Tumblr Icon RSS Icon

New Infographic: The Anti-Science Climate Denier Caucus

Posted on

"New Infographic: The Anti-Science Climate Denier Caucus"

Share:

google plus icon

Manmade climate change is happening. One would think that with hundreds of climate-related natural disasters declared since 2011, and 97 percent of climate scientists in agreement, elected officials would follow the evidence. But a shocking number — 55 percent — of congressional Republicans refuse to accept it. Most states have at least one representative who denies climate change science. And it’s even more pronounced in Republican leadership, where 90 percent deny climate science.

It’s no coincidence that deniers are funded in large part by the fossil fuel industry, which profits off of the emissions that cause global warming. Combined, the 157 members of the climate denier caucus have taken over $50 million in dirty energy contributions over the course of their careers. The 378 other Members of Congress and Senators have only taken $33 million total.

“Climate science deniers are defined as those who have made public statements indicating that they questioning whether climate change is happening or is caused by human consumption of fossil fuels.

Climate Progress has a new infographic that lays out the most important information about the Anti-Science Climate Denier Caucus. The list of caucus members has two new members on it, be sure to check it out here.

« »

27 Responses to New Infographic: The Anti-Science Climate Denier Caucus

  1. Mark E says:

    What’s the licensing on this graphic? Have you put it out with a Creative Commons X.Y, or equivalent?

  2. M Tucker says:

    Listing only Republicans is a mistake. You need to admit that some Democrats will oppose government action to limit GHG. My favorite Democrat opposed to any government action is Joe Manchin, Democratic Senator from W Virginia who campaigned against cap’n trade for his 2012 bid at a full term, is opposed to EPA regulations on coal and coal power plants.

    • Colorado Bob says:

      One does not shoot one’s troops while in combat.

      • Mark E says:

        Pro coal DEMS are the enemy, regardless of party affiliation

      • Mulga Mumblebrain says:

        Decimate one in ten, to ‘encourage the others’. And sell tickets for the spectacle. I bet it’s sold-out, pronto.

    • Sasparilla says:

      It’s a good point M, there’s a large number of Dems that are turncoats on the issue and it’d be good to see how many – just so we could see where we are if a vote ever were to somehow come up (I believe we’d still be well below overriding a veto in the Senate with the few GOP positive votes left).

      • J4Zonian says:

        There may (or may not) be a bipolar–excuse me, bipartisan–simple majority who come right out and deny either the reality or the cause of climate catastrophe. But only a tiny number in either house have any interest at all in doing anything real about it, and I doubt if there’s even one in either house in favor of doing all that’s actually necessary to avoid utter cataclysm.

        That’s the meaning and result of that other money in the graphs, the money given not to those who deny outright but who take money from corrupt psychopathic organizations just the same–almost $70,000 each in the House, and almost $200,000 each in the Senate. Of course that’s not the only money well-spent by the Delayalati; their hundreds of millions have kept global society from doing what’s needed for nearly 40 years, since the 1973 oil embargo should have woken us up to reality and gotten us moving forward with clean energy.

  3. Mike says:

    Is it correct to say that a majority in each camber accepts the science – even if grudingly? If so, that should be our message. We can build on that.

  4. Colorado Bob says:

    Best damn graphic ever.

  5. John Salmond says:

    $699,000 isn’t more than $171,000, that’s just a bunch of mathematicians lying to get more research money

  6. Sasparilla says:

    Great article and graphics – sad to see how much control and fear the Koch machine has in the GOP compared to say 10 years ago.

    As M Tucker pointed out it’d be great to see the Dem turncoats on the issue in there as well as there would be alot of them.

  7. Colorado Bob says:

    A good canned answer, a bullet-prof answer, Here’s what you have to prove :

    That some other creature, in the distant past , drilled a gas well , and released carbon atoms in rock 420 million years old.

    Please explain, and stay on point.

    Cite everytime this this has occurred in nature ,…….

  8. Superman1 says:

    Oh, please. Inhofe, Manchin, Barton, et al understand the reality of climate change quite well. However, if they were to admit it, and suggest any action, they’d be out of office tomorrow.

    • SecularAnimist says:

      Right. Sure. Because the voters force the Koch Brothers to give those guys millions of dollars to fund their campaigns and lie to the voters.

      You see, according to Superman1, the poor little Koch Brothers don’t want to do that — they’d love to donate to climate hawks like Bernie Sanders, and fund publicity campaigns to educate the public about the urgent necessity of shutting down coal-fired power plants, but those mean old voters force them to fund the deniers, and run bought-and-paid-for Tea Party goons in the primaries against any Republican who supports action against global warming.

      Your trolling has gotten to the point where you really don’t care any more, hasn’t it? You’ll just post any old stupid thing, no matter how inane.

    • Adam R. says:

      I must disagree on Inhofe and Barton, at least. Those are two ignorant, deeply stupid men, and I have no doubt they believe the climate denial crap they spout.

  9. Robert Horn says:

    BADLY DONE INFOGRAPHIC (MISLEADING IN PLACES) Confuses percentages and numbers of House representatives thus is hard to make some judgements from it. I expect better of this website.

    Bob Horn
    Regular reader
    Stanford University
    author of Visual Language

  10. kermit says:

    Playing the devil’s advocate here, but I’d wager that a majority of legislators who support climate science got more money from pro-clean energy lobbyists and contributors. These data do not establish anything until we compare them to the opposites. After all, it does make sense to support politicians who will be on your side.

    Now, I’m not saying that anti-science legislators and not evil and stupid; they are. But this article would not persuade or enlighten anyone who is predisposed to reject climate science or who thinks that liberals are becoming climatologists to get rich of off grant money or some such. I’d guess that the ratio of stance to contributions is more clear on the anti-science side. And I would guess that the total contribution from fossil fuel industries is far greater than the renewables, which would put the lie to the risible claim that hippie solar panel industrialists are buying our politicians.

  11. Andy says:

    “Great article and graphics – sad to see how much control and fear the Koch machine has in the GOP compared to say 10 years ago.”

    Whoa!!!!!!!!

    Do you have a cite?

  12. Julien says:

    Nice charts. Question for the sake of precision, the time dimension is missing from the infographics, it can be quite confusing: these guys received hundreds of thousands of USD over which period of time? 1 year, 10 years?

  13. Aussie John says:

    Superman1 08:54
    “Oh, please. Inhofe, Manchin, Barton, et al understand the reality of climate change quite well”.
    If this is indeed the case, they are knowingly perpetrating a crime against humanity – they should be prosecuted and driven from office as would any other criminal.

    The above would happen if the US still had a functioning democracy – unfortunately your government is actually a “corporatocracy” – corporate profits first, citizen welfare last.
    It will fail, as certain as was the fall of the Roman empire.

  14. bmniac says:

    If this is the leadership that gets elected it reflects poorly on the education system and the quality of citizens. It is indeed shameful!

  15. Dr.A.Jagadeesh says:

    Climate change is real and is to some extent man-made. While Global Warming is the Cause,Climate Change is the Effect.
    Dr.A.Jagadeesh Nellore(AP),India

  16. Aussie John says:

    Dr A Jagadeesh @5:00am
    Your statement “Climate change is real and is to some extent man-made” is a copout.
    “The climate’s changed before” is number one on ‘the most used climate myths’ list at Skeptical Science.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm
    “Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing….
    Natural climate change in the past proves that climate is sensitive to an energy imbalance. If the planet accumulates heat, global temperatures will go up. Currently, CO2 is imposing an energy imbalance due to the enhanced greenhouse effect. Past climate change actually provides evidence for our climate’s sensitivity to CO2″.
    The source of this accumulating additional CO2 in the atmosphere is positively identified (by carbon isotope identification) as coming from the burning of fossil fuels.
    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/outreach/isotopes/

    Please don’t downplay the impact of human activity on climate change – it is undeniably the major driving force – causing the rapid increase of global mean temperature over the last 200+ years of industrialisation.

    Human CO2 emmissions must be curtailed if we are to have any hope of ameliorating catastrophic climate change!!

    • Dr.A.Jagadeesh says:

      Aussie John

      What is it you want to conclude? I am confused!
      Dr.A.Jagadeesh Nellore(AP),India

  17. Aussie John says:

    Some sobering reading here:
    http://theconversation.com/the-black-decade-15998
    Puts the folly of denialism into perspective.

  18. Joanne says:

    I think that the graphics are great and very clear!!!