New Hampshire Republicans Are Really, Really Anti-Science

Why a climate change denier will almost certainly win Tuesday’s GOP primary.


At a campaign stop in Henniker, New Hampshire, last week, Ted Cruz was asked what he’d do as president to combat climate change. Cruz’s answer—an eight-minute rant that you can watch below—was essentially that he would do nothing—because global warming isn’t happening. It’s “the perfect pseudoscientific theory” to justify liberal politicians’ quest to expand “government power over the American citizenry,” he said.

Like Cruz, the two GOP front-runners in the state—Donald Trump and Marco Rubioreject mainstream climate science. Trump has repeatedly called global warming a “hoax,” and Rubio has said, “I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it.” John Kasich, who’s been rising in the New Hampshire polls in recent weeks, has made a number of contradictory comments about climate change.

“It’s almost a litmus test in the Republican Party that you have to reject climate science.”

New Hampshire is a famously moderate swing state. Fifty-five percent of the state’s residents believe that humans are warming the planet, according to polling by the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication. Kelly Ayotte, New Hampshire’s Republican US senator, agrees, and she recently bucked her party by supporting President Barack Obama’s new regulations restricting power plant emissions. Since 2009, New Hampshire has been part of a regional cap-and-trade program designed to limit carbon pollution.

So will Trump, Rubio, and Cruz’s extreme views on climate hurt them in New Hampshire? Probably not, at least not among the voters who will likely decide Tuesday’s primary. Ayotte’s position on the issue may align with the state as a whole, but among Republican voters climate change denial is extremely common.

“Rejecting climate science is pretty much mainstream” within the New Hampshire GOP, says Lawrence Hamilton, a University of New Hampshire sociologist who studies environmental public opinion. “It’s almost a litmus test in the Republican Party that you have to reject climate science.”

Take a look at the chart below, which shows data compiled by Hamilton and his colleagues as part of the University of New Hampshire’s Granite State Poll. The orange line represents self-identified tea party supporters in the state, and the red line represents non-tea-party Republicans. The results are pretty striking. Even among the state’s non-tea-party Republicans, only about 40 percent believe that climate change is mainly caused by human activity, according to the most recent survey. And among tea party supporters—who, according to exit polling, made up 51 percent of voters in the state’s 2012 GOP primary—that number drops below 30 percent.

climate opinion

Lawrence Hamilton/UNH

Not only are New Hampshire’s Republican voters skeptical of climate science, many of them say [PDF] they simply don’t trust what scientists say about global warming (or vaccines, for that matter). This attitude tracks closely with the anti-scientist rhetoric employed by a number of Republican politicians. Trump, for instance, once said that “the scientists are having a lot of fun” perpetrating the climate “hoax.”

climate opinion

Lawrence Hamilton/UNH

Back in September, the University of New Hampshire asked supporters of each of the presidential candidates whether they believed humans were causing climate change. Because the GOP field is so splintered, many of the sample sizes for this question were small, which means the margins of error were enormous. Still, the chart below gives you some sense of the situation. At the time, Trump and Fiorina were the two front-runners in the state, and roughly a third of their supporters said they accepted the scientific consensus on climate change. The rest of the Republicans were all polling in the single digits. Kasich was the only Republican with a majority of supporters saying they believed in human-caused global warming. (According to Hamilton, Cruz was polling so poorly at the time that any similar analysis of his voters wouldn’t be very meaningful.) Meanwhile, the vast majority of Hillary Clinton’s and Bernie Sanders’ supporters embraced the scientific consensus.

climate opinion

Lawrence Hamilton/UNH

Here’s one final chart from Hamilton’s research illustrating just how extreme New Hampshire’s GOP voters are when it comes to climate change. The University of New Hampshire asked respondents whether they believed that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere had increased in recent decades. This shouldn’t be a controversial issue. Scientists have daily measurements showing that CO2—the primary driver of global warming—has been steadily rising for years. But somehow, fewer than half of those who said they would support Trump in a hypothetical matchup against Sanders agreed with this indisputable scientific fact.

climate opinon

Lawrence Hamilton/UNH

These voters have an “ideological way of knowing that trumps science,” said Hamilton.

That’s bad news for the climate change debate in this country. But it’s very good news for Trump, Rubio, and Cruz.

Master image: Luis Molinero/Shutterstock

More Mother Jones reporting on Climate Desk

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate