climate zombie

---

MIGHT EXPAND TO GOP moc

MERRI OK

---

climate-deniers-of-the-118th-congress

Report Jul 18, 2024

Climate Deniers of the 118th Congress

Currently, 123 members of the 118th Congress publicly deny the scientific consensus of human-caused climate change.

Introduction and summary

:{The Center for American Progress has periodically analyzed statements by sitting members of Congress to determine whether they deny the existence of human-caused climate change.¹ This analysis of the 118th U.S. Congress found that 123 elected officials are climate deniers—23 percent of 535 total members.

These 100 representatives and 23 senators wield significant influence on public perceptions of climate change as well as on the speed and direction of climate policy in the United States. Members of Congress also receive publicly disclosed contributions, which may provide a window into the possible influence of the fossil fuel industry.}:

Additionally, this analysis explores rhetorical shifts from outright climate denial to subtler types of obstruction, which may further delay action on the climate crisis as well as prolong the influence of the fossil fuel industry on environmental and energy policy in the United States.² While “climate denial” is arguably the most commonly understood and historically used term, it only describes one type of an ever-widening array of tactics.

This analysis finds:

• Currently, 123 members of the 118th Congress are climate deniers.

• Among the 90 newly elected or appointed members of the 118th Congress, 18 are climate deniers.³

• The climate deniers in the current Congress have received $52,071,133 in lifetime campaign contributions from the fossil fuel industry.

• The number of outright climate deniers in Congress continues a downward trend from 150 in the 116th Congress, 139 in the 117th, and now, 123 in the 118th Congress.⁴

BEWARE DELAYISM

• There are still prominent instances of outright climate denial, including from the majority leader in the house, Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA). When asked what the GOP is doing to combat climate change, Rep. Scalise responded: “We’ve had freezing periods in the 1970s. They said it was going to be a new cooling period. 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.”⁵

Some members of Congress have shifted from outright climate denial to other rhetorical tactics. Examples include redirecting responsibility for addressing the climate crisis, such as deferring U.S. actions to reduce greenhouse emissions until other countries act first; portraying climate activism as alarmism; or spreading misinformation.⁶

[TABL]

...

IFrame Content

Climate action must not be delayed

The science is clear: Americans cannot afford to ignore the realities of global climate change. Climate-fueled extreme weather events continue to cost American lives and billions of dollars year after year, and the intensity and frequency of these events will continue to increase without action to address the causes of climate change.⁷ There is no lack of warning signs:

• 2023 was the hottest year on record.⁸

• July 2023 saw the highest average global temperatures ever recorded.⁹

• The United States now experiences, on average, a billion-dollar extreme weather event every three weeks.¹⁰

Findings from the 2023 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s “AR6 Synthesis Report” solidified the link between climate change and worsening extreme weather.¹¹ The International Energy Agency further reaffirmed the need to rapidly transition to a clean energy economy and found that achieving net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, even with significant growth in energy demand, does not require any new fossil fuel investment.¹² Despite this, climate deniers and obstructionists continue to spread misinformation and cast doubt on the scientific consensus and consequences of the ongoing climate crisis.¹³

Updated definition of ‘climate denier’

This analysis defines a climate denier as any member of Congress who makes any of the following six types of false statements about the existence, causes, or effects of climate change. The first four of these criteria were used in CAP’s past analyses, and the final two have been added to this analysis of the 118th Congress.

In this report, a member is considered a climate denier if they have:

1. Stated that they believe that climate change is not real or is a hoax

3. Stated that the climate has always been changing as a result of natural factors and that today’s warming is merely a continuation of natural cycles

5. Claimed that the science around climate change is not settled or that they cannot speak to the issue because they are not scientists themselves

7. Claimed that while humans are contributing to a changing climate, they are not the main contributors

9. Stated that increasingly frequent and intense extreme weather events such as wildfires and hurricanes are not related to climate change

11. Claimed that climate change impacts are actually beneficial to humans or positive for planetary health

If a member previously made statements that qualified as climate denial in past analyses but has since consistently acknowledged the validity of climate science, this analysis no longer classifies them as a climate denier.

Climate deniers by the numbers

There are 123 climate deniers in the current 118th Congress. Since the start of this Congress in 2023, 10 members have vacated their seats due to resignations, death, or expulsion.¹⁴ Four of the vacated seats were occupied by climate deniers: Rep. George Santos (R-NY), Rep. Bill Johnson (R-OH), Rep. Chris Stewart (R-UT), and Rep. Don Young (R-AK). As of March 1, 2024, 7 of the 10 vacancies have been filled, and one new member is a climate denier: Sen. Pete Ricketts (R-NE).¹⁵

:{Overall, the number of outright climate deniers in Congress continues a downward trend from 150 in the 116th Congress at the start of this ongoing project to 123 in the current 118th Congress. Of the 123 climate deniers in the 118th Congress analysis, 106 are incumbents; the remaining 17 are freshmen members. Of the 106 incumbent members, four have newly denied the scientific consensus behind climate change and have been categorized as climate deniers for the first time in this updated analysis.¹⁶

Since the end of the 117th Congress, 20 climate deniers did not win reelection or did not run for reelection,¹⁷ while 13 are former climate deniers who have since made public statements accepting the science of climate change.¹⁸ As tactics have broadened from outright climate denial to other forms of obstruction, there are three members of Congress previously classified as deniers whom this analysis would now characterize instead as obstructionists.¹⁹ For example, Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL) was previously categorized as a climate denier, but in a recent statement from him, he described climate change as being “more of a religion”—a form of climate obstruction.²⁰}:

FIGURE 1

There has been an overall downward trend in the number of congressional representatives who openly deny climate science

Number of climate deniers in Congress since 2019

Bar chart showing a downward trend of climate deniers starting from the 116th Congress.

150

139

123

116th Congress

117th Congress

118th Congress

Source: Sally Hardin and Claire Moser, “Climate Deniers in the 116th Congress,” Center for American Progress Action Fund, January 28, 2019, available at https://www.americanprogressaction.org/article/climate-deniers-116th-congress/; Ari Drennen and Sally Hardin, “Climate Deniers in the 117th Congress,” (Center for American Progress, March 30, 2021, available at https://www.americanprogress.org/article/climate-deniers-117th-congress/.Chart: Center for American Progress

Of the 90 newly elected representatives and senators, including via special elections throughout 2023, 18 are climate deniers.²¹ This is consistent with previous analyses showing that about one-third of incoming freshmen after previous elections were climate deniers.22 CAP’s analysis found no publicly available statements about climate change from 23 freshmen members of Congress. Some elected officials who have been directly asked if they believe in climate change have deflected or ignored the question.²³

Climate deniers in the 118th Congress, by the numbers

123

Total number of climate deniers in the 118th Congress

$52M

Total career contributions from the fossil fuel industry to climate deniers in the 118th Congress

90

Number of climate deniers who denied the results of the 2020 election

23%

Share of members in the 118th Congress who are climate deniers

It’s not all empty rhetoric

Elected officials hold significant power in shaping federal climate policy. The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), passed in August 2022, was the largest investment in climate action in U.S. history. It is incentivizing investment in clean energy deployment and manufacturing, lowering energy bills for Americans, cleaning up fossil fuel pollution in communities, and much more.²⁴ The law includes investments that cut household energy costs for Americans, create well-paying, union jobs, bolster the clean energy sector, and reduce harmful air pollution that disproportionately affects communities of color and low-income communities. In total, the IRA has already led to the announcement of more than 300,000 new jobs, is projected to create 1.5 million new jobs by 2030, and has driven $361 billion in new investments to further bolster the U.S. economy.²⁵

All Republican members of the 117th Congress voted against the IRA, while all Democratic members who were present voted in favor of its passage.²⁶ Since its passage, there have been more than 30 attempts to repeal the IRA through votes on the House floor, in committees, and in subcommittees.²⁷ These actions threaten to create roadblocks to address the climate crisis in a moment when it is critical to act swiftly to stave off the worst effects associated with global temperatures rising by 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial temperatures.²⁸

It is important to note that employing and spreading misinformation, conspiracy theories, and denials are not strictly limited to climate change. According to this analysis and other work from CAP, 90 of the 123 climate deniers in the 118th Congress also publicly denied the legitimacy of the outcome of the 2020 presidential election.²⁹

The fossil fuel industry’s obstruction of federal climate policy

For decades, the fossil fuel industry has obstructed climate action. During the 117th Congress, a House Committee on Oversight and Reform investigation uncovered new evidence of Big Oil’s extensive greenwashing campaign dating back to the 1970s.³⁰ Internal documents obtained by the committee revealed that the American Petroleum Institute, Chevron, Shell, and Exxon made major investments to “protect and entrench the use of fossil fuels, long past the timeline scientists say would be safe to prevent catastrophic climate change.” Additionally, the fossil fuel industry employs tactics such as spreading misinformation and manipulating democratic systems to influence and often obstruct climate policy.³¹

The fossil fuel industry continues to amass substantial earnings while increasing production and releasing harmful greenhouse gas emissions.³² In 2022 alone, following the Russian invasion of Ukraine and skyrocketing consumer gas prices, the fossil fuel industry netted $400 billion in profits, more than doubling their annual totals from the previous year.³³ Despite these record-breaking profits, the benefits were not passed onto consumers in the form of lowered gas prices. Instead, the top five major oil companies—BP, Shell, Chevron, ExxonMobil, and TotalEnergies—raked in almost $200 billion in profits, giving $104 billion in stock buybacks to their investors while eliminating thousands of jobs to “cut costs.”³⁴ Meanwhile, the larger fossil fuel industry, as a whole, spent about $124.4 million on federal lobbying efforts in 2022, according to OpenSecrets.³⁵

TABLE 1

...

Source: OpenSecrets, “Top 20 Member Recipients of Money from Oil & Gas, 1990-2024,” available at https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary?code=E01&cycle=All&ind=E01&recipdetail=M (last accessed July 2024).Table: Center for American Progress

The 123 climate deniers in the 118th Congress collectively received about $52 million in lifetime contributions from the oil and gas and coal mining industries. While not every member who has received fossil fuel contributions is a climate denier, many are in positions of strong influence over environmental policy.³⁶ Current Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA), a climate denier, received $103,450 in oil and gas donations in the 2022 cycle, his second-highest industry contributor.³⁷ Figure 3 lists the top five lifetime recipients of money from the oil and gas and coal mining industries in the House and the Senate.

Many members of Congress continue to spread climate misinformation that closely mirrors talking points from their industry trade groups donors.³⁸ Research on the anticlimate movement reveals how the fossil fuel industry, conservative think tanks, and corporate interests have engaged in coordinated efforts to obstruct climate action through their lobbying efforts.³⁹

In April 2024, the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability Democrats and the Senate Committee on the Budget built upon the previous House Oversight and Reform Committee investigation in the 117th Congress. They analyzed documents received from the previous investigation’s subpoena to uncover more details surrounding the fossil fuel industry intentionally funding and spreading misinformation. Notably, private emails revealed that Big Oil executives relied on the trade associations they fund to spread misleading information about climate policy.

For example, in 2018, ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods, as chairman of the American Petroleum Institute’s board of directors, sent an email to other board members stating that the objective of an upcoming American Petroleum Institute Executive Committee meeting was to “put together an assessment of API’s strengths, opportunities and ideas for potential improvements,” including “above and beyond advocacy priorities,” based on “an ExxonMobil view.”⁴⁰ This demonstrates the intentional plan to ensure that the institute’s public communications campaigns reflected the internal policies of the fossil fuel industry.

This process allows companies to publicly appear supportive of climate-friendly actions while obstructing those same actions behind the scenes.⁴¹ It reifies the cycle in which the fossil fuel industry obstructs climate policy to bring in substantial profits, which it then uses to influence trade associations and members of Congress to continue obstructing meaningful climate action that would harm its bottom line. The fossil fuel industry’s federal lobbying efforts totaled $133 million in 2023.⁴²

The fossil fuel industry also undermines the build-out of a clean energy economy through public misinformation campaigns. For example, a network of oil and gas interests operates to spread offshore wind misinformation with the goal of blocking the expansion of renewable energy in the Northeast, with claims that offshore wind construction has led to whale deaths.⁴³ While it is true the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has declared an “Unusual Mortality Event” for humpback whales since 2016, none of these deaths have been attributed to offshore wind projects.⁴⁴ The deaths, instead, have been attributed to ship strikes and entanglements. These specific falsehoods have been traced back to AstroTurf groups, organizations, and elected officials funded by the fossil fuel industry to block the expansion of wind projects off the Atlantic coast.⁴⁵

Read more

The Oil and Gas Industry Is Behind Offshore Wind Misinformation

Article

The Oil and Gas Industry Is Behind Offshore Wind Misinformation

Dec 11, 2023

Mariel Lutz, Jenny Rowland-Shea

Shifting tactics

Denying the validity of the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change remains the primary tactic to obstruct climate action, which CAP has tracked with its regular series identifying climate deniers in each session of Congress since 2012. However, climate denial no longer fully encompasses the often complex tactics used to delay or obstruct climate action.⁴⁶ This analysis highlights some recent public statements that typify climate obstruction tactics beyond outright climate denial. This is an illustrative, not exhaustive, list of obstruction tactics. By laying out broad categories—doomism, alarmism, redirecting responsibility, and spreading misinformation—alongside specific examples, this analysis intends to better equip the public to recognize, counter, and inoculate against these narratives.

Counseling doomism, which denies the power of policy to mitigate climate change:

• Doomism refers to the idea that humanity is already locked into climate catastrophe, and therefore no policy can reverse it.⁴⁷
• Example: “The climate has always changed and always will change, so I don’t deny climate change. The question is, can you really do anything about it?” – Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI)⁴⁸

Deriding the motivations—or dismissing the urgency—of climate activism, portraying both as alarmism:

• Alarmism portrays climate activism as exaggerating the impact and urgency of the climate crisis.⁴⁹
• Example: “I know that over 20 years ago there were experts before the United Nations who talked about if we didn’t do something within 10 years this global warming thing would be a disaster, and we couldn’t turn back from that. That was back in 1989, and those global alarmists have since proven to be false.” – Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-WI)⁵⁰

Redirecting responsibility for addressing the climate crisis:

• Redirecting responsibility detracts from the need for the United States to take substantial transformative actions to decrease its emissions, while shifting the burden of responsibility to other countries or onto individuals rather than advocating for larger governmental change. This includes “whataboutism” claims that the United States should not commit to international agreements such as the Paris Agreement while other industrialized countries are not doing their fair share of cutting emissions.
• Example: “Other nations want us to do everything to fix the environment, and they don’t want to participate in that at the same level as we do. And if you look at the emissions in places like India and China, they’re not making any strides to try and curtail emissions or to address climate change in their part of their world. But they want us to do it.” – Rep. Rick Crawford (R- AR)⁵¹

Spreading misinformation about climate action:

• The spread of misinformation—that is, deceptive, misleading, or false information—has been well-documented across the world and requires constant vigilance to inoculate. Examples include false statements that disparage clean energy, minimize the hazards of fossil fuels, and misrepresent actions taken to reduce emissions. Misinformation on climate change can polarize the public, decrease support for climate actions, and ultimately obstruct needed actions to address the climate crisis.⁵²
• Example: “Joe Biden’s climate plan includes cutting 90% of red meat from our diets by 2030.” – Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO)⁵³

Read more

These Fossil Fuel Industry Tactics Are Fueling Democratic Backsliding

Article

These Fossil Fuel Industry Tactics Are Fueling Democratic Backsliding

Dec 5, 2023

Chris Martinez, Laura Kilbury, Joel Martinez,

Conclusion

While there has been a shift in the use of rhetorical tactics to obstruct climate action without directly denying climate science, there are still 123 members of Congress who are outright climate deniers. The fossil fuel industry continues to use its exorbitant profits to exert its influence on federal environmental policy in the form of contributions to elected officials and on public relations campaigns. Publicly elected officials and the fossil fuel industry must be held accountable for their statements on climate change and deceptive obstructionist tactics such as greenwashing and spreading misinformation. ^54 Climate action cannot afford to be delayed any further.

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank Hannah Malus, Trevor Higgins, Lauren Vicary, Ryan Koronowski, Cody Hankerson, Jamie Friedman, Jenny Rowland-Shea, Chris Martinez, Devon Lespier, Will Beaudouin, Shanée Simhoni, Mat Brady, Bill Rapp, Beatrice Aronson, Audrey Juarez, Doug Molof, the entire CAP Production team, and the many former staff at the Center for American Progress, Center for American Progress Action Fund, and ThinkProgress who worked on previous iterations of this project.

---

https://archive.thinkprogress.org/study-climate-zombies-threaten-collapse-of-society-8097cde0f961/

Study: Climate Zombies Threaten “Collapse of Society”

:{JOE ROMM:{OCT 31, 2011}:

}:

a must-read study in Infectious Disease Modelling Research Progress, “When zombies attack!: Mathematical modelling of an outbreak of climate zombie infection” concludes:

In summary, a zombie outbreak is likely to lead to the collapse of civilisation, unless it is dealt with quickly. While aggressive quarantine may contain the epidemic, or a cure may lead to coexistence of humans and zombies, the most effective way to contain the rise of the undead is to attack hard and attack often. As seen in the movies, it is imperative that zombies are dealt with quickly, or else we are all in a great deal of trouble.

As has been widely reported in the NZM (non-zombified media), a growing portion of the GOP political class has fallen victim to a zombie apocalypse (see “Attack of the climate zombies!” and “Dawn of the brain-dead Senate” and links below that I repeat in the event that our efforts fail and the distant descendants of the survivors try to reconstruct the course of the epidemic in order to save humanity using time-travel a la 12 Monkeys).

The question all uninfected Americans are asking is, what is the best way to deal with the climate zombies? Thankfully, some Canadian mathematical modelers have analyzed the situation and offered their optimal strategy.

First, some background on zombies. I recommend starting with the new AMC TV documentary series, The Walking Dead. Shrewdly, AMC no longer runs stuff like Casablanca and Shane, but focuses on what really matters to humanity now. Wikipedia explains in its entry on zombie apocalypse:

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE OR COMMENT

A zombie apocalypse is a particular hypothetical scenario of apocalyptic theory that customarily has a science fiction/horror rationale. In a zombie apocalypse, a widespread rise of zombies hostile to human life engages in a general assault on civilization.

Hypothetical no more! See, for instance, Know your zombies: Sensenbrenner, picked to lead House attack on climate science, says, “I personally believe that the solar flares are more responsible for climatic cycles than anything that human beings do.” If the climate zombies succeed, human civilization as we know it is likely to be destroyed, according to the recent scientific literature (see “An Illustrated Guide to the Science of Global Warming Impacts: How We Know Inaction Is the Gravest Threat Humanity Faces“).

The best evidence suggests the climate zombie outbreak began in the fall of 2009 with a series of stolen British emails containing a virus that turned otherwise rational human-beings into zombies who spout the most inane and unintelligible things. In December 2009, the Canadian Medical Journal released its, “A report on the zombie outbreak of 2009.”

The infection resulted in a new species of human, classified as nonmortuus contagio, but known in the popular press as “zombie”, from the Congolese nzambi, meaning “spirit of a dead person.” As the name implies, the outbreak resulted in a resurgence of the previously deceased. Clinical signs included discoloration around the eyes, open wounds and rotting flesh, with organs and bodily functions operating at minimal levels.

Initial studies reported that the zombies did not feel pain, but these findings could not be verified because of the zombification of the researchers in question. When asked for comment, the lead author of one such study said, “Grrrnn, aaarghhh, huuuuuungry!” When questioned in more detail, he replied, “Braaaaiiiinnnnsss!” No further information is available from the interview.

The cause of the virus remains unknown. Anecdotal evidence suggests that zombies can be defeated by guns, the army, eventual starvation or Dire Straits records.

New diseases are generally investigated using experiments on infected people, clinical trials or medical observation. Unfortunately, because of the rapid zombification of scientists, epidemiologists and doctors, society was left with only one group of technocrats who remained uninfected: mathematicians. Fortunately, during the time at which the outbreak occurred, members of this group had not been invited to parties and thus remained entirely uninfected.

Interestingly, climate science bloggers also appear uninfected — though not their pro-pollution counterparts, who were among the first victims (apparently anti-science syndrome makes one especially predisposed to zombification).

Unfortunately, the mathematical analysis found:

The model showed two equilibria: the disease-free equilibrium (with no zombies) and the doomsday equilibrium (where everyone is a zombie). The application of a linear stability analysis showed that “” in the absence of further interventions “” the disease-free equilibrium was unstable and the doomsday equilibrium was stable. This finding was not promising.

Simulations based on a city of roughly 500,000 people demonstrated that an entire such city would be replaced by zombies [rapidly]. Were this mass replacement of a population to occur in a city such as Washington, DC, it may be unlikely anyone would notice.

Figure 1: Schematic diagram of the basic mathematical model (black arrows). Humans can either die naturally or be converted into zombies “” which is not terribly pleasant, but does come with that nifty jacket and tie. Zombies can reanimate the dead or be killed by humans (although it must be said that the latter doesn’t bother them too much). Possible intervention include quarantine of the zombies (green arrow), a potential cure (blue arrow) or impulsive attacks (red arrow).

I had originally feared that the rest of the world would chose the quarantine option, given that the infection has stayed mostly localized to the United States (see *National Journal*: “The GOP is stampeding toward an absolutist rejection of climate science that appears unmatched among major political parties around the globe, even conservative ones”).

But the study suggests that option simply won’t work:

In summary, a zombie outbreak is likely to lead to the collapse of civilisation, unless it is dealt with quickly. While aggressive quarantine may contain the epidemic, or a cure may lead to coexistence of humans and zombies, the most effective way to contain the rise of the undead is to blog hard and blog often. As seen in the movies, it is imperative that zombies are dealt with quickly, or else we are all in a great deal of trouble.

Interestingly, this is very similar to the strategy recommended by the prestigious journal Nature (see Nature:** “Scientists must now emphasize the science, while acknowledging that they are in a street fight with climate zombies”).

Happy Halloween!

Related Posts:

• Climate zombies now run House of Representatives
• Dawn of the brain-dead House: Politico reports GOP stuffing Energy and Commerce with ‘Climate Zombies’
• Holdren finds a pony: Obama science advisor says GOP climate hearings will dezombify some members
• What we’re up against: Polluter-funded Tea Party climate zombie astroturfing

Note: I have made remarkably few wording changes to the original studies. Who knew Canadian mathematicians were that funny? This is a repost.

---

11/10

Following the Tea Party wave of the midterm elections, half of the Republican caucus in the U.S. Congress now questions the scientific consensus that greenhouse pollution is a civilizational threat. Analysis by the Wonk Room, with research by Daily Kos’s RL Miller, finds that45 of 97 Republican freshmen and85 of 166 re-elected Republicans are confirmed climate zombies. There are no Republican freshmen, in the House or Senate, who admit the science is real. New members include William Marcy (Miss.-02) — who warns of “Global Warming Environmental Terrorists” — andKristi Noem (S.D.) — who voted for a resolution that “astrological” and “thermological” dynamics “effect” the weather.

The U.S. Senate, as the Wonk Room has previously described, has a monolithic Republican bloc against climate action, with incoming Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) repudiating their past support for cap-and-trade legislation. The U.S.House of Representatives now only has four Republicans who publicly admit that global warming pollution is real:

• Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Fla.-18): “Global warming is real and man-made.”

• Rep. Judy Biggert (Ill.-13): “The science behind climate change is sound.”

• Rep. Jim Gerlach (Pa.-06): “Congressman Gerlach believes we have a responsibility as legislators and citizens to reduce our imprint on the Earth and reverse the effects of science-based climate change for both current and future generations.”

• Rep. Frank Wolf (Va.-10): “I believe that global warming is real. The National Academy of Sciences has presented evidence that the Earth’s surface is warming because of human activities, including increased worldwide industrial development, over the past several decades.”

However, none of these four voted in favor of the American Clean Energy and Security Act to combat climate pollution and support a clean energy economy. All five Republicans who did support the legislation and ran for re-election won: Reps. Mary Bono Mack (Calif.-45), Dave Reichert (Wash.-08), Frank LoBiondo (N.J.-02), Chris Smith (N.J.-04), and Leonard Lance (N.J.-07). None of them have spoken publicly about the science of climate change.

It remains to be seen whether these nine Republican climate realists will do anything to stop the impending witch hunt against climate scientists by their conspiracy-minded caucus.

---

2010

https://grist.org/article/stupid-goes-viral-the-climate-zombies-of-the-new-gop/

...after researching the causes of temperature fluctuations on earth, I found the largest factor to be the sun. The earth’s orbit changes. Also the earth’s spin and axis change over time. When areas of the earth are closer to the sun, the temperature is hotter and when they are further away, cooler. The sun also has more activity at times and less at other times. They have been able to map out large changes in the earth’s temperature over time to the sun. Times with no polar ice caps have corresponded to times when we were closer to the sun. Ice ages have corresponded to times when we were further from the sun. We should not punish the people of the United States financially by legislating on pseudo-science that has not been proven.

That’s no ordinary tea partier. It’s a candidate for Congress. And she’s not alone.

Meet the Climate Zombies.

They’re mindless.

Their stupid is contagious.

And if they win, humanity loses.

A couple of weeks ago, the Wonk Room had a story: Every GOP N.H. Senate candidate is a global warming denier. At a candidates’ forum in Portsmouth, N.H., “all said man-made global warming hasn’t been proven.”

The epidemic next appeared in New Mexico, where all three Republican candidates for Congress, and the GOP candidate for governor, denied the existence of man-made climate change. The candidates for Congress gave waffling-but-cool answers on a questionnaire, but subsequent digging revealed that all flatly deny the science.

Intrigued, I began to poke around other states. Virtually all Republicans criticize what they call “cap-and-tax” as too expensive, but how many actually deny the reality of climate change science? How many have been infected by Teh Stoopid?

A lot. A real lot. Be afraid.

I started with two states whose candidates for Senate have made headlines for their statements on climate.

In Alaska, Joe Miller, running for Senate, attributes warming to “cyclical warming patterns.” So does, incumbent representative, who derides climate change as the “biggest scam since the Teapot Dome.” Gov. Sean Parnell, running for reelection, hasn’t said anything, although he dislikes polar bear protection.

In Wisconsin, Rep. Paul Ryan (Wis.-01) confuses climate and snowstorms; candidate Chad Lee (Wis.-02) dismisses “junk science”; candidate Dan Sebring (Wis.-04) speaks of “the fraud of cap-and-trade”; and Rep. Jim Sensebrenner (Wis.-05) praises “Climategate” for raising “legitimate questions.” Only Rep. Tom Petri (Wis.-06) may be reasonable. (I don’t have information regarding climate-related positions of a number of Republicans running in Wis.-03, Wis.-07, and Wis.-08, and for governor, all facing a primary Sept. 14.)

Ron Johnson, Wisconsin’s GOP challenger to Sen. Russ Feingold famously blames sunspots for climate change: “I absolutely do not believe in the science of man-caused climate change,” Johnson said. “It’s not proven by any stretch of the imagination.”

What of other states? eKos leader extraordinaire Patrickz checked out Oklahoma. complains about fraudulent data; James Lankford (Okla.-05) complains about the global warming myth; by contrast, Charles Thompson (Okla.-02), Frank Lucas (Okla.-03), and Tom Cole (Okla.-04) merely complain about the cost of cap-and-trade. Gov. Mary Fallin thinks global warming is caused by nuclear attacks. Sen. Tom Coburn considers human-caused climate change malarkey. By contrast, Sen. James Inhofe (R) is a paradigm of reason. One of these statements is false.

Does the virus only spread from Senate candidates? I turned my attention, randomly, to Arizona. Sadly, the Grand Canyon State is completely overrun with Climate Zombies.

Trent Franks (Ariz.-02) has yet to see clear and convincing evidence that global warming exists; Ben Quayle (Ariz.-03) states that the planet has warmed and cooled since the beginning of time; Janet Contreras (Ariz.-04) believes that the science has been called into serious question; Jeff Flake (Ariz.-06) identifies himself as a skeptic; and Ruth McClung (Ariz. -07) is tied with Wisconsin’s Johnson in the Stoopid Contest for her comment, above, regarding earth spin. I don’t have quotes from Paul Gosar (Ariz.-01) or David Schweikert (Ariz.-05) yet, but the Koch brothers’ Americans for Prosperity will be pouring money into their races. Jesse Kelly (Ariz.-08) founded the Arizona Tea Party, so is presumed zombiefied. Scorecard: five out of eight GOP candidates have gone on record as doubting the science, and the other three probably will.

Gov. Jan Brewer has been silent on the subject of climate, apparently because zombies can only be killed by becoming headless.

Is Sen. John McCain transmogrifying into a Climate Zombie? Long a self-proclaimed maverick who sponsored climate bills, he now tells the Arizona Republic that “there are dramatic environmental changes happening in the arctic region — whether one believes they are man-made or natural.” Uh, senator? Suddenly the cause of change is in doubt?

In conclusion: We sampled four states with a total of 22 representatives, three gubernatorial candidates (excluding Wisconsin), and three senators up for reelection. Four representatives (Okla.-02, Okla.-03, Okla.-04,and Wis.-06) seem to accept the reality of climate science, if not the solution; two (Ariz.-01, Ariz.-05) have been silent to date; three (Wis.-03, Wis.-07, and Wis.-08) haven’t been selected yet; and 13 express skepticism/hostility. Of the three candidates for governor, one is openly hostile and two are silent. Of the three candidates for Senate, two are openly hostile and the third is John McCain.

Climate zombies are now the Republican party norm.

This past summer, climate peacocks like Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) succeeded in killing the Kerry-Lieberman bill by preening their sincerely held, beautifully articulated concerns about the horrors of climate while simultaneously refusing to find solutions. Those peacocks are going the way of the polar bear. Instead, climate zombies like Joe Miller mindlessly replicate. If you listen carefully, you can hear them moan: “caaaash!” Or maybe they cry “kooooch!”

---

https://grist.org/article/stupid-goes-viral-climate-zombies-of-ks-nv-ri-sd-and-tn/

2x?

they prowl the halls of Congress, moaning for caaasshh.

Their stupid has gone viral.

And if they win, humanity loses.

I’m tracking Climate Zombies: every Republican candidate for House, Senate, and governor who doubts, denies, or derides the science of climate change. Today, a look at five states turns up one Republican who worries about his carbon footprint and a second who’s acknowledged climate science in the past.

Kansas

Hardly a shock: the Koch brothers’ headquarters state is heavily infected. House candidate Tim Huelskamp (Kan.-01) authored state bill SR 1809, the resolution condemning the controversial recent EPA “endangerment finding” that greenhouse gasses (including methane and carbon dioxide) are “harmful pollutants.” Incumbent Rep. Lynn Jenkins (Kan.-02) tweeted on March 3, 2010 that: “I cosponsored a res. overturning an EPA rule that says man-made greenhouse gas emissions are a danger to public health http://ow.ly/1dTtb."

house candidate Kevin Yoder (Kan.-03) has taken a remarkably low public profile.

House candidate Mike Pompeo (Kan.-Koch) deserves special mention. He’s nominally running for the Fourth District, but if elected he’ll be the representative from Koch. Koch supplies his original income, current wealth, and Political Action Committee.  

Jerry Moran, candidate for Senate, queries some scientists’ political agendas and which scientists are telling the truth. Incumbent Sen. Pat Roberts (Kan.), upon returning from a trip to Antarctica, concedes that there is some warming but that “a lot of this is condescending elitism.” Kansas has until 2014 to prove to him that, no, condescending elitism doesn’t melt glaciers.

Sam Brownback, former senator now likely to become governor, may be a litmus test for the new GOP. In 2007, he acknowledged the reality of climate change:

“It seems to me just prudent that we recognize we have climate increase and temperature change,” he said. “We have CO2 loading and we need to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.”

As a devout social conservative, he took a number of positions at odds with Tea Party-dominated Republicans of today: pro-immigration reform, pro-prison reform, compassionate on foreign policy. Will his views on climate and other issues shift in this race?

All Kansas GOP politicians except Yoder and Roberts have signed the Koch/Americans For Prosperity “no climate tax” pledge, so are presumed to be Climate Zombies. However, I’m counting Brownback as accepting climate science given the clear statement he made in 2007. Semi-final score: five Climate Zombies, one unknown, and one non-Zombie.

Nevada

I’m in utter shock. Republican House candidate Kenneth Wegner (Nev.-01) includes, as part of an otherwise typical “all of the above” Republican energy strategy, this:

We should foster and encourage production of our own energy needs through the use of green technologies. Nuclear power needs to be more fully developed, and breeder reactors constructed to burn nuclear byproducts. We need to continue to prevent the loss of farm land in the fertile parts of our country, and promote the use of soil-replenishing natural fertilizers on our existing farmlands. We need to reduce our carbon footprint through alternate energy sources described above. [Emphasis mine.]

You don’t use the phrase “carbon footprint” unless you worry about carbon.

Incumbent Rep. Dean Heller (Nev.-02) and candidate Joe Heck (Nev.-03) are far more typical Republicans: neither has said anything about climate science, but both have signed the Koch/AFP pledge.

Brian Sandoval, candidate for governor, hasn’t said anything regarding climate change.

And then there’s Sharron Angle (R-Area 51), running for Senate, the voice of calm reason … on her home planet. On this one, not so much.

Semi-final score: one unknown (Sandoval), two presumed Zombies, one obtuse Angle, and one GOP candidate who appears to acknowledge climate science. Wegner is the second Republican I’ve found in 16 states who does so.

Rhode Island

Hypothesis: even Republicans running for office in an oceanfront blue state will profess their love for the environment while avoiding controversial stands. Test: the Ocean State. Result: John Loughlin (R.I.-01) has taken the Koch/AFP pledge but professes to be a conservative with a strong record on conservation issues; Mark Zaccaria (R.I.-02) favors an all of the above energy policy; and gubernatorial candidate John Robitaille sounds downright moderate:

My goal is to protect our environment while encouraging smart growth, green industries and common-sense planning. We must protect Narragansett Bay and avoid doing anything that would endanger the environment, tourism, our marine trades industry and recreation.

Semi-final score: one potential Zombie, two who show no signs of being bitten by Teh Stoopid.

South Dakota

John Thune, running unopposed for Senate, is rumored to have 2012 presidential ambitions. His website alleges that scientific dissent is being suppressed at the Environmental Protection Agency because an economist complained. Well, I suppose economics is called the dismal science … 

However, he looks sane in comparison to South Dakota’s other GOP candidates.Kristi Noems (S.D.)led a state legislature resolution finding a variety of astrological dynamics that can “effect world weather phenomena.” And the candidate for governor, Dennis Daugaard, “didn’t see how mankind could be the cause” of climate change. Noem and Thune have signed the Koch/AFP pledge.  

Semi-final score: 3 candidates, 3 Zombies.

Tennessee

Incumbent Reps. Phil Roe (Tenn.-01) and John Duncan (Tenn.-02) both try a variation on “teaching the controversy (that we just manufactured)” used by creationists: their websites don’t state their own views, but do cite the views of the few scientists, usually industry shills, who doubt global warming. Don’t fall for the appearance of neutrality — these representatives are Climate Zombies.

Incumbent Rep. Marsha Blackburn (Tenn.-07) belongs in the same category as Sarah Palin and Christine O’Donnell: a pretty face hiding scary thoughts, including a complaint that “climate scientists have a long track record of manipulating data to hide scientific evidence that contradicts the global warming establishment.”

I don’t have much information on challengers Chuck Fleischmann (Tenn.-03) (he favors drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge), Scott DesJarlais (Tenn.-04), or David Hall (Tenn.-05); the latter two signed the Koch/AFP pledge, so are presumed to be Climate Zombies.  Diane Black (Tenn.-06) complains about regulating “carbon as a pollutant.” Stephen Fincher (Tenn.-08) likewise wants to drill here, drill now, is a Tea Party type, and has taken the Koch/AFP pledge. I think Charlotte Bergmann (Tenn.-09) (“America should become energy independent. We have the resources! Tax laws should be used to encourage more use of our own resources in a clean, effective way.”) is more loopy than an actual denier. I also don’t have information on the attitude toward science of gubernatorial candidate Bill Haslam.

Semi-final score: three clear Climate Zombies, five presumed to be infected, and two (Tenn.-09 and gov.) about whom I don’t have enough information to make a call.

---

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/21/us/politics/21climate.html

JASPER, Ind. — At a candidate forum here last week,Representative Baron P. Hill, a threatened Democratic incumbent in a largely conservative southern Indiana district, was endeavoring to explain his unpopular vote for the House cap-and-trade energy bill.

It will create jobs in Indiana, reduce foreign oil imports and address global warming, Mr. Hill said at a debate withTodd Young, a novice Republican candidate who is supported by an array of Indiana Tea Party groups and is a climate change skeptic.

“Climate change is real, and man is causing it,” Mr. Hill said, echoing most climate scientists. “That is indisputable. And we have to do something about it.”

A rain of boos showered Mr. Hill, including a hearty growl from Norman Dennison, a 50-year-old electrician and founder of the Corydon Tea Party.

“It’s a flat-out lie,” Mr. Dennison said in an interview after the debate, adding that he had based his view on the preaching of Rush Limbaugh and the teaching of Scripture. “I read my Bible,” Mr. Dennison said. “He made this earth for us to utilize.”

Skepticism and outright denial of global warming are among the articles of faith of the Tea Party movement, here in Indiana and across the country. For some, it is a matter of religious conviction; for others, it is driven by distrust of those they call the elites. And for others still, efforts to address climate change are seen as a conspiracy to impose world government and a sweeping redistribution of wealth. But all are wary of the Obama administration’s plans to regulate carbon dioxide, a ubiquitous gas, which will require the expansion of government authority into nearly every corner of the economy.

“This so-called climate science is just ridiculous,” said Kelly Khuri, founder of the Clark County Tea Party Patriots. “I think it’s all cyclical.”

“Carbon regulation, cap and trade, it’s all just a money-control avenue,” Ms. Khuri added. “Some people say I’m extreme, but they said the John Birch Society was extreme, too.”

Whatever the party composition of the next Congress, cap and trade is likely dead for the foreseeable future. If dozens of new Republican climate skeptics are swept into Congress, the prospects for assertive federal action to control global warming gases, including regulation by the Environmental Protection Agency, will grow dimmer than they already are.

Those who support the Tea Party movement are considerably more dubious about the existence and effects of global warming than the American public at large, according to a New York Times/CBS News Poll conducted this month. The survey found that only 14 percent of Tea Party supporters said that global warming is an environmental problem that is having an effect now, while 49 percent of the rest of the public believes that it is. More than half of Tea Party supporters said that global warming would have no serious effect at any time in the future, while only 15 percent of other Americans share that view, the poll found.

And 8 percent of Tea Party adherents volunteered that they did not believe global warming exists at all, while only 1 percent of other respondents agreed.

Those views in general align with those of the fossil fuel industries, which have for decades waged a concerted campaign to raise doubts about the science of global warming and to undermine policies devised to address it.

They have created and lavishly financed institutes to produce anti-global-warming studies, paid for rallies and Web sites to question the science, and generated scores of economic analyses that purport to show that policies to reduce emissions of climate-altering gases will have a devastating effect on jobs and the overall economy.

Image

Their views are spread by a number of widely followed conservative opinion leaders, including Mr. Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, George Will and Sarah Palin, who oppose government programs to address climate change and who question the credibility and motives of the scientists who have raised alarms about it.

Groups that help support Tea Party candidates include climate change skepticism in their core message. Americans for Prosperity, a group founded and largely financed by oil industry interests, has sponsored what it calls a Regulation Reality Tour to stir up opposition to climate change legislation and federal regulation of carbon emissions. Its Tea Party talking points describe a cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions as “the largest excise tax in history.”

FreedomWorks, another group supported by the oil industry, helps organize Tea Party rallies and distributes fliers urging opposition to federal climate policy, which it calls a “power grab.”

“Any effort to make electricity and fuel more expensive or to cap or regulate CO2 will only exacerbate an already critical situation and cause tremendous economic damage,” FreedomWorks says on its Web site.

The oil, coal and utility industries have collectively spent $500 million just since the beginning of 2009 to lobby against legislation to address climate change and to defeat candidates, like Mr. Hill, who support it, according to a new analysis from the Center for American Progress Action Fund, a left-leaning advocacy group in Washington.

Their message appears to have fallen on receptive ears. Of the 20 Republican Senate candidates in contested races, 19 question the science of global warming and oppose any comprehensive legislation to deal with it, according to a National Journal survey.

The only exception is Mark Steven Kirk, the Republican Senate nominee in Illinois, who was one of only eight Republicans to vote for the House cap-and-trade bill sponsored by Representatives Henry A. Waxman of California and Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts, both Democrats. (One of the other Republican “yes” votes was cast by Representative Michael N. Castle of Delaware, who blames that vote in part for his primary election defeat by Christine O’Donnell, the Tea Party candidate and a global warming skeptic.)

A large majority of Tea Party-supported House candidates also doubt global warming science and oppose energy legislation designed to address it.

Mr. Young, the Indiana Republican nominee trying to unseat Mr. Hill for the Ninth Congressional District seat, strongly opposes cap and trade and other unilateral measures to combat global warming. He says he is uncertain what is causing the observed heating of the planet, adding that it could be caused by sunspots or the normal cycles of nature.

“The science is not settled,” he said in an interview in his headquarters in Bloomington, Ind. And he said that given the scientific uncertainty, it was not wise to make major changes in the nation’s energy economy to reduce carbon emissions.

A third candidate in the Indiana Congressional race, Greg Knott, a libertarian, said he accepted the scientific consensus on climate change but opposed a nationwide cap-and-trade system as the answer.

Lisa Deaton, a small-business owner in Columbus, Ind., who started We the People Indiana, a Tea Party affiliate, is supporting Mr. Young in part because of his stand against climate change legislation.

“They’re trying to use global warming against the people,” Ms. Deaton said. “It takes away our liberty.”

“Being a strong Christian,” she added, “I cannot help but believe the Lord placed a lot of minerals in our country and it’s not there to destroy us.”

---

2019

https://www.businessinsider.com/climate-change-and-republicans-congress-global-warming-2019-2

These are the_{ 130 current members of Congress}_ who have doubted or denied climate change

Ellen Cranley

gop climate change deniers 2x1gop climate change deniers 2x1

The climate change deniers in Congress are overwhelmingly Republican. Samantha Lee/Business Insider

Over 97% of scientists agree that human activity has contributed to the steady warming of the Earth's climate.

Legislation that hopes to mitigate the potentially disastrous effects of climate change is dependent on the curbing human activity that has a large carbon footprint.

Despite the consensus among scientists about the urgent need to curb emissions, there are more than 100 current members of Congress who have expressed skepticism about the role humans have played in climate change and the value of limiting our emissions.

A United Nations climate report released in February said that 2018 was the fourth-warmest year on record, and scientists expect temperatures to keep rising.

Over 97% of scientists agree that human activity is to blame for the steady warming, and without regulation to curb emissions, the Earth could face disastrous conditions.

Standing in the way of securing such regulation are more than 100 current members of Congress, who have expressed skepticism about climate science, or concerns about the cost of more regulations. All but one are Republican.

As congressional lawmakers prepare a bundle of new proposed regulations in the form of the Green New Deal, some long-held opinions among their colleagues could challenge their progress.

In the past, dozens of Republican lawmakers have expressed doubts about the scientific reasoning behind passing legislation to mitigate the effects of climate change through votes, tweets, and even comments about the Obama administration's regulations.

Here are the members of Congress who have questioned human-caused climate change and their Congressional voting score out of 100% for environmentally friendly votes, courtesy of the environmental group League of Conservation Voters.

Alabama

richard shelby

Sen. Richard Shelby

"Important scientific research is ongoing, and there are still many questions that must be answered before we take steps to address this issue," Shelby wrote in 2015. "For example, is the climate change phenomenon cyclical or is it a function of man-made pollutants, or both? I believe the science must be firmly grounded before we take any actions that could seriously cripple many sectors of our economy."

League of Conservation Voters score: 13%

Rep. Robert Aderholt

"I fall into the second group of people who believe, as do many very credible scientists, that the earth is currently in a natural warming cycle rather than a man-made climate change," Aderholt wrote in a 2009 op-ed. "Many scientists believe that natural cycles of warming and cooling have existed since the beginning of Earth. If we take the current models of climate prediction and apply those same models to what actually happened in the last thirty years, the models are shown to be very flawed. In addition, what knowledge we do have of a warming period in the Middle Ages cannot be explained by current models which are focused on greenhouse gas reductions."

Spokespeople for Aderholt did not return INSIDER's request for comment, but his website states that he primarily supports expanding oil and natural gas production but is also open to renewable energy.

League of Conservation Voters score: 3%

Rep. Mo Brooks

"What about erosion?" Brooks asked in a May 2018 hearing of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, suggesting that rocks were causing rising sea levels rather than climate change. "Every time you have that soil or rock, whatever it is, that is deposited into the seas, that forces the sea levels to rise because now you've got less space in those oceans because the bottom is moving up."

League of Conservation Voters score: 9%

Rep. Gary Palmer

"I am a firm believer in sound science," Palmer said in 2016. "There have been new findings that clearly show the science is not settled on climate change."

In February, it was announced that Palmer would serve on the House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis.

League of Conservation Voters score: 1%

Alaska

dan sullivan senator alaska

Sen. Dan Sullivan. Alex Wong/Getty Images

Sen. Dan Sullivan

"Alaska is on the front lines when it comes to changes in our climate, and with seven billion people on earth, humans will have an effect," Sullivan said in 2016. "However, despite what many climate change alarmists want us to believe, there is no general consensus on pinpointing the sole cause of global temperature trends."

In July 2018, Sullivan acknowledged some effects of climate change in Alaska, including erosion on roads and over-acidification of the water seen in fisheries, but said there were increased "opportunities in the Arctic."

"No doubt climate change is happening in Alaska...it's opening up opportunities in the Arctic, but it's also opening up significant challenges," Sullivan said on C-SPAN in 2018.

League of Conservation Voters score: 7%

Rep. Don Young

"Alaska is the focal point in the global warming debate. I do not challenge that climate change is occurring, but the central question awaiting an answer is to what extent man-made emissions are responsible for this change. Contrary to popular opinion, that question remains unanswered. Those who claim otherwise perpetrate a tremendous disservice to science and society, and I am shocked by the continued marginalization of any dissenters," Young said on the current iteration of his website.

Young also said in 2010, "I think this is the biggest scam since the Teapot Dome… Just be careful of the scam; Al Gore's biggest money-making machine in the world."

League of Conservation Voters score: 8%

Arizona

Andy Biggs google congress hearing

Rep. Andy Biggs. Fox News/YouTube

Rep. Andy Biggs

"I do not believe climate change is occurring," Biggs responded to a 2016 candidate survey from the Arizona Republic. "I do not think that humans have a significant impact on climate. The federal government should stop regulating and stomping on our economy and freedoms in the name of a discredited theory."

"There are credible scientists who say climate change exists; we aren't sure why. There are credible scientists who say that," Biggs said at a town hall the next year. "There are credible scientists who say it doesn't."

League of Conservation Voters score: 9%

Rep. Paul Gosar

"As the son of a geologist, our climate has always changed, and if you don't doubt me, dig up some fossils," Gosar said at a February 2019 press conference he held to announce his opposition of the Green New Deal, minimizing the importance of recent climate change. "It will tell you an awful lot about how our climate has changed."

League of Conservation Voters score: 5%

Rep. Debbie Lesko

When Lesko was asked at a January 2018 candidate debate about whether she believed in climate change, she said, "Is some of it, maybe, human-caused? Possibly. But certainly not the majority of it. I think it just goes through cycles and it has to do a lot with the sun. So no, I'm not a global warming proponent."

League of Conservation Voters score: 0%

Rep. David Schweikert

"I don't see the data," Schweikert said in a 2014 interview. "When you think about the complexity of a worldwide system, and the amount of data you'd have to capture… how do you adjust for a sunspot? How do you adjust for a hurricane, and this and that? I think it's incredibly arrogant, you know, for the Al Gores of the world to stand up and say the world's coming to an end."

League of Conservation Voters score: 4%

Arkansas

tom cotton

Sen. Tom Cotton during a hearing on Capitol Hill. AP Photo/Alex Brandon

Sen. Tom Cotton

"The simple fact is that for the last 16 years the earth's temperature has not warmed," Cotton said at a 2014 energy panel. "That's the facts... Now, there's no doubt that the temperature has risen over the past 150, 200 years. It's most likely that human activity has contributed to some of that."

Cotton has also been a vocal critic of the Green New Deal, accusing the media of being "complicit in the Stalin-like or '1984' technique of disappearing" issues with an early draft of the bill and criticizing Democratic lawmakers for pushing what he called a "radical vision for humanity."

"They believe that Americans driving around in trucks on farms, or commuting from the suburbs where they can have a decent home into the city to work are a fundamental threat to the world, and they have to have the power and the control of those Americans' lives to implement their radical vision for humanity," Cotton said in February.

League of Conservation Voters score: 2%

Sen. John Boozman

Boozman pushed back on scientific consensus in 2014, saying "no one has a monopoly on the facts."

"We must ask whether these Obama administration policies are worth the lost jobs, lower take-home pay, higher gas and electricity prices, and so on," Boozman said, questioning policies designed to address climate change.

League of Conservation Voters score: 7%

Rep. Rick Crawford

"There's not sound science to support some of the initiatives that the president, I think, is committed to," Crawford said in 2013 of President Obama. "We know that some of the research was faulty and it drove a lot of the agenda for a long time, and then it turned out there were some questions about the validity of that research. I don't see a lot of the green initiatives that are being talked about being supported by scientific data, but more supported by political agendas."

League of Conservation Voters score: 5%

Rep. Bruce Westerman

"I assume if climate's changing, it's changing in Arkansas, as well as other places," Westerman said at a 2017 hearing. "So I did a little research and found out the number of forest fires in Arkansas has actually decreased over the past 20 years. It's either held level or slightly decreased as our management has continued to increase. So apparently the climate change isn't affecting forest fires in my state. You would think even though it's a more moderate or temperate climate, if climate change was causing more fires we would see a lot more of them than what's in the baseline."

League of Conservation Voters score: 1%

Rep. Steve Womack

"The climate changes — it has throughout history," Womack said in October 2018. "The real debate is who or what is causing it."

League of Conservation Voters score: 4%

California

duncan hunter

Rep. Duncan Hunter. Sandy Huffaker/Getty Images

Rep. Duncan Hunter

"There is climate change," Hunter said in a 2014 candidate debate. "Is there human-caused climate change? I don't buy that."

Hunter co-sponsored HR 3380 in 2016, a bill that would stop any federal action on addressing climate change.

In March 2017, Hunter answered an audience question at a town hall about if he would dismantle the EPA by saying the agency had "destroyed American business."

League of Conservation Voters score: 2%

Rep. Doug LaMalfa

"I think there's a lot of bad science behind what people are calling global warming," LaMalfa said at a public meeting in 2017.

League of Conservation Voters score: 1%

Rep. Tom McClintock

"The climate has been changing for four and a half billion years," McClintock said in a September 2018 candidate debate. "The extent to which human activity has a role to play is being hotly debated right now."

League of Conservation Voters score: 4%

Rep. Devin Nunes

"I mean no offense to the global warming prophets of doom, but I welcome more offshore energy exploration and want to see it move ahead quickly," Nunes said in 2017 blog.

League of Conservation Voters score: 3%

Colorado

Sen. Cory Gardner (1)

Sen. Cory Gardner. J. Scott Applewhite, File via AP

Sen. Cory Gardner

"Well, I've said all along climate is changing… This is an important issue and I don't think you can say yes or no," Gardner said in 2014 debate. "I believe the climate is changing, but I disagree to the extent that's been in the news that man is changing—."

Despite his more recent statements that acknowledge both climate change and the role of human activity, his past comments and record of support for Trump's environmental policies have still alarmed scientists and advocacy groups.

League of Conservation Voters score: 10%

Rep. Ken Buck

In 2016, Buck reportedly called a military proposal to protect bases against flooding part of a "radical climate change agenda."

In 2010, Buck praised Sen. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma for trying to disprove climate change, saying at a campaign event that "Sen. Inhofe was the first person to stand up and say this global warming is the greatest hoax that has been perpetrated. The evidence just keeps supporting his view, and more and more people's view, of what's going on."

League of Conservation Voters score: 3%

Rep. Doug Lamborn

In 2013, Lamborn questioned climate science at a town hall meeting, saying there are "a lot of contentious facts and claims about global warming and whether it is man-made."

Lamborn says on his website that he supports a "free-market, all-of-the-above approach" to energy policy that supports "new jobs, lower energy prices, and open[ing] up access to responsible energy development on public lands."

He also praised President Trump for withdrawing from the Paris Climate deal and skewered The Green New Deal.

League of Conservation Voters score: 3%

Rep. Scott Tipton

In a 2012 interview, Tipton argued that climate change was natural, saying, "Is there climate change? I live in the shadow of some of the greatest climate change the world has ever seen. It's called the Rocky Mountains. When the glaciers went back."

"I think that we've got a role to play," Tipton said in 2017 when he was asked about humans' role in climate change. "We need to take advantage of new technology...We're all in concert in terms of making sure that it's done right, and the role that we as humans have to play is making sure that we are good stewards."

League of Conservation Voters score: 7%

Florida

Marco Rubio

Sen. Marco Rubio. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Sen. Marco Rubio

"Sure the climate is changing, and one of the reasons is because the climate has always been changing," Rubio said in 2016 during a debate. "There has never been a time when the climate was not changing."

In October 2018, Rubio said on CNN's "State of the Union" that "many scientists would debate the percentage of what is attributable to man versus normal fluctuations."

League of Conservation Voters score: 4%

Rep. Neal Dunn

"I am sure human activity plays some role, but I don't think the science is clear on how much is man-made and how much is natural," Dunn reportedly told a local paper in 2016. "What I do know is that the United States should not follow the path of the global warming alarmists like the Obama administration who wants us to unilaterally handicap... industry with over-burdensome EPA regulations."

League of Conservation Voters score: 1%

Rep. Bill Posey

Posey reportedly challenged other members of Congress during a 2017 hearing on carbon's societal impact, asking, "Can anyone on the panel give me a date certain, even a year certain, that there was absolutely no climate change on this planet since the forming of it?"

League of Conservation Voters score: 5%

Rep. Ted Yoho

Yoho reportedly told a 2017 town hall crowd in Gainesville that he didn't believe humans caused climate change.

In 2014, Yoho told ThinkProgress that he thought climate change was "a natural occurrence." He added, "I think there's an agenda-driven science. I can read stuff that says that the information was skewed. It's not right."

League of Conservation Voters score: 2%

Rep. John Rutherford

"Climate was changing before we had carbon emissions," Rutherford said in 2016 interview with E&E News. "I need to be convinced how much of that is man and how much of it is just the global climate conditions."

League of Conservation Voters score: 4%

Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart

"It's more of a religion... on both sides of the issue," Diaz-Balart reportedly said in a 2017 interview with E&E News when asked about global warming. "I don't play that game, my issue is, 'alright, what is the problem that you're trying to solve?' and 'Does it solve it?'"

League of Conservation Voters score: 11%

Georgia

David Perdue

Sen. David Perdue. AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta

Sen. David Perdue

"The EPA is really overreaching and damaging entire industries," Perdue said in 2014. "We've got to get some common sense back in Washington — in science, there's an active debate going on."

Perdue also reportedly said in 2015 that the "scientific community is not in total agreement about whether mankind has been a contributing factor."

League of Conservation Voters score: 1%

Rep. Rick Allen

Allen simply answered "No" to the 2014 debate question, "Do you believe manmade greenhouse gas emissions are a major source of climate change?"

League of Conservation Voters score: 0%

Rep. Jody Hice

"It is a shame that because a scientist has reached a different conclusion on climate science than the liberal elite that the integrity of her research would be called into question," Hice said in 2015 in response to the House Natural Resources Committee weighing an appearance by a researcher who questioned human activity's role in climate change.

League of Conservation Voters score: 0%

Rep. Johnny Isakson

"I believe the climate does change, but I don't believe climate change is a religion, I think it's science," Isakson said on the Senate floor in 2015. "And there are mixed reviews on that and there's mixed scientific evidence on that."

League of Conservation Voters score: 9%

Rep. Barry Loudermilk

"For several years, the EPA and other government bureaucracies have been pushing out environmental regulations based on new scientific 'discoveries' relating to climate change," a press release from Loudermilk said in 2017. "However, the data on which these 'discoveries' are based have not been made available to the general scientific community for review or fact-checking."

The release continued: "This has brought into question the overall motives of the EPA and other agencies who are demanding more environmental regulations. All regulatory decisions should be based on factual scientific information that is open and available for public viewing."

League of Conservation Voters score: 0%

Rep. Austin Scott

Scott responded "absolutely," to a 2013 question from NPR that asked whether he doubted scientific consensus about man-made climate change.

League of Conservation Voters score: 3%

Idaho

mike simpson crapo

Sen. Mike Crapo and Rep. Mike Simpson. Todd Dvorak/AP

Rep. Mike Simpson

"While scientists cannot explain the climate changes of the past few decades without including the effects of elevated greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations resulting from the use of fossil fuels, there is widespread disagreement as to the magnitude of human influence on the climate and the degree to which any effort by humanity to reduce carbon output would slow or reverse the effects of climate change," an issue statement on Simpson's website says.

League of Conservation Voters score: 8%

Rep. Russ Fulcher

According to The Associated Press, when Fulcher was asked about climate change in an October 2018 debate, he said he "believes 'in the cycle that's happened since the beginning of time," and said wildfires in Idaho and other states are a significant contributor of carbon emissions. "Don't be misled – if you take a look at this over the past thousand years, you'll see a cycle up, a cycle down," he said.

Illinois

Mike Bost

Rep. Mike Bost. Seth Perlman/AP

Rep. Mike Bost

Bost told a radio host who asked in 2014 if he believed in man-made climate change, "I don't. I don't know that I do, no… Some scientists do, some scientists don't."

In a 2016 press release following a supreme court ruling halting President Obama's climate regulations, Bost said, "The President's climate agenda would kill jobs, increase costs, and decrease the reliability of our energy supply.  If the Administration's rule [sic] War on Coal is successful, it will have devastating consequences for families across Southern Illinois – not just for those who work in the industry, but also for low income families who rely upon affordable sources of energy."

League of Conservation Voters score: 3%

Rep. Rodney Davis

"Global warming stopped 16 years ago," Davis said in 2012.

In 2014, however, David appeared to show a change of heart, writing a candidate survey from The News-Gazette, "Climate change is certainly a reality. Many factors, both man-made and natural, contribute to changes in climate. We should all agree that reducing our dependence on foreign oil and cutting air pollution without doing economic harm to our citizens will benefit our national security, environment and public health."

Despite his shift on climate change, Davis continued to advocate for coal-powered energy creation and natural gas extraction via fracking in a 2017 radio interview.

League of Conservation Voters score: 6%

Rep. John Shimkus

"The earth will end only when God declares it is time to be over," Shimkus said in 2009. "Man will not destroy this earth. This earth will not be destroyed by a flood."

Shimkus has since changed his tune, signing on to a March 2019 letter with the House Energy and Commerce Committee that reportedly stated: "prudent steps should be taken to address current and future climate risks."

"It's just not worth the fight anymore," Shimkus told Fortune about his changing stance. "Let's just see what we can do to address it and not hurt the economy."

League of Conservation Voters score: 6%

Rep. Darin LaHood

"The climate is changing and I believe humans play a role in that," LaHood reportedly said at a 2017 town hall. "There is no doubt about that. The question is, at whatever [sic] do they play a role? Is it 51 percent? Is it 35 percent? I am open-minded to listen to people who can give me a different view on that."

League of Conservation Voters score: 0%

Indiana

sen. todd young

Sen. Todd Young. Michael Conroy/AP

Sen. Todd Young

"My mind remains open about various scientific questions and so forth," Young said in a 2014 interview. " We're often told there's a consensus among scientists, and I've come to discover, as the number of scientists I talk to and the number of things I read, that's not necessarily the case."

Young publicly hit back against the Green New Deal, writing on Twitter in March 2019 that its industry regulations would set "unattainable goals that are harmful to Hoosier farmers."

League of Conservation Voters score: 3%

Rep. Jim Banks

"I believe that climate change in this country is largely leftist propaganda to change the way Americans live and create more government obstruction and intrusion in our lives," Banks reportedly said at a 2016 candidate forum.

League of Conservation Voters score: 0%

Rep. Larry Bucshon

Bucshon made headlines in 2014 when he said the science surrounding climate change wasn't settled, and rejected a fellow White House Representatives Committee on Science, Space and Technology member's suggestion to read the scientific literature on the issue because he wouldn't "believe it," and went on to blame scientists for seeking profits from the research.

"Climatologists rely on the climate changing," Bucshon said, "to keep themselves publishing articles."

In a change of stance, Bucshon responded to the 2017 National Climate Assessment, saying that "there is no doubt that mankind plays a part in accelerating the change of climate."

Iowa

Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, attends a hearing on drug prices, Tuesday, Feb. 26, 2019 on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

Sen. Chuck Grassley. Associated Press

Sen. Chuck Grassley

When asked in 2009 if he believes emissions from human activity cause climate change, Grassley said "there's a massive amount of scientists that feel that it does...there's also an increasing number of scientists that have doubt about it."

"Not being a scientist, I don't know exactly where to say only those things that are really quantifiable, and temperature has risen," Grassley said. "But the scientific aspect that I [sic] still reserving judgment on is the extent to which it's manmade or natural."

Most recently, Grassley pushed back against the Green New Deal, calling it "a jumble of halfcocked policies that will dampen economic growth and hurt jobs."

League of Conservation Voters score: 18%

Sen. Joni Ernst

"We know that our climate is changing," Ernst said in a 2018 CNN interview. "Our climate always changes, and we see those ebbs and flows through time."

League of Conservation Voters score: 1%

Rep. Steve King

"Everything that might result from a warmer planet is always bad in (environmentalists') analysis," King said in 2013. "There will be more photosynthesis going on if the Earth gets warmer… And if sea levels go up 4 or 6 inches, I don't know if we'd know that."

King wrote on Twitter in 2015, "If Climate Change were 'settled science' and a 'fact based on data & sound science' protagonists would still be calling it Global Warming."

League of Conservation Voters score: 4%

Kansas

Pat Roberts

Sen. Pat Roberts. AP

Sen. Pat Roberts

In 2010, Roberts reportedly said, "There's no question there's some global warming, but I'm not sure what it means." He continued, "A lot of this is condescending elitism."

The Huffington Post reported that in a 2013 speech that included references to extreme weather across the country, including historic droughts, floods, and Hurricane Sandy, "Roberts, who receives poor ratings from environmental groups, avoided linking the natural disasters to any kind of human-generated climate change, suggesting Mother Nature simply has it in for America."

"I don't know what we've done to Mother Nature, but she sure hasn't been very kind to us," Roberts reportedly said.

The Senate Agriculture Committee chairman reportedly said in January 2019 that he would begin to look at policies addressing climate change to support new progress in agricultural research and technology.

League of Conservation Voters score: 9%

Kentucky

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., joined at left by Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., speaks to reporters in advance of President Donald Trump's State of the Union speech, on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Feb. 5, 2019. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

Sen. Mitch McConnell

"For everybody who thinks it's warming, I can find somebody who thinks it isn't," McConnell said in 2014.

McConnell dismissed discussion over the Green New Deal, saying in February 2019 that he would force a vote on the "silly" proposal.

"It's clear what we have here. It's the far-left's Santa Claus wish list dressed up to look like serious policy," McConnell said. "Bad ideas are nothing new… silly proposals come and go. But the philosophies and the ideas behind this textbook socialism are not just foolish. They're dangerous."

League of Conservation Voters score: 7%

Sen. Rand Paul

Paul questioned the human role in climate change in a 2017 interview with CNN, saying: "I don't think we should be alarmist about this. I mean, the planet is 4.5 billion years old. We have gone through great extremes of climate change, natural and now we may have a man-made influence as well."

League of Conservation Voters score: 8%

Rep. James Comer

"I do not believe in global warming," Comer said in 2015. "I'm the one person whose business and livelihood depends on Mother Nature, so I understand weather patterns. We've had a very severe winter this year with 12-inch snows, so there is no global warming."

Comer also pushed back against the Green New Deal, saying in a statement on his website that the policies would harm farmers, small towns, and mining and rural communities with its policies that he wrote are "rooted in socialism."

League of Conservation Voters score: 3%

Rep. Thomas Massie

"I would challenge [President Obama] to show us the linkage — the undeniable linkage — between droughts and the change of weather, and some kind of human activity," Massie, a graduate of the Massachusetts Institute for Technology, said in 2013.

Massie reportedly said in 2018 that "Climate change may not be due to humans… What is the cause and effect?"

League of Conservation Voters score: 12%

Louisiana

bill cassidy

Sen. Bill Cassidy Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Sen. Bill Cassidy

"Global temperatures have not risen in 15 years," Cassidy said in 2015.

At a 2017 town hall, however, Cassidy appeared to acknowledge that addressing greenhouse gasses was important but argued that investment in natural gas was the appropriate way forward. "If President Trump is successful in having industry move back to the United States, using our natural gas, renewables, and nuclear instead of China's coal, that will dramatically decrease global greenhouse gas emissions," he said.

League of Conservation Voters score: 7%

Rep. Clay Higgins

Under the issue of "coastal erosion" on Higgins' website, he says "Louisiana's coast is eroding… but not because of oil companies." This contradicts prevailing scientific research.

After his district faced a devastating amount of flooding in 2016, Higgins said on PBS that he supported "wise investments" in improving infrastructure, but rejected the suggestion that human activity significantly contributes to the changing climate and necessitates regulation.

"I certainly do not disagree with the fact that climate change happens, but I do think that it's reasonable to question very carefully the science that has used models which have sometimes come under fire for being fraudulently manipulated in order to produce a result," Higgins said. "The very concept that we can fix climate change with some sort of tax is something I take seriously in having a debate about."

League of Conservation Voters score: 0%

Rep. Steve Scalise

Scalise railed against Democrats' efforts at climate change policy in a 2014 interview, saying the focus is an "effort to prop up wave after wave of job-killing regulations that are leading to skyrocketing food and energy costs."

Scalise also championed Trump's withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord in 2017, railing against the UN climate agency and praising the president for what he described as putting "American workers" first.

League of Conservation Voters score: 3%

Maryland

andy harris

Rep. Andy Harris. Cliff Owen, File via AP

Rep. Andy Harris

"I believe the actual science is uncertain," Harris told The Star Democrat in 2013.

He later reportedly expressed further doubt about the connection between human activity and climate change at a 2017 town hall.

The Baltimore Sun reported in 2018 that Harris wrote to a constituent about the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, saying that "there are many different projections for the pace of climate change."

League of Conservation Voters score: 3%

Michigan

Rep. Fred Upton

Rep. Justin Amash

"I think humans do and can impact the climate," Amash reportedly said at a 2017 town hall meeting. "The question then is to what extent and what do we do about it?"

Rep. Bill Huizenga

"Today's global warming doomsayers simply lack the scientific evidence to support their claims," Huizenga said in 2010. "A host of leaders in the scientific community have recognized that the argument for drastic anthropogenic global warming is no longer based on science, but is being driven by irrational fanaticism."

A Michigan resident wrote in a 2017 article that she had received a letter from the representative in which he questioned "the extent to which reducing American emissions would impact climate change."

Huizenga has also voted against carbon taxes and methane pollution regulation as recently as 2017.

League of Conservation Voters score: 4%

Rep. John Moolenaar

"I believe in sound science, in good science," Moolenaar said at a 2017 town hall before pushing back against EPA-backed research and policies. "I believe the federal government has an important role in funding good science. I also have seen how, sometimes, agencies like the EPA get off track in their mission and pursue... I believe science, science moves forward... when people challenge a theory."

League of Conservation Voters score: 4%

Rep. Fred Upton

"We've experienced climate change for a long time, highs and lows," Upton said in 2014 when asked if he thinks climate change is a problem. "We had the coldest winter ever last winter. There was a report out that the Great Lakes are six degrees below what they were a year ago. I don't know that climate scientists can really predict where we're headed."

In February 2019, Upton co-authored an op-ed that championed lower emissions within the US and policies that "focus on American prosperity and technological capabilities while maintaining America's leadership in clean and renewable energy innovation."  The article also pushed against the Green New Deal, saying "Americans deserve better."

Upton joined the bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus in January 2018, where he said in a statement he was excited to "Pursuing an 'all-of-the-above' energy strategy that protects our environment, preserves our Great Lakes, and ensures energy stays affordable for Michigan families has always been a focus."

League of Conservation Voters score: 26%

Rep. Tim Walberg

"I believe there's been climate change since the beginning of time," Walberg reportedly said at a 2017 town hall. "Do I think man has some impact? Yeah, of course. Can man change the entire universe? No...Why do I believe that? Well, as a Christian, I believe that there is a creator in God who is much bigger than us. And I'm confident that, if there's a real problem, he can take care of it."

League of Conservation Voters score: 3%

Minnesota

Tom Emmer Minnesota

Rep. Tom Emmer. Stephen Maturen/Getty Images

Rep. Tom Emmer

"Radical activists are trying to convince us that everyday nutrients are causing cancer, that cows are causing 'global warming,' and that hogs are getting people sick. Logical people know otherwise," Emmer said on his 2010 campaign website, according to The Grist.

Emmer later praised President Donald Trump's 2017 repeal of the Clean Power Plan, which he called one of the "Obama Administration's harmful environmental regulations" that threatened American jobs.

League of Conservation Voters score: 1%

Rep. Collin Peterson (D)

Collin Peterson is notably the only Democrat (DLF in Minnesota) to appear on this list.

Politico reported in January 2019 that though House Agriculture Committee Chairman Peterson was feeling "some" pressure to pursue action on climate policy, but said climate change policy poses a threat to agricultural workers and he believes that activists "would like us to quit farming."

In 2009 he explained away global warming, saying, "We've just had the biggest floods and coldest winters we've ever had. They're saying to us [that climate change is] going to be a big problem because it's going to be warmer than it usually is; my farmers are going to say that's a good thing since they'll be able to grow more corn."

League of Conservation Voters score: 31%

Mississippi

Roger Wicker Mississippi

Sen. Roger Wicker. Manuel Balce Ceneta, File via AP

Sen. Roger Wicker

Wicker expressed doubt about established climate science in December 2018 statements according to E&E News, pointing to ongoing protests in France over fuel taxes as "instructive" to those pushing for further environmental regulations.

"I'm just saying I think a lot of Americans may give lip service to doing something because it's been hammered into their heads that there is, in fact, something that can be done to reverse temperature rises," Wicker reportedly said. "But when it's translated into reality and you can't drive your car because gas is $7 a gallon, I think the general public in most of the western democracies is going to rise up and revolt."

In 2015, Wicker was the only person who voted "no" on a bill reading "climate change is real and not a hoax."

League of Conservation Voters score: 5%

Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith

Hyde-Smith has not specifically denied climate science but she has dodged questions asking whether or not she believes in it.

During a November 2018 trip to a plant that produces materials like wood pellets, whose ability to provide carbon-neutral power is still contested, she avoided answering questions about climate change and alternative energy sources aside from saying alternatives are "very important."

League of Conservation Voters score: 8%

Missouri

roy blunt

Sen. Roy Blunt. AP Photo/Molly Riley

Sen. Roy Blunt  

"There isn't any real science to say we are altering the climate path of the earth," Blunt said in 2009.

In 2015, Blunt introduced an amendment to the Senate that sought to nullify a previous climate change agreement between the United States and China to reduce carbon emissions.

In a 2017 statement, Blunt praised President Donald Trump's decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate agreement.

League of Conservation Voters score: 5%

Rep. Vicky Hartzler

"Enjoying another beautiful global warming day in Missouri! Rep. Skelton and the UN Summit need to quit their dist. of wealth for a hoax," Hartzler wrote on Twitter in 2009.

During a November 2014 cold snap, Hartzler tweeted "Global Warming strikes America! Brrr!"

League of Conservation Voters score: 2%

Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer

"For far too long, American tax dollars have been sent to the United Nations to produce controversial science and feel-good conferences," Luetkemeyer wrote in 2015 in a statement on his website about a policy designed to block former President Obama's pledge to of $3 billion to the United Nations' Green Climate Fund. "I hope my legislation makes it to the floor quickly to ensure that no future taxpayer dollars are spent to advance the United Nations' global warming agenda."

League of Conservation Voters score: 3%

Rep. Jason Smith

"The EPA uses the Air, Climate and Energy [ACE] program to advance research and regulations that are geared toward a climate change agenda," Smith said in 2016.

Smith mocked the science in a March 2019 tweet, writing alongside a photo of cows that "radicals in Washington with their Green New Deal think" that gas from cows causes climate change.

League of Conservation Voters score: 1%

Rep. Ann Wagner

"The field of climate science is in its relative infancy and it appears that some within the public policy world have made dubious assessments of scientific information in order to further their own political agenda," Wagner said in 2013. "Our policy response to this dilemma should not be based on inconsistent and unsound science or driven by the fear of a supposed catastrophe."

League of Conservation Voters score: 2%

Montana

steve daines

Sen. Steve Daines

"I think there's still reasonable debate here… I think the jury's still out, in my opinion," Daines said in a 2012 radio interview. "I've seen some very good data that says there are other contributing factors. We're certainly looking at the effect the sun has — the solar cycles — versus CO2 and greenhouse gases. I'm not convinced. I'm a skeptic on both sides."

In a 2014 radio interview with the same station, Daines repeated himself, saying there is "significant debate here" and the "jury is still out" on the effects of phenomena like sun spots, solar cycles, and greenhouse gases.

In a 2017 NBC interview, Daines supported withdrawing from the Paris Climate deal, saying, "Well, withdrawing from this unenforceable agreement is good news for Montanans. It would've raised utility rates for hardworking Montana families and cost Montana jobs. We all want clean water. We all want clean air, but this deal was a bad deal."

League of Conservation Voters score: 4%

Nebraska

Rep. Don Bacon

Rep. Don Bacon. Nati Harnik/AP

Sen. Deb Fischer

A spokesman for the representative reportedly said in 2015 that Fischer, while she was a member of the Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee, which oversees the Environmental Protection Agency, "acknowledges that climate change is happening — it always has been and it always will be."

However, in 2018, Fischer reportedly said the climate was changing and she would pursue policies to protect Nebraskans from its effects, including higher energy costs.

League of Conservation Voters score: 5%

Rep. Don Bacon

"In regards to climate change, there is no doubt temperatures are changing," Bacon wrote on Twitter in April 2018. "We need to further study how much humans are responsible as opposed to natural causes, and from there take measures to protect our earth for future generations."

League of Conservation Voters score: 6%

Rep. Adrian Smith

"Unfortunately, the Obama administration has issued unilateral climate change regulations that threaten economic growth," Smith said in 2016. "Earlier this year, I voted to block these very climate change regulations, and will continue to oppose efforts to force Nebraskans to suffer higher energy costs for negligible results."

According to The Center for American Progress,  Smith once told the Nebraska Citizen in 2005 that he didn't believe in global warming, saying the "facts" were in dispute.

League of Conservation Voters score: 4%

Nevada

mark amodei

Mark Amodei speaks at a victory party in Reno, Sept. 13, 2011, after defeating Democrat Kate Marshall in a special election for Nevada's 2nd Congressional District. Cathleen Allison/AP

Rep. Mark Amodei

"I do not believe it is appropriate for the federal government to advocate one position over another in discussions of climate change," a section labeled "Environment" reads on Amodei's website. "I do think that we should promote unbiased scientific research funded by both the government and the private sector to help answer climate change questions and bring effective solutions to any human causes."

League of Conservation Voters score: 5%

New York

Lee Zeldin New York

Rep. Lee Zeldin. Jacquelyn Martin, File via AP

Rep. Lee Zeldin

"It would be productive if we could get to what is real and what is not real," Zeldin said in 2014. "I'm not sold yet on the whole argument that we have as serious a problem as other people are."

Zeldin, who opposed the Clean Power Plan, has since taken steps to change his tune, joining the bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus after his 2015 election upon the request of a member of the Citizens' Climate Lobby.

League of Conservation Voters score: 10%

North Carolina

In this March 6, 2019, photo, Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., questions U.S. Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Kevin McAleenan during a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee on oversight of Customs and Border Protection's response to the smuggling of persons at the southern border in Washington. Republicans from the White House to Congress to North Carolina are watching whether Tillis stands with Trump. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

Sen. Thom Tillis. Associated Press

Sen. Thom Tillis

Tillis reportedly voted against a 2015 proposal that declared changing global temperatures were a result of human activity.

"I think we have to come up with several strategies to recognize reality," Tillis said in a 2018 interview. "That climate changes. Sometimes it changes just because it has over millennia, and other times it changes because of human factors."

League of Conservation Voters score: 7%

Rep. Ted Budd

Budd told the Greensboro News & Record in 2016 that "he does not see 'clear evidence' that man contributes to climate change."

League of Conservation Voters score: 1%

Rep. Virginia Foxx

According to the Center for Public Integrity, Rep. Virginia Foxx bemoaned during a 2011 floor debate that environmentalists "we, human beings, have more impact on the climate and the world than God does." She also reportedly referenced books by climate change skeptics.

When contacted for comment, Foxx's team provided a statement that in part condemned "overly prescriptive federal regulations or extreme proposals like the Green New Deal."

"While human activity, including greenhouse gases, obviously has an impact on the environment, feedbacks in the Earth system create large uncertainties with respect to climate projections," Foxx said in a statement. "That said, government decisions about how to best respond must be made in the appropriate context of new technologies, distributional effects, and economics."

League of Conservation Voters score: 3%

Rep. Mark Meadows

At the 2014 Values Voters Summit, Meadows said, "How ridiculous is [sic] that when you have our fighting men and women, they get up and they say, 'man, it's a little chilly, maybe today is the day that we've got to worry about climate change.' It's just ridiculous."

In a slight movement from his previous denial of climate science, Meadows told reporters in March 2019 that "there are some things I'm willing to look at," related to climate change. Though he didn't fully back climate science, he reportedly said, "I think that greenhouse gas emissions is certainly something that we need to look at."

League of Conservation Voters score: 1%

Rep. David Rouzer

"You have some scientists saying it is significantly influenced by mankind," Rouzer told constituents at a March 2017 town hall. "You have some scientists say it is not influenced by mankind. Both are statements of fact."

Rouzer, who represents several coastal areas and is in the crosshairs of environmental groups petitioning him to support the Green New Deal, doubled down on his hesitance, saying the "scientific community is split on climate science."

"From a public policy perspective, when you're dealing with property values, tax bases, people's lives, public policy should be based on sound science," Rouzer said. "Not the opinion of this group of scientists or that group of scientists. It needs to be real concrete science where you absolutely know for certain. The scientific community is split on climate science."

League of Conservation Voters score: 1%

Rep. Mark Walker

"Much of the 'so-called' science of climate change is contested, though it's made a few politicians quite wealthy," Walker's website said in 2015.

The next line remains on the site: "I believe that God provided the earth to us and we have a responsibility to conserve and respect the environment."

In February, Walker posted a video to his Twitter comparing the Green New Deal to Fyre Festival.

League of Conservation Voters score: 0%

North Dakota

sen. kevin cramer

Sen. Kevin Cramer. Andrew Harnik, File via AP

Sen. Kevin Cramer

In a 2013 recording reportedly obtained by Hill Heat, Cramer can be heard saying "These mandates and these wind farms are all based on this fraudulent science from the EPA, meaning their claim that CO2 is a pollutant and is causing global warming… So the idea that CO2 is somehow causing global warming is on its face fraudulent."

"There's a broad swath of belief, anywhere from climate change is fake to worshipping climate change, and most Americans are somewhere in that broad middle. For me, it doesn't even matter," Cramer said in a 2017 CSPAN interview.

That same year, Cramer wrote an op-ed discouraging Trump from leaving the Paris climate agreement. After Trump's repeal of the agreement, Cramer issued a statement supporting Trump's decision.

League of Conservation Voters score: 1%

Sen. John Hoeven

Hoeven voted against his own 2015 amendment in the Senate that stated human-caused climate change is real but the Keystone XL pipeline would not have a significant impact on emissions. It failed by one vote.

"Well, the science shows that there's warming," Hoeven previously said in 2010. "There's different opinions of exactly what's causing it."

In a 2017 statement, Hoeven supported the withdrawal from the Paris Climate agreement.

League of Conservation Voters score: 8%

Ohio

Rob Portman

Sen. Rob Portman. Jay LaPrete/AP

Sen. Rob Portman

In 2010, Portman told The Columbus Dispatch that he wasn't sure how much climate change was attributable to human-caused factors, saying "When you analyze all the data, there is a warming trend according to science. But the jury is out on the degree of how much is manmade."

Recently, however, he has indicated that he believes that climate change is partly attributable to humans and worth acting on.

The Sandusky Register reported in 2018 that Portman believes the Earth is warming and that it is partly due to humans. He has become a Republican advocate for a certain amount of action on climate change.

"I'm willing to err on the side of saying that human involvement is part of it," Portman said. "I believe we know enough to know we have to do something. I believe there are some sensible things we can do that don't have a big negative economic impact."

League of Conservation Voters score: 19%

Rep. Steve Chabot

"Despite claims to the contrary, the evidence concerning man-made climate change is far from conclusive," Chabot said in 2014. "However, what is conclusive is the damage some of the more extreme proposals intended to address climate change, like cap-and-trade, will have on our economy."

In January 2019, Chabot dug into The Green New Deal on his blog, calling it "radical" and "reckless."

League of Conservation Voters score: 12%

Rep. Bob Gibbs

The Kenyon Collegian reported that Gibbs said during a 2017 public meeting that "he did not believe there is a scientific consensus on whether or not humans affect the climate, which caused an uproar among the attendees."

League of Conservation Voters score: 3%

Rep. Bill Johnson

Johnson hit back at an article entitled "MSNBC's Chuck Todd Keeps 'Climate Deniers' Off His Hourlong Global Warming Special," in January 2019, writing on Facebook that the "issue here isn't so-called 'climate change,' but what happens the next time there is an issue Chuck Todd or other members of the media don't want to debate?"

"Today, it's this, but tomorrow it could be the 2nd Amendment or immigration," Johnson continued. "Not giving the other side a say and refusing to hear opinions contrary to your own — that's being a real 'denier', and, it creates a chilling effect on public debate and free speech."

League of Conservation Voters score: 3%

Rep. Warren Davidson

Davidson set off concerns when he expressed doubt about the threat of climate change at an April 2017 town hall, noting "I'm not saying it's a total falsity and I'm not saying it's a certainty."

Oklahoma

Sen. James Inhofe

Screenshot/C-SPAN

Sen. Jim Inhofe

Inhofe, who penned "The Greatest Hoax" about climate change famously brought a snowball onto the floor in February 2015 as a bid to disprove climate change.

He later doubled down on his views in October 2018, pointing to "scriptural evidence" about the changing climate.

"First of all, we've never argued, the climate has always been changing," he told the Stillwater News Press. "All evidence is there. We're talking about scriptural evidence, we're talking about scientific evidence … You can't argue with climate change because it's always been changing."

League of Conservation Voters score: 5%

Sen. James Lankford

Lankford reportedly railed against climate change science as a "myth" in a 2010 debate.

"This whole global warming myth will be exposed as what it really is — a way of control more than anything else," Lankford said, according to the Edmond Sun. "And that generation will be ticked."

League of Conservation Voters score: 5%

Rep. Kevin Hern

The New York Times characterized Hern in a January 2019 reports as "the aerospace engineer elected in Oklahoma, [who] has questioned whether human activity is the primary cause of climate change."

League of Conservation Voters score: 0%

Pennsylvania

Pat Toomey

Sen. Pat Toomey. AP Photo/Jared Wickerham

Sen. Patrick Toomey

"My view is: I think the data is pretty clear," Toomey said in 2010 radio interview. "There has been an increase in the surface temperature of the planet over the course of the last 100 years or so. I think it's clear that that has happened. The extent to which that has been caused by human activity I think is not as clear. I think that is still very much disputed and has been debated."

Toomey was a vocal supporter of the 2017 withdrawal from the Paris Accord, saying in a statement through a spokesperson that it "would not have protected our environment and would have been particularly harmful to our economy and job creation."

League of Conservation Voters score: 5%

Rep. Scott Perry

"The climate's changing, without a doubt," Perry told PennLive in October 2018. "I think we contribute to it. I don't know exactly how, and that becomes the rub." The article added that Perry "went on to cite research that suggest [sic] global surface temperature data often used to corroborate climate change over time has been 'adjusted' to make the planet appear cooler in the past."

League of Conservation Voters score: 2%

Rep. Glenn Thompson

Thompson reportedly said at a 2017 town hall that he thought humans contributed to climate change, but added: "the amount that it contributes versus, compared to the natural evolving climate changes and perhaps are based on sunspot activity."

League of Conservation Voters score: 5%

South Carolina

Rep. Jeff Duncan

Rep. Jeff Duncan. Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP

Rep. Jeff Duncan

Duncan publicly rebuked a recommendation in the October 2018 International Governmental Panel on Climate Change report from the United Nations that urged world leaders to curb human-caused climate warming.

"The climate alarmists continue to move the goalposts when their politically motivated projections do not come true," Duncan said of the report's projections for the climate's disastrous future if human activity didn't change. "What was predicted decades ago has yet to take place. We all know that global temperatures have changed throughout the generations, but we must not look to activist climate organizations to push a false agenda in an effort to upend parts of our economy."

League of Conservation Voters score: 3%

Rep. Joe Wilson

In 2012, Wilson answered "no" to a Vote Smart survey question asking whether or not respondents believed that "human activity is contributing to climate change."

Wilson shared an article from The Daily Caller entitled "300 Scientists Want NOAA to Stop Hiding Its Global Warming Data" on Twitter in 2016, writing it was an "Interesting article about the 'facts' concerning climate change."

League of Conservation Voters score: 2%

Tennessee

Marsha Blackburn Tennessee

Sen. Marsha Blackburn. Mark Humphrey/AP

Sen. Marsha Blackburn

"Of course you can be a believer in clean air and clean water and realize that when you work at global warming or climate change, as it is now popularly called, that it is cyclical and you have to look at it in terms of centuries, not in terms of decades," Blackburn said in a 2016 debate on CNN. "And the science around that is not a settled science."

League of Conservation Voters score: 2%

Rep. Chuck Fleischmann

"I think we ought to take Al Gore, put him on an iceberg, and put him way out there," Fleischmann said during a 2012 candidate debate after he was asked about his views on climate change.

When reached by INSIDER for comment, Fleischmann said in a statement that "while I understand atmospheric conditions have changed, we have the responsibility to protect our environment without adopting fiscally irresponsible policies that will unnecessarily drive up energy costs for our citizens or jeopardize economic growth."

League of Conservation Voters score: 3%

Rep. Phil Roe

"Many believe greenhouse gas emissions are contributing to the gradual warming of our planet and changing of our climate," Roe said in 2011. "While there are many questions surrounding the science of the issue, it seems to me like we could develop a solution that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions without inflicting catastrophic damage on our economy."

In a statement currently displayed on his website, Roe advocates for expanded drilling for oil on American lands, development of natural gas, and advances in coal-mining technology, all of which go against recommendations from federal agencies for developing clean, renewable energy.

When reached by INSIDER for comment, Roe said in a statement that he believes "there are a number of commonsense changes we should pursue instead that can reduce greenhouse gas emissions without inflicting catastrophic damage on our economy. I support pursuing an all-of-the-above energy policy including sources like wind, solar, geothermal, nuclear and hydro."

League of Conservation Voters score: 2%

Texas

Ted Cruz

Sen. Ted Cruz. Andrew Harnik/AP

Sen. John Cornyn

In 2009, Cornyn publicly called for an investigation into NASA's research on global warming, writing in a letter of support, "Taxpayer funded research by NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) concerning the warmest years on record has been the subject of dispute and after challenges, has been changed and re-released… As we consider policies on climate change which will impact our quality of life and economy for decades to come, we must have confidence in the data used to make these determinations."

The Dallas Morning News reported in 2014 that Cornyn admitted that the climate is changing and that it is due in part to human activity, but he is "not willing to put the federal government in charge of trying to micromanage the environment for the United States of America ... by putting restrictions in place that other nations are not."

In a 2019 floor debate about The Green New Deal, Cornyn called the policy a "power grab." When asked by Democratic leader Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York if he believed in climate change, Cornyn responded, "I know what their talking points are now, but I don't believe that what we ought to do about the environment is impose a travesty like the Green New Deal."

League of Conservation Voters score: 5%

Sen. Ted Cruz

In a 2014 interview with CNN, Cruz directly challenged the idea of global warming, saying, "The last 15 years, there has been no recorded warming. Contrary to all the theories that they are expounding, there should have been warming over the last 15 years. It hasn't happened."

"The climate has been changing from the dawn of time," Cruz said during an October 2018 debate. "The climate will change as long as we have a planet Earth."

League of Conservation Voters score: 4%

Rep. Jodey Arrington

The Abilene Reporter-News reported in 2016 that "Global warming has become a political thunderstorm. Mr. Arrington said the facts fall both ways, so he's not yet convinced."

In a 2019 interview with Fox34, Arrington compared the Green New Deal to the policies of Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, suggesting that it could lead to people "starving to death."

League of Conservation Voters score: 0%

Rep. Kevin Brady

In 2014, Brady posted an article to his Facebook page from The Daily Caller that said data from NASA showed a "pause" in global climate warming in the past 10 to 15 years. Brady wrote above the article that he wondered "if proponents of 'climate change' consider a NASA climatologist worth listening to."

League of Conservation Voters score: 3%

Rep. John Carter

"We may or may not even be in a warming cycle," Carter wrote in a statement on an un-dated page currently on his website. "Even if we are, scientific evidence does not conclude that activity by man plays any significant role."

League of Conservation Voters score: 4%

Rep. Lance Gooden

"I don't deny the conclusions of the scientific community, but I take issue with those who claim to have all the answers," Gooden said in his answers for a 2017 voter guide from the Dallas Morning News. "Climate science is imprecise and so are the consequences of any legislative action we take to address the issue. We can never be so arrogant to believe we can predict with certainty the impacts that will follow specific regulations about emissions, not only for the environment but also for our economy."

League of Conservation Voters score: N/A, Gooden took office in January 2019

Rep. Dan Crenshaw

"We need to have a well-reasoned discussion and debate about what is causing climate change," Crenshaw said in a June 2018 Facebook Live feed. "We can't start off the conversation saying the climate is settled. The right way to have this conversation is to actually listen to what the science says on both sides."

"It's clear climate change is occurring and that man-made emissions play a part in that," Crenshaw said in a statement when reached by INSIDER for comment. "What isn't clear is how our actions will serve to reverse that warming trend, and what the cost-benefit outcome would be. Regardless, we should continue pursuing new green energy solutions that lessen our impact on the environment and create cleaner air and water."

League of Conservation Voters score: N/A, Crenshaw took office in January 2019

Rep. Louie Gohmert

"It seems like when you hear somebody say over and over again that climate change is our biggest problem, they don't know that climate has been changing a lot worse over all the millennia of mankind," Gohmert said in a 2016 Breitbart News Daily Radio clip before claiming warm temperatures in Greenland during the Viking Age prove climate change is a myth.

At a February 2019 House Natural Resources panel, Gohmert disputed discussions around climate change as a whole and motioned to adjourn the meeting before the session began. The motion was passed by four other Republicans and condemned by Democratic Rep. TJ Cox of California, who called the motion an example of "systematic denial" displayed by Republicans.

:{:{}:

}:

League of Conservation Voters score: 4%

Rep. Michael McCaul

In a 2018 speech, McCaul said climate change had "gotten completely politicized," and "the question is, are we going through a normal Earth cycle or is it — how much of this is man-made?"

League of Conservation Voters score: 5%

Rep. Pete Olson

In a June 2017 statement responding to the United States' withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement, Olson said: "I have long said that while I support clean air and clean water, any actions on climate change by the US need to be weighed against the science, the impact our reductions will have on a global scale and the economic impacts they will have here at home."

League of Conservation Voters score: 1%

Rep. John Ratcliffe

"I do not support congressional action to reduce the output of greenhouse gasses. Many constituents of mine are surprised to know that greenhouse gas emissions in the United States are at two-decade lows," Ratcliffe said, pointing to natural gas as a possible solution energy policy in a 2018 candidate survey.

League of Conservation Voters score: 0%

Rep. Mac Thornberry

"We need to be careful of what we say in the name of climate change," Thornberry said in 2016, according to the Hereford Brand. "It has become untethered from what the science really proves so far."

Thornberry had previously questioned climate science in a 2011 USA Today op-ed.

League of Conservation Voters score: 2%

Rep. Randy Weber

Weber said at a November 2017 hearing for the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology that "the future is bright for geoengineering," but did not acknowledge existing recommendations for science to combat rising global temperatures, and instead touted "placement of mirrors in space" and "brightening the clouds overhead" that "could have a cooling effect on our lower atmosphere."

League of Conservation Voters score: 2%

Utah

Mike Lee

Sen. Mike Lee. Andrew Harnik, Pool/Getty Images

Sen. Mike Lee

"There can be no dispute that the climate is changing," Lee said at a candidate debate in 2016. "Climates change. It's what they do. They always have, and they always will."

In an argument with a reporter on Twitter over his past comments on climate change, Lee wrote, "'Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities' ? human activities are primary drivers of trends."

:{:{}:

}:

League of Conservation Voters score: 8%

Rep. Rob Bishop

Bishop made headlines in March 2019 when he said the Green New Deal is "tantamount to genocide" for rural and Western communities.

The House Natural Resources ranking member railed against the committee's focus on climate change in a fiery letter the same month, according to Politico.

"The important question facing the Committee is not whether we are all going to die in 12 years if we continue to eat hamburgers. We won't," Bishop wrote. "We should be pursuing practical ways — within our jurisdiction — to reduce pollution and promise a healthier environment without decimating American families' checkbooks."

League of Conservation Voters score: 2%

Rep. Chris Stewart

Stewart wrote in a 2013 op-ed that "the science regarding climate change is anything but settled."

The Washington Post's Fact Checker blog gave Stewart "Four Pinocchios" for  "cherry-picking one survey" in an attempt to discredit the overwhelming consensus among climate science experts on human activity causing global warming.

In praising Trump's 2017 withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement, which he reportedly called "a feel-good measure that will have nearly zero benefit," Stewart said the measure would only reduce global temperature rise "by a mere .07 degree Fahrenheit" and cost $154 billion to the US economy per year and a trillion dollars globally."

League of Conservation Voters score: 2%

Virginia

morgan griffith

Rep. Morgan Griffith. Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call

Rep. Morgan Griffith

Griffith has previously pointed to a purported "global cooling" phenomenon and most recently shrugged off US policy to address climate change, saying it would be useless because of massive amounts of pollution from industrial activity elsewhere in the world.

"What's happening is they're spewing all that into the atmosphere in Asia and other parts of the world that are still using coal and then what happens is that it floats through the atmosphere, we all share the same atmosphere," Griffith said in 2017. "So if you only look at the United States, if you take that position that we're just going to fix the US, we're not going to fix the rest of the world by doing that."

League of Conservation Voters score: 5%

Rep. Rob Wittman

"As a scientist myself, I recognize that the earth's climate is changing," Wittman said in 2013. "[But] cycles of heating and cooling have been going on well before man appeared on Earth."

Despite repeated denials of human activity's role in climate change, Wittman acknowledged that something must be done about the consequences of climate change, like rising water levels and flooding, in 2017, saying that "what we have to do, is we have to look at adaptation... regardless of the causation behind it, we've got to look at what we do to adapt."

League of Conservation Voters score: 11%

Washington

Cathy McMorris Rodgers Washington

House Conference Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers.

Spokane's Spokesman-Review reported in July 2018 that "McMorris Rodgers said she believes human activity is 'partially' responsible for global warming."

When reached by INSIDER for comment on her current stance, McMorris said "Clearly, the climate is changing, and global industrial activity is a contributing factor. Humans must play a role in reducing carbon emissions and being good stewards of our natural resources."

League of Conservation Voters score: 3%

West Virginia

shelley moore capito

Sen. Shelley Moore Capito. Jeff Swensen/Getty Images

Sen. Shelley Moore Capito

"I don't necessarily think the climate's changing, no," Capito said when asked about the role of human activity in a 2014 candidate debate.

Capito was later a vocal supporter of Trump's 2017 executive order on rolling back the Obama-era Clean Power Plan, defending West Virginia's coal industry and affordable energy.

League of Conservation Voters score: 17%

Rep. David McKinley

"I think only 4 percent of the CO2 emissions are anthropogenic," McKinley said on an energy panel in 2016. "Ninety-six percent is naturally occurring."

League of Conservation Voters score: 6%

Rep. Alex Mooney

According to a local report of a 2014 candidate debate, Mooney "said the debate about man-made climate change belongs in the 'climate change community' but that debate is not resolved."

Mooney was also a vocal critic of the Paris Climate Agreement, taking issue with its potential effects on the state's massive coal industry.

League of Conservation Voters score: 1%

Wisconsin

Ron Johnson

Ron Johnson. Alex Wong/Getty Images

Sen. Ron Johnson

"The climate hasn't warmed in quite a few years," Johnson said on a radio show in 2016, despite record-setting temperatures that were documented in the two years prior. "That is proven scientifically."

League of Conservation Voters score: 3%

Rep. Sean Duffy --> AG?

"While the president was touting his global warming campaign this winter, Wisconsinites were experiencing record low temperatures coupled with record high heating costs — often up to four times their normal bill with no guarantee of supplies," Duffy wrote in a 2014 press release.

Duffy was a vocal opponent to the Democrat-backed Green New Deal, saying in a March 2019 meeting that the policies are "elitist" and would hurt low-income and homeless people.

"The Green New Deal is one that if you are a rich liberal from maybe New York or California," he said, "it sounds great because you can afford to retrofit your home or build a new home that has zero emissions, that is energy-efficient, affordable, and safe."

League of Conservation Voters score: 2%

Rep. Mike Gallagher

"I believe we should be good stewards of the earth that God has given us and also be sensible and realistic about the ways in which we do that," Gallagher said in 2016. "Historically we know of two other periods of global warming, from 400BC to the time of Christ and from 1000 to 1400AD."

League of Conservation Voters score: 1%

Rep. Glenn Grothman

"I don't think the global temperatures have gone up very much over the last dozen or so years; I think if you look over a period of history, there are cold years and warm years and cold decades and warm decades and cold centuries and warm centuries," Grothman said at a 2017 town hall. "It seems to me that whenever something bad happens, they blame climate change. I do think, over time, we have droughts, all kinds of good things, bad things. I don't think we have enough information to spend billions or trillions of dollars."

League of Conservation Voters score: 1%

Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner

"I think there is a man-made impact on climate change; there is a scientific consensus that is the case, but there is no scientific consensus on how much human action impacts the climate," Sensenbrenner said at a 2017 town hall.

League of Conservation Voters score: 25%

Wyoming

richard shelby

Sen. John Barrasso

"The climate is constantly changing," Barrasso said in 2014. "The role human activity plays is not known."

In a December 2018 op-ed for the New York Times, Barrasso wrote that humans have a "responsibility to do something about" climate change, but dismissed taxes and global agreements, adding energy innovation was important but that the United States will continue to rely on fossil fuels and coal.

League of Conservation Voters score: 8%

Sen. Mike Enzi

"I barely made it back here because of a May snowstorm in Wyoming," Enzi said in response to the 2014 White House climate assessment. "They got 18 inches in Cheyenne. It's a little hard to convince Wyoming people there's global warming. We have 186% of normal snow pack. That's global warming?"

Enzi later dismissed a federal climate assessment report in November 2018 that said the country should expect more catastrophic weather events if lawmakers don't act to address climate change as a "piece of work," but said he was open to working for innovation in clean energy.

"I'm for as clean of energy as we can get," he told Wyoming Public Media. "I'm a believer in innovation. I think that we're doing that. And that will solve things if we get cooperation with it, and it will keep the economy going."

League of Conservation Voters score: 5%

Rep. Liz Cheney

"[The federal government's] assertions about climate change are based on junk science, Cheney said in 2016. "But even if you agree with what they are saying, the administration itself admits that the steps it's taking to kill our coal industry will have little or no impact overall on global temperatures."

League of Conservation Voters score: 0%

SEE ALSO: Rising emissions could one day trigger a tipping point that causes certain clouds to disappear, creating a 'hothouse' Earth scenario

DON'T MISS: Here are all the former members of Congress who went straight from government to high-powered lobbying firms this year

More: Congress Climate Change Republicans Environment

---

2014

Of the freshmen Republicans — marked in boldface below — 36 of 85 in the House and 11 of 13 in the Senate have publicly questioned the science. There are no freshmen Republicans, in the House or Senate, who publicly accept the scientific consensus that greenhouse pollution is an immediate threat.

Nearly all the rest of the Republicans in the 112th Caucus either signed the “No Climate Tax” pledge from the climate-denier Koch Industries front group Americans For Prosperity, the “No Cap-And-Tax” Tea Party pledge, or co-sponsored a resolution to overturn the EPA’s scientific finding that greenhouse pollution threatens the American public’s health and welfare.

SENATE

Kelly Ayotte (R-NH)John Barrasso (R-WY)Roy Blunt (R-MO)John Boozman (R-AR)Scott Brown (R-MA)Dan Coats (R-IN)Tom Coburn (R-OK)Bob Corker (R-TN)John Cornyn (R-TX)Mike Crapo (R-ID)Jim DeMint (R-SC)John Ensign (R-NV)Mike Enzi (R-WY)Chuck Grassley (R-IA)Orrin Hatch (R-UT)John Hoeven (R-ND)Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX)Jim Inhofe (R-OK)Johnny Isakson (R-GA)Mike Johanns (R-NE)Ron Johnson (R-WI)John McCain (R-AZ)Mitch McConnell (R-KY)Jerry Moran (R-KS)Rand Paul (R-KY)Rob Portman (R-OH)Jim Risch (R-ID)Pat Roberts (R-KS)Marco Rubio (R-FL)Jeff Sessions (R-AL)Richard Shelby (R-AL)John Thune (R-SD)Pat Toomey (R-PA)David Vitter (R-LA)Roger Wicker (R-MS)

HOUSE

Robert Aderholt (R-AL)Todd Akin (R-MO)Rodney Alexander (R-LA)Michele Bachmann (R-MN)Spencer Bachus (R-AL)Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD)Joe Barton (R-TX)Charlie Bass (R-NH)Judy Biggert (R-IL)Brian Bilbray (R-CA)Rob Bishop (R-UT)Diane Black (R-TN)Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)John Boehner (R-OH)Kevin Brady (R-TX)Mo Brooks (R-AL)Paul Broun (R-GA)Larry Bucshon (R-IN)Michael Burgess (R-TX)Dan Burton (R-IN)Ken Calvert (R-CA)Dave Camp (R-MI)John Campbell (R-CA)John Carter (R-TX)Steve Chabot (R-OH)Jason Chaffetz (R-UT)Tom Cole (R-OK)Mike Conaway (R-TX)Chip Cravaack (R-MN)John Culberson (R-TX)Jeff Denham (R-CA)Charlie Dent (R-PA)Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL)Robert Dold (R-IL)John Duncan (R-TN)Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO)Jeff Flake (R-AZ)Bill Flores (R-TX)Randy Forbes (R-VA)Trent Franks (R-AZ)Cory Gardner (R-CO)Scott Garrett (R-NJ)Jim Gerlach (R-PA)Bob Gibbs (R-OH)Phil Gingrey (R-GA)Louie Gohmert (R-TX)Bob Goodlatte (R-VA)Trey Gowdy (R-SC)Morgan Griffith (R-VA)Mike Grimm (R-NY)Ralph Hall (R-TX)Gregg Harper (R-MS)Vicky Hartzler (R-MO)Doc Hastings (R-WA)Nan Hayworth (R-NY)Wally Herger (R-CA)Tim Huelskamp (R-KS)Bill Huizenga (R-MI)Randy Hultgren (R-IL)Duncan Hunter (R-CA)Robert Hurt (R-VA)Darryl Issa (R-CA)Lynn Jenkins (R-KS)Steve King (R-IA)Jack Kingston (R-GA)Leonard Lance (R-NJ)James Lankford (R-OK)Jerry Lewis (R-CA)Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO)Dan Lungren (R-CA)Don Manzullo (R-IL)Mike McCaul (R-TX)Tom McClintock (R-CA)Thad McCotter (R-MI)Patrick McHenry (R-NC)David McKinley (R-WV)Candice Miller (R-MI)Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV)Mick Mulvaney (R-SC)Randy Neugebauer (R-TX)Kristi Noem (R-SD)Devin Nunes (R-CA)Pete Olson (R-TX)Ron Paul (R-TX)Steve Pearce (R-NM)Mike Pence (R-IN)Ted Poe (R-TX)Bill Posey (R-FL)Tom Price (R-GA)Ben Quayle (R-AZ)Denny Rehberg (R-MT)Scott Rigell (R-VA)Cathy Rodgers (R-WA)Phil Roe (R-TN)Mike Rogers (R-MI)Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA)Todd Rokita (R-IN)Peter Roskam (R-IL)Paul Ryan (R-WI)Steve Scalise (R-LA)Bobby Schilling (R-IL)Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI)Pete Sessions (R-TX)John Shimkus (R-IL)Bill Shuster (R-PA)Lamar Smith (R-TX)Steve Southerland (R-FL)Cliff Stearns (R-FL)Steve Stivers (R-OH)John Sullivan (R-OK)Lee Terry (R-NE)Glenn Thompson (R-PA)Mac Thornberry (R-TX)Pat Tiberi (R-OH)Fred Upton (R-MI)Tim Walberg (R-MI)Greg Walden (R-OR)Joe Walsh (R-IL)Allen West (R-FL)Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA)Ed Whitfield (R-KY)Rob Wittman (R-VA)Rob Woodall (R-GA)Don Young (R-AK)Todd Young (R-IN)Read the full report: The Climate Zombie Caucus Of The 112th Congress.

---

==

http://billmoyers.com/2015/02/03/congress-climate-deniers/

...All told, 170 elected representatives in the 114th Congress have taken over $63.8 million from the fossil fuel industry that’s driving the carbon emissions which cause climate change. They deny what over 97 percent of scientists say is happening — current human activity creates the greenhouse gas emissions that trap heat within the atmosphere and cause climate change. And their constituents are paying the price, with Americans across the nation suffering 500 climate-related national disaster declarations since 2011.

This list will be updated regularly.

ALABAMA

Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-AL-04):“I fall into the second group of people who believe, as do many very credible scientists, that the earth is currently in a natural warming cycle rather than a man-made climate change. Many scientists believe that natural cycles of warming and cooling have existed since the beginning of Earth. If we take the current models of climate prediction and apply those same models to what actually happened in the last thirty years, the models are shown to be very flawed. In addition, what knowledge we do have of a warming period in the Middle Ages cannot be explained by current models which are focused on greenhouse gas reductions.”[Daily Mountain Eagle Op-Ed, 12/13/10]

Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL-05): “I’m also old enough to remember when the same left-wing part of our society was creating a global cooling scare in order to generate funds for their pet projects. So 30-some years ago the big scare was global cooling, and once they drained that [topic], they shifted to global warming. So I’m approaching the issue with a healthy degree of skepticism. If the evidence is there to prove it, then so be it.” [Science Insider, 2/9/11]

Rep. Gary Palmer (R-AL-06): “The science that shows we haven’t had a temperature increase in 17 or 18 years. The science that says global climate change is more a function of nature and solar activity than it is anything man does.” [RayComGroup, 7/18/14]

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL): Sen. Jeff Sessions was more than surprised when informed by Sen. Barbara Boxer that roughly 98 percent of climate scientists accepted that anthropogenic warming was real and serious — he was outraged:

SESSIONS: Madam Chairman, I am offended by that, I’m offended by that — I didn’t say anything about the scientists. I said the data shows [sic] it is not warming to the degree that a lot of people predicted, not close to that much…

BOXER: The conclusion that you’re coming to is shared by 1-2 percent of the scientists. You shouldn’t be offended by that. That’s the fact.

SESSIONS: I don’t believe that’s correct.

[ThinkProgress, 8/1/2012]

Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL): “Global warming continues to be an issue of significant debate in Congress and throughout the scientific community. In addition, important scientific research is ongoing as there are still many questions that must be answered before we take steps to address this issue. For example, is the climate change phenomenon cyclical or is it a function of manmade pollutants, or both? I believe the science must be firmly grounded before we take any actions that could seriously cripple many sectors of our economy.” [Shelby Letter, 12/14/07]

ALASKA

Rep. Don Young (R-AK-At Large): “I think this is the biggest scam since the Teapot Dome.” ]

Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK): “With 7 billion humans on earth, there is likely some impact on nature. The last few years clearly show, though, that there is no concrete scientific consensus on the extent to which humans contribute to climate change.” [Newsminer.com, 8/18/14]

ARIZONA

Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ-08): “While I am concerned about the potential effects of global warming, I have yet to see clear and convincing evidence that it exists beyond historical fluctuations.” [AZ Central Candidate Survey, 2008]

Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ-04): “Further, ‘global warming’ now known as ‘climate change’ is likely not in our control in any event. Historical records clearly demonstrate vast temperature swings long before Man arrived, from temperate zones in Alaska to ice ages in New York.” [AZ Central Candidate Survey, 2012]

Rep. David Schweikert (R-AZ-06): “When you think about the complexity of a worldwide system and the amount of data you’d have to capture, and how you adjust for a sunspot, and how you adjust for a hurricane and I think it’s incredibly arrogant for the Al Gores of the world to stand up and say the world is coming to an end.” [Interview with conservative activist Marcus Kelley via Huffington Post, 6/26/14]

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ): For years during the Bush presidency, Sen. John McCain argued that global warming pollution was an existential threat that required a strict cap-and-trade carbon market. Now that Obama is president and climate policy is a real possibility, McCain sounds and acts like a climate science denier: “I do not support the cap-and-trade energy reform legislation under consideration in Congress. There are dramatic environmental changes happening in the arctic region — whether one believes they are man-made or natural.” McCain now opposes the cap-and-trade policy he once championed, and opposes the EPA finding that greenhouse gases are pollution. [ThinkProgress, 9/13/10]

Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ): “Certainly, nobody can deny that we’ve had several years of warmer temperatures. If that signals just a routine change that is manmade or not, I don’t think anybody can say definitely.” [Arizona Public Radio, 10/25/12]

ARKANSAS

Rep. Rick Crawford (R-AR-01): Rep. Crawford fielded a question regarding climate change and President Obama’s environmental agenda while speaking to radio station KASU 91.9 FM. “There’s not sound science to support some of the initiatives that the President, I think, is committed to. We know that some of the research was faulty and it drove a lot of the agenda for a long time. and then it turned out there were some questions about the validity of that research.” He continued, “I don’t see a lot of the green initiatives that are being talked about being supported by scientific data, but more supported by political agendas.” [Talk Business Arkansas, 1/27/13]

Rep. Tim Griffin (R-AR-02): “I am not convinced that the problem of global warming is what the scientists say it is. Particularly in light of the recent research, that demonstrates that there are a lot of shenanigans going on with the data.” [THV 11, 4/12/10]

Sen. John Boozman (R-AR): “Well I think that we’ve got perhaps climate change going on. The question is what’s causing it. Is man causing it, or, you know, is this a cycle that happens throughout the years, throughout the ages. And you can look back some of the previous times when there was no industrialization, you had these different ages, ice ages, and things warming and things. That’s the question.” More recently, Sen. Boozman said, “Now I’m not a scientist but I’m an optometrist, and I spent much of my life working with the scientific community. I was a zoology major. And I’ve said before that there’s nothing scientific about discrediting people who present conflicting evidence and ask reasonable questions.” [ThinkProgress, 9/13/10; Arkansas Times, 6/21/14]

CALIFORNIA

Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA-42): Calvert co-sponsored H.Res.954, a resolution that stated: “Whereas recent events have uncovered extensive evidence from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England (in this resolution referred to as the ‘CRU’) which involved many researchers across the globe discussing the destruction, altering, and hiding of data that did not support global warming claims.” [H.Res.954, GovTrack, 12/8/09]

Rep. Jeff Denham (R-CA-10): While debating a bill requiring climate change to be taught in schools, then state senator Denham said he wanted a guarantee that the views of global warming skeptics will be taught. “Some wouldn’t view them as skeptics. Some would view them as the right side of the issue. We don’t have complete factual information yet. From what I have seen the Earth has heated and cooled on its own for centuries. I don’t know that there’s anything that is a direct cause of that right now, but we can do a better job of cleaning up our planet.” [Mercury News, 1/1/09]

Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA-50): “There is climate change. Is there human-caused climate change? I don’t buy that.” [Times of San Diego, 9/26/14]

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA-49): “One of the difficulties in examining the issue of the climate change and greenhouse gases is that there is a wide range of scientific opinion on this issue and the science community does not agree to the extent of the problem or the critical threshold of when this problem is truly catastrophic.” [Project Vote Smart Issue Position, 1/1/12]

Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-CA-01): “The climate of the globe has been fluctuating since God created it.” [Redding Record, 9/24/14]

Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA-04): “The planet has been warming — on and off — since the last ice age, when glaciers covered much of North America. The climate has been changing since the planet formed, often much more abruptly than it has in recent millennia. Until the earth begins moving into its next ice age, we can reasonably expect it to continue to warm. That will mean less water can be stored in snow packs and therefore more will need to be stored behind dams.” [Congressman Tom McClintock, 2/27/14]

Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA-22): “However, scientists admit that they cannot be sure whether the Earth’s temperature is rising due to cyclical warming and cooling processes, or whether and how much humans are influencing it.” [Project Vote Smart Issue Position, 1/1/12]

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA-48): “Just so you’ll know, global warming is a total fraud and it’s being designed because what you’ve got is you’ve got liberals who get elected at the local level want state government to do the work and let them make the decisions. Then, at the state level, they want the federal government to do it. And at the federal government, they want to create global government to control all of our lives.” [Huffington Post, 8/12/13]

COLORADO

Rep. Ken Buck (R-CO-04): “Sen. Inhofe was the first person to stand up and say this global warming is the greatest hoax that has been perpetrated. The evidence just keeps supporting his view, and more and more people’s view, of what’s going on.” [ThinkProgress, 8/8/13]

Rep. Mike Coffman (R-CO-06): “Climate change is naturally occurring. What influence do we have over that, we certainly need to look into, but that’s subject to debate.” [The Atlantic, 6/15/12]

Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO-05): “Lamborn said there are ‘a lot of contentious facts and claims about global warming and whether it is man made.’ However, he said there is ‘not much unanimity’ about it. At that statement many audience members commented that 98 percent was ‘pretty unanimous.’ Lamborn said he spoke to a scientist who believes that global warming is man-made and ‘should materialize’ 50-100 years from now. He said there are issues that need dealing with now. Eckler asked again if he would listen to the evidence claiming global warming is here and now. After more back-and-forth on the issue, Lamborn said, ‘I think we’ve beaten this horse to a pulp. I’m listening to all sides.’” [The Mountain Mail, 6/3/13]

Rep. Scott Tipton (R-CO-03): Rep. Tipton conceded that climate change exists, but argued that it’s caused by natural climate cycles rather than humans. “Here in the state of Colorado as our tree rings demonstrate, we’ve had droughts long before there were very many people here,” the Tea Party freshman argued. Acknowledging that humans can affect the climate is futile because it would “divide America,” said Tipton. [ThinkProgress, 8/23/12]

Sen. Cory Gardner (R-CO): “During the lightning round, yes-or-no portion of The Denver Post debate between Gardner and Udall, the Republican was asked ‘do you believe humans are contributing significantly to climate change?’ ‘Well, I’ve said all along climate is changing,’ Gardner began, earning reprimands from the moderators to answer in one word. ‘This is an important issue and I don’t think you can say yes or no,’ Gardner fired back, earning boos from the crowd and another reprimand. ‘I believe climate is changing, but I disagree to the extent that’s been in the news that man is changing — ’ he started again, earning a third reprimand and a reminder that he would have time later to explain his answer if he wanted.” [MSNBC, 10/6/14]

FLORIDA

Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL-25): “I know there’s a lot of money to be made on the bandwagon of global warming, you can make movies, documentaries, get a lot of research money — and that’s okay, I love capitalism … My fear is using the bandwagon of global warming to have Congress act on some knee-jerk reaction which will please some editorialists, will hurt our economy, will not do anything to help us in the future.” ]

Rep. Jeff Miller (R-FL-01): “I have scientists that I rely on, the scientists that I rely on say our climate has changed. It wasn’t just a few years ago, what was the problem that existed? It wasn’t global warming, we were gonna all be an ice cube. We’re not ice cubes. Our climate will continue to change because of the way God formed the earth.” According to BuzzFeed, earlier at the same event, Miller announced his intentions to defund the Environmental Protection Agency and responded to questions about a scientific consensus on climate change by saying none existed. [BuzzFeed, 8/14/13]

Rep. Bill Posey (R-FL-08): “We’ve had climate change since the day the earth was formed, whenever that was, depending on whatever it is you believe. And we’ll have climate change until the earth implodes, whenever that is … Obviously we’ve had global warming for a long time. You can’t have one seamless ice age that encompasses three ice ages. We had to have warming periods between each of those. And so that is a natural phenomenon. Just because we’re alive now, the tectonics plate shifts aren’t going to stop, the hurricanes tsunamis aren’t going to stop, the asteroid strikes aren’t going to stop, they’ve been going on for eons and they’re going to continue to go on for eons.” [Hill Heat, 3/26/14]

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL): “I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying. And I do not believe that the laws that they propose we pass will do anything about it. Except it will destroy our economy.” [Miami Herald Blog, 5/11/14]

GEORGIA

Rep. Rick Allen (R-GA-12): During a debate, Rep. Allen was asked “Do you believe manmade greenhouse gas emissions are a major source of climate change?” and responded, “the answer is no.” ]

Rep. Buddy Carter (R-GA-01): “Certainly we have to pay attention to [climate change]. There’s no doubt about that. But I do have reservations about how real it is.” [Savannah Morning News, 7/14/14]

Rep. Doug Collins (R-GA-09): When asked if he believes human activity is contributing to climate change, Rep. Collins answered “no.” [Project Vote Smart Political Courage Test, 2012]

Rep. Jody Hice (R-GA-10): “The Radical Environmental Movement with former Vice President Al Gore as its poster boy has propagandized the theory of impending environmental disaster due to ‘Global Warming.’…The theory is that so-called global warming is caused by greenhouse gases caused by carbon-based fuels.” [Jody Hice for Congress 2010 archive via the WaybackMachine, accessed 1/6/14]

Rep. Tom Price (R-GA-06): “This decision goes against all common sense, especially considering the many recent revelations of errors and obfuscation in the allegedly ‘settled science’ of global warming.” [Republican Study Committee]

Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA-03): Co-filed a petition to the Environmental Protection Agency to reconsider the endangerment finding that said: “Climategate reveals a serious lack of integrity in the underlying data and models, such that it is doubtful that any process can be trusted until the data and models are validated and their integrity assured.” [Petition to EPA, 12/23/09]

Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA): “Science has shown us that there has been a gradual warming of the earth over the last 50 years. What is not as clear is whether the cause for this warming is man-made emissions, a cyclical warming of the planet, or a combination of both. Given the uncertainty in the science behind climate change, I believe that we should take proactive steps, both personally and as a nation, to reduce our emissions footprint.” [Project Vote Smart Issue Position, 1/1/11]

Sen. David Perdue (R-GA): “The EPA is really overreaching and damaging entire industries. We’ve got to get some common sense back in Washington—in science, there’s an active debate going on.” [Slate, 5/6/14]

IDAHO

Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID): “While there is no dispute over the fact that the Earth’s climate has changed many times over the planet’s history, the underlying cause of these climactic shifts is ultimately not well-understood and is a matter of vigorous debate.” [Crapo Website]

ILLINOIS

Rep. Mike Bost (R-IL-12): When asked during a radio interview whether he thought climate change was real, Bost said, “I don’t. I don’t know that I do; no.” He continued, “Some scientists do; some scientists don’t” believe in climate change. [St. Louis Public Radio, 10/16/14]

Rep. Rodney Davis (R-IL-13): During an interview with Illinois Public Media radio, a constituent asked Representative Rodney Davis what he planned to do to combat climate change, and he responded that “global warming has stopped 16 years ago.” He then went on the say that climate change is real but the debate is over whether or not it is manmade or natural. [Illinois Public Media, 10/16/12]

Rep. Randy Hultgren (R-IL-14): “The greatest impact on our climate clearly is the sun, and we have very little impact on the sun and how much energy and temperature the sun is sending to the earth. We have seen clearly over thousands of years that at different times more energy has come through and different times less energy has come through, and that variation has impacted climate change. Over the thousands of years that’s been recorded we’ve had both colder times and warmer times. It happens to be that we’ve recently come out of a warmer time and now actually we’re headed in to a little bit of a colder time, the impact of the sun is much different than impact that we could have had.” [Illinois Review, 12/2/09]

Peter Roskam (R-IL-06): During a debate at the College of DuPage, “Roskam drew the ire of the crowd by calling global warming junk science.” [College of DuPage Courier, 10/20/06]

Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL-15): During his introductory remarks at a House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment hearing, Representative Shimkus read from the Bible to prove that global warming will not destroy the earth because only God can decide when the earth will end: “The earth will end only when God declares it is time to be over. Man will not destroy this earth. This earth will not be destroyed by a flood.” [House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment Hearing, 3/25/2009]

INDIANA

Rep. Larry Bucshon (R-IN-08): “It’s not about affecting the global temperature and climate change. There’s public comments out there that that question has been answered saying ‘no…’ Of all the climatologists whose career depends on the climate changing to keep themselves publishing articles, yes I could read that. But I don’t believe it.” [The Daily Show, 9/22/14]

Rep. Todd Rokita (R-IN-04): “97 percent of some of the liberal scientists polled believe humans are doing this. This is not settled science just like perhaps many pf those same scientists — 97 percent perhaps — believe there is no god. But they don’t know there’s no science on that. So scientists like the rest of us humans can have beliefs but that doesn’t make it science.” [Mother Jones, 10/28/14]

Rep. Todd Young (R-IN-09): During his first campaign, Young said he strongly opposed cap and trade and other unilateral measures to combat global warming and that he was uncertain what is causing the observed heating of the planet, adding that it could be caused by sunspots or the normal cycles of nature. “The science is not settled,” he said in an interview with the New York Times. According to the Times, “he said that given the scientific uncertainty, it was not wise to make major changes in the nation’s energy economy to reduce carbon emissions.” [New York Times, 10/20/10]

Sen. Dan Coats (R-IN): “At a candidate forum Saturday, the Republicans running for the U.S. Senate dismissed the threat of global warming, as well. Former U.S. Rep. John Hostettler called it ‘junk science.’ State Sen. Marlin Stutzman called it a ‘manufactured controversy.’ Former U.S. Sen. Dan Coats discussed this year’s snowstorm in Washington, D.C., ignoring scientists who say global warming causes intensified weather consistent with such a snowstorm.” [Evansville Courier & Press, 4/18/10]

IOWA

Rep. Rod Blum (R-IA-01): “Well, it’s interesting. I can see why the average citizen is skeptical about this. I guess you can put me in that camp. I’m skeptical … I’m not a scientist, and I know most scientists’ paychecks come from the federal government, and so right away that makes me a bit skeptical. Thirty years ago we were going into a global cooling period. That makes me skeptical.” [Iowa Public Radio, 5/29/14]

Rep. Steve King (R-IA-04): At an event sponsored by the Koch-funded Americans for Prosperity, King told the audience that climate change “is not proven, it’s not science. It’s more of a religion than a science.” He also said that more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could be good. “Everything that might result from a warmer planet is always bad in [environmentalists’] analysis,” King said. “There will be more photosynthesis going on if the Earth gets warmer … And if sea levels go up 4 or 6 inches, I don’t know if we’d know that.” [ThinkProgress, 8/7/13]

Rep. David Young (R-IA-03): “I’ve seen, like a lot of people, credible studies on both sides of this issue. I do know one thing for sure: We need to use sound science and not put this into a political science box. We need to make sure also that if this is going to be put through public policy, it needs to not be done unilaterally through this administration, through executive order, or by the EPA.” [Iowa Public Radio, 5/22/14]

Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA): “I don’t know the science behind climate change. I can’t say one way or another what is the direct impact, whether it’s man-made or not. I’ve heard arguments from both sides, but I do believe in protecting our environment, but without the job killing regulations that are coming out of the [Environmental Protection Agency] …” [ThinkProgress, 9/29/14]

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA): “But the scientific aspect that I’m still reserving judgment on is the extent to which it’s manmade or natural. And it’s reasonable, considering that there’s at least a natural factor in it, because historically, and you can go to the core drillings in the glaciers to get proof of this, that we’ve had decades and decades, and maybe even centuries of periods of time when there’s been a tremendous rise in temperature, and then a tremendous fall in temperature. And all you’ve got to do is look at the little ice age of the mid-last millennia as an example. And so we’ve got to single out what’s natural and what’s manmade before you can make policy.” [Grist, 8/26/09]

KANSAS

Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-KS-02): “I cosponsored a res. overturning an EPA rule that says man-made greenhouse gas emissions are a danger to public health.” [Twitter, 3/3/10]

Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS-04): When asked if he believes global warming is a problem, Pompeo responded: “Look, I think the science needs to continue to develop. I’m happy to continue to look at it. There are scientists who think lots of different things about climate change. There’s some who think we’re warming, there’s some who think we’re cooling, there’s some who think that the last 16 years have shown a pretty stable climate environment.” [C-SPAN Interview, 6/25/13]

Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS): “There’s no question there’s some global warming, but I’m not sure what it means. A lot of this is condescending elitism.” [Topeka Capital-Journal, 8/24/10]

KENTUCKY

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY-04): Rep. Thomas Massie challenged President Obama to roll out the proof that humans have played a hand in climate change. Massie said he was “disappointed” that the president in his second inaugural address blamed droughts on “human activity” and accused some of “denying the evidence of scientists,” the Washington Times reported. “As somebody with a science-type background, I took offense at that,” Mr. Massie said during a panel meeting billed as “Conversations With Conservatives.” “I would challenge him to show us the linkage — the undeniable linkage — between droughts and the change of weather, and some kind of human activity.” [Washington Times Inside Politics Blog, 1/22/13]

Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-KY-01): “Misrepresenting scientific research to support one’s own personal beliefs, particularly on an international stage, is dangerous, disingenuous and simply unacceptable. I call on Mr. [Al] Gore to come clean about the real science surrounding climate change and let the American people come to their own conclusions on global warming.” [Whitfield Website, 12/15/09]

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY): “For everybody who thinks it’s warming, I can find somebody who thinks it isn’t.” More recently, when asked whether he agreed that human activity was driving climate change, McConnell responded, “I’m not a scientist.” [Cincinnati Inquirer, 3/7/14; ThinkProgress, 10/3/14]

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY): “I think that scientific debate should not be dumbed down to politics. I think this debate has become so dumbed down beyond belief. The Earth is 4.54 [billion] or 4.6 billion years old. Anybody who’s ever studied any geology knows that over periods of time, long periods of time, that the climate changes, mmkay? I’m not sure anybody exactly knows why. But we have twenty-, thirty-, hundred-thousand sort of year cycles that go on with the climate. It has been much warmer than it is today. We have real data [for] about 100 years. So somebody tell me what 100 years data is in an Earth that is 4.6 billion years old? My guess is that the conclusions you make from that are not conclusive.” [Huffington Post, 4/23/14]

LOUISIANA

Rep. John Fleming (R-LA-04): “Quietly released scientific report without fanfare. Global warming, to the the extent that it ever existed, halted 16 years ago. So, what is Washington controlled by the radical environmental agenda?” [Fleming Facebook Post, 10/14/12]

Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA-01): “While their global warming agenda continues to lose support, it’s ironic that radical environmentalists are at it again, less than a month after NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), announced the Great Lakes had the most widespread ice coverage in over 35 years. Thirty years ago liberals were using global cooling to push new radical regulations. Then they shifted their focus to global warming in an effort to prop up wave after wave of job-killing regulations that are leading to skyrocketing food and energy costs.” [The Times-Picayune, 3/31/14]

Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA): During a debate, Sen. Cassidy said, “global temperatures have not risen in 15 years.” [Washington Examiner, 10/14/14]

Sen. David Vitter (R-LA): “I do not think the science clearly supports global warming theory.” [KLFY, 10/28/10]

MAINE

Rep. Bruce Poliquin (R-ME-02): “Clearly our climate is changing; the question is, is man responsible for that climate change? I personally am suspect.” [Maine Public Broadcasting Network, 6/4/10]

MARYLAND

Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD-01): “I believe the actual science is uncertain … We have to understand why it hasn’t; before we spend literally, worldwide, trillions of dollars on this, we should understand exactly what’s happening, and even more importantly, whether … by spending that money, we have a change of affecting it in any significant way. Because I don’t believe we are going to convince the rest of the countries of the world not to use more energy.’” [Star Democrat, 8/23/13]

MICHIGAN

Rep. Dan Benishek (R-MI-01): “Despite overwhelming scientific evidence that humans are contributing to climate change, Rep. Benishek has said that climate change is ‘all baloney’ and ‘just some scheme.’ Pointing to his background as a general surgeon, Benishek claims he’s ‘a scientist’ who has the expertise to know that climate change is ‘unproven science stuff.’” [LCV Dirty Dozen, 7/24/12]

Rep. Bill Huizenga (R-MI-02): “Today’s global warming doomsayers simply lack the scientific evidence to support their claims. A host of leaders in the scientific community have recognized that the argument for drastic anthropogenic global warming is no longer based on science, but is being driven by irrational fanaticism.” [VoteMI. Org]

Rep. Candice Miller (R-MI-10): “There is little doubt that the world’s climate is changing, because the climate has always changed. Just ask the dinosaurs or remember the ice age and how huge glaciers melting and moving formed our Great Lakes. The question is whether the current climate change is human-induced.” [Miller, 12/14/09]

Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI-06): “We’ve experienced climate change for a long time, highs and lows. We had the coldest winter ever last winter. There was a report out that the Great Lakes are six degrees below what they were a year ago. I don’t know that climate scientists can really predict where we’re headed.” [Michigan Live, 10/17/14]

Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI-07): “I read scientists, editors … an equal number at the very least that say just the opposite that this is something that’s gone on for eons, that we go through these cycles.” ]

MINNESOTA

Rep. Tom Emmer (R-MN-06): “Biodiversity, diversity to me means you’ve got to look at both sides. You know what, the empirical evidence does not support this and the other reps that have talked. There is another side. Just because we make these chambers available to Will Steger and the crowd that wants to rely on Al Gore’s climate porn doesn’t mean that that’s the way it is. There is another side to the story, one that we tried to present a couple of months ago, but apparently it’s frowned upon by the folks that are in control so it doesn’t get the same play in this room. Folks, there is another side.” [ThinkProgress, 10/13/10]

Rep. Erik Paulsen (R-MN-03): When asked if human beings are contributing to global warming, Paulsen said he wasn’t smart enough to know whether that’s true or not. ]

MISSISSIPPI

Rep. Gregg Harper (R-MS-03): “I don’t believe that the science is at all settled on man-made global warming.” ]

Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS): “Science shows that there is an increase of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere. But it has not been compellingly proven that mankind is responsible for the rise in atmospheric CO2, nor is it clear what impact CO2 has on Earth’s temperatures.” [Wicker Website, 12/14/09]

MISSOURI

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-MO-04): “Enjoying another beautiful global warming day in Missouri! Rep. Skelton and the UN Summit need to quit their dist. of wealth for a hoax.” [Twitter, 12/15/09]

Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO-03): “Luetkemeyer’s legislation would prohibit U.S. contributions to the IPCC, which is nothing more than a group of U.N. bureaucrats that supports man-made claims on global warming that many scientists disagree with. Meanwhile, our very own Environmental Protection Agency recently reported that we are undergoing a period of worldwide cooling.” [Luetkemeyer Website]

Rep. Ann Wagner (R-MO-02): “The field of climate science is in its relative infancy and it appears that some within the public policy world have made dubious assessments of scientific information in order to further their own political agenda. Our policy response to this dilemma should not be based on inconsistent and unsound science or driven by the fear of a supposed catastrophe.” [Riverfront Times, 5/29/13]

Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO): “There isn’t any real science to say we are altering the climate path of the earth.” [Human Events, 4/29/09]

MONTANA

Rep. Ryan Zinke (R-MT-At Large): “It’s not a hoax, but it’s not proven science either. But you don’t dismantle America’s power and energy on a maybe. We need to be energy independent first. We need to do it better, which we can, but it is not a settled science.” [ThinkProgress, 10/5/14]

Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT-At Large): In a radio interview with Montana Public Radio, Daines admits the climate is changing but questions the impacts by man, that there is “significant debate here,” the “jury is still out,” and brings up the debate of sun/solar cycles versus greenhouse gases. [Montana Public Radio, 12/2/12]

NEBRASKA

Rep. Adrian Smith (R-NE-03): In an interview with Nebraska Citizen, Rep. Smith was asked if he believes in global warming, to which he responded “No!” The reporter said that Rep. Smith believes many of the “facts” about global warming are in dispute. [Nebraska Citizen, 11/22/05]

Sen. Deb Fischer (R-NE): “Asked about man-made climate change, Fischer immediately said, ‘I certainly don’t support cap-and-trade.’ She said she believes in weather change, but she said she does not believe man has a huge impact on the climate.” [The Independent, 8/25/12]

NEVADA

Rep. Mark Amodei (R-NV-02): “The issue of climate change is very controversial and many scientists disagree as to its causes and how to handle it. I recognize that some scientists believe that global warming is caused by failed environmental practices; however, others argue that these temperature increases would incur regardless due to the warming of the center of the earth. I do not believe it is appropriate for the federal government to advocate one position over the other. Since, we do not know much about long-term climate change, I do agree we must have an unbiased research effort funded by both the government and the private sector to answer the essential questions about climate change.” [Daily Kos, 8/16/13]

NEW HAMPSHIRE

Rep. Frank Guinta (R-NH-01): “I think the science is not complete on this issue. I see different studies that say different things.” [AP, 10/7/14]

Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH): Asked if she believed in climate change, she said, “there is scientific evidence that demonstrates there is some impact from human activities. However I don’t think the evidence is conclusive.” [Sea Coast Online, 9/30/10]

NEW JERSEY

Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ-05): “The real question that still exists in a lot of people’s minds, experts and non-experts alike, on the area of global warming and what role the government should have in this realm … I’ve heard a number of experts on both sides of the equation on this issue and to me the evidence, the question is still out there.” [North Jersey Q&A, 9/30/10]

Rep. Leonard Lance (R-NJ-07): “The disclosure of emails from the CRU is very troubling and merits a thorough and transparent investigation. Clearly there is a strong appearance that important scientific research may have been tainted by politics.” [Lance Website, 12/3/09]

NEW MEXICO

Rep. Steve Pearce (R-NM-02): “I googled this issue a couple of days ago, see that there are 31,000 scientists who say that human action is not causing the global warming at all. And in fact the last 17 years there has not been global warming, the temperature has been very stable for the last 17 years.” [Mother Jones, 10/28/14]

NEW YORK

Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-NY-03): “I think it would be very productive if we could just get to exactly what is really and what is not real, because I think both sides of the climate change debate are filled with people who are stretching truths. I’m not sold yet on the whole argument that we have as serious a problem with climate change as other people.” [Newsday, 10/28/14]

NORTH CAROLINA

Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC-05): “North Carolina Republican Virginia Foxx referenced books by climate-change skeptics and lamented that some environmentalists ‘think that we, human beings, have more impact on the climate and the world than God does.’” [Huffington Post, 4/7/11]

Rep. Richard Hudson (R-NC-08): When asked if human activity is contributing to climate change, Hudson responded no. [Project Vote Smart Political Courage Survey]

Rep. Walter B. Jones (R-NC-03): “However, there is substantial disagreement regarding the extent of this warming, whether it’s caused by human activity or simply nature taking its course, and what solutions, if any, should be implemented. The bottom line is that the scientific community does not speak with one voice on this issue.” [Crystal Coast Tea Party, Jones Letter, 12/17/09]

Rep. Robert Pittenger (R-NC-09): “Pittenger doesn’t mind standing his ground, even when it’s lonely. For example, he’s the most prominent skeptic on a legislative commission on climate change. Like a sort of anti-Al Gore, he shows a PowerPoint full of statistics about halocarbons and nitrous oxide, and quotes from scientists who, like him, have tried to debunk the science behind global warming. ‘There are people up there relaxed about the system on both sides of the aisle,’ he said. ‘My job is not to go out there and just ‘kumbaya.’” [Charlotte Observer, 4/1/08]

Rep. David Rouzer (R-NC-07): “Well, you know, I don’t necessarily listen to any one person. And I can’t, you know, tick off a whole list of scientists that are pro-sea level rise and a whole list of scientists that aren’t — I’m just coming at it from a common sense standpoint. The earth has been warming and cooling since day one. And you know, the effect on sea level change, what do we know about it?” [PBS, last accessed 12/8/14]

Rep. Mark Walker (R-NC-06): “We can be green without being extreme. Much of the ‘so-called’ science of climate change is contested though it’s made a few politicians quite wealthy. I believe that God provided the earth to us and we have a responsibility to conserve and respect the environment.” [Walker for North Carolina, last accessed 12/8/14]

Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC): “I have no clue [how much of climate change is attributable to human activity], and I don’t think that science can prove it … I certainly haven’t seen anything that’s conclusive, and anything that’s claimed to be conclusive has proven to be somewhat sketchy.” [National Journal, 12/2/11]

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC): During the first Republican primary debate in North Carolina, the moderator asked all four candidates, including Tillis, “Is climate change a fact?” The questioned prompted some laughter from the audience as well as several candidates. All four then answered simply, “no.” [ThinkProgress, 4/23/14]

NORTH DAKOTA

Rep. Kevin Cramer (R-ND-At Large): “These mandates and these wind farms are all based on this fraudulent science from the EPA, meaning their claim that CO2 is a pollutant and is causing global warming. I’m sure you’re familiar with one of the leading climate research centers in the world there at East Anglia University in England, the Hadley Research Centre. The director, Phil Jones, his emails, he admitted that he was falsifying temperature data. The reason he had to do is because was the data was showing the global climate is actually declining in temperature, temperatures were going down. He was overlaying higher temperatures on the real data to show that it was actually rising. We know the globe is cooling. Number one, we know that. So the idea that CO2 is somehow causing global warming is on its face fraudulent.” [Hill Heat, 8/7/13]

Sen. John Hoeven (R-ND): “Well, the science shows that there’s warming. There’s different opinions of exactly what’s causing it.” [Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Hearing]

OHIO

Rep. John Boehner (R-OH-08): “George, the idea that carbon dioxide is a carcinogen that is harmful to our environment is almost comical. Every time we exhale, we exhale carbon dioxide. Every cow in the world, you know, when they do what they do, you’ve got more carbon dioxide.” [ABC News Transcript, 4/19/09; ThinkProgress, 5/29/14]

Rep. Steve Chabot (R-OH-01): “Despite claims to the contrary, the evidence concerning man-made climate change is far from conclusive. However, what is conclusive is the damage some of the more extreme proposals intended to address climate change, like cap-and-trade, will have on our economy.” [Cincinnati.com, 10/12/14]

Rep. Bob Gibbs (R-OH-07): “It is clear that science has not been able to document what is happening and if human activity is causing a problem or not. Many scientists are on both sides of this issue and the proponents of climate change have not substantiated their findings based on sound science.” [League of Women Voters 2010 Voters Guide]

Rep. Bill Johnson (R-OH-06): Johnson asserted in 2011, “I am not an alarmist that believes that greenhouse gas emissions coming from the coal industry are causing major problems.” [ThinkProgress, 6/6/13]

Rep. Steve Stivers (R-OH-15): Disagrees with the statement: “Man-made global warming is a scientific fact.” [NRDC Action Fund, 8/30/10]

Rep. Pat Tiberi (R-OH-12): Tiberi “doesn’t think there is a consensus among scientists about whether global warming is proven. ‘If there’s one thing I’ve learned from the climate-change debate, it’s that I am not a climate scientist. I have had the privilege of hearing testimony from some of the top climatologists in the world,’ Tiberi said.” [Columbus Dispatch, 12/20/09]

Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH): “When you analyze all the data, there is a warming trend according to science. But the jury is out on the degree of how much is manmade.” [Columbus Dispatch, 7/25/10]

OKLAHOMA

Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R-OK-01): Bridenstine “downplayed the need for more climate research by noting that atmospheric temperatures have not risen over the last decade, and said temperatures coincide more with solar activity than with man-made factors. ‘Global temperatures stopped rising 10 years ago,’ he said. ‘Global temperature changes, when they exist, correlate with sun output and ocean cycles.’ He noted the Medieval Warm Period that happened ‘long before cars, power plants and the industrial revolution.’ And he noted the Little Ice Age, which also happened irrespective of human activity.’ Even climate change alarmists admit that the number of hurricanes hitting the U.S. and the number of tornado touchdowns have been on a slow decline for over 100 years,’ he said.” [The Hill, 6/11/13]

Rep. Frank Lucas (R-OK-03): “Most telling of the EPA’s irrational regulatory approach is how the EPA has concluded that the breath that we exhale, the gas that livestock expels, are dangerous pollutants and should be regulated by the Clean Air Act.” [April 7, 2011 House floor speech via Huffington Post, 6/26/14]

Rep. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK-02): “I haven’t seen the reports that would get me to believe that anything’s different [with regards to climate change] than the patterns that we had that we’ve gone through through the time of records.” [ThinkProgress, 8/9/13]

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK): “To my knowledge, nobody has uttered the term ‘global warming’ since 2009. It’s been completely refuted in most areas. … Those people who really believe that the world’s coming to an end because of global warming and that’s all due to manmade, anthropogenic gases, we call those people alarmists. … I really believe it’s the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.” [Politico, 8/1/12]

Sen. James Lankford (R-OK): “This whole global warming myth will be exposed as what it really is — a way of control more than anything else. And that generation will be ticked.” [Edmond Sun, 2/16/10]

PENNSYLVANIA

Rep. Lou Barletta (R-PA-11): “You know there’s arguments on both sides. I’m not convinced that there’s scientific evidence that proves that. I believe there’s some that can also argue the opposite.” [Citizens Voice, 10/17/10]

Rep. Charles Dent (R-PA-15): “I am concerned that world leaders and scientists are gathering in Copenhagen this week to potentially develop global climate treaties at a time when the international community is questioning the legitimacy of leading climate scientists. Unfortunately, the revelation of these deceitful emails has tarnished the credibility of significant scientific research.” [Dent Website, 12/7/09]

Rep. Tim Murphy (R-PA-18): “I think it is dangerous science for Congress to declare climate theory a fact.” [ThinkProgress, 3/15/11]

Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA-04): “‘I do believe global warming is occurring … However, I do take exception, whether it’s man-made or not. I learned in public school, the scientific theory … You have a theory and it has to be proven. And I’m concerned anytime that a nation, or the world, makes up policy based on a theory that … has gained consensus but’ does not have proof, he said.” [YDR Politics, 9/20/12]

Rep. Keith Rothfus (R-PA-12): Rothfus responded: “I do not believe it’s man-made and I am not convinced that it is a fact. I think the science is still out. I think for the last 15 years we haven’t had any warming” to the question: Do you believe that global warming which is now referred to as climate change is a fact, and if so do you believe that it is man-made? ]

Rep. Bill Shuster (R-PA-09): “Protecting our environment for future generations is one of the most important issues facing our country and the world. There continues to be debate among the scientific community on the precise reason why global temperatures have gradually risen over the last century.” [WTAJ-TV, 8/18/08]

Rep. Glenn Thompson (R-PA-05): “In the debate and most of the debate of the majority party here, it’s not so much based on real science as political science or even, to some degree, science fiction. And so, to look at why this — and I looked at every piece of legislation in terms of cost benefits. And when we look at the benefits of this, I think human activity, it’s acknowledged, does contribute towards carbon dioxide emissions. But it’s less than 4 percent. To put that into perspective, forest fires, wildfires contribute 10 percent of CO2 emissions. And so not even with the debate of, you know, are we warming the Earth or not warming the Earth, there’s a lot of smart folks out there that are publishing research or earning their dissertations based on debating that science. But what the experts agree upon, the researchers agree is, human activity is less than 4 percent contributes towards CO2 emissions.” [Congressional Record, 6/2/09]

Sen. Patrick Toomey (R-PA): “My view is: I think the data is pretty clear. There has been an increase in the surface temperature of the planet over the course of the last 100 years or so. I think it’s clear that that has happened. The extent to which that has been caused by human activity I think is not as clear. I think that is still very much disputed and has been debated.” [ThinkProgress Video, 10/8/10]

SOUTH CAROLINA

Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC-03): “The problem with the agency’s finding is that it relies on questionable science and ignores vigorous dissention among the scientific community. Even if we set aside the abundance of scientific dissention when it comes to the EPA’s endangerment findings or the supposed effects of CO2 on climate, the EPA’s regulations will not reduce CO2 enough to have any meaningful effect.” [Duncan, 2012]

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC-04): “Global warming has not been proven to the satisfaction of the constituents I seek to serve.” [Go Upstate, 5/23/10]

Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-SC-05): “Energy independence, green technology, and innovation is something we should pursue as a nation. However, we shouldn’t seek to accomplish that by taxing people based on questionable science. Neither should we ignore domestic energy resources — coal, natural gas, oil — because of baseless claims regarding global warming.” [Mulvaney Website]

Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC-02): When asked if he believes that human activity is contributing to climate change, Rep. Wilson answered “no.” [Project Vote Smart Political Courage Survey]

TENNESSEE

Rep. Diane Black (R-TN-06): “The far left-wing elements of this administration foresee a near future with carbon regulated as a pollutant and heavily taxed to discourage consumption and generate revenue. We must resist all of these radical approaches all geared to raise energy prices on American families and businesses.” [Project Vote Smart Issue Position]

Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN-07): “[T]here is not consensus [on climate change] and you can look at the latest IPCC Report and look at Doctor Lindzen from MIT. His rejection of that or Judith Curry … from Georgia Tech. There is not consensus there.” [The Wire, 2/17/14]

Rep. John J. Duncan Jr. (R-TN-02): On his website, Duncan lists five scientists that claim global warming is not real, including how global warming is “the greatest scam in history.” [Duncan Website]

Rep. Chuck Fleischmann (R-TN-03): When asked his opinion about global warming during a candidate debate, Fleischmann said: “I think we ought to take Al Gore, put him on an iceberg, and put him way out there.” [Times Free Press, 7/5/12]

Rep. Phil Roe (R-TN-01): “Many believe greenhouse gas emissions are contributing to the gradual warming of our planet and changing of our climate. While there are many questions surrounding the science of the issue, it seems to me like we could develop a solution that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions without inflicting catastrophic damage on our economy.” [Project Vote Smart Issue Position, 1/1/11]

TEXAS

Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX-06): “I don’t deny that the climate is changing. I think you can have an honest difference of opinion on what’s causing that change without automatically being either all-in that it’s all because of mankind or it’s all just natural. I think there’s a divergence of evidence … I would point out if you’re a believer in the Bible, one would have to say the Great Flood is an example of climate change. And that certainly wasn’t because mankind overdeveloped hydrocarbon energy.” [Raw Story, 4/10/13]

Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX-26): “My opinion, for what it is worth, is that the science behind global temperature changes is not settled.” [Subcommittee on Energy and Power Hearing, 3/8/11]

Rep. John Carter (R-TX-31): “Global warming is simply a chicken-little scheme to use mass media and government propaganda to convince the world that destruction of individual liberties and national sovereignty is necessary to save mankind, and that the unwashed masses would destroy themselves without the enlightened global dictatorship of these frauds.” [Carter Website]

Rep. K. Michael Conaway (R-TX-11): “Science is never settled … they changed the phraseology because the climate isn’t warming.” ]

Rep. John Culberson (R-TX-07): “This week the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) decided that the air we exhale, carbon dioxide, is toxic and poses a danger to our well-being … While this blatant power grab is disappointing, the truly alarming part is that the scientific evidence the EPA used to support its conclusion comes directly from United Nations (U.N.) climate data — the same data that were recently found to have been deliberately manipulated to support the global warming movement. When EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson announced the proposed endangerment finding in April, she readily admitted that the agency “relied heavily upon the major findings and conclusions from recent assessments of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.” Emails recently made public offer definitive proof of a collective effort among some U.N. scientists to misrepresent climate data in order to foist their political agenda onto the public.” [Culberson, 12/9/09]

Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-TX-27): “Global warming is scare tactic used by groups with a political agenda. While I support protecting the environment, the green agenda pushes it way beyond common sense, with ideas like cap and trade which would destroy American industry.” [Farenthold Website]

Rep. Bill Flores (R-TX-17): “It is time we stopped putting petty politics based on dubious ‘agenda-driven, scientific’ research ahead of creating more American energy.” [Flores Campaign Website, 12/18/11]

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX-01): “Apparently this climate change was global freezing back in the 1970s. Then global warming and then, when it quit warming, now it’s climate change.” [Washington Times, 5/8/14]

Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX-10): Co-sponsored H.Res.954, a resolution that stated: “Whereas recent events have uncovered extensive evidence from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England (in this resolution referred to as the ‘CRU’) which involved many researchers across the globe discussing the destruction, altering, and hiding of data that did not support global warming claims.” [H.Res.954, GovTrack, 12/8/09]

Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-TX-19): “What we have here is a case of formulating scientific findings that back up policy, instead of creating policy that is backed up by legitimate science. Proponents of man-made global warming in Congress will use every opportunity they have to invite witnesses to testify before Congress who only share their point of view. We now have clear evidence of what we knew all along, that there are perhaps thousands of scientists who don’t share these views, and sadly have been the subject of concerted efforts to discourage and suppress their findings from publication.” [Neugebauer, 12/1/09]

Rep. Pete Olson (R-TX-22): “The emails that emerge from the University of East Anglia call into question the accuracy of the IPCC data.” [C-SPAN Video, 12/8/09]

Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX-02): “The consensus has been for some time that global warming, climate change, continues because man is the perpetrator. Now we are beginning to learn that may not be true, that there is not a consensus that there is global warming or climate change. We now have heard about Climategate, where the expert scientists hid emails in England that disagreed with the so-called consensus that there is global warming and global climate change. We have heard now new evidence that even NASA is involved in not revealing evidence that contradicts climate change.” [Congressional Record, 12/15/09]

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX-21): “Contrary to the claims of those who want to strictly regulate carbon dioxide emissions and increase the cost of energy for all Americans, there is a great amount of uncertainty associated with climate science. These uncertainties undermine our ability to accurately determine how carbon dioxide has affected the climate in the past. They also limit our understanding of how anthropogenic emissions will affect future warming trends. Further confusing the policy debate, the models that scientists have come to rely on to make climate predictions have greatly overestimated warming. Contrary to model predictions, data released in October from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit show that global temperatures have held steady over the past 15 years, despite rising greenhouse gas emissions. Among the facts that are clear, however, are that U.S. emissions contribute very little to global concentrations of greenhouse gas, and that even substantial cuts in these emissions are likely to have no effect on temperature.” [Smith Op-Ed, 5/19/13]

Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX-13): “Any decisions we make should be based on sound science rather than political, social or personal profit agendas. No computer model yet has correctly predicted the Earth’s actual temperatures. We simply do not understand enough about the causes and effects related to our weather.” [USA Today, 8/10/11]

Rep. Randy Weber (R-TX-14): “I may want to get your cell phone, because if we go through cycles of global warming and then back to global cooling, I need to know when to buy my long coat on sale. I just don’t know how y’all prove those hypotheses going back fifty, hundred, what you might say is thousands if not millions of years, and then postulate those forward.” [March 26, 2014, Science Committee hearing via Huffington Post, 6/26/14]

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX): “Taxpayer funded research by NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) concerning the warmest years on record has been the subject of dispute and after challenges, has been changed and re-released. What is less known is why the changes were made and what inherent flaws existed in the original data, if any. It is important to understand the reasons behind these alterations and further to avoid suspicion that data was massaged to fit the prescribed theory that global warming is attributable to man-made greenhouse gas emissions.” [Cornyn, 12/16/09]

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): “The last 15 years, there has been no recorded warming. Contrary to all the theories that they are expounding, there should have been warming over the last 15 years. It hasn’t happened … You know, back in the ’70s — I remember the ’70s, we were told there was global cooling. And everyone was told global cooling was a really big problem. And then that faded.” [New Republic, 11/6/14]

UTAH

Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT-01): “Despite the fact that scientific data underlying the studies of global warming appear to have been manipulated to produce an intended outcome, EPA officials disregarded the contaminated science, calling it little more than a ‘blip on the history of this process.’” [Bishop, 12/8/09]

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT-03): “Is our air and is our quality of life affected by what we throw into the air and in the water? Yes, of course, but the Al Gore defined global warming is a farce, it is.” [Mother Jones, 10/28/14]

Rep. Chris Stewart (R-UT-02): “The science regarding climate change is anything but settled.” [St. Louis Tribune, 4/13/13]

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT): “There is also some disagreement among scientists as to whether global warming — regardless of its cause — would result in a net benefit or detriment to life on earth. Scientific studies demonstrate overwhelmingly that humans tend to fare better during warming spells than periods of cooling.” [Hatch Website]

VIRGINIA

Rep. David Brat (R-VA-07): “If you let Americans do their thing, there is no scarcity, right? They said we’re going to run out of food 200 years ago, that we’re goin’ to have an ice age. Now we’re heating up … Of course we care for the environment, but we’re not mad people. Over time, rich countries solve their problems. We get it right. It’s not all perfect, but we get it right.” [Mother Jones, 6/11/14]

Rep. J. Randy Forbes (R-VA-04): “Elected officials need to depend on experts in the field to make determinations on the degree to which our planet is warming, and there is evidence among scientists and researchers pointing in both directions.” [Times Dispatch, 7/4/10]

Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA-06): “There is no doubt that the earth’s climate is changing. The earth and its climate are dynamic, and have changed throughout history even without human activity. We have reached a point where some experts concur that the earth is once again warming. Regardless of the reason, the debate over climate change should remind us that we should be good stewards of our planet.” [Times Dispatch, 7/4/10]

Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-VA-09): “In regard to radiant heat, the Sun spot effects, what do we know about that? I was reading one report here that indicates that by 2020 we will reach a new peak on Sun spot activity, and this report actually suggests that the Earth’s temperature may be raised by .5 degrees Centigrade as a result of the Sun spot activity. And could that also be the cause.” [Climate Science and EPA Greenhouse Gas Regulations Hearing, 3/8/11]

Rep. Robert Hurt (R-VA-05): Hurt said Climategate is “scientists who have given us something that is not true. It is faulty information and it has real consequences in the 5th District, in the loss of jobs and in power bills from Appalachian Power Co.” [Daily Progress, 2/28/10]

Rep. Scott Rigell (R-VA-02): According to the Virginian-Pilot voter guide, Rigell “does not believe that climate change is caused by human actions.” [Hampton Roads, 6/3/10]

Rep. Rob Wittman (R-VA-01): “[A]s a scientist myself, I recognize that the earth’s climate is changing.” But these climate “cycles of heating and cooling have been going on well before man appeared on Earth.” [Daily Press, 4/12/13]

WASHINGTON

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA-05): “We believe Al Gore deserves an ‘F’ in science and an ‘A’ in creative writing.” [Whitman Pioneer, 4/9/09]

WEST VIRGINIA

Rep. David McKinley (R-WV-01): “Many scientists have disavowed past climate change research, McKinley said, and he’s waiting for valid science to convince him there’s a problem and whether man is to blame … ”I don’t want to listen to Al Gore tell me from a political standpoint that global warming is caused by man because I don’t think he can support it.’” [Associated Press, 10/20/10]

Rep. Alex Mooney (R-WV-02): According to the Charleston Gazette, “Mooney also said he doesn’t believe that the science on climate change is settled, despite a vast majority of scientists who believe that man-made global warming is real.” [Charleston Gazette, 7/24/14]

Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV): “I don’t necessarily think the climate’s changing, no.” [Huffington Post, 10/8/14]

WISCONSIN

Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-WI-06): “This environmental stuff, this is the idea that is driven by this global warming thing. Global warming is not man-made and there is barely any global warming at all, there’s been no global warming for the last twelve or thirteen years. I see a shortage of Republicans stepping up to the plate and saying, ‘look, this global warming stuff is not going on.’ It’s ridiculous for the United States, of all the countries in the world, to be putting extra regulations on our business while the Chinese, the Indians, whatever are building new factories all the time while our factories are stuck saying, ‘you can’t do this, you can’t do this,’ because you’ve got to reign in this global warming which doesn’t exist anyway.” ]

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI-01): When asked about humans’ role in climate change during a 2014 debate Ryan responded, “I don’t know the answer to that question. I don’t think science does either.” [ThinkProgress, 10/14/14]

Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI-05): “I think that the science is inconclusive on this … I personally believe that the solar flares are more responsible for climatic cycles than anything that human beings do and our lunar, our rovers on Mars have indicated that there has been a slight warming in the atmosphere of Mars and that certainly was not caused by the internal combustion engine.” [Sensenbrenner Website]

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI): “I absolutely do not believe in the science of man-caused climate change … It’s not proven by any stretch of the imagination. It’s far more likely that it’s sunspot activity or just something in the geologic eons of time.” [Journal Sentinel]

WYOMING

Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY-At Large): “We’re just beginning to explore what mankind’s role is in climate change, so I’d argue that the jury’s still out.” [WyoFile, 11/5/12]

Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY): “When Barrasso was in college and medical school, he said, the ‘best science at the time said that the Ice Age is coming.’ He referred to articles from Newsweek, the New York Times and Time magazine from 1974 and 1975 about the ‘global cooling’ phenomenon. One of the articles said a major cooling of the climate is widely considered inevitable. ‘It’s fascinating to see the changes in the science,’ Barrasso said. ‘Not that long ago, all the science was pointing in another direction. So all I’m saying is, how much of the wealth of this nation are we going to put at risk for something that may be poorly spent money?’” [E&E Daily, 7/16/09]

Mike Enzi (R-WY): “I barely made it back here because of a May snowstorm in Wyoming. They got 18 inches in Cheyenne. It’s a little hard to convince Wyoming people there’s global warming. We have 186% of normal snow pack. That’s global warming?” [Wyoming Public Radio, 5/16/14]

Tiffany Germain is the research manager for the ThinkProgress War Room at the Center for American Progress Action Fund. Kristen Ellingboe, Ryan Koronowski, Jeff Spross and Kiley Kroh contributed to this research.

---