On Wednesday, Americans found out that there is in fact a senator more skeptical of the reality of manmade global warming than Republican James Inhofe of Oklahoma.

When the Senate voted by an unusually lopsided margin of 98-to-1 to declare: "It is the sense of the Senate that climate change is real and not a hoax," the famously skeptical Inhofe voted with the majority — even co-sponsoring the amendment.

Instead, Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) was the lone "no" vote.

Why would Wicker, who hails from a state that produces less carbon-based energy than Inhofe's oil-rich Oklahoma, vote against a non-binding resolution that even Inhofe was supporting? Even Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyoming), a staunch supporter of coal production, voted in favor of it.

The U.S. Congress has a long history of principled, lonely "no" votes that are sometimes viewed later as wise choices, such as Rep. Barbara Lee's (D-Calif.) opposition of the post-9/11 use of force authorization bill.

This may not be one of those cases, at least not considering the growing weight of scientific evidence on the issue.

According to Wicker's office, the senator opposed the amendment to the Keystone XL Pipeline bill, cosponsored by Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Inhofe, among others, because he saw it as "a political show vote."

Average annual temperature anomalies from 1880 to 2014, showing the sharp rise in temperatures since the mid-20th century. Image: Bob Al-Greene/Mashable

“The Whitehouse amendment is an attempt to stop the construction of the Keystone pipeline using disputed facts," the senator said in a written statement to Mashable.

"My record is very clear on this issue, and I will not change my position based on a political show vote. I agree with the more than 31,000 American scientists who do not believe the science on this matter is settled. Scientific research is advanced by asking questions and allowing for multiple viewpoints. With so much at stake –- our economy, our livelihoods, and our environment –- we should be tolerant of differences of opinion.”

The reference to the 31,000 American scientists concerns the "Global Warming Petition Project," organized by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, that has gathered signatures from people who reject the mainstream science showing that human emissions of greenhouse gases are causing global warming.

The petition has been repeatedly debunked — since it allowed people with bachelors degrees in fields such as computer science and zoology to sign on as a climate expert.

Graphic showing the 98-to-1 vote on the Whitehouse-Inhofe amendment on Jan. 21, 2015. Image: Bob Al-Greene/Mashable

It now exists as one of many so-called "climate zombie" websites, waiting to be cited as authoritative by those who oppose particular scientific conclusions and policies despite its structural flaws.

The Oregon Institute's petition was set up by Frederick Seitz, a physicist that once took $45 million from tobacco companies to conduct work that created the appearance of significant uncertainty concerning the link between smoking and cancer, according to science historian Naomi Oreskes of Harvard University.

In Wednesday's brief Senate floor debate on the Whitehouse-Inhofe amendment, Inhofe conceded that climate changes over time, saying there are examples in history books and biblical references to it. However, he still rejects the fact that humans cause climate change.

It turns out that Wicker, who is the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, disagrees with this. This puts him even more out of step with the conclusion of the overwhelming majority of climate scientists on this point, compared to Inhofe.

Wicker has said on several occasions that there is no proven link between carbon dioxide, which is produced by burning fossil fuels such as coal and oil, and temperature changes. He has also repeatedly said that there has been no global warming in the last 15 to 17 years. All of these points have been shot down in the scientific literature, time and time again.

For example, on July 23, 2014, Wicker issued a press release that quoted him stating this false claim: "Although coal consumption has soared, global average temperatures have stagnated over the past 17 years. This is a fact worth repeating. There has been no rise in global average temperatures over the past 17 years."

In December 2009, when world leaders were meeting in Copenhagen, Denmark to craft a new climate agreement, Wicker released a statement contending that there is no link between manmade emissions and climate change.

"Science shows that there is an increase of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere," Wicker said. "But it has not been compellingly proven that mankind is responsible for the rise in atmospheric CO2, nor is it clear what impact CO2 has on Earth’s temperatures."

Meanwhile, multiple studies have identified the fraction of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere put there by human activities, versus CO2 that is naturally-occurring.

Temperatures have indeed increased during the past 17 years, albeit by a smaller amount than in previous years. Furthermore, the melting of ice sheets, warming of the deep oceans, changes in heavy precipitation events and a host of other so-called "climate change indicators" have all been showing signs of impacts from a warming planet during the same time period.

2014 was the warmest year on record for the globe, and 14 of the 15 warmest years have all occurred since the year 2000, according to data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Eric Steig, a professor at the University of Washington, told Mashable on Jan. 16 that the warmest year declaration further discredits the idea that global warming had paused since a record warm year in 1998, which was attributed in large part to an El Niño event in the tropical Pacific Ocean.

"In light of the frequent claims of there being a "pause" or slowdown in global temperature, the 2014 data provides a lesson in statistics. It will hopefully remind people what we've always known — what the textbooks have always said — that ones must use more than a decade or even 15 years of data to say anything about climate trends," he told Mashable in an email.

"As many of us have said, choosing 1998 as a start point — as those advocating for a "pause" have done — is scientifically unjustified. With a couple years more data, it is easy to demonstrate once again that we were right. It is not a surprise that the last 15 years — from 2000-2014 inclusive — show a faster rate of rise than the 1998-2012 trend, though it's equally unscientific to focus on this 15 year period as any other short period."