhofe has a history of making inflammatory and incorrect claims about the science of climate change, according to climate scientists Michael Mann, Stefan Rahmstorf, Gavin Schmidt, Eric Steig, and William Connolley, but he has been praised by climate skeptics like Bob Carter and David Deming.

But it is a blog. And yes, WP:BLP rules do not allow blogs, but this might be a time to ignore the rules, because this does accurately describe the situation without being inflammatory, and it is made by notable climate scientists. It would eliminate the need to list a large number Inhofe's inflammatory statements and inaccurate claims and refute them one by one. I think this is a reasonable compromise. --Sagredo 03:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Blogs that are widely respected and authored by established experts like this one are traditionally acceptable for an RS, and since we are only using it in this case as a source for the opinions of those experts and not for factual information about Inhofe, this seems a reasonable use. Gamaliel (talk) 06:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Nope, you couldn’t be more wrong about this. Blogs are not appropriate sources for BLP's unless written by the subject and there is no exception to this. WVBluefield (talk) 22:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, there is always IRLIAR. But in any case there also appears to be no exception to UNDUE as well, so we are at an impasse then. Gamaliel (talk) 12:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I completely and totally disagree with your characterisation of a positive comment from a sceptic as "WP:UNDUE" -- this is an article about a sceptic, so obviously a statment from another sceptic is completely appropriate and needed in this article. Madman (talk) 02:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

What do you think of Sagredo's suggestion above? Gamaliel (talk) 04:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Break

Another justification for ignoring the rules is that the section already contains examples of inflammatory statements and incorrect claims. -- Sagredo 14:48, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Inhofe believes "that too many times current environmental regulations are not based on science. As a result, they usually do harm and put undue restrictions upon the freedoms of many Americans. ...poorly designed environmental regulations have been a large contributor to the energy problems we now face. If we rethink environmental regulation, we could be in a better position in the future and find ourselves in a place where we can have far greater environmental protection, more reliable and diverse energy sources and a strong economy."

Inhofe, former chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, was given the lowest possible score on environmental issues by the League of Conservation Voters in 2006.

The first part of the above is a quote from Inhofe's senate website. I think it would make a good lead for the section, as it is general in nature, not pertaining to any specific issue. It's also hard for anyone to object to it. Following it with the LCV rating makes sense for the same reason. I would then follow with information about Inhofe views on oclimate change as that is the part of his policies that seem to be the most notable. -- Sagredo 14:48, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Sagredo, I like the first part (the quote from Inhofe's Senate website) and I think the second part could be appropriate as long as we get some counter-balancing sentence. That is, I think the structure of "Statement, negative opinion/fact, rebuttal/positive opinion/fact" would be appropriate, in general, to this biography. Would you agree? Madman (talk) 16:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the constructive proposal. While it does sound like a good concept, there are problems. First doesn't work for everything. Certainly if Inhofe's statements, ie "the EPA are Gestapo" is included, there is no following claim/counterclaim. Second, I cannot agree with putting climate change skepticism on an equal footing with the accepted concept that human activity is causing climate change. As David B. Sandalow, a Senior Fellow, at the Brookings Institution put it:

"...the print media’s “on the one hand, on the other hand” convention tilts many global warming stories strongly toward Crichton’s point of view. As Crichton would concede, the vast majority of the world’s scientists believe that global warming is happening as a result of human activities and that the consequences of rising greenhouse gas emissions could be very serious. Still, many news stories on global warming include not just this mainstream view but also the “contrarian” views of a very small minority of climate change skeptics, giving roughly equal weight to each. As a result, public perceptions of the controversy surrounding these issues may be greatly exaggerated."

So while a “on the one hand, on the other hand” approach seems fair, the brutal fact is that life isn't fair.

And, I'd like to see what the counter-balancing sentences are. I would think that something stating that Inhofe is pro-development, or pro-business would be acceptable following the LCV rating, but I would not agree to something like an energy industry funded pseudo environmental group.

Important concepts to me include*:

1. Inhofe has a history of getting climate science wrong.. I do not argue that his constituents very much agree with him, or that there is a significant minority in the general population of the U. S. that agrees with him, but he gets F's in climate science. Nor do I accept Bob Carter as representing a significant portion of the scientific community, and accept that quote only if he is simply listed as a climate change skeptic - without description as geologist, geophysicist, etc. If it is done in that manner, it can be taken of representing the skepticism in the general population. "In his speech, Inhofe also said that, "satellite data, confirmed by NOAA balloon measurements, confirms that no meaningful warming has occurred over the last century." If this is followed by a statement showing that balloon and satellite measurements were made only for the last 50 years or so, and thus cannot be used describe the last century, it readily becomes apparent that Inhofe's statement is incorrect, and there is no room for rebuttal here.
2. Inhofe seems to at least partially base his skepticism/science somewhere in his religion. Or he somehow combines science and religion. This somewhat explains #1, and could perhaps be tied in with it.
3. Inhofe has considerable campaign funding from energy companies. A simple statement with a source and an amount.
4. Inhofe has a history of making inflammatory statements. I don't see any following claim/counterclaim here. We can choose to use Real Science as a source and then omit most of the Inhofe quotes.

• This is posted with the disclaimer is that I may have omitted something that will occur to me later. Sagredo 03:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Locked

I have locked this article from editing for one week. Please seek consensus and compromise here. Further edit warring may result in blocks. To be clear, repeatedly making controversial edits without a firm consensus here or at an appropriate noticeboard is disruptive edit warring. - 2/0 (cont.) 09:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I would like to request that the following quote. However, Inhofe was unable to secure meetings with any negotiators or delegations to the conference and only met with a small group of reporters, one of whom, a journalist with Der Spiegel, called him "ridiculous". be edited removing the WP:BLP violation by removing the section starting "one of whom...". An anonymous journalist calling him ridiculous is undue weight and is being added to denigrate the subject. It is gratuitous and adds nothing to the section. Gamaliel has been repeatedly adding this contentious quote. Arzel (talk) 03:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Once again you look into your crystal ball and imagine you can divine my motives. I added it to the article because it is widely referenced in the sources, including at least two of the news articles. "ridiculous inhofe copenhagen" gets 51K google hits. Gamaliel (talk) 15:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

And that means what? That thousands of left bloggers like it when Inhofe is called ridiculous? The actual number of news hits is only 25. Inhofe is a senator he is going to get a lot of hits with pretty much anything he says. Since when is the quote from an anoynomous person deemed notable, especially when it is eing used purely to denigrate the subject of a BLP. Arzel (talk) 15:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your last sentence, please comment on content, not editors. As for the quote, it wasn't some anonymous person, it was Christian Schwägerl, a journalist of "one of Europe's largest weekly magazines with a weekly circulation of more than one million", 'Der Spiegel'. Here is his article (in English): . It is obvious that Inhofe's visit in Copenhagen was more of a PR stunt. He came for just a few hours, didn't attend any meetings, just gave a few interviews to reporters. So, if the Inhofe article quotes Inhofe as leading a three man "truth squad" to Copenhagen, NPOV requires that we also mention how his Copenhagen mission actually went... SPLETTE :] 16:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm all for ridiculing Imhofe and I yield to no-one in my contempt for his abysmal ignorance, but I'd like to see this article unlocked. I propose that it is, under the article probation, and that this edit by A is permitted. The first bit looks fine to add. The second which removes the disputed text above, I think, is also OK: that comment is just over-egging the pudding (head) William M. Connolley (talk) 22:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Seconded, and not just because I agree with the edit in question. I am also acknowledging WMC's good intent in this circumstance and thank him for it. --GoRight (talk) 09:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Alright, that looks close enough to a general agreement not to edit war, so I have unprotected the article. Please be aware that further edit warring will lead to blocks. If the material that led to this lock needs to be edited more than trivially, please wait to do so until there is a consensus here, and ideally link to the consensus in your edit summary. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I will also agree with Dr Connolley's suggestion, and I will go ahead and make the edit suggested by him and seconded by GoRight. Madman (talk) 18:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC) (P.S. And, speaking of Dr Connolley's views, I am also not a big fan of Mr Inhofe.)

It's been 24 hours so I went ahead and made the edit. Madman (talk) 22:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Article probation

Please note that, by a decision of the Misplaced Pages community, this article and others relating to climate change (broadly construed) has been placed under article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, or subject to other administrative remedies, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Misplaced Pages. Please see Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation for full information and to review the decision. -- ChrisO (talk) 03:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

A quote from the Union of Concerned Scientists

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) made an embarrassing gaffe in a speech at the Copenhagen climate conference today that demonstrates his lack of understanding of climate science and the significance of emails stolen from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). First, he erroneously claimed that one stolen email was written in response to another email that was written 10 years before. Second, he misrepresented the meaning of the contents of those emails to attack climate science.

Yet another source about Inhofe's ignorance, but a particularly good one, I think. Given the source, I think it should be added right away. -- Sagredo 21:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's proper to document every "gaffe" made here in this article since this is a biography and intended to take a longer and broader view. Seriously, would you add Al Gore's Copenhagen gaffe(s) to his article? Madman (talk) 18:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It's certainly better than quoting Inofe erroneous statement, and then having to state what the facts are, and making the reader try to figure out what is going on. We could remove some of that. --Sagredo 22:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's better than quoting the erroneous statement, but I was suggesting just leaving it out of the article. It's no big deal - as noted, Al Gore's gaffes have not made it into his article, nor have any of Obama's gaffes made it into his article.

The idea of any biography (except perhaps a book-length one) is to show the broad outlines of his/her life. Madman (talk) 04:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Back to rebuilding - let's follow this template !

Since our discussion seems to have gotten off track, I wanted to get back to a suggested structure for the article. I suggest that we use the structure here that is in use at Al_gore#Environment.

This section of the Al Gore article itself has two sections:

• Outline of Gore's views and actions.
• Criticism of these views or actions, followed by rebuttal/extenuating circumstances/etc to criticism (although not every criticism would necessarily include a rebuttal -- it may, it may not).

Your thoughts?? Madman (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that's what i proposed above. it should be noted that there is a significant difference between Gore and Inhofe in the Gore generally gets the science right. As I see it, we have a choice of using things like the Real Science and UCS statements or have to use the clumsy method of using an Ihofe quote, and then stating the consensus view. Then if we followed that with the view of the tiny minority of contrarian "scientists?", it would be WP:UNDUE unless very carefully qualified (difficult to source), or followed a statement like the Sydney Morning Herald's statement about Bob Carter --Sagredo 23:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I've reviewed a number of other biographies (I typically don't edit bios), and they do seem to follow the Gore format and don't go into a lot of criticism details. The Obama article doesn't even have a criticism section.

While I agree(d) that not all criticism would necessarily have a counter-counterpoint, it does seem like there is a sticking point here with your interpretation of WP:UNDUE. Do we need to resolve whether to include sceptic counter-counterpoints before going forward?? Madman (talk) 22:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It is better to integrate criticism into the regular text in general, ie. interspace argument with critique, criticism sections are prone to end up as coatracks for all kinds of minor stuff outside of due weight, the Gore section is such an example (see talk there). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I understand the concern. How about this earlier suggestion? We could build each paragraph with the following structure:

• Outline of Inhofe's views
• Critique (if any)
• Rebuttal/Counter-counterpoint (if any)

Let me know, Madman (talk) 04:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Lead section

Can this be reviewed and worked on so there isn't undue weight towards any of the subject's political positions? TIA --Tom (talk) 14:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

As I've suggested above, let's pattern this bio on what other U.S. politicians' biographies have as their leads. In general, after looking at Barbara Boxer, John Kerry, and Dick Durbin, I see that political positions are not mentioned in the lead, bur rather the leads focus on what might be termed "career" path.

I don't care what other senator we use as a template/format, but to ensure a consistency of NPOV, I suggest a liberal Democrat U.S. senator. OK with everyone?? Madman (talk) 15:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The lead should follow the article, not other articles. Inhofe is known for his (often rather out-there) views. That's really why he's more notable than most. Kerry, Boxer, Durbin - they're all known more for their achievements. So the issue of what's covered in the article - and thus, what's covered in the lead - are different. Guettarda (talk) 15:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

(EC) That depends on what the senator is notable for. In the case of Larry Craig a single visit of the men's restroom at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport on June 11, 2007 is mentioned in the lead. In case of Inhofe I do think that his position on global warming sticks out. As for me, not being an American, I would probably never have heard of Inhofe if it wasn't for his strong views on global warming. SPLETTE :] 15:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I concur, this is what Inhofe is known for around the world, as demonstrated in numerous sources. And there is no inherent negativity in describing him as such: Senator Inhofe himself has no hesitation about being known as a leading global warming skeptic.--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

known for around the world? that seems like a stretch. --Tom (talk) 15:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Splette, that is certainly the only thing that Danes would know him for. And he has been quoted on Danish national TV for his stands. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

He's my senator and that's the main thing I know about him. Guettarda (talk) 15:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

You voted for him?!? Just kidding!;) --Tom (talk) 16:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't; not a US citizen. But he's still the senator elected to represent me. Guettarda (talk) 16:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm still uneasy with adding so many political stances to the lead paragraphs, but I'll go along with what's in there now, although of course "now" is a relative term. :) However, I did change LGBT rights in the second paragraph to same-sex marriage because it's more understandable to the average reader and the LGBT rights link didn't particularly clarify Inhofe's position (for example, AFAIK, Inhofe would not support the death penalty for gay acts). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madman2001 (talk • contribs)

He's opposed to much more than same-sex marriage, as the relevant section of the article says. This is, after all, the person who said that in the "entire recorded history of family" there have been no homosexual relationships or divorces. Guettarda (talk) 17:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

That can be clarified by the article itself. Again, the link to LGBT rights is very misleading. Moreover, isn't this your second edit today, Guettarda, inserting LGBT rights into the lead? Madman (talk) 17:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Second edit? No, it's my 32nd edit today. Guettarda (talk) 17:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

"Opposition to same sex marriage" is misleading. Even Obama has expressed opposition to same-sex marriage. Inhofe has a 0 rating from the HRC, and opposed LGBT rights more broadly. Guettarda (talk) 17:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that the article can clarify his stand, but saying he is opposed to LGBT rights is too broad a brush for the lead paragraph. Madman (talk) 17:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Care to explain why you think so? Are you saying that his positions on GLBT rights don't belong in the article, or that we shouldn't follow WP:LEAD? Guettarda (talk) 17:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, I see that Madman has added the qualifier "some" to Inhofe's opposition to gay rights. So what part of "the homosexual agenda" are you saying Inhofe supports? Just curious, because there's nothing in the article that supports that assertion. And I think Inhofe would be rather taken aback to know that we were saying anything of the sort. Guettarda (talk) 15:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

My objection was the link to the LGBT rights article. The second lead paragraph says:

LGBT-related laws include but are not limited to: government recognition of same-sex relationships, LGBT adoption, sexual orientation and military service, immigration equality, anti-discrimination laws, hate crime laws regarding violence against LGBT people, sodomy laws, anti-lesbianism laws, and higher ages of consent for same-sex activity.

There is no evidence that Inhofe is in favour of "sodomy laws" or "anti-lesbianism laws", or has said anything about "immigration equality" for gays, or has taken a position on "higher ages of consent for same-sex activity". He is definitely against many of these proposals (e.g. "hate crime laws regarding violence against LGBT people") but not all. Hence, my insertion of the word "some". Madman (talk) 18:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC) P.S. Now that I've explained it, I'm going to remove the citation request for "some". You can't prove a negative. Alternatively, I would be happy to reword this into something more specific, as when I suggested that he was against "same-sex marriages". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madman2001 (talk • contribs)

So which of these do you say Inhofe supports? Saying he "opposes" isn't the same as saying "he opposes all of". Saying he opposes "some of" means that he doesn't oppose some of it. That's what the qualifier "some" brings to the discussion. So please, if you're going to add the qualifier "some", you need some evidence that he doesn't oppose "some". Guettarda (talk) 22:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I concur. The lead as written implies that he's wishy-washy in his opposition and may be for, say, civil unions but not gay marriage. That's inaccurate and perhaps offensive to Inhofe and the types who might support him. Gamaliel (talk) 23:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

>>Saying he "opposes" isn't the same as saying "he opposes all of".<<

I'm afraid it is, or close enough for a Misplaced Pages biography.

>>Saying he opposes "some of" means that he doesn't oppose some of it. <<

Yes, you are correct here.

>>So please, if you're going to add the qualifier "some", you need some evidence that he doesn't oppose "some". <<

That's absurd, I can't prove a negative. Madman (talk) 19:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Copyedited section on Abu Ghraib prisoner controvery

I copyedited this section, removing a rather speculative phrase that was not in the sources cited (". . . suggesting that shock at the crimes was more offensive than the crimes themselves.") and inserting more material from the sources cited. In other news, there is no source listed that Inhofe was one of 9 Senators voting against the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005. I don't doubt that he did, which is why I didn't remove it. Madman (talk) 05:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Comparing Inhofe bio to other senators' biographies

I spent some time looking at liberal senators' biographies here at Misplaced Pages and found that:

• None of the other articles listed political stands in detail in the lead paragraphs.
• None of the other articles had a section on campaign contributions, although most had a link to the Open Secrets website in the External links section.

Would anyone mind if I removed the campaign contributions section in favor of a link, as the other articles have?? Madman (talk) 05:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It is a good thing to promote consistency across articles. I agree with your proposal. --GoRight (talk) 06:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

1. http://www.aopa.org/feature/election08/congress.html
2. Wendy Frew, "Minchin denies climate change man-made", Sydney Morning Herald, March 15, 2007
3. NPR, Inhofe Offers Parting Shot on Global Warming
4. "Senator Inhofe on Climate Change". RealClimate. 2005-01-10.
5. http://inhofe.senate.gov/environment.htm James M. Inhofe - Issues - Environment
6. League of Conservation Voters
7. http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/factcheck-senator-inhofe-stolen-emails-0328.html Union of Concerned Scientists "Factcheck: Senator Inhofe Can't Even Get the Dates Right on Stolen Emails" December 17, 2009

• C-Class biography articles
• C-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• C-Class U.S. Congress articles
• Unknown-importance U.S. Congress articles
• Unknown-subject U.S. Congress articles
• C-Class Oklahoma articles
• Mid-importance Oklahoma articles
• C-Class Tulsa articles
• Unknown-importance Tulsa articles
• Tulsa articles