Essay by Eric Worrall
Climate believers claim climate skepticism is in decline, that a growing number of people are concerned about climate change. But if this is the case, why are there so many elected climate skeptics?
Climate change deniers make up nearly a quarter of US Congress
Climate denialists – 23 in Senate and 100 in House – are all Republicans and make US an outlier internationally
Oliver Milman and Dharna Noor
Mon 5 Aug 2024 20.00 AESTLast modified on Tue 6 Aug 2024 00.51 AESTUS politics is an outlier bastion of climate denial with nearly one in four members of Congress dismissing the reality of climate change, even as alarm has grown among the American public over dangerous global heating, an analysis has found.
A total of 123 elected federal representatives – 100 in the House of Representatives and 23 US senators – deny the existence of human-caused climate change, all of them Republicans, according to a recent study of statements made by current members.
“It’s definitely concerning,” said Kat So, campaign manager for energy and environment campaigns at the Center for American Progress, who wrote the report.
…
“Of course the climate is changing,” the Texas senator Ted Cruz said in 2018. “The climate has been changing from the dawn of time. The climate will change as long as we have a planet Earth.”
…
“We’ve had freezing periods in the 1970s. They said it was going to be a new cooling period,” the Louisiana representative Steve Scalise said in a 2021 interview, referencing long-debunked research that is often still cited by climate deniers. “And now it gets warmer and gets colder, and that’s called Mother Nature. But the idea that hurricanes or wildfires were caused just in the last few years is just fallacy.”
…
“The amount of people at each end of the spectrum – alarmed and dismissive – were essentially tied back in 2013 but today there are three alarmed people for every one dismissive, so there’s been a fundamental shift in how people see climate change in the US,” said Anthony Leiserowitz, an expert in climate public opinion at Yale.
…Naomi Oreskes, a history of science professor at Harvard University who has long studied anti-climate rhetoric, said it was “unsurprising” that the report found old-school climate denial is on the decline.
“It’s harder to deny the science when it’s so much more apparent that the climate is warming, that extreme weather is getting worse and happening constantly,” she said. “Nobody can deny the science with a straight face, given everything.”
…
Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/aug/05/climate-change-denial-congress
Activists like Oreskes claims climate skepticism is in decline, and climate concern is rising. But if this is the case, why are there so many elected climate skeptics in US politics? Why would people who are majorly concerned about climate change keep voting for representatives who oppose climate action?
I know this might be a difficult concept for climate activists and some climate scientists to grasp, but if your model disagrees with observations, you should keep the observations and discard the model.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Does Naomi Oreskes serve any useful purpose? Just asking for a friend.
She keeps her petrochemical derived shoes from feeling empty
Someone should drop a house on her and take those ruby slippers.
It’s not her fault that she resembles Margret Hamilton who played “The wicked witch of the west”.
But it is her fault that she acts like “The wicked witch of the west”.
Then, to go to a place without Climate Change, put on her shoes, click your heels three times and repeat… “There’s no place like Nome…There’s no place like Nome…”
No one in his right mind denies “THE CLIMATE”. So that is a BS term.
What many people are denying is the IPCC-led cabal making scare-mongering PREDICTIONS about the climate, already for more than 30 years, and none of which has actually occurred.
My farmer friend says she’d work as a scarecrow in his corn field.
True, but think about the crops!
Did it work?
She turned me to stone with her snake hair!
Turned you into stone?
(I got better)
Well her mission in life seems to be to unnecessarily frighten people.
Which she accomplishes every time she shows her face. ::shudders::
About the same as Nick Stokes, but without the Cheeky Charm. I can not think of anything that I, or anyone ese could do for Naomi that could make her happy. However, bear in mind that she is either bad and manipulative, dangerous, and cruel, or just stupid and uninquiring to a mind-stultifyingly enormous degree. I will be charitable and assume the former.
Near as I can tell, her mission is to advance Al Gore’s accusation angle about “crooked skeptic scientists” into any part of the “ExxonKnew” lawsuits that she can think of. It’s a political suicide mission, of course, devoid of facts to back it up, but she’s still alive because she’s never met with any real opposition that lands any punches on her. She’s a one-trick pony — no joke! — but the people she should answer to just swing and hit a dribbler groundout, to borrow a baseball term.
Eric, you need to post an optical harm warning in the title of the article, or at least provide a link in the article where the viewer can ‘opt in’ if he / she so desires.
No, only the children need that, and they’re too confused to even notice reality.
Frank is correct. As I mentioned above. Without warning, I was turned to stone.
What else sinks in water?
I agree, Frank. That large photo was a shock to my system in the AM.
“Climate Deniers” make up Nearly… 97% of the General Public.
Climate believers claim climate skepticism is in decline, that a growing number of people are concerned about climate change.
Projection is a constant with underachievers like Oreskes. Nature isn’t playing along with the narrative.
Nobody can deny the science with a straight face, given everything.”
Nobody that is, except an alarmist.
https://ourworldindata.org/climate-change-support
Mr. name: This site may have a policy against posting only links with no comment. In this case, I’m grateful to the admin for mercifully sparing us from seeing your thoughts.
You are funny.
True, but you left off the finishing ‘peculiar’.
I’ll see your stupid “analysis” of cherry-picked polls with cherry-picked, leading questions and raise you with actual polls, data, and the way the questions were presented:
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1675/most-important-problem.aspx
https://about.myworld2030.org/my-world-2015/
Almost no one gives a toss about climate change enough to actually want to change their lifestyle, spend more themselves, or want government to spend more and prioritize action on climate change. These studies are only to comfort the discomfited, chronic worriers that anyone else actually cares as they babble in their echo chamber. They don’t. Because it’s not a real problem, which they intuitively understand.
“to actually want to change their lifestyle”
Luser itself is totally dependant on fossil fuels for every aspect of its feeble insignificant existence.
But when asked to rank a list of current political issues including climate change or list things you are willing to spend more that ten bucks or so on, climate change winds up at the bottom, every time. Perhaps Name, you need to ask the right questions in the right context if you want to know what people are thinking about a reasonable list of our current problems.
It is junk because it presents a SINGLE concern polling practice thus a misleading narrative.
Polls that ask broad number of questions is a much better representation in what people really thinks are serious concerns to focus on and global warming/climate change is at or near the bottom of the list of concerns.
Stinkerp comment are two examples of multiple concern polls
LINK
Ask all of those who wish more ‘climate action’ to define ‘climate’.
The reference has a map of the world and Australia shows as 90% wishing for more ‘climate action’. As an Aussie, I highly doubt that figure from my experience.
I’m in the Hunter region, basically everyone I speak to thinks it is a total load of crock !
It is only the inner-city woke, virtue-seeking lemming that “say” they “believe”, but not one of them would ever give up even one of the absolute essentials provided by fossil fuels.
And because most of the inhabitants are in cities, they skew the vote. 😉
from that site- and corrected
“People across the world, and the political spectrum,
underestimateexaggerate levels of support for climate action.”MUN,
From your linked article:
“The majority of people in every country in the world worry about climate change and support policies to tackle it. We can see this in the survey data shown on the map.”
**********
The problem with this is that the great masses are not scientifically literate and have no way of knowing if they are being fed scientifically sound statements about the climate from the media, the politicians and the web.
This website has done a very good job of making the case that in fact the masses are not being told everything that have a right to know about the climate issue. I for one am not ignorant enough to believe there is not a purpose behind the CAGW narrative that has little or nothing to do with the climate. If so, it is one that should not involve climate science.
Only fools are certain of themselves regarding narratives like this one in science. Stop making one of yourself here.
I have never met or heard of anyone who denies climate or that climate changes. I do often hear people deny that AGW or CO2 are significant factors in climate change, a view that I share. But then, lefties are not much for facts.
I deny it. Vociferously and proudly. The slanderous “climate denier” moniker is applied by the climate doomsayers to anyone who doesn’t wholeheartedly endorse the notion that humans are causing an apocalyptic and imminent climate disaster. That’s what they mean by “denying climate change.” Let’s keep it simple and stick with their stupid definition. I don’t endorse that ridiculous theory, nor do you, nor do most of the people who peruse WUWT, nor do the vast majority of Americans like your friends and neighbors. I’m a “climate denier” and I deny their stupid ideas, grounded in years of my own review of climate data and studies based on observations and measurements rather than the climate model fantasies. Stand up and be counted as a denier; denying their crazy theories.
“humans are causing an apocalyptic and imminent climate disaster”
Pretty much the official policy of the entire state government of Wokeachusetts. All state agencies must adhere to this fantasy in all their policies.
Are you the Bidet / Mean girl Harris administration, NEPA bad mental assessments must also include consideration of environmental justice and climate change. That is not the law, that is merely administrative policy. President Trump can end those with a pen stroke.
That stupid spellcheck “fixed my comment” while I was walking. “Bad mental” was supposed to say “ environmental”, of course, bad mental might not be such a poor substitute. And drop the “are you” from the beginning. I guess I should stop commenting while I’m running.
By the way, you do know- I presume- that you can edit your original comment.
Naomi, what is a woman? I am virtually certain that she cannot answer that question either..
I am a climate pragmatic and a scientific skeptic.
“Blind support for authority is the greatest enemy of truth”.
Albert Einstein
Climate change deniers make up nearly a quarter of US Congress
And, likely, nearly two thirds of US population. Declining. The brainwashing starts in pre-school, soon to be mandatory.
Regarding climate change – when did the climate stop changing? Will we stop the change?
Just turn the CO2 control knob a bit to the left and all is right as rain.
If the “deniers” deny that the climate is changing, they are wrong.
If they deny that increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are the cause of the warming, they are correct.
Apart from a highly beneficial natural warming since the LIA..
… In what way has the global climate changed ?
“…history of science professor…” That’s a good one.
Actually “history of science” is quite interesting. However, I don’t think Oreskes’ anti-science rants is a class I could stomach.
Yes even IF I could stomach her face…
Oreskes is a Professor of Climate Alarmist Propaganda.
Greta can see CO2, and Naomi can see its effects in the atmosphere. Both are living in Climate Change La La Land.
Drawing an analogy between climate skeptics and neo Nazi holocaust deniers is just the start of the True Believer fanaticism.
Where does it say that?
Check her chequered history.
The term “denier” has always been an attempt by the Eco-Nazis to equivocate disputing their hypothetical bullshit with denial of the Holocaust.
Only because they are to shy to use the correct term: heretic!
How does it feel to know you are a “collaborator.” !
—
—
Fine, because unlike you, I don’t have to feel like a perpetual victim and get angry over it.
Name one thing you can provide actual scientific evidence for, that we “deny”.
You have FAILED totally whenever asked to.
You are “collaborator” with an anti-society scam…
… A TRAITOR to western society, supporting a FAKE agenda that wants to destroy the society you live in.
That makes you a particularly DISGUSTING sort of human scum.
You feel like a perpetual victim of the climate change monster that will destroy everything. 🙂
That was pointed out to Oreskes long ago, and she still uses it.
Yes, and as a historian she KNOWS is it is offensive, but this is a wild eyed climate cultist spreading her distinctive shit as it reflects what she really is.
Better yet, if CO2 is responsible, why would the 75% (yeah right) not be concerned enough to stop utilizing fossil fuel energy.
Are they still using petrochemical derived products?…YEP
Are they still driving IC vehicles?… YEP
Are they still using synthetic Rubber tires?…YEP
Are they still using Grid Sourced Electricity?… YEP
Are they still choosing to add th the CO2 load?…YEPPERS
Are they still breathing? Exhale a lot of CO2….
Your list is way too short.
That is what Bryan was referring to with his last sentence.🤷♂️
Naomi, just take a break. You look tired.
And emotional.
That’s what happens to true believers who keep banging their head against the wall “fighting” for something or another.
They are inherently dissatisfied and angry, always place blame on someone else who is preventing their success and as such cannot pursue the finer things in life such as stopping to smell the flowers.
She did. I thought she was gone for good, but salary beckons, I guess. While Harvard still has a name that attracts rich parents, she”ll be plying her climate-weaving trade.
I can’t stop mentally adding “and your little dog, too!” To the end of everything she says.
I’ll bet quite a bit more than 23% of the 535 members or Congress dismiss climate change as a crisis that needs to be addressed. But it’s not enough. We need a solid majority to stop voting for anything that has “climate change” attached to it. It’s nonsense, always has been nonsense, and always will be. We need to educate our representatives or replace them. We’re destroying our economy to appease the lunatics who believe the apocalyptic nightmare they’ve conjured up in their own minds. The reality on the ground is that “global” warming and sea level rise is so slow, and so dominated by natural variation that we have absolutely no control over, that it will take many generations for it to become a problem, if it ever does. Simply adapting to it is by far the best solution, and that’s the work of Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” of millions of private citizens solving the problem a little at a time to their own benefit, contributing to the improvement of the whole, rather than the mind-bogglingly inefficient and wasteful central planning of a lumbering, lethargic, authoritarian government.
Really? In what alternate reality? That works out to less than 12% of Americans dismissing it. In other words, according to their wickety wackety “analysis,” about 88% of Americans supposedly think the climate crisis is so important that we need to do something about it right now. I present Exhibit A:
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1675/most-important-problem.aspx
The Gallup poll “Most Important Problem” that has been running for nearly 25 years shows “Environment/Pollution/Climate change” ranked as the most important problem for only about 2% of Americans, and that’s lumping climate change together with environment and pollution, which are real, solvable, and diminishing problems that linger in fewer places each year.
And Exhibit B:
https://about.myworld2030.org/my-world-2015/
The MY World 2030 international poll shows people around the world rank “Action taken on climate change” dead last, by a wide margin, out of 16 priorities.
As usual, the unhinged alarmists operate from a worldview that is completely disconnected from reality and torture polls and data to support their craziness, just like we saw in the ridiculous “97% consensus” paper that conjured up an imaginary 97% consensus from data that actually showed an 8% consensus or, generously, a 33% consensus, depending on how you interpret the results.
Harvard and Yale. Ivory towers of identity socialism.
When asked people feel the need to give the ‘right’ answer. If you ask them what they are willing to pay/ sacrifice for it the outcome is very different. Others have to pay, obviously.
To give an example: i had a conversation about climate change w someone and she went on and on about how ‘we’ should tackle it. But then i asked her if she would be willing to restrict her own nr of annual flights she halted. Because she knows well enough that ‘tackling climate change’ is a great subject for a discussion but bears zero influence on what she does, in this case the nr of annual flights. And off she goes..
Adapting served us well for 200,000 years.
“I’ll bet quite a bit more than 23% of the 535 members or Congress dismiss climate change as a crisis that needs to be addressed.”
But not brave enough to admit it- they love their easy, lucrative job in politics.
I double dog dare Oreskes to make her case before congress and groups like Heartland, WUWT, CFACT and others like them will make their case before congress at the same time with no interference from congress. Congress is to politely listen and learn.
Would congress say she was wrong afterward?
It’s not a question if she is wrong the purpose is to publicly get the right message out. We have heard heir lies for long enough.
Would the public say she was wrong afterward?
I think so.
Of course skepticism is on the decline. Those of us old enough to remember all the past chicken little scares are dying off and the young kid are being indoctrinated into the climate cult virtually from birth.
They don’t have memories of past weather events like we do so whenever it gets a bit hot, or dry, or cold, or wet or a storm hits, it’s the worst they’ve ever seen “aaaaahhhhh the sky is falling!!!11!!!!1!!”
Because that’s what they’ve been trained to believe.
Study a population pyramid of the US. We are not running short of “ Those of us old enough to remember“. That slice of the population has been rising for 2000 years.
Oreskes is as ugly on the inside as she is on the outside. And her head seems to be empty. It’s “so much more apparent that the climate is warming, that extreme weather is getting worse and happening constantly”, How can that be true when the data shows the opposite?
“Anthony Leiserowitz, an expert in climate public opinion at Yale”. That sounds like some valuable, made up expertise.
Naomi Orestes is the walking, talking, Portrait Of Dorian Gray. Unable to hide her figurative OR literal ugliness.
“expert in climate public opinion”
I wonder if he got a PhD in that? Yale now probably offers it.
Why use a tired, old and rehashed pejorative such as “Climate Denier” ? Its been in use since the term “greenhouse effect” was abandoned. The term “Deplorables” is much more descriptive and apt to describe the feelings of the righteous thinkers who denigrate those who disagree with them.
Remember, “Deplorables” can define what a woman is, know when they are being scammed and don’t expect government to fix every last thing they dream up as an existential crisis.
climate deplorables! 🙂
Oreskes said “It’s harder to deny the science when it’s so much more apparent that the climate is warming, that extreme weather is getting worse and happening constantly,” she said. “Nobody can deny the science with a straight face, given everything.”
And that is the problem. The science, meaning observable data, show that yes, its warming and yes, sea level is rising at the same rate it has for the past 6.000 years and yes, measurable levels of carbon dioxide are increasing. As to the consequence of these changes, there are none. The science of carbon dioxide says it cannot possibly be responsible for recent temperature changes. Water vapor is the earth’s dominate “greenhouse” gas and overwhelms the feeble influence of carbon dioxide and the other greenhouse gasses such as methane. Nothing else is changing. Not hurricanes nor tornadoes in strength or number, not floods nor draughts in strength or frequency, and not even wildfires despite the media’s drumbeat. They were manyfold worse in the early 20th century. Naiomi, Oliver and Dharna, you can check all of these points with simple web searches which I am sure you have done. Why do you not believe the data? Do you have different data? If so, please reveal where it is so we all might learn?
IPCC denies it. Hmmm…. Only it will get a bit warmer is all.
Most people are not bothered about data, the timeline, the uncertainties, the error bars, the actual science. They just want to hang on to the believe that you have to trust the experts, whomever they are. People hate uncertainty and they want someone to tell them the truth. And from all sides all they get is: ALARM. And because it takes more energy to go against the stream they go with it and convince themselves.
But, this is unsustainable because lies have an expiry date (and the alarmists know that so they double down) and people don’t experience climate change as such. So, doubt creeps in and higher costs due to Co2 mitigation measures and carbon taxes. Ideas are free if they dont cost you anything. People dont volunteer to get poorer. And its crunch time now.
That is why the UN wants to declare a ‘planet energency’ in september. A desperate attempt for more enforcement. It won’t work, obviously..
that the climate is warming, that extreme weather is getting worse
I’ve seen people point out that the actual “theory” (whether you accept it or not) says the opposite. I know there are plenty of sources that show the opposite about “extreme weather”
Can anyone help me out with a link to where the theory shows differently (can’t really find that with any available web search)? And is there any sort of centralized repository listing the sources about weather? (I’ll poke around here a little more too)
It’s a worry that only a quarter of US politicians are climate
deniersrealists.Yes, we need to get those numbers WAY up.
Well, I reckon, half the people who know it’s all bullshit are either afraid to say so or in some way benefit from the scam.
Well damn. I thought this pseudo-scientific cretin had gone away like that other Harvard idiot when they said she was on sabbatical. Fortunately, I’m not living that dream. What is it now? 12 trillion papers say that humans cause catastrophic climate change and only 3 papers say otherwise?
There but for the grace of God go I.
Einstein: No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.
The Climate Syndicate is fighting tooth and nail to prevent those single experiments from ever being seen.
if your model disagrees with observations, you should keep the observations and discard the model
Got that right.
Hopefully after the next election the “Climate Deniers” in Congress will exceed 50%, using Oreskes definition of denier being anyone who believes that Climate change is mainly natural with human influence through CO2 output having a minimal affect on Climate and temperature.
…. and the other slightly less than 50% will still fake it – well they are democrats. If it wasn’t for fake, they wouldn’t have anything.
The authors bemoan the fact that people no longer discuss ‘the climate crisis … at the Thanksgiving table’ 🤣.
That is not because a small minority of influential ‘climate deniers’ using “anti-climate rhetoric [sic]” are having undue influence on public opinion, it is because people are utterly bored by the incessant crackpot ‘climate crisis’ rhetoric coming from media organs like the Guardian, this article being a perfect example.
I love the way the Guardian article glides seamlessly into a plea for readers’ money.
Of all the important issues in society ‘climate’ is somewhere on the bottom. Like a pool, people dip in and out when the subject is raised, then forget about it. But having to wait a long time for a doctor’s appointment or specialist cuts right through. Talking about climate change is a luxury for most people. For those on the climate payroll its essential. And for the already neurotic..
….. seamlessly into an unsuccessful plea for reader’s money.
Written by a pair of Guardian pseudo-journalist activist oafs…
… neither of which has anything remotely resembling any science behind them.
YAWN !.
If somebody asks me if i am a climate denier i reply:” yes”. Because i find the question absurd. And that is the answer i give. Then i ask:” what exactly IS yr question? Then they reply:” that people are responsible for global warming”. To which i reply:” maybe…maybe not”. Then it is “overwhelming evidence” to which i go:” do YOU think there is ‘overwhelming evidence”?The reply is usually either “yes” or “99% of..”. Then i go:” are you sure about the 99%? And if so: “how sure? Could you be 80% or even 50% sure about THAT”? They usually go down somewhat because they realise that that is what they get from the media and there usually is at least some doubt, at least if you ask whether they 100% trust the media. Then i go:” do you think 100% of what the media reported during Covid19 was true? They usually don’t. Then i ask them to put a percentage number on it. Then i ask them whether the same thing might apply to the climate issue. And if they would be willing to reassess their stance if in 10 years time there is little evidence of the consequences of global warming. Most hesitate but reluctantly admit there is some room to move. That is why we shouldnt panic..
Anyway: to tell you the truth, there is only one person i’ve had this conversation with. Ive tried several others but they firmly shut the door, as if they are dealing w a Jehova’s witness. Knowing they are taken just like in ‘the return of the body snatchers’ it’s no use in trying to persuade them. I do, however, get a little amusement out of their discomfort. I take whatever i can get..
COVID dealt “experts” severe damage for a long time.
Judging by the UK and EUs response via ‘enquiries’ apparently not. Blatent lies not challenged ( this has been pointed out by many). Makes me think about the following (i paraphrase): ” the committee can come to any independent conclusion it wants without interference, as long as i can decide who gets to sit on the board and the committee’s remit”. Politics 101..
Oh, and btw, some of the liers have been promoted like mr Patrick Vallance in the uk.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Vallance
Now he is Minister for Science under Kier Starmer.
I wanted to check the numbers and there was a poll of Americans on their belief in human caused climate change that was published in June of this year by the Energy Policy Institute of Chicago.
2024 Poll: Americans’ Views on Climate Change and Policy in 12 Charts | EPIC (uchicago.edu)
One of the first charts was on belief in human caused climate changes. Interestingly only 2/3 of Democrats, less than half the independents and a bit more than a third of Republicans believe in human caused climate change. So it looks like the American public is roughly evenly split.
95% of people who believe in it believe in it, so yeah, like, that’s math, right?