Denier, denier, planet’s on fire!

We’ve seen that only 49% of Republicans now believe that the earth is warming and only 27% say the earth is warming because of human activity (see “The deniers are winning, especially with the GOP“).

Well, a new National Journal Congressional Insiders Poll finds that Republicans are no more misinformed than their representatives:


Republicans (39 votes)

Now April 2006
Yes 26 percent 23 percent
No 74 percent 77 percent

Who are these stellar members of Congress?

GOP Congressional Insiders Sens. Lamar Alexander, Jim Bunning, John Cornyn, Jim DeMint, Lindsey Graham, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Johnny Isakson, Richard Lugar, Mel Martinez, Lisa Murkowski, Olympia Snowe, John Sununu, John Thune, David Vitter; Reps. Brian Bilbray, Marsha Blackburn, John Boehner, Kevin Brady, John Campbell, Chris Cannon, Eric Cantor, Michael Castle, Tom Cole, Mike Conaway, Tom Davis, John Doolittle, David Dreier, Phil English, Jeff Flake, Scott Garrett, Bob Goodlatte, Kay Granger, Doc Hastings, Pete Hoekstra, Bob Inglis, Peter King, Jack Kingston, Mark Kirk, John Kline, Ray LaHood, Dan Lungren, Kenny Marchant, Jim McCrery, Patrick McHenry, John Mica, Candice Miller, Marilyn Musgrave, Sue Myrick, Devin Nunes, Mike Pence, Tom Price, Deborah Pryce, Adam Putnam, Dave Reichert, Tom Reynolds, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Mike Rogers of Michigan, Paul Ryan, Pete Sessions, John Shadegg, Christopher Shays, Adrian Smith, Mark Souder, Pat Tiberi, Fred Upton, Zach Wamp, and Joe Wilson.

If conservatives and their supporters don’t accept the overwhelming scientific evidence and broad scientific understanding today (“Absolute MUST Read IPCC Report: Debate over, further delay fatal, action not costly“), what series of catastrophic events must occur to get them on board the effort to preserve the health and well-being of the next 50 generations?

Record temperatures? Record Arctic ice loss? Record violent storms? Record flooding? Record droughts? Record wildfires?

We’ve got Hell and High Water — what we don’t have is a major political movement willing to put aside the narrow interests of their big dollar contributors.

24 Responses to Denier, denier, planet’s on fire!

  1. Tom says:

    One thing I find interesting about that graph is the percent of people missing (the numbers of each only add up to about 40%) – presumably indicating a ‘don’t know’ answer. That’s a lot of people presumably not engaged in the debate at all – and doesn’t show well for the Democrats either.

  2. Lou Grinzo says:

    Tom: Those graphs are showing the totals, not percentages. The percentages are in the text just below the graph.

  3. Ronald says:

    The same thing with TV commentators. I watch Kudlow sometimes, and it’s if he never could figure out a way that people could make money on renewable energy instead of depleatable fossil fuels.

    He does know who the people who watch his program are thinking and most probably agree with him. Give the people what they want.

    But republicans are going to have enough troubles this fall as it looks like now. Imagine if they had to admit that they were wrong about global warming all along. The would be in even worse trouble.

    Which is why, even though Nuclear does have all those problems this website writes about so well, if there was just something that the deniers and delayer politicians can rally around that they were right about and could promote, it might make it easier for them to change their minds or at least be less of a loss for them. But to be wrong about global warming and then to be wrong about the solutions to it, they are going to keep fighting ways to fix it just for their own political survivial.

  4. hapa says:


    they are going to keep fighting ways to fix it just for their own political survivial.

    what if nuclear is not a solution they’re trying to sell. what if it’s one of many red- and purple-state subsidies, including the military, on which their governance depends. what if federal subsidies are their entire economic program, as a direct (and economically unproductive) wealth transfer from tax surplus states (almost all blue) to tax deficit states.

    what if, further, they decided to do this entire buying-votes project on credit.

    and then they did not regulate the credit industry, letting it run roughshod over everything, recreating the circumstances of 1929 — which had its own resource-depletion disaster in the dust bowl — except from some keynesian control measures still running?

    where does one draw the line, here, on throwing these idiots a bone?

    they wanted to bankrupt the government and reform the country’s economy in the image of the late 19th century and by gum they got it and nobody wants any of it and again, what bone should you throw.

    their faith is a dead end. it isn’t pro-business and it isn’t pro-america. they’re just nuts.

  5. hapa says:

    democrats have contributed to this. democrats fell hook, line, sinker for the deregulation of finance and the securitization of services and infrastructure development. even now they can’t say, “we were wrong about health insurance. medicare works and should be expanded. it just works better and costs less.” and that list goes on.

    democrats have their own pork. democrats have their own corruption.

    but it isn’t their whole plan.

  6. I’m wondering what would be the response among this same group if the question was either:

    “Do you think it’s been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Earth is a sphere and is not flat?”


    “Do you think it’s been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Earth is greater than 6000 years old?”

  7. Tom in Texas says:

    “what series of catastrophic events must occur to get them on board…”

    How about warming temps?

    UAH: Global Temperature Dives in May

    [JR: Yeah, the UAH. We can believe there numbers — not! See “Should you believe anything John Christy and Roy Spencer say?]

  8. Tom in Texas says:

    “Here’s the real question: Are we willing to play Russian roulette with each other’s livelihoods, while politicians pull the trigger and arbitrarily decide the winners and losers, in hopes of “fixing” the climate, long after we’re all dead, based on a theory that may or may not work, assuming things are as bad as climate hysterics predict?”

  9. exusian says:

    Oh, the “theory” works just fine in the here and now, Tom.

    It’s what keeps you nice and warm in Texas instead of shivering in temperatures 33°C colder than they would be without the greenhouse effect.

    But hey, never let the facts get in the way of expressing a perfectly ignorant opinion.

  10. Tom in Texas says:

    Yeah, I know – all the watermellons are waiting for Hansen/GISS numbers
    for May.

  11. hapa says:

    ah! red-baiting! from texas! home of some of the world’s largest privately-financed wind farms, operated by some of the biggest names in hard-core energy capitalism. gotta love it.

    “renewable energy: it doesn’t work. that’s why it’s growing so fast!”

  12. Tom in Texas says:


    I pay (voluntarily) an additional fee on my utility bill to get some of that wind farm electricity –

    If it were competitive to the South Texas Nuclear Project (or coal fired plants), there would be no need for additional fees or subsidies.

  13. David B. Benson says:

    Tom in Texas — Just how much of the South Texas Nuclear Project is being forked over by taxpayers, hmmm?

  14. Paul K says:

    Texas is a leader in wind power. For some reason their wind power is not linked to the national grid.

  15. hapa says:

    @tom in texas: what david benson said. wind works. solar’s close. nuclear’s so full of pork it’s banned during passover. and all of this has s*** to do with joe stalin so keep your “watermelon” talk to your bar buddies.

  16. sadunkal says:

    I think it is dangerous to compare scientific views of two political parties. I mean what’s this about, what’s the goal? Are you trying to prove man-made warming by implying that the idiotic republicans are wrong?

    Some time ago, the republican party used to be the one people love and trust more in. The thing is, the amount of difference only shows how unscientific this whole global warming debate is, from both sides…

    The science is already politized enough without the people taking part in it. Just let it be and concentrate on the science please. Also get Al Gore out of all this if you can.

  17. Tom in Texas says:

    Hapa: It is okay to call a skeptic a denier (“Denier, denier, planet’s on fire!”) as in Holocost Denier, but you seem to take offense at calling a Believer a watermellon? Thin skin?

    And “solar’s close”? It was “close” back in the early 80’s when I was a partner in Applied Solar Engineering Inc. We designed and built quite a few systems in Texas, including several in oil fields.
    Check out for one of my patents. When Reagan ended the solar subsidies our firm went belly up.

    If solar cannot compete without subsidies, with oil at $135/barrel, it will never be “close”.

  18. Joe says:

    Tom — Don’t be silly. Nuclear can’t compete without subsidies. Heck, apparently oil can’t compete without subsidies. And what about all those coal plants that don’t have to meet the clean air act standards?

    The price of oil doesn’t affect the competitiveness of solar — the two are not currently fungible.

    The good news is that solar is competitive now, either with a carbon price or subsidies comparable in value to that given to all other energy sources.

  19. Tom in Texas says:

    Joe: Silly? I thought I was being realistic (the way things are today, not the way we wish them to be).

    If solar were competitive today, that would be good news – I’d hang out my shingle again, if I can find it (Its been 20+ years). Do I tell my clients to see Al Gore to collect the carbon credits? How exactly do those credits put bread on my table?

    In all honesty, my only bitch about nuclear power, and has been for most of my adult life, is the waste. If the waste could be cheaply transported to a lunar dump site, then I could support replacing all our oil and coal fired electric generating plants with nuclear. It would be as a very expensive insurance policy, just in case there were actually anything to the CO2 hysterics.

    Right now I’m trying to figure out a way to capture all the C02 that escapes when I drink my Miller Lite. After that, I’ll work on the lunar dump problem.

  20. Tommaso says:

    Lunar dump site? Even if that was remotely economically permissible (which I know you recognize its not), would that be a good idea?

    The moon controls our tides and many of the natural cycles on our planet. Turning it into a radioactive second sun might not be the best idea.

  21. David B. Benson says:

    Tommaso — It’s clear that Tom in Texas doesn’t have enough to do. Besides he first has to solve the Miller Lite CO2 problem. ;-)

  22. hapa says:


    It is okay to call a skeptic a denier (”Denier, denier, planet’s on fire!”) as in Holocost Denier, but you seem to take offense at calling a Believer a watermellon?

    i don’t take offense. i point out that when you randomly accuse people of being mass murderers because they’ve called you a giant partisan idiot, it makes you look like a giant partisan idiot.

    Thin skin?

    of course. poke your own. very thin.

  23. hapa says:

    @t-in-t, 2: oh ho, you turn heat into work. dust off your shingle: solar thermal and heat pumps are about to take a major chunk of fossil fuels’ space- and water-heating market.