Center for American Progress’s fav pop-psych term, “denier,” best applies to addicts refusing to admit to their problems.
“Climate denier” implies the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is so obviously correct that only the clinically delusional could doubt it. [emphasis, links added]
CAP’s first “Deniers in Congress” report defines “climate denier” as anyone:
- questioning the “scientific consensus” on climate change; or,
- saying: “the climate is always changing;” or,
- not believing climate change poses a serious threat; or,
- questioning the extent of human contribution to climate change.
Subsequent reports hone “deniers” to anyone saying:
- climate change is a hoax; or,
- observed climate changes are natural; or,
- humans contribute little to climate change; or,
- climate science is unsettled.
The 115th Congress (2016-18) yielded:
- 180 “deniers” – all Republicans;
- 142 in the House, constituting 59% of House Republicans;
- 38 in the Senate, constituting 73% of Senate Republicans.
CAP’s second report scours the 116th Congress (resulting from the 2018 mid-terms wherein Democrats gained 41 seats). Authors enjoyed the cropped tally of “deniers” (150), whilst bemoaning:
“…the number is still high enough to hamstring Congressional efforts to tackle climate change through legislation in the 116th.”
CAP’s 117th Congress (2020-22) report guestimates:
- 139 “deniers” – all Republican;
- 109 in the House, constituting 52% of House Republicans;
- 30 in the Senate, constituting 60% of Senate Republicans.
This report undercounts Republican climate skeptics.
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert, Bob Good, and Andrew Clyde each oppose the climate agenda and express doubts about cli-fi. All served in the 117th. None adorn CAP’s list. Others…?
Meanwhile, CAP notes: “no currently serving Democrat or Independent elected officials have engaged in explicit climate denial.”
The climate issue breaks the slate clean along party lines. Climate splits the Uni-party. Climate science skepticism unites Republicans. Climate skepticism is the touchstone for identifying true Republicans.
Unsurprisingly, Paul Gosar is a listed “denier”; but here’s Liz Cheney, on-air, calling climate science “junk science.”
Mitch McConnell and Kevin McCarthy both bear the Scarlet D; as do Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, John Neely Kennedy, and Mike Lee, and hundreds more recent and current Republican Congressional members.
While climate skepticism forms a sweeping majoritarian viewpoint within the Party, Republican skeptics seem unaware of their strength. CAP lowballs “deniers” in the 117th and there’s more in the 118th – probably 80% of seated Republicans.
Moreover:
Ten Senators, whom CAP’s village scolds tarred as “deniers” sought re-election in 2022. All won!
Seventy-six House Republican “deniers” tromboned into the 2022 parade. Seventy-five won re-election!
Strange smear, that: “climate denier.”
CAP sought to pry open a rusty crankcase of retiring “deniers” like American hero Senator Inhofe (who stood solid for 36 years against torrents of criticism).
CAP, however, uncovered Congressional resistance to “climate science” at a scale CAP’s superiors couldn’t handle.
If such skepticism persists after forty years of withering propaganda and comprehensive corruption of science; then might not the entire “Energy Transition” wreck upon Republican reefs?
Said prospect being unthinkable, latter reports depict “deniers” as a shrinking, beatable fringe.
Denial, anyone?
h/t Alan S.
Read more at Canada Free Press
Greta just a tool for the Globalists and their plans for return to the Dark Ages No Light No Heat all over a false threat how much is the UN involved in this plan?
Totally agree Randy! Same thing is going on with the Sudden death syndrome.
Hope it’s not too late for people to wake up to facts vs. delusions.
Well, first off, “consensus” is irrelevant in science. If you are honestly adhering to the scientific method, you WELCOME informed inquiry. If the activists are so sure they have the data to support a finding of a “climate crisis,” you’d think they would be eager to vanquish the “deniers.” How about a classic red team v. blue team debate between qualified climate scientists before we get out “over our skis” on a detrimental national energy strategy & potentially flawed policy? Makes too much sense. The progressive playbook is simple. VILIFY anyone who disagrees with your ideological narrative. THAT is anything BUT science…