Senators Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Jim Inhofe are all climate change deniers. The remains of a landslide Senate victory for the Republican Party has uncovered new leadership opportunities for these congressmen. Now, one could reasonably assume, or at least hope, that these men wouldn’t be irresponsibly assigned to positions where their unfortunate disbelief would harm society.

The nightmare seems to have come true. That is, at least when it comes to positions that influence research on climate change.

As pointed out by “Slate” writer Phil Plait, Senator Cruz is now the chair of the science and space subcommittee, which oversees NASA, an agency that serves a pivotal role in observing the effects of climate change, such as monitoring carbon dioxide levels.

Senator Rubio has been assigned to chair the oceans, atmosphere, fisheries and coast guard subcommittee, an institution that oversees the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Senator Inhofe, a vociferous opponent to anything science related, was appointed to the environment and public works committee.

After his state was struck by the largest tornado ever recorded (a 2.6 mile wide behemoth), Inhofe opportunistically responded to the comments of climatologists by saying, “We were being hit by tornadoes long before anyone talked about climate change, and even before it was called ‘global cooling,’ before it became ‘global warming,’ and then ‘climate change.’”

Ignoring the fact that a tornado’s girth is generally determined by more heat energy in the atmosphere, if the same tract of land is struck by increasingly violent storms over a period of fifteen years, perhaps there is an underlying trend that Sen. Inhofe has overlooked – or ignored.

Sen. Inhofe’s incompetence or willful disbelief, though not meant to be insulting, and that of many others, will lead to the demise of his state, and ours too.

How could this wicked strain of sadism come to power?

The first inclination is to blame money. All three of the aforementioned congressmen are supported by “big energy,” and “big energy” knows how to buy people – just say the right words, like “climate change is a hoax” and your reelection hopes shall be fulfilled. But individual citizens hold the power of the vote. We are the affected – the ones who will suffer the horrible consequences of global warming, while high-seated senators hide behind closed and secured doors on the hill.

Then the natural question is, “What’s wrong with us?” How do we combat a pestilence of ignorance, and break free of this sado-masochistic relationship?

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has become increasingly certain that climate change is manmade—they’re now 95 percent confident that the main cause of global warming is humans. The problem is public perception is lagging lazily behind. According to the Pew Research Center, only 67 percent of Americans say there is “solid evidence that the earth is warming up.” I say “only” because this number should be much higher.

The science is in on global warming, and its as sure as gravity.

There is a subset of people who agree that the earth is warming, but think the warming is not manmade (about 18 percent in the same Pew Research Center poll). Sadly, and shamefully, these are the people who are too scared to go one step further with the evidence.

As a surety, crazies will always flippantly believe global warming is a big lie fabricated by the scientific elite so they can retain their jobs. The real problem is the cowardly act of observing the evidence with one eye closed. These persons are engaged in the splicing of scientific discovery with political allegiances, and their true character is pitiful.

The embattled scientists “have heard the chimes at midnight,” and now is the time for action. The revelation of climate change is forcing us to make great sacrifices. We will have to make many, many more.

This is our reality: we cannot afford our fellow citizens to exacerbate the problem unfettered by the most important scientific principles.

Who will convince a nearsighted public of this long-term threat? Bill Nye? And what if they don’t believe? Even more daunting, what will it take for them to believe?

There is an inherent problem with the rise of “political” scientists. Science dignifies partisanship, and if science allies itself with one party, we surrender objectivity to the unruliness of subjectivity. The line dividing the scientific community, with all its scrutinizing might, and the rabble of opinion and spin, conceivably dissolves.

There are opinions within the scientific community, between scientists of their respective fields, and the opinions between the scientific community and the public at large. The former should be treated with great care and respect, the latter with patience.

Ultimately, it comes down to educating our youth and instilling within them the critical faculties necessary to understand science and question everything – yes, even the scientific evidence. We need to remeasure the weight of scientific consensus, or go back to an earlier measure, without the partisan flare to it. I certainly don’t want everyone to believe everything science tells us – that, in fact, runs counter to our scientific principles – but there is a standard of acceptance we can all agree on.

We must adapt our minds to prevent our negative habits. We can vote for responsible representatives, and maybe ensure a better prospect for tomorrow, both for ourselves and for our posterity.