Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) was unable to name a single source when asked on Tuesday to name the information he is reading that has led him to recently further cement himself as a denier of human-caused climate change.
At a National Press Club event, Rubio was asked by an audience member, via a moderator, “what information, reports, studies or otherwise are you relying on to inform and reach your conclusion that human activity is not to blame for climate change?”
But Rubio was unable to respond with a single source, and dodged the question.
“Well, again, headlines notwithstanding, I’ve never disputed that the climate is changing, and I’ve pointed out that climate to some extent is always changing, it’s never static.” Rubio continued:
That’s not the question before me as a policymaker. If we ban all coal in the U.S., if we ban all carbon emissions in the United States, will it change the dramatic changes in climate and these dramatic weather impacts that we’re now reading about? And anyone who says that we will is not being truthful. The truth of the matter is the United States is a country. It is not a planet. And so there are things that we can do to become more efficient in our use of energies, there are things we can do to develop alternative sources of energy, there are things we can do to be better stewards of the energy resources that we have like natural oil and gas. But for people to go out and say if you passed this bill that I am proposing, this will somehow lead us to have less tornadoes and hurricanes. And that’s what I take issue with.
I am simultaneously impressed and disgusted. It’s not often you see such pure, unadulterated bullshit.
The question was a set-up. I thought Rubio’s answer was adequate but not ideal. He deflected, which is what most politicians would do. This is where a verbal counterpuncher like Newt Gingrich or Ted Cruz would be ideal.
In law we have this thing called the “burden of proof.” Generally speaking, the burden of proof is on the moving party. In this case the people who want changes to the law have the burden of proving that those changes are necessary or desirable. The jury in this case are the voters. It is up to them to decide whether the fanatical believers from the Church of Global Warming have met their burden.
Simply asserting that “the science is settled” does not meet the burden of proof. Nor does calling anyone who is not persuaded to agree with them a “climate denier.”
Unless and until the apostles of Al Gore and Michael Mann meet their burden of proof, nobody else (including Marco Rubio) has to produce anything. I don’t have to explain why I am not convinced. I don’t have to cite any sources. If YOU want to change MY mind, go ahead and try. But until you do I ain’t budging.
These Global Warming True Believers are starting to remind me of a cult. Unfortunately for them their god has turned out to be just another false idol. It’s only a matter of time before we have another Waco or Jonestown on our hands.