Type to search

The 5 Worst Climate Change Truthers In Congress

Memo Pad Politics

The 5 Worst Climate Change Truthers In Congress

Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK) (CSIS: Center for Strategic & International Studies via Flickr)

Throughout his presidency, Barack Obama has taken tremendous strides toward combating climate change and the dangers that it poses. But he hasn’t gotten much help from Congress — and now that Republicans hold majority control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate, he probably never will.

Although scientists overwhelmingly agree that human activity has caused the climate to rapidly warm over the past century, the majority of congressional Republicans flatly deny the facts.

Here are five of the most notable climate truthers in the 114th Congress:

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX)
Rep. Smith, a 14-term Republican from Texas, currently serves as chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology. He is also an outspoken climate change truther who seems to believe that scientists and the liberal media are teaming up to mislead Americans about the threat. In November, Smith shrugged off a frightening United Nations report on climate change as “clearly biased,” before acknowledging that he didn’t actually read it.

Despite not having faced a competitive election in nearly two decades, Smith has raised more than $600,000 from the oil and gas industry throughout his career — including $112,050 in the last election cycle alone.

Rep. Randy Weber (R-TX)
Rep. Weber, chairman of the House Subcommitee on Energy, is a relative newcomer to Congress; he was elected to succeed Rep. Ron Paul in 2012. But he’s quickly become known for his strident refusal to accept the facts on climate change. Most notably, Weber attempted to ridicule White House science advisor John Holdren during a hearing last March, and ended up making a fool of himself.

Weber — who, ironically, owns an air conditioning company — is a favorite of the oil and gas industry; it donated $87,250 to him in the last election cycle, nearly double the total he raised from any other industry.

Senator Cory Gardner (R-CO)
Senator Cory Gardner moved up from the House in 2014, when he defeated environmentalist Democrat Mark Udall in a significant upset. Along the way, he refused to answer questions about climate change — a strategy that actually represented a minor step forward from his previous insistence that “I don’t believe humans are causing that change.”

Gardner currently sits on the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, along with the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources — which helps to explain why the oil and gas industry contributed $658,049 to his campaign, second to only Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) among House members.

Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK)
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee chairman Jim Inhofe is one of the world’s most outspoken climate change deniers. During his tenure in Congress, Inhofe has described global warming as the “greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people,” compared Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth to Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf, insisted that climate change is impossible because “God’s still up there,” and attempted to disprove the scientific consensus with a snowball, among other incidents.

Unsurprisingly, Inhofe is also beloved by the oil and gas industry; it contributed $576,250 to him in 2014, and nearly $2 million throughout his career — easily the highest total of any industry.

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX)
Senator Cruz chairs the Subcommittee on Space, Science, and Competitiveness, which oversees NASA and the National Science Foundation, among other responsibilities.

This is very bad news for NASA and the National Science Foundation, given Cruz’s proud hostility to science. The newly minted presidential candidate is under the mistaken impression that global warming ceased in 1997, and that cold weather disproves climate change altogether. He also appears to believe that his ignorance on the topic makes him a modern-day Galileo.

Over Cruz’s brief four-year career as a federal candidate, he has raised a whopping $1,086,368 from the oil and gas industry.

Photo: CSIS: Center for Strategic & International Studies via Flickr

Henry Decker

Henry Decker was formerly the Managing Editor of The National Memo. He is currently an Online Associate at MRCampaigns.

  • 1


  1. TZToronto March 31, 2015

    Given the money that these guys have received from the O&G industry. I wonder if they truly believe what they say. If they do, then they’re just plain stupid. If they don’t, then they’re intentionally contributing to climate change. When half of Florida disappears under water, when New Orleans drowns, and when coastal areas of TX are constantly flooding for some unknown reason, maybe they’ll admit their stupidity–just like the VP did in “The Day After Tomorrow.” But I doubt it. If they did, the corporate money would stop flowing.

    1. Independent1 March 31, 2015

      It’s truly a sad commentary – when politicians will not only put their own well being at risk, but also the long-term well being of – their immediate families, their grandchildren, their future descendants and millions of their own constituents lives: knowingly at risk (I refuse to believe these people are so clueless as to really put aside all the scientific and real world facts they’ve been told/heard about global warming) – all for the sake of what amounts to the root of all evil – the love of money and/or in some cases notoriety.

    2. FireBaron March 31, 2015

      Hey, they are paid to read the scripts written for them by the O&G industries! After all, how else would they get such huge campaign funds?

    3. tdm3624 March 31, 2015

      The politicians are so selfishly short-sighted. By the time Florida drowns they will be long in the grave though. They don’t care.

      1. TZToronto March 31, 2015

        Sad but true.

      2. drdroad April 3, 2015

        Don’t these dudes have children, grand children??

    4. plc97477 March 31, 2015

      I got an idea. Lets move Washington dc to the southern end of florida. Maybe they will care then.

      1. TZToronto March 31, 2015

        Sounds like a plan!


  2. anothertoothpick March 31, 2015

    James M Inhofe is a top recipient from the following industries in 2007-2008:
    Mining (#3)
    Coal mining (#4)
    Oil & Gas (#4)
    Waste Management (#5)

    1. Daniel Jones March 31, 2015

      Basically, everyone that doesn’t want to clean up the mess or allow anyone to make them.

    2. atc333 April 3, 2015

      Yet our political system and our Right Leaning Supreme Court is blind to the fact that an undeniable sense of obligation is created from the candidate to those industries which make those political contributions, which is exactly why they make them. .

    3. Sez Eye April 24, 2015

      Hillary and Bill sold 100s of millions of dollars of favors to foreign governments while they held office, including approving the sale of 20% of our uranium reserves to Russia. Obama took 100s of millions from foreign governments and individuals in campaign contributions, awarding these contributors BILLIONS of dollars he took from our wallets in return and destroyed our children’s future by borrowing TRILLIONS from our political enemies. A simple debt call will destroy our financial system for generations.

      I’ve go lots more if you want to continue down this road.

  3. midway54 March 31, 2015

    Well it’s no surprise to see the Loon Star State characters are named in the article. There would not have been room in the site to include the many other crackpots from that State whose politically duped citizens vote for them regularly. Hmmmmm where is Gohmert’s picture?

  4. Lynda Groom March 31, 2015

    Three out of five from Texas, and all five republicans. Way to go Texas, you are number one.

  5. jesse March 31, 2015

    We should call Texas, TexASS for all the ASSES that are coming out of that state!

  6. Karl Burkhalter March 31, 2015

    Historians have always laughed at climate change, distance to sun and vulcanism have greater effect then Man. Change is the rule, nothing new

    1. atc333 March 31, 2015

      You forget, in the past that climate change you refer to occurred over hundreds, if not thousands of years. It is now increasing much more quickly, which deniers blindly refuse to acknowledge,

      1. Karl Burkhalter April 1, 2015

        1927 Mississippi was 100 miles across, 1930s dust bowl. Seven Year Drought in Teaxas 1950s. Little Ice Age 1550-1850 with dips in 1660 and 1770. No, climate change often happens fast, as when fresh water med became salty around 10K years ago and caused the “Flood”

        1. Sand_Cat April 1, 2015

          You claim to laugh at scientists, but you base your arguments on a book written by a pre-scientific culture that believed in talking reptiles and vegetation and thought the world was flat?
          You’re hilarious! Please, tell us some more of your jokes.

          1. Karl Burkhalter April 2, 2015

            What book? my geology text from college? The Pleistocene lasted for 100K years, until 9-10K BC. Most of the ocean H2O was in ice sheets, as it melted the Atlantic backwashed into the Med. The floor of the med dates to that time. The much warmer salt water collided with cooler fresh h2o throwing tremendous moisture into the air, causing a world wide deluge that is recorded by every surviving culture around the world. The salt water eventually flowed into the Black sea causing regional flooding there. The new sea level destroyed many human communities which have been found there, deep underwater. The Egyptian stories of Atlantis probably have some basis in truth. Now folks lets not be insulting I realize you were taught history by coaches and know only patriotic nonsense , which makes you easier to manipulate.

          2. Sand_Cat April 3, 2015

            Sorry, the 10K part reminded me of that other denial organization, the creationists.
            Nice to see we’re at least talking science here.

          3. Karl Burkhalter April 6, 2015

            history has always been a bunch of lies in chronological order. Therefore real Historians learn to be sceptical if not cynical about everything they read, knowing bias is lurking every where. And generally need very conclusive proof to form even a mild opinion. I never claimed a world wide flood, only global disruption of weather patterns at end of ice age. Creationists dont understand the Bible. But the Bible is the most acurate history book available for the time between 1900 BC and 50 AD. I am against pollution, and for Clean Air Standards. I distrust oil and insurence companies. But conclusive proof that man is the primary cause of climate change has not been shown. Science has been wrong, quite often, and will be again.

          4. Sand_Cat April 7, 2015

            Not to be too much of a detail-Nazi, but you did in fact write of a world-wide deluge in the post to which I responded.
            And speaking of listening to all points, you seem pretty hard-line on your own, under all the talk about being open.

          5. Karl Burkhalter April 7, 2015

            Man only learned how our solar system was part of a galaxy in the 1920s-30s. Radar comes from the 1940s, space telescopes date to the 1980s. in other words our ability to measure and predict global weather patterns is a new science and unreliable on the best days. I am sure recent finding support a rise in global temps recently, but the world has been both a lot hotter and colder. sea levels have risen and fallen dramatically in the past. sometimes over a short period of time. When they finally learn to accurately predict hurricanes and earthquakes I might buy into global warming, as yet man doesn’t know enough about the core of our planet or the surface of the sun. or effects of the moon to be making long range forecasts I will accept.

        2. atc333 April 2, 2015

          You might want to actually read about why the dust bowl formed. http://www.history.com/topics/dust-bowl

          Pretty much the same reason that we are now having climate change,– human activity.

          Isolated events are not persuasive. What we are witnessing now is world wide events, a direct result of ever increasing carbon buildup in the atmosphere caused by human activity and the worlds ever increasing dependance on oil .

          A cite to your claim of the fresh water med causing the flood would be appropriate.

          1. Karl Burkhalter April 2, 2015

            The Med changed to salt at end of the Pleistocene, beginning of Holocene. simple Geo101. A volcano can put more pollutants into the air in an hour than the combined industrial world can in a year, Geo 102. very simple stuff, if you are not a mental puppet of media

          2. atc333 April 2, 2015

            Very simple stuff indeed. So, according to you, we should ignore what we are knowingly dumping into the atmosphere simply because a super sized volcano can initially dump more pollutants into the atmosphere in an hour when it first explodes than the combined industrial world can in a year? We have control over the industrial pollution, the volcano not so much.

            Perhaps you should consider the possibility that you are used as a mental puppet of the Far Right, as you seem unable to look around and see, much less even understand the many consequences climate change which are becoming more obvious every year. Your knowledge of bits of information picked up in Geo 102 hardly qualifies you to refute the real experts the climate scientists, 96% of whol agree we are in the midst of climate change, and humanity is for the most part, its cause, other than those volcanoes, and occasional large meteor strikes which killed off the dinosaurs resulting in the rise of mammals and humanity..,

          3. Ran_dum_Thot April 5, 2015

            The question for you, then, is what are you going to do about besides flap your gums?

          4. atc333 April 5, 2015

            Not sure as to why you asked your question in the manner you did,, but perhaps I should ask you the same thing, only word it a little more civilly?

          5. Ran_dum_Thot April 5, 2015

            I read a lot of haranguing on these blogs, but hear little to nothing about bloggers taking any action to remedy that about which they mightily complain. So, action speak louder than words. What have you done to fix anything you don’t like? It does little good to bemoan what others do if you do nothing. Got solar panel installed? Munch on a plant based diet to reduce the energy spent raising animals for food? Drive a small fuel efficient car or ride a bike to work? Live in a small house sans excessive heating and cooling? Unplug all the electronics every nite to save a watt or two? Recycle the trash? Buy food from the local farmers market? Hire a local down and outer to help the needy? Donate time at a homeless shelter? Rescue abandoned animals? What do you do to help the environment?

          6. atc333 April 6, 2015

            Most of the above. However, a portion of the population doing all of the above without doing more, does not change the mindset of the climate change deniers, as those who are in power control where and how our nations energy needs are sourced until voters demand a change. So far, the elected deniers and Big Oil have done a very good job on the 33% of voters who still are deniers that our energy needs should be based on oil, even though investing in clean energy and research would create new industry, new jobs, and substantially reduce pollution, reducing global warmin. Simply quietly doing all of which you mentioned does nothing to alter the positions of individual deniers who continue to stick their heads in the sand. I would hope they choose a beach which is more than 22 inches above our current high tide marks.

          7. Ran_dum_Thot April 8, 2015

            If sea level rises 22 inches, a lot of population will die off, should they not move to higher ground and some how figure out how to re-establish a food supply chain. A lot of arable land and distribution networks will also disappear. And talk about the potential for massive pollution of the oceans when those cities-esp. the third world ones–go under water. Not a pretty picture. While alternative energy can create jobs, the fossil fuel industry will also lose jobs. So the net job situation will be a wash in all likelihood.

          8. Buzzi Butt April 14, 2015

            Doing something other than the above can, if fact, sway the deniers and head-in-the-sand people. Who knows what quiet little mouse will inspire the next great leader by his actions? No great person has ever achieved success on his own. His followers aren’t always bellicose, table thumpers, but just average people wanting a better world to live in and are inspired by a good leader to do something.

          9. Ran_dum_Thot April 5, 2015

            You should wonder why the soil was so easily eroded. Farmers plowed under the stable, drought resist native grasses to plant crops with shallow root systems and needing lots of water. The winds came in history was made.

    2. Sand_Cat April 1, 2015

      What do historians know about it? They study human activity.
      We’re all laughing at your pathetic excuse for an argument.

      1. Karl Burkhalter April 2, 2015

        quit laughing and learn to think objectively, Napoleon said it best “Geography is history.” historians and anthropologist have long been studying migration patterns caused by climate changes that have been regular since forever. Keep an open mind and learn to listen to opposing opinions. ridiculing isn’t constructive debate, my child.

      2. Ran_dum_Thot April 5, 2015

        When at loss for words and lacking understanding the hapless resort to insults and derision. Here is some food for thought:

        “I like the scientific spirit—the holding off, the being sure but not
        too sure, the willingness to surrender ideas when the evidence is
        against them: this is ultimately fine—it always keeps the way beyond
        open—always gives life, thought, affection, the whole man, a chance to
        try over again after a mistake—after a wrong guess.”

        Walt Whitman

        1. Sand_Cat April 7, 2015

          True enough.
          Deniers can always quote the things they deny.

    3. Ran_dum_Thot April 5, 2015

      My word, someone that understands relative size.

  7. _Steve_ March 31, 2015

    Doesn’t matter if man is responsible for climate change, but restrictions still need to be made to lower pollution levels.

    1. hicusdicus March 31, 2015

      Would please tell China and India that.

      1. bobnstuff April 1, 2015

        China knows, they are closing four coalfired power plants and banned incandescent light bulbs.

      2. Sand_Cat April 1, 2015

        If we don’t neither will they. You’re just making excuses.

        1. hicusdicus April 2, 2015

          Your funny. Like China cares what we do. We have done more than any nation our size to clean up our environment. When Iran gets around to sprinkling nukes around the middle east industrial environment will be the last of our worries.

          1. Sand_Cat April 2, 2015

            Glad you find it amusing. We all could afford to lighten up.
            Any nation we go telling what to do cares what we ourselves do; however hypocritical the Chinese government may be in some areas, no one likes a hypocrite (other than themselves).
            Last I heard, China had more ambitious environmental cleanup goals than we do: they’re not stupid, whatever else they may be. They also have 3-4 times as many people as we do, making the fact that they exceed our emissions a bit more understandable (not that I approve of overpopulation, either).
            Probably not what you meant, but it sounds like you can’t wait for Iran to start a nuclear war; that might provide a reasonable excuse for our doing nothing.
            But unlike us, Iran has actually had a major war carried out on its soil, and – despite what you think – is unlikely to want another, especially a nuclear one. They may be religious fanatics, but they are smart enough to have a realistic appreciation of the result of their “sprinkling nukes around the middle east,” as you put it.

      3. _Steve_ April 1, 2015

        One economic reason the formerly U.S. manufacturing has moved there, which BTW is owned by U.S. corps.. tell them

        1. hicusdicus April 2, 2015

          Please decipher.

          1. Sand_Cat April 2, 2015

            The meaning isn’t too obscure: much of our pollution-emitting industry has moved to China with unfortunate encouragement of our government. A lot of the pollution went with it.

          2. Ran_dum_Thot April 2, 2015

            Since about 2012 the USA is having an increase in manufacturing jobs at the expense of China.

          3. Sand_Cat April 3, 2015

            Not enough to make much difference.

          4. Ran_dum_Thot April 5, 2015

            Gotta start someplace. Mustard seed kind of thing.

          5. Sand_Cat April 7, 2015

            Hope you’re right, but the talking heads don’t think it’s significant, and given past history, I’m inclined to think they’re right in this case. Competing with slave labor without imitating it is difficult.

    2. Ran_dum_Thot April 2, 2015

      Well, turn off your lights, walk or ride your bicycle to work, turn off the internet, recycle/use your discards and start a trend to using less energy and things that pollute.

  8. jakenhyde March 31, 2015

    Wow. What a coincidence. All five are republcons.

  9. pmbalele March 31, 2015

    We had Watergate, bridgegate, birthers now we have truthers and deniers and all these come from Repubs and TPs. Next we are told we will have office women chasers.

  10. Blueberry Hill March 31, 2015

    Why are they being called “Climate Truthers?” They are Climate Liars, not Truthers. They are lying about the climate and every other thing that drivels from their mouths.


    1. Daniel Jones March 31, 2015

      “Truther” is a term naming a group of people pushing some talking point as the ONE TRUE TRUTH–the facts be damned.
      It was derived from the satiric term Truthiness.

  11. hicusdicus March 31, 2015

    People have about as much control over climate change as they do over aging and dieing.

    1. Sand_Cat April 1, 2015

      Yes, please give us the evidence to support your position.

      1. hicusdicus April 2, 2015

        Try a cemetery tour that will give you an idea of how much control humans have over their lives and the world around them.

        1. Sand_Cat April 2, 2015

          Nice non-answer.

          1. hicusdicus April 2, 2015

            That’s your opinion. I guess you have not yet realized you have very little control over your fate. You are born and then you die. Everything in between are just routine daily blunders. If you think I am wrong why are you posting and wasting your few short years talking to people who don’t care what you have to say? It would be more productive to mow the lawn or watch the sun set.

          2. Sand_Cat April 3, 2015

            Good advice for you, too.

          3. hicusdicus April 3, 2015

            I don’t take advice I just give it.

  12. adler56 March 31, 2015

    Inhofe is a disgrace to his parents and the entire state of OKlahoma.

    1. Sez Eye April 20, 2015

      Actually, we love him here. He keeps irritating the empty headed progressives in DC. That in and of itself is reason enough to keep sending him back.

  13. Rick Skaggs April 1, 2015

    The simple and inconvenient truth is that human activity has very little influence over the climate. Yes, we are harming ourselves and other species with our pollution but we have minimal effect on the climate itself. Climate change is absolutely real. It has been changing for billions of years and will do so with or without our participation. It has been substantially hotter several times in the past 1 million years alone. I do firmly believe that we should do everything possible to limit polluting our planet and move away from fossil fuels, not because of this farce being pushed on us but because we need to be more responsible for keeping our environment clean

    1. Urbane_Gorilla April 1, 2015

      I guess if you don’t believe that CO2 and other atmospheric pollutants do not create a greenhouse effect, that might be true, but clearly humans and the dawn of manufacturing has produced both:


      1. Un Ruley April 2, 2015

        Weather is short term and part of climate, which is long term. 1000 years is short term for planet earth. Humans can influence weather, but not climate.

        1. Urbane_Gorilla April 2, 2015

          Aside from that statement being absolutely absurd, here’s 10,000 years, which is 10 times your 1000 year qualifier:


          And a graph of human population to compare it to:


          Notice the similarity?

          1. Un Ruley April 2, 2015

            Weather changes as does climate over time. The planet is what, 4.5 billion years old? And you think 10,000 years is a significant number over the earth’s life span? It certainly is to a human, but we check out every 70-100 years. Civilization, and I use that term as broadly as I can, has been around a few thousand years. So, to judge nature by your perceived scale of a “long” time is faulty.

          2. Urbane_Gorilla April 3, 2015

            Actually, you mentioned 1000 years. I just showed that CO2 has markedly increased in the couple of hundred, commensurate with the rise of industrialization and the advent of human population explosion.

            Your premise that the weather changes for unknown reasons is silly, as is your opinion that we don;t affect the climate. All you have to do is read..Check ‘Greenhouse Effect”.. Make note that for every ton of concrete we produce, we also produce one ton of CO2..Look at a time lapse map of city growth worldwide and realize that all that concrete is a massive CO2 load. Then check a time lapse map of the destruction of our forests in the US, Europe and So America. Trees suck up CO2. Fewer trees, less CO2 is absorbed. The oceans are also a great CO2 sink. And the acidification (Carbonic Acid) is a direct result of too much CO2 in our atmosphere. Check out Ocean Acidification — National Geographic http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/critical-issues-ocean-acidification/

            But if you think that maybe somehow these problems are happening ‘just because’, then ask yourself if we don;t affect our environment, then explain this: The Ozone Hole http://www.theozonehole.com/

          3. Un Ruley April 5, 2015

            I said a 1,000 years is a short period of time with respect age earth which has been around a few billion. No one questions the adverse influence of industrialization on current weather patterns. There is more to the overall picture, however. One nasty volcanic eruption, a polar reversal, a plague wiping out 25% of the population in a few months, routine interglacial adjustments and so are significant factors. No one factor, such as CO2 is the sole cause of global warming nor should we harp on that at the expense of addressing other polluting phenomena that are causing severe, perhaps irreversible, damage to the environment.

          4. Sez Eye April 20, 2015

            You are aware that the historical record shows that CO2 follows warmer periods, right? And that the plants we eat consider CO2 to be yummy, yummy food? And that Greenland was once actually green rather than covered with ice as it is now?

          5. Urbane_Gorilla April 20, 2015

            1) Historical records show that CO2 in our atmosphere has increased exponentially with the growth of human population and in particular our industrial revolution.

            ** http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/wp-content/Pop-vs-emissions-sm1.jpg

            2) But here’s a 5th grade explanation of global warming:

            ** Global warming for kids: A simple explanation of climate change http://www.explainthatstuff.com/globalwarmingforkids.html

            3) CO2 is part of what is known as the Carbon Cycle, wherein CO2 is sequestered in plants. Unfortunately, we’re clearing forests at a massive rate (something you won’t hear a lot about on FOX News):

            ** Deforestation Facts, Deforestation Information, Effects of Deforestation – National Geographic http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/deforestation-overview/

            4) Greenland may have been quite lush eons ago, and there were forests in the Sahara Desert. The reasons for that are varied, volcanic action, the polar flip, changes in the tilt of the world’s axis, etc, etc. However, Greenland in recent history has been an icy wasteland:

            ** How Greenland got its Name – Ancient History Blog http://ancientstandard.com/2010/12/17/how-greenland-got-its-name/

          6. Vivarto April 21, 2015

            So what?
            Why is that a problem?

      2. Vivarto April 21, 2015

        CO2 concentration is increasing so what?
        Now it has reached less than 1/2 of one tenth of a percent.
        Big freaking deal!

        1. Urbane_Gorilla April 21, 2015

          It’s a 35% increase over the period of human industrial growth.

          1. Vivarto April 21, 2015

            And so what?
            It is still 0.4 of 1/10th of a percent, and contrary to your claims has no measurable impact on climate.

            Anyway, I’d not mind some warming if there was some.

    2. Sand_Cat April 1, 2015

      A simple and inconvenient truth is that you cannot support your claim with any evidence, and simply assert that the strong scientific evidence is bogus because all the world’s climate scientists – except the ones who agree with you, of course – are engaged in a massive conspiracy to – what? Guess it doesn’t matter; any lie will do.

    3. drdroad April 3, 2015

      And your degree is from where?? Please give me the credentials that say I should believe your theory more than the 97% of scientists that disagree with you?

      1. Dietrdeb April 21, 2015

        And your degree is from where? Every idiot in high school knows that the last formal ice age only ended about 5000 years ago.

      2. Vivarto April 21, 2015

        Where did you get your 97%?

      3. Sez Eye April 21, 2015

        97%? From a study that sent out 10,000 questionnaires, got fewer than 200 responses, and threw out more than 50% of those in order to get to their 97% claim. Yep, a real reliable study there slick.

  14. Rick Skaggs April 1, 2015

    China and India are polluting more than the next 10 countries COMBINED!!! even if we went to 0 emissions tomorrow it wont make a difference

    1. Urbane_Gorilla April 1, 2015

      Actually, China is #1 (makes sense, we shipped all of our manufacturing jobs there), but we’re #2. India is actually down the list a bit.

      Each Country’s Share of CO2 Emissions | Union of Concerned Scientists http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2.html#.VRxNkOGUI80

      1. Sand_Cat April 1, 2015

        In addition, China has made commitments to reduce theirs, commitments stronger and more far-reaching than the US, plus they have more than three times (possibly four) as many people as we do.

        1. Urbane_Gorilla April 1, 2015

          You’re right. Bejing will shut down all their coal fired generators this year. We here in California are laughed at because our Governor has committed to reducing our carbon foot-print. Meanwhile back East, politicians are still fighting to keep coal as a viable energy source, when natural gas is cheaper anyway. Go figure. I guess nobody remembers the days in big cities before pollution controls on cars.Nor do they recall the Brits dealing with acid fog, which ate the stockings off of girls going to work. I sure do.

          1. Sez Eye April 20, 2015

            Yeah, let us know when the last coal fired generators in china have been shut down. I’m 50 now, maybe by the time I die at 90, and home sized fusion reactors are $400 including installation, they might shut down one or 2.

          2. Urbane_Gorilla April 20, 2015

            Too bad our RWers are so busy fighting to keep our own coal fired generators polluting our rivers, aquifers and air… Then maybe other countries might follow suit. But hey! Let’s be asses and point the finger at a foreign country that actually is doing what we don’t want to, right? 😉

          3. Sez Eye April 20, 2015

            They haven’t done anything yet, and their coal fired plants have no remediation equipment installed. Conversely, huge reductions in pollutants have been achieved by our own industries. Yet you “hate America first” idiots so enjoy blaming the entire worlds problems on the US that you are incapable or recognizing this.

            BTW, what are your solutions for replacing these plants? NG? Who is going to pay for the conversion? How are you going to replace the jobs lost? How many towns and companies are you willing to destroy in order to achieve your impossible “utopian dream”?

          4. Urbane_Gorilla April 20, 2015

            I know you think you know what you’re talking about. You remind me of that bumper sticker “A mind is a terrible thing to waste” ….Chinese coal generation has been built for a decade or so with the best pollution reducing technology:

            ** Want Cleaner Coal? Go to China – Why American entrepreneurs are testing their technology overseas. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/coal/2012/11/clean_coal_technology_china_is_the_new_testing_ground_for_coal_fired_power.html

            ** Chinese Power Plant Develops Advanced Coal Technology | Circle of Blue WaterNews http://www.circleofblue.org/waternews/2010/cob/choke-point-china-2/chinese-power-plant-develops-advanced-coal-technology/

            I don’t hate Americans, I am American. I hate stupid people. You’re pretty stupid.

            As to what would I use to replace coal power plants and who would pay for it….Uhhhhh .. it’s already going on, because natural gas is not only cleaner, but easier to transport, leaves little residue and it’s cheaper:

            ** A Slew of Coal Plants Get New Lease on Life—With Gas http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2014/11/141120-coal-plants-repowered-with-natural-gas/

            You might want to turn off FOX News, your brains are oozing out of your ears.

          5. Sez Eye April 20, 2015

            Its funny how easily your fact deprived comments are disproved: http://boundarysentinel.com/news/chinas-disastrous-air-pollution-lesson-us-all-37612#.VTWanJOhvQk

          6. tompro97 April 21, 2015

            The Chinese have brought on line 65 brand spanking new coal-fired generating plants in the past few years and you lie by saying they are going to just shut them all down THIS YEAR?????

            You are out of your mind, Sparky.

          7. Urbane_Gorilla April 21, 2015

            No Nimrod. I didn’t say that, did I. You can take remedial reading at Community Colleges everywhere in the US. You should take advantage of that opportunity.

            ​China to shut down last Beijing coal power plant in 2016 — RT Business http://rt.com/business/243561-china-coal-power-plants/

          8. Sand_Cat April 21, 2015

            Nope, you’re just an ignorant lackey promoting more ignorance.

        2. tompro97 April 21, 2015

          And you seriously think the Chinese will live up to anything they say??? That is like believing anything that Global Warmists say.

          1. Sand_Cat April 21, 2015

            And you seriously think you can trust the contradictory BS promoted by the fossil fuel industry through the same people who brought you “there’s absolutely no evidence that smoking causes cancer”? The Chinese – bad as they may be – are far more likely to honor their word than the people you suckers believe in.

    2. Sand_Cat April 1, 2015

      Why should anyone do anything if we won’t?
      More likely, you would prefer that, and use the excuses you give to justify it.

    3. Urbane_Gorilla April 20, 2015

      I couldn’t find a 2014 chart, but this from 2012 isn’t far off the mark. True, China is number one in pollution (makes sense, we shipped all our manufacturing over there), but the USA is still in a close second place. You’ll also note that both China and India are the most populated countries:

      China, the most populated country is also the most polluting
      country, as it releases 6,108 million tonnes of greenhouse gases (GHGs).
      Not far behind is USA, which is the largest economy and also the 2nd
      most polluting country. It releases 5,833 million tonnes of GHGs. Before
      2007, it was USA which was the biggest polluter.

      The next culprit of global warming is Russia which even though has
      less population of 141,950,000 compared to US and China, still releases
      considerable amount of CO2 – 1,704 million tonnes. India which has the
      2nd largest population of 1,139 million releases 1,293 million tonnes of
      GHGs per annum and hence the 4th place.

      Germany which releases 858 million tonnes gases per annum is ready to
      cut emission of CO2 by 3% each year. On the other hand, Russia says it
      is all set to cut GHG emissions by 25% when others concur to make the
      same attempt.

      1. Beenthere43 April 20, 2015

        Russia lies, just as liberals do.

        1. Urbane_Gorilla April 20, 2015

          If liberals lie and that equates them to Russia, then conservatives lie more and that equates them to what? ISIS? Al Qaeda? You tell me. 😉

          ** PolitiFact: Republicans Lie Three Times More Often Than Democrats, According To New Study | http://www.mediaite.com/online/politifact-says-republicans-lie-three-times-more-often-than-democrats-according-to-new-study/

          1. Beenthere43 April 20, 2015

            Liberal motto: Lie, deny, cover-up, blame, demonize, make yourself rich off the poor, and vote early and often.

          2. Urbane_Gorilla April 20, 2015

            Right..And yet I just showed that not only are you wrong, but a very wrong liar. Conservative motto “Never saw a fact that I can’t ignore”. 😉

          3. Beenthere43 April 20, 2015

            You showed you don’t know fact from fiction.

          4. Vivarto April 21, 2015

            Urbane, you are naive.
            PoliticFact is a biased.
            For example if a Republican were to say that that the man-made Global Warming is an unproven hypothesis, the PolitiFact would call it a lie.
            Just be intelligent and don’t rely on their fake “statistics.”

          5. Urbane_Gorilla April 21, 2015

            Politifact is unbiased. You just didn’t like what they provided on the subject. But go ahead and provide some support that contradicts their finding. If you can’t, then just crawl back into your swamp.

          6. tompro97 April 21, 2015

            And you quote two far left-wing communist sources for your statement???? I would NOT give you a penny for either Politifarce or Mediate or their propaganda.

          7. Urbane_Gorilla April 21, 2015

            OK.. Provide a rebuttal and source. Or take a hike. Whichever.

      2. Vivarto April 21, 2015

        Release of CO2 is not equivalent with Global Warming.
        So don’t equivocate them.
        Even if your numbers are correct, they have NEARLY nothing to do with the temperatures.
        This is just a defunct theory.

        1. Urbane_Gorilla April 21, 2015

          Don’t be stupid. Or at least try not to show your ignorance.

          1. Sez Eye April 24, 2015

            He isn’t. Heck, he doesn’t even need to point our your ignornance, you do a great job of that without prompting.

            Choose – Theory or actual measurements? Computer models or measured data?

  15. Urbane_Gorilla April 1, 2015

    God save us from these morons!

    1. Sez Eye April 20, 2015

      He already has, Gore has been proven wrong so many times that the only response he gets these days is derisive laughter from the audience when ever he opens his mouth.

      1. Urbane_Gorilla April 20, 2015

        I didn’t see Gore’s name on that list. Why don’t you start your own Creationist blog and make your own list?

        1. Sez Eye April 20, 2015

          He is not on the list because he and his meme is a world laughing stock. He made his 100 million off of fools incapable of evaluating data for themselves. With the climate not getting warmer as predicted for the last 19 years, his current and previous predictions are accepted only by the purposefully ignorant. He will make more money from them, but not nearly at the rate he enjoyed previously.

          1. Urbane_Gorilla April 20, 2015

            He isn’t a meme, he’s a real person. If he was a climate denier, he’d be on the list. He was one of the first to start talking about climate issues, and idiots laughed at him. Idiots also laughed at Galileo when he said the Earth circles the Sun. So what does that prove? There are fools like you all over the place. You’re like stepping in dog sh*t and walking across a living room carpet.

            As to your comment “With the climate not getting warmer as predicted for the last 19 years” … Where did you get that tidbit of BS?

            ** Global Temperature Increases: http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/indicators/global-temp-and-co2-1880-2009.gif

            ** Climate Change Is Increasing Extreme Heat Globally | Climate Central http://www.climatecentral.org/news/climate-change-is-increasing-extreme-heat-globally-17120

            You must live on the East Coast and think the world ends at your town border. Derp!

          2. Thomas Comerford April 21, 2015

            Then why are ALL of the climate models wrong? Why are temperature records modified? Why are temperature stations improperly positioned?

            Why does your graph only go back to 1880? Hasn’t earth’s climate been around for much longer?

            And most important, if Al Gore et al are so worried about CO2 emissions, why do they fly all over the world to talk about it? Haven;t they heard of video conferencing?

            When I started hearing that the at the “science is settled” I suspected that the left was trying to suppress dissent.

          3. Urbane_Gorilla April 21, 2015

            Who says all climate models are wrong? Please provide support for that.

            I just pulled up the chart that showed the recent increases in CO2. You can go to Google Images and pull up a longer term chart…presuming you are capable.

            Your comment on Gore and flying is so asinine it’s not worth discussing.

            Please show support that ‘the left’ is trying to suppress discussion/dissent.

          4. Sez Eye April 24, 2015

            Actually they are not all wrong, just 95% of them:


            You also seem to be stuck on the lie that CO2 causes global warming, when instead, CO2 increases FOLLOW climate temperature increases by at least several hundred years:


            The “climate models” and assumptions do not agree with observed temperatures nor other actual observed data. What does that tell you? Are the models wrong or every measuring instrument and scientific measuring method yet developed? These are the only 2 rational choices. Pick one.

          5. Urbane_Gorilla April 24, 2015

            So you’re saying that industrialization, cement production, coal burning, factory production doesn’t produce CO2..It’s just that as the world’s temperature increases CO2 magically appears! I’m guessing this is a move on God’s part. He just snaps his fingers and as temperature rises, CO2 is produced in sync! Brilliant! LMAO!

          6. Sez Eye April 24, 2015

            Don’t put words in my mouth, especially when you fail to understand simple logic. Of course we produce CO2, but the meme that CO2 causes global warming has been debunked by actual science, as opposed to the theories harped on by the fear mongers with their hands in your wallet. You realize of course that CO2 is required by plants to grow (think food) and that they excrete O2 as a waste product. More CO2, more biomass.

            The earth has taken care of itself (it is a self correcting system FYI) for billions of years. The minor effect we have on it is insignificant compared to a single volcanic event or an increase in sunspot activity.

            Commit, are the models wrong or is every other scientific method of measurement yet developed wrong? Do you believe a theory or actual measured data? Are you a true believer or a rational being?

          7. Urbane_Gorilla April 24, 2015

            I’m sticking with God did it..Just like he placed man on earth fully formed 6000 years ago.

          8. Sez Eye April 24, 2015

            Don’t tell us more of your religious beliefs.


          9. Urbane_Gorilla April 24, 2015

            I’m an atheist dummy.

          10. Sez Eye April 24, 2015

            Choose – Theory or actual data. Drooling sycophant or rational being. Computer models or actual measurements.

          11. Greg Gutlessfeld April 28, 2015

            You just called yourself a dummy, Captain Commaless.

          12. Sez Eye May 10, 2015

            Calling yourself names doesn’t win the debate. Choose.

          13. Sez Eye June 5, 2015


  16. Harry Bosch April 2, 2015

    In a related article, more evidence of global cooling: http://cbsloc.al/1vRC1FB

    1. Mark Carl Rom April 2, 2015

      You do the know the difference between the weather in Chicago and global climate, right?

      1. Sez Eye April 20, 2015

        Sure, when it is unseasonably cold for a few days, it is weather. When it is unseasonably warm for a few days, it is anthropomorphic climate change that if not stopped by a huge infusion of my money, will result in the destruction of mankind within 50 years.

  17. Un Ruley April 2, 2015

    How long did anyone think a major metropolitan area was going to survive when it relies on snow for its water? New York still gets water from New England via aqua ducts built in the 1800’s. This is colossal government failure. Good news: The Midwest and southern states are benefiting from the exodus.

    1. tompro97 April 21, 2015

      NO good news there – who wants a bunch of socialist Yankees flooding their state. Look at what happened to Colorado, Oregon, Washington, and CA for examples.

  18. Harvey Wallbanger April 20, 2015

    Some truth for you maniacs. That “overwhelming consensus” is no such thing The study that claimed it merely was asking of scientists agree that greenhouse gases like C02 cause warming and if the averaged SST was warming. Every natural scientist on earth agrees to that.

    They don’t agree on the affects of increases in C02 or how much human activity is going to cause issues for us. In fact, it’s wildly disputed and researched. As well, all the models the IPCC relies on have not been working well at all either.

    I suggest anyone here who is hysterical to go read the AR5 report yourself. Read the actual documents, not just the summaries. You will be stunned by the level of uncertainty and imprecision in all of this.

    What a joke the left has become. Any whiff of a story or issue that carries your agenda forward and you are like crackheads after a jumbo rock.

    Why is there no warming?

  19. Beenthere43 April 20, 2015

    The National Memo is straight from the Marxist minds of the democrat party.

    1. Greg Gutlessfeld April 28, 2015

      Megadittoes, Bagger!

  20. Vivarto April 21, 2015

    I don’t know if it is indeed true that the overwhelming majority of scientists support the man-made global warming theory.
    over 30,000 scientists signed a protest letter against this theory. Thousands of them were experts in atmospheric sciences, and related disciplines.
    Secondly scientific truth is not determined by the majority.
    Copernicus was outvoted by the ration of 1000:1 when he proposed that it was the Earth that orbited around the Sun, and not the other way around.

    National Memo is using personal attacks and character defamation instead of solid scientific proofs.
    Unfortunately this is the typical leftist method of “discussion”.

  21. jayker April 21, 2015

    Man made Catastrophic Global Warming is a hoax and most folks know it’s a hoax by now. It was created to enforce draconian government power and taxes on hapless citizens. It was created to reward an academic constituency of fellow travelers who were enriched in tenure, grants, and perquisites along the way.

  22. incontru April 21, 2015

    If the science truly were settled, the climate models would accurately predict changes in global temperatures. The global warming hypothesis, embedded in the faulty models, also is clearly faulty. Real scientists would admit that their hypothesis is wrong, and make adjustments. Instead, the hysterical warmists try to change the data and hide the obvious failures of their psuedo-science. The author of this pile of steaming crap is nothing more than a commissar on a witch-hunt.

  23. Arationofreason April 21, 2015

    Listen to what they are trying to tell us:

    Quote by Maurice Strong, a billionaire
    elitist, primary power behind UN throne, and large CO2 producer: “Isn’t
    the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse?
    Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”

    Quote by Paul Watson, a founder of
    Greenpeace: “It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what
    people believe is true.”


  24. Mxpctlk April 21, 2015

    The “science” has been soundly debunked.
    The “scientists” were caught falsifying the data and numbers.
    The data modeling was been proven to be based on false assumptions.

    Global warming alarmists in the “science” community have mainly been those who receive hefty grants to study the phenomenon. It is complete and utter bunk – same as this “reporting.”

  25. calhar April 21, 2015

    At least 5 in the Senate use the brain in their head instead of sitting on it??????

    1. Greg Gutlessfeld April 28, 2015

      Farce, they’re not all senators, farce.

  26. 1984isnow April 21, 2015

    Thank God for these wise and brave men who are willing to take on the lying ‘Alarmists” whose only true goal is to take peoples money and redistribute wealth as they micro manage our everyday life. The time spent on this article would be better spent examining the Carbon footprint of the Alarmists, including the president, hollywood, Gore and other fools.

  27. Borchardt April 22, 2015

    Climate change is the most recent vehicle designed by Statist Pigs to get Low Information Voters to surrender their lives and property to the government.

  28. Magwheelz April 22, 2015

    I’d put them on the BEST list.

  29. Thora Lynn Nutting April 22, 2015

    WTF wrote this article? Climate change isn’t real. It’s all about controlling people. They know this but are intent to tax, destroy the private sector and cause more people to become reliant on the government. Every one knows this even the few that are in power and are control….I guess its time for a reality check for them.

  30. Citizenright April 22, 2015

    Still waiting for the proof that the climate is changing, that the climate is changing because of CO2 and that the CO2 is the product of man…not swamps, etc.

  31. FloridaJim April 22, 2015

    This column is a massive lie built on a United Nations/Progressive scheme to tax Americans to fund other failed countries and keep the UN permanently wealthy. These 5 are heroes of mine here’s why:http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/10/a-science-based-rebuttal-to-global-warming-alarmism/

  32. Frank Saubier April 22, 2015

    These are among the few HEROS of today! It is not a very convincing put-down to accuse someone of being for the TRUTH. And the truth is that the entire “climate change” hoax has been a collection of LIES and EXTORTION tactic from earliest “global warming” days.

  33. mark April 22, 2015

    Tell me, are you possibly aware of how much in contributions are made to
    Dem politicians from the so-called “green” industries? It’s just one
    technology trying to supplant another. Yet, the intelligent among us
    know a scam when we see one, and “green” is simply a means to undermine
    Big Oil. Google the name Ted Steyer. Learn how much he’s given Dem

    1. jackcandobutwont April 22, 2015

      Does any one remember Solyndra and the billions that went to green comapnaies that are no longer in business!! funny (NOT) how the media ignores that story!!

      1. mark April 22, 2015

        We can’t forget St. Al of Gore, self-styled patron saint of the so-called “green movement” and former US senator and VP. It has been published that St. Al profited in the tens of millions since leaving office in 2001. So try and tell me that “green” isn’t a scam. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/decision2012/al-gore-has-thrived-as-green-tech-investor/2012/10/10/1dfaa5b0-0b11-11e2-bd1a-b868e65d57eb_story.html

  34. FreemenRtrue April 23, 2015

    There is no scientific proof of any kind that CO2 causes global warming. Global warming is in an 18+ year pause. Global warming has been generally ongoing for over 150 years. Global Warming is likely highly beneficial based upon the Roman and Medieval warm eras. CO2 is scientifically proven to be beneficial to life on earth, plants thrive at 1100 ppm. The earth is greening under increased CO2, proven by satellite. Crops are at all time record levels globally. CO2 is caused by global warming not vice versa. This article is a ludicrous example of yellow journalism at its worst.

  35. Spartacus60 April 23, 2015

    YOU say climate change truther like its a bad thing? LOL The nut jobs are the likes of you who buy into the climate change propaganda so blindly. What a bunch of robots. Scary who is allowed to vote in this country. There should be a basic test for intelligence and knowledge of national and world events before someone can vote. Now all it takes is a drivers license whether you are illegally here or not.

  36. Spartacus60 April 23, 2015

    I have been wanting to read Sen Inhofes book on this subject ….a challenge for us all!

  37. Arthur Burnside April 23, 2015

    Henry Decker spouted one huge lie when he claimed that global warming is continuing.
    It DID come to a more or less complete halt in 1998. Claims that 2014 was the warmest on record is completely misleading – the tiny amount by which the year was warmer
    was not even near the size of the error of measurement and also based on the crappiest temp data series we have, NOT on the unbiased satellite record. There has never been a study that asked climatologists their views on global warming – the “overwhelming” claim comes from a junk science survey done by extreme alarmist John Cook in Australia and has been thoroughly debunked. Decker also misleadingly cats the issue as to whether there is warming/no warming. There are NO skeptical scientists that I know of who deny that the planet has warmed- it has done so since the last ice age thousands of years ago – that’s not news. Sea levels have risen as much as 100 feet per century in the past but are now hardly rising at all – about 8 inches per century.
    The important question is : 1) how much warming has there been and can be expected, and 2) to what extent is this warming due to man’s activities. Journalists like Decker have thoroughly confused the public by making simplistic claims about the extent to which CO2 has been a factor. There is NO consensus on that critical issue, which is the sole basis for Obama’s idiotic and pointless war on coal.
    Climate sensitivity, or the extent to which a doubling of current CO2 atmospheric levels (400PPM) can warm the planet range from a recent German study (6/10th of a degree), to the latest high estimate from the extreme alarmist IPCC of 4.5 degrees. Doesn’t sound like any scientific consensus to me. Or just examine the various estimates of future warming from the dozens of simplistic computer models (which have been completely incapable of making even remotely accurate predictions in the past) – those predictions are all over the map. Once again – ZERO scientific consensus.
    The main reason the US CO2 production has dropped has been due to fracking, which has made natural gas a viable baseload power plant fuel,which has reduced the percentage of coal from 52% to less than 40%. This all occurred because of simple economics, which Obama tried to prevent. Decker’s further politically based argument that some Congressiona skeptics have received campaign funds from oil

    companies, causing them to dispute doomsday predictions from global warming
    is beyond stupid – oil companies are not in the electric power generating business,
    which is where efforts to reduce CO2 are now located. Auto emissions will never
    be significantly lowered until electric cars are out in force – but recent statistics show a large number of electric cars being traded in for gas powered SUVs.
    Obama has been a disaster for our energy system. His science advisor Holden
    is an alarmist from way back – predicting mass starvations to occur during the 1980s. He is a certified imbecile when it comes to climatology. The fact that there are some Congressmen making exaggerated claims in no way is an effective or even relevant argument against global warming skepticism. Decker has swallowed the claims of the global warming alamists and is producing obviously biased reportage of an issue that he obviously knows very little about. All of the recent, more accurate scientific data suggests that hysterical fears about global warming are just that – hysteria. Decker needs to escape from his timewarped igloo

  38. Bachelor With Sense April 23, 2015

    Somebody put the Blowhard Author of this article out of HIS Misery… Global Warming would decress IF the Author was not SPEWING HOT AIR!!!

    1. Greg Gutlessfeld April 28, 2015

      D-e-c-r-e-a-s-e. F-a-r-c-e. Y-o-u.

  39. Greg Gutlessfeld April 28, 2015

    Bagger, bagger, bagger, bagger and bagger. Not very complex.


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.