There's a pretty wide margin on the basic understanding of the actual science behind global warming in the U.S. Congress.
One one side we have Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) who recently argued that if we stop producing CO2 from energy production, we'll kill off plant life by starving it of fuel.
That's just embarrassing. And to throw in "And the Earth shall not be destroyed by a flood" is insensitive to anyone who's life has been devastated by flooding. I would guess that he doesn't live in flooding distance of a river that's had it's eighth "ten-year flood" in the last ten years (thanks to global warming).
One the other end of the spectrum is Bob Inglis (R-SC), a Republican who actually believes that manmade activities are changing the chemistry and balance of the environment. He doesn't dispute science and has a handle on the bigger picture of both atmospheric and oceanic changes that come with a rise in CO2 levels.
Any guy that carries around a jar of vinegar with an egg in to demonstrate what happens to ocean shells in an acidified ocean is good by me. He's not in favor of cap and trade and proposes a payroll tax reduction coupled with an equal tax on CO2 applied to both domestic and imported goods. Whatever you think of his proposal, you have to admit that he comes to his position with a genuine understanding of the issues. It's refreshing to see a Republican who doesn't fall back into the anti-environment set of the Inhofe gang. I disagree with him on just about every other issue on the books, but it's nice to find a little common ground with the Right on climate change.
Are you on Twitter? Follow me (@sheagunther) there, I give good tweets.