Climate

REPORT: Half the 2010 GOP freshman class are climate science deniers

Following last night’s election, over 100 freshmen Republicans will take their seats in the 112th Congress. These GOPers come from disparate backgrounds, but they are united by their adherence to the extreme wing of conservative ideology.

A ThinkProgress analysis has found that the incoming GOP freshman class is rife with legislators who not only oppose climate change legislation, but deny that manmade global warming even exists.

Here is a snapshot of the GOP Class of 2010’s extremism:

ENVIRONMENT
– 50% deny the existence of manmade climate change
– 86% are opposed to any climate change legislation that increases government revenue

IMMIGRATION

– 39% have already declared their intention to end the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of birthright citizenship
– 32% want to reduce legal immigration

TAXES/SPENDING

– 91% have sworn to never allow an income tax increase on any individual or business – regardless of deficits or war
– 79% have pledged to permanently repeal the estate tax
– 48% are pushing for a balanced budget amendment

This is where individual incoming GOP freshmen stand on each issue:

Key

GW: Global warming denier CC: No climate change legislation
BC: End birthright citizenship RI: Reduce legal immigration
TP: No tax increase pledge ET: Repeal estate tax
BB: Balanced budget amendment
Martha Roby (AL-02) CC TP ET Mo Brooks (AL-05) GW CC TP ET
Joe Miller* (AK-SEN) GW CC TP ET BB Paul Gosar (AZ-01) CC BC RI TP
Ben Quayle (AZ-03) GW CC BC TP ET David Schweikert (AZ-05) CC BC RI TP ET BB
Ruth McClung* (AZ-07) GW CC ET BB Jesse Kelly* (AZ-08) GW CC BC RI TP ET BB
Rick Crawford (AR-01) CC TP ET Tim Griffin (AR-02) CC BC RI TP ET
Steve Womack (AR-03) CC BC RI TP John Boozman (AR-SEN) GW CC BC RI TP ET BB
David Harmer* (CA-11) GW CC TP ET Jeff Denham (CA-19) GW CC TP
Andy Vidak (CA-20) GW TP ET Scott Tipton (CO-03) CC TP ET
Cory Gardner (CO-04) GW CC TP BB Steve Southerland (FL-02) CC BC RI TP ET BB
Rich Nugent (FL-05) CC BC RI TP ET BB Daniel Webster (FL-08) CC BC RI TP ET
Dennis Ross (FL-12) CC BC RI TP ET BB Allen West (FL-22) GW BC RI ET
Sandy Adams (FL-24) CC BC RI TP ET BB David Rivera (FL-25) CC TP ET
Marco Rubio (FL-SEN) GW CC TP ET BB Rob Woodall (GA-07) BC RI
Austin Scott (GA-08) CC BC RI TP ET Raul Labrador (ID-01) CC RI TP ET BB
Joe Walsh* (IL-08) GW CC TP BB Robert Dold (IL-10) GW CC TP
Adam Kinzinger (IL-11) CC TP Randy Hultgren (IL-14) GW CC TP ET BB
Bobby Schilling (IL-17) GW CC BC TP ET BB Mark Kirk (IL-SEN) CC
Marlin Stutzman (IN-03) CC TP ET BB Todd Rokita (IN-04) GW CC TP ET
Larry Bucshon (IN-08) GW CC TP ET BB Todd Young (IN-09) GW CC TP BB
Dan Coats (IN-SEN) GW CC TP ET BB Tim Huelskamp (KS-01) GW CC BC RI TP ET
Kevin Yoder (KS-03) ET Mike Pompeo (KS-04) CC TP ET
Jerry Moran (KS-SEN) GW CC BC RI TP Rand Paul (KY-SEN) GW CC BC TP ET BB
Jeff Landry (LA-03) CC TP BB Andy Harris (MD-01) CC BC RI TP ET BB
Dan Benishek (MI-01) CC BC RI TP ET BB Bill Huizenga (MI-02) GW CC TP ET
Justin Amash (MI-03) CC TP ET BB Tim Walberg (MI-07) GW CC BC RI TP ET BB
Chip Cravaack (MN-08) GW TP ET BB
Vicky Hartzler (MO-04) GW CC BC TP ET Billy Long (MO-07) CC ET
Roy Blunt (MO-SEN) GW CC BC RI TP ET Alan Nunnelee (MS-01) CC BC RI TP ET BB
Steven Palazzo (MS-04) CC BC RI TP ET BB Renee Ellmers (NC-02) TP ET BB
Rick Berg (ND-AL) CC TP ET John Hoeven (ND-SEN) GW
Frank Guinta (NH-01) CC TP ET BB Charlie Bass (NH-02) GW CC BC TP
Kelly Ayotte (NH-SEN) GW CC TP ET BB Jon Runyan (NJ-03) CC ET BB
Joe Heck (NV-03) CC BC RI TP ET Steve Pearce (NM-02) GW CC BC TP ET
Mike Grimm (NY-13) GW CC TP ET BB Nan Hayworth (NY-19) GW CC TP ET BB
Chris Gibson (NY-20) CC TP Richard Hanna (NY-24) ET
Anne Marie Buerkle* (NY-25) GW CC TP ET BB Tom Reed (NY-29) CC TP ET
Steve Chabot (OH-01) GW CC TP ET BB Bill Johnson (OH-06) CC TP ET
Steve Stivers (OH-15) GW CC TP ET Jim Renacci (OH-16) CC TP ET BB
Bob Gibbs (OH-18) GW CC BC RI TP ET BB Rob Portman (OH-SEN) TP
James Lankford (OK-05) GW CC BC TP ET Mike Kelly (PA-03) CC TP ET
Pat Meehan (PA-07) CC TP ET Mike Fitzpatrick (PA-08) CC TP ET
Tom Marino (PA-10) CC BC RI TPET BB Lou Barletta (PA-11) CC BC RI TPET
Pat Toomey (PA-SEN) GW TPET Tim Scott (SC-01) CC TPET BB
Jeff Duncan (SC-03) BC RI TP Trey Gowdy (SC-04) GW CC TP ET BB
Mick Mulvaney (SC-05) GW CC TP ET BB Kristi Noem (SD-AL) GW CC TP ET
Chuck Fleischman (TN-03) BC RI TP ET Scott DesJarlais (TN-04) CC BC RI TP ET BB
Diane Black (TN-06) GW CC BC RI TP ET Stephen Fincher (TN-08) CC TP ET
Bill Flores (TX-17) CC BC RI TP ET BB Francisco Canseco (TX-23) CC TP
Blake Farenthold (TX-27) GW BB Mike Lee (UT-SEN) CC BC TP ET BB
Scott Rigell (VA-02) GW CC BC RI TP Robert Hurt (VA-05) GW CC TP ET
Morgan Griffith (VA-09) GW CC TP ET Keith Fimian* (VA-11) GW CC TP ET BB
John Koster* (WA-02) GW CC BC RI TP ET BB Jamie Herrera (WA-03) CC TP ET
Dick Muri* (WA-09) GW TP BB Dino Rossi* (WA-SEN) GW TP ET BB
Sean Duffy (WI-07) CC TP ET Reid Ribble (WI-08) CC TP ET
Ron Johnson (WI-SEN) GW CC TP ET BB David McKinley (WV-01) GW CC BC RI TP ET BB

*- These races are currently too close to call.

This is a ThinkProgress cross post.

35 Responses to REPORT: Half the 2010 GOP freshman class are climate science deniers

  1. Green Caboose says:

    Only half?????

    I suspect that is because ThinkProgress could find no record of the other half answering a direct question on the topic.

    Seriously, even if they understand the earth is warming and that CO2 is the predominant cause, they don’t dare admit it for fear they will get the Dan Maes treatment. (Maes was the GOP nominee for Colorado governor. When he was judged insufficiently TeaPartyish established racist Tom Tancredo opposed him on the Constitution Party ticket and took away 80% of the GOP vote from him. This wasn’t because Maes was rational on climate change, but just because he didn’t toe the Tea Party line.)

    It’s like evolution. Remember the 2008 GOP presidential primary debate when they were asked if they believed in creationism? Most of them knew that creationism is pure fiction, but almost all had to sign up for it as they knew no GOP candidate can win without saying he/she is a creation believer — or at least making some non-committal comment with “code words” to assure the “base”.

    The GOP is the Know Nothing party of the 21st century.

  2. Scrooge says:

    It is just a circle. Ignore science, tell the people what they want to believe, get elected. And then they don’t have to do their job. They don’t care about the people they only care about power. What part of humans causing 80 to 120 percent of the warming don’t they understand.

  3. Some European says:

    If this didn’t have tragic consequences for the other 96% of the world’s population and countless future generations, I’d be inclined to say: “Suit yourselves!”

    If only…

    Dear friends in the USA, would you be angry if the rest of us threatened your country with embargos (embarghi) or war?
    Would you understand?
    Would you forgive us if we DIDN’T?

  4. Jeff Huggins says:

    Several Points

    First, it would be great to do an analysis of these folks (and indeed everyone in Congress) to categorize them according to their scientific backgrounds. Which ones have any degree (BS, MS, etc.) in a physical science? In engineering? In the life sciences? In a social science? Which ones are lawyers? Which ones have actually graduated from college? Let’s do a profile of Congress with a focus on scientific background and (if any) actual experience. Just a simple check-box approach — nothing textually intensive or hard to read.

    Second, as I’ve suggested before, the relevant organizations should team together and develop and offer a one-day seminar on climate change, the science, the chief ethical dimensions, the most likely solutions, and etc. TO and FOR all members of the House and Senate. What organizations? The NAS, the AAAS, the IPCC, the ACS, and whatever. The seminar should be excellent, entirely credible, clear, compelling, well done, easily understandable, and presented by three or four excellent folks with top-top-quality credentials: people who are big names AND clear communicators and know their stuff. It should be offered for free, to be given in very small groups or even to individual Representatives and Senators, for those who prefer individual presentations. It should be offered at times convenient to each and every Rep and Senator, i.e., so that “too busy” can’t become an excuse. In other words, the organizations should make every possible effort to eliminate all excuses that any Rep or Senator might have for not attending. I can’t recall the figures, but I think that such a seminar could be developed, offered, and implemented with each Rep and Senator for (I forget the figure) $15 Million or less, or something like that. Given the stakes, that amount should be “easy” and reasonable to raise, by those organizations, for this particular initiative. Many private individuals have single paintings that are worth that much money or more. Get $15 Million from James Cameron or from one of the high-tech billionaires!? In any case, you get the idea. By 14 months from now, the scientific community, the climate and energy organizations, the news media, the President, the Democratic party, and anyone else ought to be able to point out that every effort was made to educate all members of the government on climate science and solutions — and that these people (names) all attended the seminars but that these people (names) for some reason chose not to attend a seminar, even when it was offered to them individually, to be given individually, at the location and time of their convenience! This is what’s called an “eliminate all reasonable excuses” strategy, and it can be Very Very Powerful in the long-run. Indeed, if we don’t do something like this, we simply aren’t doing what could and should be done, and we’ll only have ourselves to blame. Period. The scientific organizations and the scientific community have (or have access to) the scientific talent (other organizations can provide help with communications, production, and so forth), so the only questions are, who will fund it, and which organizations will make it happen?

    Please, if you like this idea, speak up and say so! I don’t feel any ownership of the idea, nor do I need to be involved. But, I think that the scientific organizations SHOULD do this sort of thing, in top-notch fashion, and because of development time and the time necessary to actually schedule and give up to 535 individual seminars (which would be the number if each Rep and Senator wanted an individual seminar, which wouldn’t be the case in most cases), the time to start is NOW. The next big national election comes in two years, and campaigning will begin a good deal of time before then. So, the time to start is NOW, unless we want to drop another ball, too many of which we’ve already dropped.

    OK, that’s it for now.

    Cheers,

    Jeff

  5. Lee says:

    I think the categorization of Charlie Bass as a global warming denier is unfair. If for no other reason than his role in saving the Cape Wind project from the Don Young, Ted Stevens attempt to kill it with an amendment to a Coast Guard appropriations bill. It reasonable to believe that if (then Congressman) Bass had not gotten involved the amendment would have gone through with it’s provision that allowed the Governor (then Mitt Romney a Cape Wind opponent) to veto the project. He has also been a supporter of renewable energy and opposed drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

    The link related to his being a global warming denier says this:
    “The overwhelming scientific evidence points to the existence of global climate change. A debate continues about the sources of this climate change, and it should continue within the scientific community. I support common sense policies that will seek to reduce emissions that, at least in part, can be linked to climate change.”

    That not exactly denial, not the strongest statement but for a Republican these days it’s way better than most. I don’t agree with Charlie Bass on a lot of issues but lumping him in with some of the others on the list isn’t right.

  6. Leif says:

    Got my vote! Jeff @ 4.

    Education is the only way out!

  7. Mike says:

    I like what Jeff #4 says. We should not write these people off. While some of in the hip pocket of Big Oil or Coal, some are just uniformed. This is not intrinsically a Left vs Right issue. I do think a data base with info on House and Senate members’ backgrounds and attitudes to climate science and science. How many are creationists? They can still be approached, but the approach may be different. Probably the biggest factor is the economics of their district. The data base should include this and who their major donors are.

  8. Leif says:

    It would be nice to have highlights of those training sessions available to the public as well. Schools, libraries, , news media, CEO, churches, gosh the list goes on.

    Sure to shot down by the anti-science faction.

  9. Colorado Bob says:

    Solar panels at boiling point

    As electricity prices soar, the cost of solar panels plunge and generous government subsidies underwrite the short and long-term cost of going solar, the boom is gathering pace.

    Installations have risen from a few thousand a month to 1000 a day. And, with the move of tele-marketing companies and retail giant Harvey Norman into the sector, the explosion of demand has probably just begun.

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/solar-panels-at-boiling-point/story-e6frg6z6-1225948021232

  10. Solar Jim says:

    In order for increasingly evident fraudulent behavior and business to maintain the status quo (including Plutocracy), reality must be denied. This is manifested in every part of what passes for government, from a “clean/safe” atomic president, through a “money is speech” judiciary, and most profoundly to our bought, and subservient to globalized Corporatocracy, Congress.

    These are not legislators as in “statesmen” but agents of systemic fraud and plutocratic power. They used to be called traitors (yet we are all traitors now, we oil addicts and believers in surrendering true, non-monied democracy to corporate, globalized fuel fascism).

    Prepare for political regression and continuing decline, including fiscally due to fossil addiction and bank bailouts, of what remains of the past ideals of the USA.

  11. Bill W says:

    I think Jeff’s congressional education idea has merit, but I can already envision the GOP/TP base crying “don’t let the liberals brainwash our reps” or “our rep refused to undergo liberal brainwashing”.

    What we really need is a course for the general public in the difference between opinion and fact.

  12. caerbannog says:

    (H/T to Thingsbreak)

    From http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/11/hall-claims-science-panel-vows.html

    ScienceInsider – breaking news and analysis from the world of science policy
    Hall Claims Science Panel, Vows ‘Strong Oversight’ on ‘Climate Change, Scientific Integrity’

    Representative Ralph Hall (R-TX) has staked his claim to the chairmanship of the House Science and Technology Committee with this statement on the election and his plans for next year:

    “Nationally, I am heartened that Americans returned Republicans to the majority in hopes of providing a check on runaway spending in Washington and getting the economy back on track toward growth and job creation. I look forward to working with current members on the Science and Technology Committee, as well as hearing from our new members, to formulate and advance an agenda that keeps our nation moving forward. The Science and Technology Committee will be a place where every member’s ideas will be respected and considered, and all Republicans can play a role in crafting good science policy.

    “We must also conduct strong oversight over this Administration in key areas including climate change, scientific integrity, energy research and development (R&D), cybersecurity, and science education. Over the past few years the unprecedented growth of the Federal government and the creation of multiple new and duplicative programs occurred without having first assessed the effectiveness and success of existing programs.

    “My goal is to ensure science policy drives innovation and thereby the American economy. Federal investment in R&D must empower the free market, not interfere in it.”

    Here’s some material copy/pasted from Hall’s web-site:


    I am alarmed that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Obama Administration are forging ahead before Congress has finalized any legislation, and are taking further steps to promote Federal regulations of carbon dioxide. There is growing concern and evidence that scientific data, from which global warming theories emerged, has been manipulated, enhanced or deleted. The IPCC data was used by the EPA as part of the data that went into their endangerment finding. This is especially problematic since the endangerment finding will most likely be used as the basis for a regulatory regime in the U.S.

    Recent events have uncovered extensive evidence from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in England, which involved many researchers across the globe discussing the destruction, alteration and suppression of data that did not support global warming claims. Leaked email exchanges detail attempts to alter data that is the basis of climate modeling. These exchanges reveal actions that constitute a serious breach of scientific ethics.

    Regulations based on the EPA’s endangerment finding could undermine economic growth and destroy American jobs. It is irresponsible for the Federal government to tax energy consumption and put more Americans out of work. Some republican colleagues and I will soon be introducing a resolution under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) that gives Congress the authority to undo agency regulations. The CRA is a very influential tool for policymakers because if Congress successfully disapproves a rule, the rule “may not be reissued in substantially the same form.”

  13. Mimikatz says:

    The real key is whether the Big Oil folks will demand more subsidies for oil (or less for renewables) and less curbs on emissions as the price of their multi-milluion dollar checks or whether there will be a variety of moves on things like nuclear.

    The Republicans can always be counted on to overreach–it’s what they do (think government shutdown, Clinton impeachment), and with the Tea Party folks there it will jsut be worse. The educational seminar idea is good, even if it is just for the media’s benefot because the GOP won’t show up.

    I think it would be very wise for either Defense Dept scientists or perhaps some retired military to be part odf any briefing. The Defense Dept tales this very seriously and foresees the terrible instability and human impact of climate collapse.

    Another tack is to tie climate to regional resource loss, especially water resources and timber. Already many areas are in danger of short water supplies, and melting snowpacks and glaciers and sea level rise will make that worse. Also droughts and their impact on farmers. It ought to be very “here’s what’s happened sop far, where’s what the climate record and models suggest will be coming.”

  14. caerbannog says:

    Yeah, what Jeff@4 said!

    If we can get something like that going, I’ll definitely put it on my “end-of-the year charitable-giving” list.

  15. Mimikatz says:

    One more point. The GOP contest for 2012 is about to get going, and there is a dearth of credible candidates with any charisma on that side. But two people to watch IMHO are Jeb Bush, former Gov of Florida, and Rick Perry, Gov of Texas. If Big Oil is really feeling like taking over, one of these would probably be its candidate. Perry is a real clown; Bush is smart but very conservative, and he is a Bush.

    This makes it imperative to counter the Texans like Ralph Hall when they take on climate science. I think briefings for the lazy media is at least as important as briefings for the GOP which, in any event, they wouldn’t attend or listen to.

  16. Raul M. says:

    Being uneducated- nahh
    Too busy- nahh
    Not smart enough- yep that’s a good one, I’d claim
    to be taking advice from very knowledgeable people.
    Couldn’t say who- maybe claim those individuals are
    busy and shouldn’t be distracted from important work.
    Not ethical enough- Listened to a physics Prof. this
    morning tell of the ethical standard of physics as a
    science to know of the natural intricacies of natural
    forces. Then he went of to thank a student for spotting
    a error of his in relating the formulas he was using.
    Not determined enough to get the job done- that is a common
    criteria for election. Being determined enough.

  17. Anonymous says:

    Wait, they want to make the already labyrinthine and easily decade long legal immigration process even HARDER?

    Why don’t they just advocate closing the borders and have done with it?

  18. Raul M. says:

    Perhaps, it would just save great effort by
    providing guidance consults to those who only
    get incomplete grades. And especially comfort
    to those who become uncontrollably disfunctional
    when they get a failing grade. Geezz it is such
    a sight to see students take to drinking and such
    when they do find out they aren’t smart enough.
    Usually the good excuse is – I just didn’t study
    enough. but for a politician who has paid for aides
    from a notable college to provide info from coursework
    that the aide never undertook/ Oh, it can get so
    confusing better call for guidance.

  19. This is such indictment – or make that an epitaph for government and the political system.

    But their comeuppance will come at the hands of real events coming sooner than expected.

  20. Wit's End says:

    If we really want to educate people about the dangers of the hydrocarbon lifestyle, we should be putting more emphasis on the other empirical results besides a changing climate, which doesn’t seem to be persuasive to the vast majority of Americans:

    1. ocean acidification: “A new guide, Ocean Acidification: Questions Answered, states that ocean acidification is now happening ten times faster than that which preceded the extinction 55 million years ago of many marine species. If the current rate of acidification continues, fragile ecosystems such as coral reefs, hosting a wealth of marine life, will be seriously damaged by 2050.”
    http://oceanacidification.wordpress.com/2010/11/04/ocean-acidification-coming-soon-to-an-ocean-near-you/

    2. Crop yield reductions from exposure to ozone: “The U.S. soybean crop is suffering nearly $2 billion in damage a year due to rising surface ozone concentrations harming plants and reducing the crop’s yield potential, a NASA-led study has concluded.”
    http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/soybeans.html

    Maybe we should make a concentrated outreach to the constituencies directly affected such as: resorts based on coral reefs and farmers with diminished crops – and consumers faced with escalating prices.

    Of course, if they behave with anything like the short-sightedness of the fishing industry to over-fishing, they won’t pay any attention.

    We are like the Easter Islanders, cutting down the last tree.

  21. Peter Sergienko says:

    Agree completely with Jeff’s idea.

    Two more thoughts coming out of the election.

    First, progressives must hold the supposed deficit hawks’ feet to the fire. If they are serious about cutting federal spending to sustainable levels, they must develop a plan to cut the military/defense/weapons budgets drastically. Current defense spending is bankrupting us. What’s the plan for steering us away from the precipice? If the deficit hawks are consistent with their ideology, they should also develop plans to eliminate corporate subsidies to mature industries as well. Progressives should beat these drums constantly.

    Second, this election confirmed once again that, for the majority of swing voters, it doesn’t really matter what you believe, it’s how strongly you appear to believe it. Tea Party candidates spouted bucket loads of absolutely nonsense and most of them suffered little for it.

    Climate hawks need to communicate the truth with absolute conviction. This is harder to do than it may first appear because most of us are pre-disposed to nuanced thinking and we recognize and work comfortably with ambiguity and uncertainty. Unfortunately, nuance doesn’t convince the masses. Climate hawks need a very few clear, consistent, strong and well thought out messages that can be repeated again and again going forward. The messaging needs to be heard by office-holders, the media, and our friends and neighbors. It also needs to be coupled with immediate actions as Jeff and others have outlined in various comment threads. Game on.

  22. Mulga Mumblebrain says:

    Capitalism always tends to oligarchy, monopolisation and pathocracy,ie rule by psychopaths. The secrets of business success include insatiable greed, unscrupulousness and the indifference to the fate of others, including workers, business rivals, indigenous human beings dwelling over riches that belong, by divine right, to Western ubermenschen etc, and these are all salient traits of the psychopath.
    Another such trait,as we see from the anthropogenic climate change denial industry,is the ability to lie without conscience, even after being exposed as a liar, in pursuit of egotistical ends. And market capitalism produces an environment in which the pathological thrive, and the moral, humane and scrupulous are repressed. ‘Behind every great fortune there is a great crime’, as Balzac observed. And is their a greater fortune than the fossil fuel trillions, or a greater crime conceivable than causing the demise of one’s own species?

  23. Jeff Huggins says:

    Yes: Game on. Big stakes.

  24. Wes Rolley says:

    I am not sure that education will do the job. “Convictions are a greater enemy of truth than lies.” (F. Nietzsche) We are dealing with people show convictions, whose world view, will not allow the consideration of any information that does not conform. While the flat earth analogy has been over worked, there is some truth to it.

    We need to make sure that there is a massive effort, district by district, to take on the deniers and to make sure that they begin to see that being a denier is a short trip to a comfortable government pension.

  25. Raul M. says:

    Always been confused about the distintion between
    our actions as a society and geoengenering. For
    one point we put things into the air that changes
    the air and Earth. We already do geoengenering.
    Somehow we are suposed to think that it is working
    out better that the poles are melting etc. Business
    must have flunked the course on how to geoengineer
    properly.

  26. Jeff Huggins says:

    Points

    Regarding the notion of the seminars for Reps and Sens, one aim, of course, is to actually meet with and educate the Reps and Sens, as much as possible, answering their questions and so forth. But the other key point is for the science organizations, the media, and etc. to be able to say that the science organizations have met with such-and-so Reps and Sens — and to be able to name the Reps and Sens who were not even willing to take advantage of the free, excellent, one-day, anywhere and any time seminar. In other words, even in the cases of those folks who attend the seminars and who still deny climate change, and those folks who avoid the seminar and try to make excuses, the effort is still helpful to the cause, because the organizations, relevant politicians who get it, the media, and all of us can point out who didn’t attend, and can point out who did attend but still doesn’t get it. That will be very helpful in terms of public understanding and politically speaking.

    Cheers,

    Jeff

  27. Nina Amenta says:

    Mimikatz makes a great point. Reps and Senators are invited to education seminars all the time, and they don’t go unless there is a political advantage.

    If it was sponsored by the Defense Department, though, we might actually get some takers.

  28. Chris Winter says:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/business/04research.html?_r=1&hpw
    Money for Scientific Research May Be Scarce With a Republican-Led House
    By KENNETH CHANG
    Published: November 3, 2010

    Federal financing of science research, which has risen quickly since the Obama administration came to power, could fall back to pre-Obama levels if the incoming Republican leadership in the House of Representatives follows through on its list of campaign promises.

    Under this proposal, NOAA would lose 34 percent of its budget: $324 million.

  29. climacs says:

    @ Green Caboose

    That first comment makes an important point. This is not a court of law, so I think we can comfortably assume denial by omission in many cases. The one with which I am familiar is North Dakota Representative-elect Rick Berg. He signed the polluters “no climate tax” pledge, but otherwise I have seen no indication Berg even understands the concept of climate, except in terms of a “business climate”.

    But Berg was running against Earl Pomeroy who voted against the ACES Act, and North Dakotans have a strong tendency to think its land is the goose laying the golden eggs (of fossil carbon). That equals the ability to avoid the issue. Pomeroy was certainly not going to stand up for maintaining a livable climate. So to my knowledge Berg never had to open his mouth to demonstrate whether his denial runs only about as deep as the likes of North Dakota governor and Senator-elect John Hoeven who, as noted above, has glommed onto the “we don’t know for sure” nonsense or whether is he is from the even deeper end of the kook pool.

    Some nice examples have been cited recently in this blog. But there really should be more direct countering and correcting of these politician spreaders of climate disinformation, particularly by local experts.

  30. caerbannog says:


    If it was sponsored by the D>efense Department, though, we might actually get some takers.

    If Huggins’ proposal does gather some momentum, I wonder if someone like Colin Powell could be tapped as a public spokesman. A “climate education” initiative might be just the thing that could help Mr. Powell put the Iraq war behind him.

    Although Powell’s credibility has been tainted by his enabling of W’s foolish Iraq misadventure, that damage to his credibility is obvious only to the “climate choir” (folks who already accept the conclusions of mainstream science). Those are not the people he needs to reach anyway.

    Mr. Powell’s involvement with the Iraq War, ironically enough, might make him just the ticket in terms of getting the message to the folks who live behind the “red curtain” (GOP base and tea-partiers).

  31. caerbannog says:

    Just one more thing — today, on November 4, the temperature reached 100F right where I live in coastal San Diego.

    I’ve lived here for nearly 30 years, and I can count on the fingers of one hand (with fingers left over) the number of days that I experienced 100F temperatures here. Those rare 100F events had previously occurred in late August or early September (the time of year when coastal San Diego is most likely to experience nasty heat waves).

    But in November? 100F in November? Two or three decades ago, I would never have dreamt that something like that was even possible!

  32. Another face in the clouds says:

    The dirty little secret for a lot of politicians in Texas is their closet support for clean energy. You can’t turn on the news any more without seeing another story about a new project, research breakthrough, university grant or something. Gov. Rick Perry has never been shy about taking credit for anything, including some of these very same projects. These characters can posture all they want to, but you can kill ’em with their own words and voting records, all the way back to the time Reagan bulldozed a pilot solar project in the middle of the night in West Texas. I remember hearing some ground-breaking cussing from the mouths of some of Reagan’s biggest supporters.

    Then there’s water. Are they for it or against it? Anyone familiar with Texas’ history of water wars knows the chances are our politicians are pro-water. Bunch of hippies are even pro-clean water and water conservation. Those who are not on the record already soon will be, because water war is coming again and it will go nukular.

    It all reminds me of an old Ku Klux Klansmen who once confided that he was afraid to go swimming in the old fishing hole where he grew up in Oklahoma because it had become so filthy. Said he might reconsider it if the politicians jumped in first. That old fishing hole, located in one of the nation’s most remarkable river lands, has since become heavily polluted with mercury too. So, Senators Inhofe and Dr. Coburn, care to take a swim? You can even eat, well, some of the fish. I’ll bait the hook, catch an edible one and even fry it up for you. Maybe you can bring all of your friends. Maybe they’ll return the invite. Come on, doncha you wanna go swimmin’ and fishin’?

  33. Raul M. says:

    Doing just thinking calculations of present GHG
    ppm and feedback loops. It really is that many
    think the future too scary to consider.
    But, the point nears where calculations project
    decreasing chances that complex life will
    reoccur after many thousands of years.
    Brings to point two variations of revelations.
    Caught op to heaven in the arms of Christ
    or just some more carbon based detritus.
    Oh, it melted.

  34. Chris Winter says:

    The perfect gift for those freshmen Congressmen who deny climate science and want to cut science budgets:

    Canned Unicorn Meat

    http://www.thinkgeek.com/stuff/41/unicorn-meat.shtml

  35. BGR says:

    This is a bad thing? Your list above of what deniers are guilty of includes a lot more than just environment and climate but expands to include many different issues that somehow become all of one piece no matter being blinded by science. This is ideology not science.