Do you consider the following statement to be a) true, b) controversial, or c) false?

The climate has been changing from the dawn of time. The climate will change as long as we have a planet Earth.

If you answered a) then you should hang your head in shame and go to the bottom of the climate-denial stairs. I’m not sure about b), but only c) would allow you to burnish your credentials and hold your head up with pride. The statement was uttered by Senator Ted Cruz, and was enough to see him labelled a climate denier by both the Guardian and the Center for American Progress (CAP). The former recently published an article about a report by the latter.

Where do you stand on this?

I think many scientists would debate the percentage of what is attributable to man versus normal fluctuations.

I’m afraid if you didn’t bridle at such outrageous denialism, then that probably makes you a denier. Just like Senator Marco Rubio, who had the audacity to say it.

How about this?

There is no question that the Earth’s climate is changing and that over the Millennia of the Earth’s existence it has changed dramatically. No climate model is able to determine exactly what effect human activity has on our environment but there is little doubt that human activity has some effect…Yes, the climate is changing, geology tells us that Oklahoma was once covered by water and that glaciers dominated North America in our ancient history.

I hope you don’t think that represents a fairly sensible, middle-of-the-road statement of facts. If you do, then you are a denier, just like Senator James Lankford, whose outrageous words those are.

DeSmog has a list of the shameful people who deserve to be included in a Climate Disinformation Database, and so CAP has a report on the “Climate Deniers of the 118th Congress”. They are, apparently, a despicable bunch. Senator Kevin Cramer is, in the eyes of CAP, definitely someone to be outed. For goodness’ sake, he is quoted as saying this:

The earth has gone through cycles for as long as there’s been creation. What I would also tell them is ‘We can’t destroy ourselves in the process of trying to save the earth.’

Senator John Kennedy is another one with far too open a mind. What on earth was he thinking when he said this?

I’ve seen many persuasive arguments that [Earth’s rise in temperature is] just a continuation of the warming up from the Little Ice Age.

As for Senator John Hoeven, well really!

Well, the science shows that there’s warming. There’s different opinions of exactly what’s causing it.

Senator Rand Paul, how could you?

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.

On and on it goes. The list includes 123 of these wretched people, 100 in the House of Representatives and 23 US Senators. That’s almost a quarter of Congress. To be honest, what worries me is what the other three-quarters think.

The Guardian tells us that in order to make it onto the list, the individuals concerned have to:

…say that the climate crisis is not real or not primarily caused by humans, or claim that climate science is not settled, that extreme weather is not caused by global warming or that planet-warming pollution is beneficial.

That strikes me as being nonsense. There are at least elements of truth in all of those statements. One can accept that the climate is changing without it being a crisis; one can accept that the climate is changing, but contemplate that it might not be entirely down to the activities of human-kind, or even that humans are causing at least as many problems by chopping down forests as they are by releasing greenhouse gas emissions; one can consider that there must be – or certainly should be – room for doubt among the scientific community as to elements of the science, regarding such things as the equilibrium climate sensitivity; that extreme weather is not caused by global warming (my reading of the IPCC reports suggests that while it concludes that humans are entirely responsible for warming, such warming isn’t necessarily responsible for all forms of extreme weather); that greenhouse gas emissions are not “pollution” (after all, CO2 is a vital ingredient for life on earth); and that there are beneficial aspects to a warming planet, that it isn’t all down-side. So far as I am concerned, anyone who insists that none of that is true is far more of a denier than I am.

It’s worse than that, though. The CAP report adopts these criteria:

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
2. 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
3. Claimed that the science around climate change is not settled or that they cannot speak to the issue because they are not scientists themselves
4. Claimed that while humans are contributing to a changing climate, they are not the main contributors
5. Stated that increasingly frequent and intense extreme weather events such as wildfires and hurricanes are not related to climate change
6. Claimed that climate change impacts are actually beneficial to humans or positive for planetary health.

Saying that you cannot speak to the issue because you are not a scientist, apparently makes you a denier. An entirely rational statement, declining to express an opinion on a subject you do not feel qualified to speak about, makes you a denier.

The entire report has the feel of propaganda. How about this?

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. 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. 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.

Some of us (sceptics, not “deniers”) are not so obsessed with the need to fill the planet with wind turbines that we ignore the obvious. When is a fact an opinion?

CAP concludes thus:

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. Climate action cannot afford to be delayed any further.

I prefer to leave the last word to Senator Joni Ernst. Unlike CAP, I most certainly don’t think these words make her a denier; rather they demonstrate some fundamental common sense and decency:

I do believe in climate change, and I think our climate has been changing since the dawn of time and certainly, we as mankind can absolutely do a better job of protecting our environment.