A few thousand years later, during the Wisconsinan glacial period, an ice sheet miles thick covered North America as far south Chicago — actually a bit past. In what is now broad stretches of Canada and the American Midwest, the land even today is still ironed flat by these mile-thick ice sheets. In what is now the United Kingdom, where the glacial period was called the Devensian, sea levels had dropped to the point where one could walk from France to England, and much of the North Sea was a grassy plain called Doggerland.

The point is: The climate has always changed, and always will; humans, yes, have some effect, and so does everything else. So when a group takes some samples of statements by politicians and compares them to some rather overarching and unrealistic criteria to label those politicians as "climate deniers," we know it's agenda-driven, not data-driven. 

A total of 123 members of the House and Senate deny the scientific consensus that climate change is occurring as a result of human activity, according to an analysis from the liberal Center for American Progress. 

In a new report, first shared with The Hill, analyzing public statements made by lawmakers, the think tank determined these climate deniers are all Republicans and include prominent members of House leadership. 

It defined climate deniers as lawmakers who say any of the following: climate change is not real, it is not primarily caused by humans, the science is not settled on climate change, extreme weather is not caused by climate change, or climate change is actually beneficial. 

So, let's go through this "analysis" point by point.

First: This "analysis" does not rely on any actual interviews with the people in question. It would seem to be fair, when evaluating people's opinions on any given topic, to ask them, "What do you think about X as pertains to Y," and give them a chance to answer. This analysis does not; rather it looks at public statements and infers from that, which doesn't seem like the best way to go about something like this. The analysts are generous enough, however, to avoid labeling as "deniers" people who they deem to have acknowledged that climate change is real but not worth wrecking our economy and lifestyle over.

Second: The statement, "Climate change is not real." It's hard to see how they could arrive at a blanket statement like this from looking at public comments; it would seem to be more accurate to determine whether the people in question believe that anthropogenic climate change is real, which brings us to the next point.

See Related: Bad Idea: Scientists Proposing Dumping Lye in Ocean to Fight Climate Change

An Activist Double Whammy: LGBTQ+ Youth Fret About Climate Change

Third: "It (climate change) is not primarily caused by humans." This is not an unreasonable attitude; a planetary climate is a vast, complex system with many inputs ranging from solar cycles, orbital cycles, plate tectonics, vulcanism, and, yes, human activity. Throughout most of the earth's history, it's been warmer than it is now; see our hypothetical walk through the Sangamonian interglacial we took at the beginning of this piece. Finally, there's a big difference between the statements "Humans have some effect" and "Humans are the primary cause," and this analysis seems to rely on the latter without acknowledging the former even as a possibility.

Fourth: "The science is not settled on climate change." This, again, isn't an unreasonable attitude because the science is not settled on climate change, and the science never will be settled on climate change, because that's not how the scientific method works. Science is not a philosophy, it is a tool, a method used to look at data and derive conclusions from it, to test hypotheses and develop theories that explain the data — the observations. Scientific theories are tentative, and are always open to being revised in light of new data; science is never "settled." That's not how this works; that's not how any of this works.

Fifth: "Extreme weather is not caused by climate change." Extreme weather is caused by climate, yes. But climate change? Data doesn't necessarily support that assertion. If you look at hurricanes, often touted as a measure of violent weather, the trendline has been downward since 1850, when good records began. Warm temperatures can cause violent weather; for instance, severe thunderstorms are often caused by warm air masses colliding with cold air masses, which is why we have relatively few thunderstorms in Alaska, where there aren't too many warm air masses. While it's not necessarily an indicator of climate change or the lack thereof, it's important to note that human deaths due to severe weather have dropped by almost 99 percent in the last 100 years. 

Sixth: "Climate change is actually beneficial." This, again, is oversimplifying a complex point. A slightly warmer climate, like almost any situation, would have some good points and some bad points. Siberia could become the new global breadbasket. Yes, sea levels could rise some, possibly encroaching on the Obamas' Martha's Vineyard mansion, but that has happened before and will happen again. So, yes, there are aspects of a warming climate that would be beneficial and some that would not; this is a gross oversimplification of a complex issue.

The Center for American Progress, it must be noted, is not a scientific organization; it is a far-left activist group. This "analysis" is not an analysis at all; it is an attempt at a "gotcha," working backward from a conclusion, to try to make the point that anthropogenic climate change is something worth wrecking our economy and our modern technological lifestyle over. It also seeks to cast Republicans as the villains in the story. This isn't an analysis. It's not science, and it's not even remotely close to the scientific method; it is ideology couched in vaguely science-ish terms to make it sound plausible to the credulous.