Recently, Charles Reeder wrote a letter to the editor (Sept. 1, “You’re not a skeptic”) accusing another writer of cynicism in regard his view on man-made global warming.

I see it as skepticism.

I worked with scientists. They are, by nature, optimists. They need skeptics to question their hypotheses. I, a paid skeptic, gathered data to test their hypotheses.

Here is true cynicism.

As we all know by now, California U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, on the eve of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s vote on Judge Brett Kavanagh, made a statement that she had a witness accusing the judge of sexual assault as a teen-ager.

She said she had gotten her information on or about July 10. She held this information until after all Democrat attempts to discredit the judge failed and the hearings about to close. She demanded a hearing on the matter and an FBI inquiry.

Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley obliged on the hearing. Now (Wednesday) we hear that the accuser refuses to attend the hearing scheduled for next Monday and, (surprise!) she wants an FBI inquiry before she speaks.

The accuser has told differing versions of her story and cannot give date, address, or credible witnesses. The one witness she named has refuted her story. It is quite obvious that had the Democrat’s previous tactics worked that no one would have heard of the accuser. Senator Feinstein and the Democrat party would have quietly buried the story.

This is from the party claiming that they empower women.

The senator’s demand for an FBI investigation she knows to be impossible for jurisdictional reasons is cynical. Demanding a “he said, she said” hearing now that it is impossible for Judge Kavanagh and his accuser to prove their cases is cynical. Senator Feinstein even made a statement that she doesn’t know if she believes the accuser, but she still made the accusation to advance a political agenda — cynicism. This whole deal is cynicism — dirty and simple.