The National Academy of Sciences was commissioned to look into the hockey stick. They ended up not going into all the questions the committee tasked them with, to the point where they were not paid. Nevertheless, they looked into a number of things, and ended up agreeing with Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick on all criticisms of Mann's hockey stick, such as that he used a flawed principal components method, strip bark chronologies should not be used for paleoclimate, etc. So in the case of the hockey stick, Inhofe can look to the NAS as evidence that it is a hoax, despite the fact that the same report goes on to endorse the hockey stick by pointing to other 'independent' studies that reached similar results. NAS didn't notice that these independent studies used the same methods and proxies that they had just criticized.

Inhofe understands the "over-stepping" of Government-sponsored environmentalism.

That "extreme environmentalism" is deeply imbedded within the NAS and the IP CC.

The National Academy of Sciences has backed the claim that "the heat went into the deep oceans", yet science still can't find the heat even with their expensive deep ocean measurements (3600 ARGO floats).

I would not call steadfast deniers of science normal people. Normal people also do not copy hundreds of other questions from other people verbatim, even if YA allows it.

In the 2008 election cycle, Inhofe's largest campaign donors represented the oil and gas ($446,900 in donations), leadership PACs ($316,720) and electric utilities ($221,654) industries/categories]

In 2010, his largest donors also represented the oil and gas ($429,950) and electric utilities ($206,654). He receives money from fossil fuel companies because he articulates the views to which these funders subscribe, and because he advances their interests in the Senate

Inhofe often repeats his claim that human influenced climate change is a hoax and impossible because "God's still up there" and it is "outrageous" and arrogant for people to believe human beings are "able to change what He is doing in the climate." You can listen to him doing so at the link below.

Inhofe had previously compared the United States Environmental Protection Agency to the Gestapo.

If you doubt if he is really a “paid” mouthpiece of the oil and gas industry and against any environmental protection, take a look at his voting record;

Introduced Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011: Strongly Opposes topic 18

Stand strong against mandatory cap-and-trade: Strongly Opposes topic 18

Rated 17% by the CAF, indicating opposition to energy independence: Opposes topic 18

Open the Outer Continental Shelf for oil & gas leasing: Strongly Opposes topic 18

Signed the No Climate Tax Pledge by AFP: Strongly Opposes topic 18

YES on barring EPA from regulating greenhouse gases: Opposes topic 18

YES on defunding renewable and solar energy: Strongly Opposes topic 18

NO on ending discussion of CAFE fuel efficiency standards: Favors topic 18

YES on preserving budget for ANWR oil drilling: Opposes topic 18

YES on terminating CAFE standards within 15 months: Strongly Opposes topic 18

NO on targeting 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010: Strongly Opposes topic 18

NO on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill: Opposes topic 18

NO on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (instead of 5%): Strongly Opposes topic 18

NO on disallowing an oil leasing program in Alaska's ANWR: Strongly Opposes topic 18

NO on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Opposes topic 18

NO on factoring global warming into federal project planning: Opposes topic 18

NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies: Strongly Opposes topic 18

NO on addressing CO2 emissions without considering India & China: Opposes topic 18

NO on tax incentives for energy production and conservation: Strongly Opposes topic 18

YES on requiring full Senate debate and vote on cap-and-trade: Opposes topic 18

YES on protecting middle-income taxpayers from a national energy tax: Opposes topic 18

NO on $2 billion more for Cash for Clunkers program: Opposes topic 18

Endangered Species regulations stifle economic growth: Strongly Favors topic 8

SO2 trading mechanisms have achieved significant benefit: Opposes topic 8

Shepherded Water Resources Development Act: Opposes topic 8

Air pollution is at all-time low; don’t tighten standards: Favors topic 8

Rated 5% by the LCV, indicating anti-environment votes: Strongly Favors topic 8

Sponsored matching grants for wetlands conservation projects: Strongly Opposes topic 8

Sponsored no permits for legal pesticide runoff into lakes & streams: Strongly Favors topic 8

Regulating 15 more contaminants under Clean Water Act: Strongly Opposes topic 8

NO on protecting ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems: Favors topic 8

NO on reducing funds for road-building in National Forests: Opposes topic 8

YES on prohibiting eminent domain for use as parks or grazing land: Favors topic 8

You believe a man who has no scientific education and who is able to run for office because of the backing he receives from the energy companies and who thinks protecting the environment is wrong, I will continue to believe the 98% of the worlds scientists and consider that protecting the environment is more important than increasing the profits of multi million dollar corporations.

scientists have better things to do

Another tricky question by the Dorkster. He asks this question of the deniers then denies them from answering.

Ha! Ha! And Y!A allows him to get by with this.

Let us open this up to normal people also.