Talk:Jim Inhofe/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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 Wikipedia 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)

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)

"looks toward his Christian believes" not only isn't English, it's a mindreading judgment that has no place in an encyclopedia. OTOH, "often cites the Bible" is a documented fact, and a rather significant one in understanding the basis of his views. As for who cares -- the person who complained obviously cared a great deal ... enough to remove relevant info. -- 98.108.209.12 (talk) 04:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the above ("looks towards his..." is a confusing statement). Citation of a particular book can be easily documented. Thoughts in someone's head ("looks towards...") cannot. Thanks, Hu Gadarn (talk) 21:35, 4 June 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.

If you're going to cite a Wikipedia policy, you could at least try reading it: "Blogs are a type of publishing format. They are not inherently reliable or unreliable. For the purpose of Wikipedia editing, determination of a blog's reliability is largely based on the relevance and professional standing of the writer." -- 98.108.209.12 (talk) 04:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia: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)

"The primary pushers of AGW" include 97% of climate scientists. That someone "pushes" a view does not alone make them biased or lacking independence -- else that judgment would fall on those who "push" the view the earth is not flat, and circles the sun, to name just one example. -- 98.108.209.12 (talk) 04:36, 15 May 2010 (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 Wikipedia: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)

You keep saying that, but it is a falsehood; the policy says no such thing. You even quote it: "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, or tweets" -- do you suppose there's a blanket prohibition on books? Or websites? The issue is self-publishing, NOT blogs. 98.108.209.12 (talk) 04:36, 15 May 2010 (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 Wikipedia: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)

[outdent] 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[1]. 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."[2]

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)

"there are reliable sources that clearly back him up" -- no, there are no, zero, nada reliable sources that back up Inhofe's views on AGW. AGW is not a hoax and no one reliable is foolish enough to claim that it is. -- 98.108.209.12 (talk) 05:06, 15 May 2010 (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: [3]. --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"[12] while in the UK, Johann Hari stated that Inhofe's statements have been "repudiated" by "even the handful of contrarian scientists Inhofe constantly cites."[13]"

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".[14]

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, Wikipedia 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 "|The 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)

"The Carter quote says nothing about the science" -- of course it does; it asserts the existence of "the other side of the story", as if there were a legitimate scientific dispute. -- 98.108.209.12 (talk) 05:14, 15 May 2010 (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."[4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] 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. " [11] 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 Wikipedia.

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 Wikipedia. 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)

" I do think that "denial" is too strong" -- Too strong to characterize someone who says that AGW is "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people"? I know I'm supposed to assume good faith, but some people make it almost impossible to do so. -- 98.108.209.12 (talk) 05:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The premise that this article lacks balance is ridiculous. It's a plain fact that Inhofe disagrees with the vast majority of the scientific community. Pointing that out is only "negative" if one assumes that Inhofe is wrong and the scientific community is right -- and why would his supporters assume that? It's also a plain fact that Inhofe makes numerous claims at odds with the evidence. Pointing that out is only "negative" if one assumes that agreeing with the evidence is good and disagreeing with it is bad -- but why would people who favor Inhofe's approach to belief formation assume that? -- 98.108.209.12 (talk) 05:06, 15 May 2010 (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."[12]

Sagredo^{⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄} 02:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

What you do or don't know and what your goals are, are not at all relevant (any more than my disbelief that that is your goal). What is relevant is ScienceApologist's observation about coatracking; Inhofe's outlook can be concisely stated without making his article a soapbox for that outlook. -- 98.108.209.12 (talk) 05:31, 15 May 2010 (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[13] 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)

If you're that incompetent, perhaps you shouldn't be editing, especially articles toward which you have an ideological bias. -- 98.108.209.12 (talk) 05:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

This discussion might be more productive if we avoid name calling. Thanks, Hu Gadarn (talk) 21:38, 4 June 2010 (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"). [14].

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 Wikipedia 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: [[15]].

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)

"Oh, please, global warming scepticism is hardly fringe science" -- Oh please do not regale us with your ignorance and bad faith. The view that there is no global warming is as fringe science as it gets -- regardless of what causes it, global warming is demonstrable, directly observable and measurable fact -- and managing to find one peer-reviewed paper does not change that. There is also a peer-reviewed paper by physicists Gerlich and Tscheuschner asserting that there is no greenhouse effect at all. The fact that it is peer reviewed doesn't mean it's not loony tunes. In the case of the paper by Qing-Bin Lu, his conclusions about CO2 are not warranted, regardless of the validity of his findings about cosmic rays. The basic physics of greenhouse gases and global warming has been known since Arrhenius and no competent scientist disputes it. Climate change articles have to be locked down because scientifically ignorant, ideologically driven editors want Wikipedia to reflect their ideology rather than the facts. I know saying that is against WP policy, but it's the truth. -- 98.108.209.12 (talk) 06:47, 15 May 2010 (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^{<fhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jim_Inhofe&action=edit&section=34ont color ="#8FD35D">⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄} 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. [removed personal attack] 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. [removed personal attack] 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): [16]. 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 :] ^{How's my driving?} 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 [17] 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia: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)

You want to make the article a soapbox for his views but hide the fact that his views are pig-ignorant and stupid. This wasn't merely a "gaffe", it was a complete misrepresentation of the facts that shows that Inhofe has no idea what he is talking about at any level. -- 98.108.209.12 (talk) 06:54, 15 May 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 :] ^{How's my driving?} 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)

The truth is often a stretch for the ignorant. -- 98.108.209.12 (talk) 07:02, 15 May 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 [his] 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)

His opposition is broad-brush; limiting it to same-sex marriage is clearly too narrow a brush. And objecting that he doesn't oppose ALL gay rights is either bad faith or an excellent imitation of it. -- 98.108.209.12 (talk) 07:06, 15 May 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)

Inhofe does not oppose all LGBT rights

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)

"You can't prove a negative." -- of course you can. I can prove that 1+1 isn't 3, and that the earth is not flat. I find it odd that people repeat that claim with so little reflection that they don't notice how blatantly erroneous it is. It is only universal negatives, like "no crow is white" that are unprovable. -- 98.108.209.12 (talk) 07:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

look at how wrong you are: $\lnot \forall a:Sa=a$ WhiskeyJuvenile (talk) 20:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia 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)

In common usage of English, "supports" does not mean "supports every aspect of". "Opposes" doesn't mean "opposes every aspect of". "Opposes some", on the other hand, means "does not oppose some of". Since Inhofe has campaigned on his opposition to the "homosexual agenda", implying that he supports some of it would probably be offensive to him and his supporters. Guettarda (talk) 14:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

You can't build a BLP article on "probably". I've already detailed within this thread the LGBT issues which Inhofe does not oppose -- see my post at the very top of this section.

Does Jim Inhofe oppose the right of homosexuals to engage in consensual sexual activity? I find no evidence that this is the case.

Does Jim Inhofe oppose the right of homosexuals to emigrate to the US? I find no evidence that this is the case. There's "some". Madman (talk) 15:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• You can't build a BLP article on "probably" - I'm not. You're inserting claims into a BLP that are not' supported by any sources, and which are probably offensive to the subject. This is unacceptable.
• I've already detailed within this thread the LGBT issues which Inhofe does not oppose - No, you haven't.
• Does Jim Inhofe oppose the right of homosexuals to engage in consensual sexual activity? He was very critical of the Lawrence v. Texas decision, so at the very least he supports the rights of the states to make homosexual conduct illegal.
• Does Jim Inhofe oppose the right of homosexuals to emigrate to the US? Seriously? According to the HRC site, he opposed this bill, so yes, it would seem that he is opposed to immigration equality. Short of that even, he opposes recognition of marriage equality and federal recognition of domestic partnerships, which precludes the question of immigration equality even coming up.
• Of course, this misses the underlying point entirely - unless you alter the normal way in which English is used, there wording "opposes" doesn't mean what you claim it means. And we adhere to normal usage of English here. Guettarda (talk) 16:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I was looking for an adjective to better define Inhofe's position and I think that Gamaliel's suggestion is OK for now. Thanks, Gamaliel.

As I mention below, my goal is to bring this biography in line with the typical U.S. senator bio, which would remove a laundry-list of positions from the lead. More later, Madman (talk) 16:51, 15 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)

Why are your doubts or lack of them relevant? If that sort of thing is relevant, then let's credit the fact that I have no doubt that Inhofe said that he was outraged at the outrage. -- 98.108.209.12 (talk) 07:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Comparing Inhofe bio to other senators' biographies

I spent some time looking at liberal senators' biographies here at Wikipedia 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)

Promoting consistency across articles is a good thing. But the fact that other senators lack "campaign contributions" information reflects badly on the other articles. It's important for people to know who funds these Senators, how much, and from which organizations. I think "campaign contributions" sections should be added to the other 98 articles on senators.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion as to the contribution section, but as to the more general assertion about senatorial bio ledes, I can't agree; here are excerpts from the lead sections of bios of the first three liberal senators whose names came into my head (2 of them deceased; the last article (which is GA rated) is obviously much longer than the others and the policy material comes from the 3rd paragraph of a 4-paragraph lede):

Russell Dana "Russ" Feingold (born March 2, 1953) is an American politician from the U.S. state of Wisconsin. He has served as a Democratic member of the U.S. Senate and the junior Senator from Wisconsin since 1993. A recipient of the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award, Feingold is known for his cosponsorship of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act ("McCain–Feingold Act"), a major piece of campaign finance reform legislation. He was also the only Senator to vote against the USA PATRIOT Act during its first vote. He had been mentioned as a possible candidate in the 2008 Presidential election, but following the November midterm elections of 2006 he chose not to run.

Paul David Wellstone (July 21, 1944 - October 25, 2002) was a two-term U.S. Senator from the state of Minnesota and member of the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party, which is affiliated with the national Democratic Party. . . . Wellstone was a liberal and a leading spokesman for the liberal wing of the national Democratic Party. . . .

Edward Moore "Ted" Kennedy (February 22, 1932 – August 25, 2009) was a United States Senator from Massachusetts and a member of the Democratic Party. . . . Kennedy was known for his oratorical skills; his 1968 eulogy for his brother Robert and his 1980 Democratic National Convention rallying cry for modern American liberalism were among his best-known speeches. He became known as "The Lion of the Senate" through his long tenure and influence. More than 300 bills that Kennedy and his staff wrote were enacted into law. Unabashedly liberal, Kennedy championed an interventionist government emphasizing economic and social justice, but was also known for working with Republicans to find compromises between senators with disparate views. Kennedy played a major role in passing many laws, including laws addressing immigration, cancer research, health insurance, apartheid, disability discrimination, AIDS care, civil rights, mental health benefits, children's health insurance, education and volunteering. In the 2000s, he led several unsuccessful immigration reform efforts. Over the course of his career and continuing into the Obama administration, Kennedy continued his efforts to enact universal health care, which he called the "cause of my life."

--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I see your point, although the last two of these folks are of course no longer senators. I do note that John Kerry has mention of his support of Vietnam Veterans against the War and Bernie Sanders is described as a socialist. On the other hand, neither Barbara Boxer nor anyone from the List_of_current_United_States_Senators#Majority_(Democratic) leadership -- Dick Durbin, Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid, Patty Murray, or Bob Menendez -- nor the Minority (Republican) leadership has any issues listed.

My point is that, as far as I can tell, Inhofe has more political issues listed than any other sitting senator. I just want to use the same standards on this rather POV-ish article as exist in the typical senator's biography. Madman (talk) 13:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Is the article on David Duke POV-ish? Sometimes the facts about people don't reflect well on them. -- 98.108.209.12 (talk) 07:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Sci Am quote

I'd like to use this quote from the undoubtedly WP:RS, Scientific American: Here’s my conclusion: the only strong evidence we have that Oklahoma Senator James M. Inhofe isn’t a clown is that his car isn’t small enough [18] William M. Connolley (talk) 11:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that, but no doubt there will be a huge fight over it. By the way, do you own a Mini?  ;) Sagredo^{⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄} 06:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I used to have enormous respect for SA. This remark helps explain why that position has changed. How sad.--SPhilbrickT 21:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't find it sad that your position has changed since I don't care about you. As for SA, I still respect it, and that article is one reason why. -- 98.108.209.12 (talk) 07:28, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Wants Gore Stripped of Nobel Prize

1. Should be added: http://www.breitbart.tv/senator-wants-gore-stripped-of-nobel-prize/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.27.52.166 (talk) 03:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Treatment for Substance Abuse

Why is this not covered? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.16.176.242 (talk) 17:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Inhofe in Copenhagen, a "truth squad" of one?

Did Roger Wicker and John Barrasso actually accompany Inhofe to Copenhagen, or did they back out, because, as Grist puts it, "Inhofe is a joke, nationally and internationally. No U.S. senator wanted to squander his or her credibility by traveling with Inhofe, so he ended up going alone. And when he got there, not a single government official from any nation was willing to appear with him, so he ended up speaking with a derisory coterie of reporters"

I find articles stating that they were going to accompany Inhofe, but no mention of them in the articles about Inhofe's trip. --Sagredo^{⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄} 15:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Inhofe: "man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people"

I've been doing some cleanup of several climate-change articles, and have noticed this quote or variations) in these articles:

• Hockey stick controversy
• Global warming conspiracy theory
• State of Fear
• Climatic Research Unit email controversy
• IPCC#Emphasis of the "hockey stick" graph

Curiously, it isn't used in this article.

The actual quote, as cited in the NY Times, is:

""With all of the hysteria, all of the fear, all of the phony science, could it be that man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people? It sure sounds like it." [19]

So, besides piling-on, this somewhat-distorted "quote" looks like POV-pushing to me. Needs attention. --Pete Tillman (talk) 23:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Distorted? And scare-quotes around "quote"? That looks like your own POV-pushing, since the quote isn't a distortion of Inhofe's stated view that "[it sure sounds like] man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people". -- 98.108.209.12 (talk) 07:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Israel

Took out "Supports Isreal" as NPOV, cite, ambiguity (what does "support" mean? what does "Israel" mean?) WhiskeyJuvenile (talk) 20:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

aviation training and military history

"Trained by the US Navy" When, where, why and how? And what about this, "served in the United States Army from 1957 to 1958"? Enlistments and drafts are not usually for 1 year! Enlightenment please, thank you, H... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Havenrich (talk • contribs) 15:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Requested change

Going throught the current senators' articles, I have standardized the order of precedence block in all those that were not lock, with the style, in every case, of the majority of pages. Please italicize the list of senate seniority and remove the parentheses from the party and state. All other items match this article's. Missing parties and states have been filled in elsewhere, and sized where needed. Thanks. 75.203.4.199 (talk) 06:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Reporting an error: "Inhofe worked as a businessman for three decades before entering politics." Cited from another source, who actually stated he has worked for three decades in other fields, not before entering politics. Since he began in politics in 1967, and was born in 1934, did he really start working at age 3? 75.166.45.15 (talk) 00:53, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Greenpeace

There appears to be an undue focus on the views of GP, and specifically the agenda against the Koch's. The recent section I removed provides undue weight to the donations from Koch's Industries. The way it read was to imply that their donation was somehow special and notable within the entirely of Inhofe's donations. The fact is that their donation amounts are not significant with regards to his entire donation information. Open Secrets only lists the top 50 donors, of which Koch is not one of them. If we are going to list the Koch Industries donation then we are required to list all other donations down to that amount in order to present a neutral point of view. Arzel (talk) 17:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Global warming views

• a strong critic of the scientific consensus that climate change is occurring as a result of human activities

This is saying (1) that there is a consensus view and (2) that Inhofe disagrees with that view. I think rather that there is a mainstream view - particularly as reported in English-language media - but Inhofe denies that this view is a consensus. He say, "The science is mixed."

It would be better if Wikipedia would not endorse the view that scientists are mostly in agreement about global warming. How could we possibly know that? Instead, we should list the sources that assert that most scientists agree. Understand? --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

We already have articles explaining the scientific opinion on climate change, such as Scientific opinion on climate change. We don't need to re-hash all that in this article: it's sufficient to summarise it here, as the sentence you quoted does. As for 'how could we possibly know that' - because lots and lots of reliable sources say so, not least the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which provides a reasonably reliable account of the international consensus view in this area. Robofish (talk) 23:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree with the criticism posted here. It doesn't matter how many times the political left reposts their talking points on "climate change." Repetition is not proof, nor does it increase the credibility of the claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.251.22.122 (talk) 13:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Inhofe's own staff have said the majority of scientists reject his views: "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.""^[20]--The lorax (talk) 20:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

"Global warming skeptic"

In the opening section of this article, Inhofe is referred to as a "global warming skeptic." Isn't the proper term "Climate change denier." We would not call someone who suggests that cigarettes don't cause cancer a "tobacco cancer-link skeptic." Skepticism suggests that there is some reasonable point of view he is representing. But it's been pretty well documented that the scientific community universally agrees that global warming is both real and in part man made. So why do we grant Inhofe the overly generous label of "skeptic?"Mackabean (talk) 02:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, I agree with this. In most cases, such as for scientists who have criticised the mainstream view of global warming, 'skeptic' is the appropriate term to use. But I just can't see the justification for it on Inhofe's article: he's not skeptical about the existence of global warming, he denies it completely. I'm going to change the lead accordingly. Robofish (talk) 12:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm quite disappointed that so many politically left "editors" are here to bias the article against Inhofe; especially since their only sources seem to be far left bloggers who are just as extreme as they are. To be accurate, Inhofe is neither a global warming skeptic nor a climate change denier. Those are propaganda terms that have no place in this Wikipedia article.

New Commenter (Folsom530) - I disagree the wording is "climate change denier". That's as politically biased as saying a pro-choice person is "anti-life". It is outrageous to furthermore suggest that there is a "scientific consensus" on global warming, as this article states. There is not a "scientific consensus" at all. A consensus by definition means coming to agreement AS A WHOLE. Well, duh...the WHOLE scientific community has not come to a consensus! This wording is biased against the senator and needs to be revised to something like "popular scientific opinion", or some other wording that does not indicate a consensus...which again, means that EVERYONE has come to an agreement. Yeah, everyone on the left....too funny. Nice try left wing-nuts! Folsom530 (talk) 21:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I've inserted a hyperlink in this disputed paragraph to the main article on climate change skepticism/denial, as well as a reference to a survey on the prevalence of attitudes about climate change in the scientific community. Staffers will always try to make their boss' wikipedia page seem as positive as possible, so for anyone upset about the purported liberal bias in this section of the article, never fear: you can be sure that Inhofe's staff will make sure it doesn't tilt too far to the left. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleddjt (talk • contribs) 21:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikilink Koch Industries.

Wikilink Koch Industries, please. 99.109.124.5 (talk) 02:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC) Due to the Koch family's funding, add Political activities of the Koch family also, please. 99.109.124.5 (talk) 02:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you create an account? Arzel (talk) 02:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't get distracted, Arzel. Wikipedia:Not every IP is a vandal. 99.119.131.30 (talk) 03:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

No, some are just annoying IP jumpers. Arzel (talk) 13:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

No to what, Arzel? 97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Jim Inhofe, raised $16.2 million, 13% from energy and natural resources (extractive industry-based), who has received more money from Koch Industries (see Political activities of the Koch family) than any other company. The oil firm has given nearly $25 million to climate change denial groups. This per the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) as list on page 44 and 49 of Mother Jones September/October 2010 "Who Owns Congress" by Dave Gilson? Also see Talk:Climate change policy of the United States ... from Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy. 99.181.145.108 (talk) 06:48, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The entire paragraph mentioning Koch Industries is undue weight, as the information from OpenSecrets.org reports the $90,950 they attribute to Koch is less than 0.6% of the total contributions in question. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

A politician's biggest contributor is not 'undue' weight. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

But the calculations done by OpenSecrets.org are unique to them. If, as a rational person would do, you do not combine employee contributions, or combine them with (company) PAC contributions, the largest contributor is AOPA PAC. Furthermore, as OpenSecrets notes, individual contributors under $200, or those who do not report their employer, cannot be analyzed by OpenSecrets. At the least, the appropriate percentage should be added, but I think that combination is improper. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I've now added the percentage. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

As an aside, if one has more than one employer, and makes a contribution in excess of $200, are there guidelines for the contributor to decide which employer to list? And are contributors asked to follow those guidelines?

If not, then the official reports are suspect, even though OpenSecrets may be a reliable secondary source reporting the primary source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:11, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

When a political donation is made, it's my understanding that the blank for employer is filled in by the donor.   Will Beback  talk  00:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, but, if a donor has more than one employer, does she have any guidance as to which one to include. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Is that a question, Art ... (?) ... ? Note: AOPA is the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, and aircraft create a create deal of greenhouse gases and directly up in the atmosphere. 99.19.47.119 (talk) 05:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Who cares?   Will Beback  talk  06:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. The list should be removed, and the largest contributor (AOPA) should be listed with a percentage. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

To whom are you replying? I was asking who cares if donors to the subject have more than one employer?   Will Beback  talk  08:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

OpenSecrets should, as it's another flaw in their methodology. Also, I can't believe that no employees of UPS contributed to his campaign. Perhaps they don't track UPS employees. (Pun intended.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The FEC collects this information, according to their rules. OpenSecrets and other websites just compile it.   Will Beback  talk  08:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, not. There are few, if any, employees of "Koch Industries". Most employees would list the specific subsidiary, so OpenSecrets would have to consolidate those. So, there is actually some creative thought involved in OpenSecrets' calculations. It still doesn't explain why it is reported that no employees of UPS contributed more than the reporting amount (now $200, used to be $100) to Inhofe's campaign. Perhaps they reported "UPS", and OpenSecrets attributed it to some other "UPS"? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

How do you know how many employees there are, or in what way that effects how they list their employer? Why should there be contributions from UPS employees?   Will Beback  talk  06:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

It is a violation of WP:COI Art, if you were/are supported by the political activities of the Koch family, such as Koch Industries (Foundations, etc...). 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:41, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Try WP:COI/N if you wish to make an accusation. If you do not do so, then you have likely misused this talk page. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:19, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Art, has wikilinked it. Thank you for that, Art. 99.181.138.168 (talk) 06:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Aviation incident

In October, Inhofe deliberately landed on a closed runway full of construction workers. The FAA investigated and sanctioned Inhofe; he was required to complete remedial training, a very unusually lenient consequence.

Should this be added to the "Aviation" section of Senator Inhofe's page?

Ltyore (talk) 23:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks like someone added it. I do feel this info deserves to be in the article, however, I question it's current place in the "Political views" section as there is nothing political about the incident. Just my two cents.»NMajdan·talk 18:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I've moved it out of "Political views", and renamed the section -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I must say, in my book, the aviation incident makes Jim Inhofe cool! Soonersfan168 (talk) 04:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The role of money in these scientific disputes

I hear a lot about how this and that scientist is really "in the pay of the White Witch" aka fossil fuels (with apologies to C.S. Lewis). And we all know that money talks, while @%@^*()^ walks.

But has anyone written a book about how the desire for money or position can affects research in general? I mean something more than anecdotal evidence that Dr. Stud Ear is biased because he needed a grant or an academic honor or a big fat consulting fee from *gasp* private industry? I'm talking about a scientific study on how factors other than The Search For Truth can motivate and/or sidetrack academics: something more rigorous than "follow the money"? --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oh, never mind, I found it: Funding bias. --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Look here Climate_change_controversy#Funding_for_partisans for starters. 99.119.128.87 (talk) 03:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

potential resource

On Climate Change, a Gloat and a Warning by JOHN M. BRODER New York Times “I’m happy to bring you the good news about the complete collapse of the global warming movement and the failure of the Kyoto process, as world leaders meet for the United Nations global warming conference,” Senator James Inhofe says in a video message.

See 2011 United Nations Climate Change Conference 99.190.86.5 (talk) 07:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)