I'm more than a bit skeptical of anything that Sen. Inhofe says about climate, so we're even. But why not evaluate the content and not the author? Compare and contrast what RealClimate says to other statements on the same subjects. Examine the expertise of those making the statements. (Argument from authority is precarious, but I'd probably be a little more respectful of statement about climate change from someone trained in a relevant discipline than a proctologist.) Examine potential biases and their likely influence. Etc.
That, after all, is what intellectual inquiry entails. Shooting the messenger doesn't accomplish much in the way of knowledge acquisition.
Inhofe provided a lot of content to evaluate. I've already done that for a lot of the subjects he touches on. I've concluded what I need to conclude about Inhofe's grasp of the subject and his potential biases.
Holes in the corona have been correlated with the global surface temperature. If the corona is changing significantly and aspects of it have been correlated with the global temperature, could there not be effects on earth such as the temperature increases of the last 30-40 years?
I don't believe that Mann's hockey stick is a realistic model of global temperature. For many years I would read various scientific journals in the library of a top scientific lab at least once a week. I saw in those journals a number of confirmations around the world of the Little Ice Age and/or the Medieval Warm Period. So I view with skepticism any representation of global temperature over the last millennium that doesn't find indications of a significant Medieval Warm Period.
Mann cites various peer reviewed papers in the defense of his hockey stick in the link you provided. I've not read the papers he linked to. However, I've published a number of peer reviewed papers in the scientific literature myself and have seen papers by others slip through without adequate peer review. It can happen if papers are routed to friendly reviewers. I have not followed Mann's work close enough to judge whether that has occurred with his papers.
As a PhD math modeler, I look at the estimated temperature record of the last 150 or so years and am amazed that some people point to greenhouse gases as the cause of the increase in temperature. Some certainly, but not all. I look at the temperature record and conclude that considerably more is going on than effects by greenhouse gas. To do justice to my beliefs, I'd have to launch into math modeling of the global temperature myself and probably spend several years at it. Unfortunately, I don't have the time required to do that, so just call me a scientifically trained lay skeptic of Mann's work. I probably fall into the Lindzen camp.
"Examine the expertise of those making the statements. (Argument from authority is precarious, but I'd probably be a little more respectful of statement about climate change from someone trained in a relevant discipline than a proctologist.) Examine potential biases and their likely influence"
EXACTLY!!! That's exactly the test I used to evaluate Al Gore's various convoluted statements, omissions, half truths and outright lies on this subject.
As a result of your lenghty analysis of Sen. Inhofe's statements, I assume you have compiled a list of his misstatements??