Inhofe is NOT a “SKEPTIC”, say prominent scientists and “HOAX” deNYErs 😉
ON THE NUANCES OF THE SCIENTIFIC USE OF “TermsOfArt” such as “SKEPTIC”, “THEORY” and “HYPOTHESIS”
Despite all the WaPo article pedantry, the modern, especially scientific, use of “skeptic” includes being.able, or at least willing to be persuaded, beyond IDEOLOGICAL sclerosis, to at a bare minimum, alter views.
Inhofe is on a.party crusade that brooks no skepticism.
Were Inhofe’s god to offer him holy evidence contrary to his preconceptions and largely unexpressed motivation, THAT god would be hauled before a committee and publicly crucified? :-$
THAT IS NOT THE MARK OF A TRUE “SKEPTIC”, ESPECIALLY IN THE SENSE THE SCIENCE COMMUNITY MAKES PROFESSIONAL USE OF IT (“FALSIFIABILITY” see the scientific denotative and connotative employment of the “terms of art”, “Theory”/”Hypothesis”…mere dictionary cites are inadequate) :-!