Here's a brief list of the, shall we say, inaccuracies, of Inhofe's little report.
• It is not peer reviewed. Normally when a scientific study of this sort is undertaken, the author will attempt to publish it in the scientific literature, such as Naomi Oreskes did when she published her study in 2004. Of course, if one's intent is to deceive rather than to enlighten, this step is unnecessary.
• It is deceitful. There are several names given on the list of scientists who are not skeptical of anthropogenic global warming theory. For example, in order to buffer his number, Inhofe included the names from economist Bjørn Lomborg's "Copenhagen Consensus," few of the authors have expressed doubt about AGW theory. Aside from this, several names on the list are repeated more than once. Some several times over. Even stranger, some names aren't even scientists. I noticed one name was that of a retired architect.
• Finally, Inhofe's "400" make up a very small portion of the scientific community. There are millions of scientists around the world, it's laughable that the staffers Inhofe employs to surf the Internet looking for anyone with scientific credentials who has expressed skepticism of AGW were only able to come up with less than 400. There have been similar lists from Cdesign proponentists of scientists who supposedly support ID with larger numbers than this. Surely Inhofe could have done better.
Of course, when you think about it, I suppose he couldn't. After all, his goal is deceive global warming skeptics, and he's doing that admirably well.