Misstating the Burden of Proof

Think Progress:

Rubio Can’t Name A Single Source Behind His Climate Denialism

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.

Death to CGD

About Myiq2xu - BA, JD, FJB

I was born and raised in a different country - America. I don't know what this place is.
This entry was posted in Global Warming and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

128 Responses to Misstating the Burden of Proof

  1. Falstaff says:

    ” 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.”

    Well, not in every case. Surely the Holocaust deniers, the flat-Earthers, and the birthers are irrationally committed to principles that are impervious to evidence. What bothers you, I take it, is the suggestion that skeptics about climate change act like the birthers, etc. in not accepting current scientific consensus on matters of climate.

    • angienc says:

      Oh look — stupid and illogical false analogies from you. How expected.
      No, dumb ass — there is actual proof to dispute the Holocaust deniers, flat-Earthers and birthers.
      The “current scientific consensus” is (a) not a consensus (although I realize you’re too stupid to understand the difference); (b) nothing more than a theory based on discredited models (discredited by the passage of time and the shit they said would happen not happening)– not a scientific *principle,* not a scientific *law* (again, I realize you’re too stupid to understand the difference); and (c) there was, in fact, once a scientific consensus that the Earth was flat so the “Flat Earther” insult really should be directed at YOU. Anyone who claims science is ever “settled” is a complete moron without the tiniest bit of understanding of science (yes, I mean you).
      The climate change believers are the anti-science ones, too stupid to see that they are science deniers while accusing others of the same. Typical progs — projecting their shortcomings onto others to soothe their egos.

    • trixta says:

      “These Global Warming True Believers are starting to remind me of a cult.”

  2. angienc says:

    The anti-science Global-warming cultists (and make no mistake — they are the ones who are anti-science, not the skeptics) have unbelievable egos — for the love of cheese — they actually think that *humans* can control the weather! BWAHAHAHAHA How the fuck do you get that stupid?
    We are ants relative to the vast universe. That doesn’t mean be wasteful with the resources we have, but the cultists need to wake up to the fact that their nothing but inconsequential specks of dirt in the grand scheme of things.
    That huge ball of hydrogen & helium that we call the sun, which accounts for about 99% of the total mass of our entire solar system, is what effects the climate on Earth.

    • angienc says:

      *they’re not their

      • Lulu says:

        Thank you for stating it so succinctly. And I would add that global climate whatever the hell is mostly a scam and a conspiracy to extort or reallocate resources.

        • votermom says:

          I think Global Warming is our generation’s version of Eugenics.
          That was also widely accepted as “of course it’s valid & scientific” and belief in it was used as the excuse for increasingly more horrible government policies around the world.

          • Lulu says:

            If you try hard enough you can rationalize any horrible thing you can think of. Justifying theft and murder is an old human trait. Governments made up of thieves and murderers are very good at it.

        • Somebody says:

          Absolutely Lulu, it’s a green movement for sure at least a greenback movement.
          That’s one of the biggest tip offs right there to the whole cap and trade scam. How in the hell does that do anything but create a false economy and enrich select individuals? If the true concern was too much carbon and/or eliminating said carbon then why not impose some kind of offsetting tree planting program?

          • DeniseVB says:

            I still don’t get the “plug-in” cars. Just how much electricity do they suck up just for a re-charge? And those wind and solar farms seem to be more damaging to the environment than they’re helping. Mass bird slaughter is okay with them?

          • elliesmom says:

            It takes the same amount of “energy” to move a car down the street no matter what kind of “energy” you use. The difference is in how much fuel it takes to create that much “energy”. Some fuels are more efficient than others. There is no perfect machine that uses 100% of its fuel to do what you want it to do. Some fuels create more pollution than others. Whether a plug-in car is better or worse for the environment, more or less expensive to run depends on how much gasoline and electricity cost where you live and what fuel the utility company is using to create the electricity.

          • votermom says:

            The bigger problem with hybrid & plug-in cars is not just their recharge energy costs, but the energy & environmental costs to produce one; which is why they are so
            expensive. Also the pollution impact of disposing of one.


    • Somebody says:

      Very well stated Angie! In fact there are plenty of scientists out there calling BS or at least expressing doubt about some of the ridiculous predictions with regard to climate change. Many of those scientists were initially part of the whole AGW crowd, of course now they’re apostates. There was a CERN study several years ago that showed the sun has far more influence on our climate. They built a sealed model of the earth and the atmosphere then played around with carbon, effects of the sun, etc. They did find some effects from carbon at extremely high levels, but the biggest factor in climate was indeed the sun.

    • foxyladi14 says:

      Well said Angie. 🙂

  3. mothy67 says:

    Convinced it does not matter. Our elected officials do not work for us. Amnesty, obamacare, N S A,
    term limits and on and on. The cap and trade thing is such utter bullshit . They use the whole climate change thing almost like a religion to control us serfs. While they jet and yacht around the world. Think we should be cautious, but this just seems like a money grab. Read somewhere that a % goes to the UN. Nice that multiple-millionaires and billionaires want to aid those in less fortunate places but why at the expense of the middle class? Starting to pray there is a Hell so these lying crooks can burn there for eternity.

  4. DeniseVB says:

    I’ve learned that I can find anything on the internet that agrees….or disagrees….with me. I guess I’m in the “climate is cyclic” camp. Here’s some pretty charts that go back a gazillion years, like anyone can really prove what the temp was on May 14, that long ago?


    I had to roll my eyes at the WaPo headline yesterday about the oceans rising 10-12 feet in a couple of centuries. Really? These same scientists can’t even predict the weather accurately for the next 7 days! The only “fact” I believe right now is that people are getting lots of money to “predict” the next couple of centuries of climate change or no change.

    • The Klown says:

      Supposedly there are fortunes to be made if you are a scientist who denies global warming is real. The Koch brothers will pay you.

      • DeniseVB says:

        They’re very pro-industry/business and new EPA regs are continually choking them. I think the Kochs are just trying to level the playing field. I remember one study they funded did prove the temps are 2 degrees warmer now … since 1750 ?

    • foxyladi14 says:

      Honk!!!! the weather man last week said rain yesterday morning.
      It was a beautiful Sunny day. 😆

  5. elliesmom says:

    Science proves positives. By finding the positive, it asserts the negative. We will never be able to prove humans don’t affect the climate. We can only aspire to prove we do. If we’re talking about science and not faith. So far, we only have speculation. We’re still looking for proof. It’s like science cannot prove there’s no God. People of faith have no scientific evidence there is one. When proof that God exists is found, God will be accepted as science. I’m open to idea that humans may have an effect on the earth’ s climate. I’m also open to the idea there is a spiritual being running things. But I don’t accept either as science, and I don’t have much faith we’ll find proof of either one. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t protect and care for our planet or that we should act as though nothing we do in our lives has no meaning beyond our mere existence.

  6. cynic says:

    Whenever I get in a discussion on Global Warming, I remind them that IL was a glacier, and that our rock formations around us are a result of that climate change. Then, I remind them that man wasn’t responsible, and refer them to this proof:

    About 85 percent of what is now Illinois was covered by glaciers at least once during the Pleistocene Epoch (1.6 million to 10,000 years ago) of the Cenozoic Era.
    No one is sure what caused this ice age.
    It could have been due to a cyclic pattern of factors relating to the earth’s orbit and tilt on its axis; shifts in the Gulf Stream in the Atlantic Ocean; reversals in the earth’s magnetic field; volcanic activity; galactic dust clouds; or other reasons. The evidence does show that the glaciation occurred as the result of abrupt climatic changes, not gradual ones.
    Some sections of the glaciers in northern Illinois were about 2,000 feet thick, while other areas of the state were covered by ice masses about 700 feet thick, still as tall as a 60-story building.


    • elliesmom says:

      While geology is an old science, a lot of what we accept as being “true” is relatively new. Plate tectonics wasn’t accepted enough to be taught when I was in high school. As a scientific theory, it’s newer than evolution. Scientists have decided a magnetic reversal would explain some observable phenomena, but they don’t have a consensus about what would cause the magnetic poles to switch, and it has never happened since humans discovered we have magnetic poles. There are a lot of things that are much more observable than quantum physics where science is far from “settled”. The “science deniers” are the people who believe they are.

      • votermom says:

        There are two main issues about Man-made Global Warming that are glommed into one by the activists.

        1) Is it actually happening? This is where a lot of the fraud & junk science come in.

        2) Regardless of whether the answer to #1 is yes or no, does it make sense to formulate punitive government policies around it? And that’s where any one with commonsense would see the dangers of top-down, strong-armed government overreach.

        • elliesmom says:

          Yes, when I took Earth Science in 1963, we learned about “continental drift”, which was speculation the continents were once joined together. It was based on the observation that South America and Africa fit together like puzzle pieces and that there were common species of plants and animals living around the world whose origins pre-dated transoceanic travel. The spreading plates in the Mid-Atlantic ridge were discovered in the 1950’s, which was the proof whole parts of the earth’ s crust were constantly in motion. It was not “accepted enough science” at the time to make it into junior high textbooks in 1963. Today’s high school texts talk about man made climate change as if it were non-negotiable fact. Which says more about who controls curriculum than about “science”.

          • The Klown says:

            I read an article that suggested that in the past the Earth’s crust wasn’t as thick because the core was hotter and that there were lots more volcanoes and the continents “drifted” at a much faster rate.

            One volcanic eruption spews incredible amounts of pretty much everything into the atmosphere. Imagine hundreds of them erupting at the same time.

        • swanspirit says:


    • DeniseVB says:

      We have a crater down here….35 million years ago, caused a tsunami reaching the Blue Ridge Mtns, DT would have been a goner too 😉 The climate back then was described as lush and tropical (Richmond). I’m more afraid of these things happening to tell you the truth.


      Oh well, I used wiki to give you an idea, but 35 million year old theory already needs citations anyhow 🙂

  7. mothy67 says:

    Has anyone ever watched Cotinuum? I found it on Netflix but it is a SyFy show set partly in 2077 when the government had gone broke and the corporations bailed them out resulting in businesses literally owning the government. A group of insurgents goes back to 2012 to try and correct it. Has an ass kicking female lead. Canadian show so guess they’re not overly worried about having an invite to the WH. I liked it.

    • mothy67 says:

      UGH Why can’t I ever find my readers!

      • votermom says:

        We started watching it as a family when it started airing on syfy but dropped out a few eps before season 1 ended. I forget why…LOL. It’s pretty cool as a time travel series although a bit lefty-ish for me (pro OWS etc). I like the main character – has a sort of Jodie Foster like quality to her.

        On netflix I just finished watching this 1 seasons series called “Awake” starring Jason Isaacs (the guy who was Malfoy’s dad on Harry Potter). It’s about a cop who was in car accident with his family – after the accident he lives in 2 worlds – in one his wife is dead in the other his son is dead. Switchover happens every time he goes to sleep and he can;t tell which is real and which is a dream.
        It’s great except for the season finale – I think the writers were forced to do a sorta happy but unsatisfying ending bec the show got cancelled.

        • mothy67 says:

          I watched Awake when it aired. Thought it was pretty good. I am trying to save money and have found binge watching and ordering in an enjoyable way to do just that.
          The OWS movement was so choreographed that it was a spoof of a protest. The show does have pronounced left leanings but it gets more interesting as it goes on and I love commercial free. Had there been anything organic about the movement it would have had my sympathies.

    • 1539days says:

      I’ve watched Continuum since the beginning. It’s one of a very few “time travel” shows where they deal with the consequences of travelling in time. The problem with this season is that it makes Liber8 (the anarchists) more sympathetic because the writers want a conflict between the real future where Kiera’s family is there and the “better” future where the corporations are destroyed. Of course, the reality is that a future like that would lead to more misery.

      • mothy67 says:

        Started off with no sympathies for them so I’m hoping it continues to swing both ways. I can usually figure out where these things are going but this has surprised me a few times. Also like that the cast dim’ t overly attractive.

        • mothy67 says:

          Dim’ t equals is not. Kindle will not let me spell is not.

        • 1539days says:

          Last season (the latest one on Netflix) pointed to the idea that old Alec was trying to fix things, but wanted Kiera and Liber8 there to keep a balance. The show hasn’t really annoyed me yet, which is quite and accomplishment.

          When you say the cast isn’t overly attractive, do you mean physically? I think at least half the cast is pretty good looking (men and women) but Canadians may not be as image obsessed when they make TV shows.

  8. votermom says:

    Those Koch Brothers billionaires are just awful human beings…

  9. lildoggy4u says:

    Adding to what we’ll never know and why our politicians bow to the Saudi family:
    On the topic of Climate Change – why can’t these people put their energy into pollution in general – like what is happening to our water supply? That’s something I can see and which really affects us now.
    I lived In Los Angeles in the days when the haze over the city would be unbearable and it did hurt my lungs to breathe. These days, the difference is amazing. There are some things we can control and others are a natural cycle of the Earth that takes place over billions of years. I live on the coast. I worry more about Yosemite blowing than my house being under water in 100 – 200 years. We can adapt to that by moving.

    • The Klown says:

      When the environmental movement started they had some huge problems they could point to and get everyone to agree there was a problem. Lake Erie was so polluted that it caught on fire. More than once.

      We shouldn’t be dumping toxic waste into our drinking water or making our air so dirty it makes people get sick and die. That’s common sense. But then people got carried away.

      Back in the 80’s I was doing pest control and I found out that a lot of what see in the news about pesticides is bullshit. The media scares the hell out of people unnecessarily. The Alar scare is a good example. I don’t know if they do it for ratings or they have hidden agendas or what.

  10. helenk3 says:


    settled and unsettled science

    what is taught today may change tomorrow.

    • DeniseVB says:

      When I was in school Pluto was a planet !

      • elliesmom says:

        When I was in school, Mercury was the smallest planet. Then I took astronomy in college, and I learned Pluto was actually two heavenly bodies, the planet and its nearly identical in size moon Charon. That made Pluto the smallest. When I was teaching astronomy, Pluto lost its planetary status. But, you know, through it all, nothing about our solar system has changed all that much. Just our ability to see it better.

      • foxyladi14 says:

        Pretty sure they gave it back to us. 🙂

  11. lildoggy4u says:

    I was reading this:http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/may/12/western-antarctic-ice-sheet-collapse-has-already-begun-scientists-warn
    And noticed this line in particular: “They also suggest that recent accumulation of ice in Antarctica was temporary.” That explains it.

  12. helenk3 says:

    off topic


    this is the best explanation of the tax system I have read in a long time

  13. The Klown says:

    I used to accept that man-made global warming was real. That was back when I was a liberal Democrat. I wasn’t ever a fanatic about it but I figured there must be something to it.

    The problem is that when somebody tells me “In ten years thus and such will happen” and ten years goes by and those things haven’t happened, I’m gonna start wondering if they’re full of shit.

    • foxyladi14 says:

      Or getting rich. 🙄

      • trixta says:

        Yes, foxy! When they use global warming as a pretext to steel taxpayer money via “alternative” energy schemes, you know something is very wrong here.

      • Underwhelmed says:

        Follow the money. Always. It will lead you to a pack of liars.

  14. helenk3 says:

    here is the 2nd video from the white privilege conference.
    I do not think I would want any teacher that went to this and believes in it teaching any kid

  15. votermom says:

    Some good news

  16. The Klown says:

    Stories like this one set off my bullshit detector:

    You may have to be at least 18 to buy cigarettes in the U.S., but children as young as 7 are working long hours in fields harvesting nicotine- and pesticide-laced tobacco leaves under sometimes hazardous and sweltering conditions, according to a report released Wednesday by an international rights group.

    A child of 7 years won’t be worth crap as an employee. Where are the parents? What kind of “work” are these kids supposedly doing? How much are they being paid?

    I gotta feeling that the truth isn’t quite so awful. Are mom and dad working in the fields and occasionally bringing the kids with them because they can’t afford a babysitter?

    • insanelysane says:

      Or, if it’s like my childhood with parents who owned a restaurant and tavern, we all worked in the business. I worked in the hot kitchen when I was 8 years old, washing pots and pans and folding pizza boxes. My older brothers worked even harder and if you think we got paid or even expected to get paid , think again. We worked because Mom and Dad provided us with food and a home.
      I am sure it’s not changed in families of today who run farms and other small businesses.
      It didn’t hurt us one bit to learn the value of hard work.

  17. lyn says:

    No comment.
    “In an unprecedented move, the Pentagon is trying to transfer convicted national security leaker Pvt. Chelsea Manning to a civilian prison so she can get treatment for her gender disorder, defense officials said.”

    • The Klown says:

      Who will be paying for his sex-change operation?

      I’ll give you three guesses and the first two don’t count.

      • lyn says:

        Will it be a special line item in the Pentagon’s budget? Ultimately taxpayers will foot the bill. I’d also like to know the cost difference between a military prison and a civilian one.

    • mothy67 says:

      Assertions that people are trapped in the wrong gendered body is being expressed a lot like climate change. It’s a fact and I am a bigot for not agreeing. I could care less if somebody wants to switch. I do think allowing a child to do as such is abusive.

    • The Klown says:
  18. helenk3 says:

    I saw this video several years ago, and it just fascinated me

  19. helenk3 says:

    this is one of the best explanations of today’s politics I have seen in a while. watch the video


  20. swanspirit says:

    I do Science . I love Science . I Fucking Love Science . SO.. when studies like this are blasted across the media , and all the chicken littles are running around trying to hold up the sky , I read the whole thing to see what it actually says . How does this translate to carbon based fuels causing the glaciers to melt ? It doesn’t .

    Scientists are also finding that the causes of the ice loss are highly complex – and that it is not just due to warmer temperatures causing surface melting of the ice.

    Both papers said the contact between the glaciers and the relatively warmer water at the ocean depths was the main driver of the slow-motion collapse.

    • The Klown says:

      I never hear homeostasis mentioned. Rising temperatures cause more water to evaporate. That means more clouds. Clouds block the sun’s rays, cooling the planet.

      I still remember when we were supposed to worry about nuclear winter.

    • r u reddy says:

      What’s warming the water lately?

      • Somebody says:

        ru reddy are you speaking of the predictions or of current conditions? Because just in case you didn’t know the antarctic ice sheet GREW in 2014 to record levels. At least to record levels since 1978 when they started tracking it by satellite. Now don’t take my word for it you go ahead and run right over and check with none other than the national snow and ice data center and NASA, mmmkay.

  21. votermom says:

  22. The Klown says:
  23. SHV says:

    The whole climate change causes every adverse weather event has gone so far around the bend that I now wonder if it is “Astroturf”. The tip off for me was the “Science is settled” argument; no legitimate scientist would make such a statement. The dialog has gotten so absurd that there is likely to be a backlash against meaningful regulation. Who benefits? Just like the Keystone scam, Cap and Trade, Obamacare, Food Stamps, Fed. Student loans, etc., etc. follow the money.

  24. helenk3 says:


    backtrack bunch threatened Nigeria with sanctions in 2013 for fighting boko harum

  25. The Klown says:

    Bad ass cat saves boy from vicious dog:

  26. helenk3 says:


    did not know this. interesting history of public education

  27. helenk3 says:

    got mail for harry reid. do you think he would upset if I put a note in the return envelope that I am writing in the name of the Koch Brothers for every office?
    they seem to be powerful enough to get a lot done

  28. helenk3 says:

    high winds and dry air causing large fires near San Diego.

  29. mothy67 says:

    If cap and trade is off the table what is it they are proposing now? We already have so many t regulations.

    • Somebody says:

      Well the true zealots would prefer a return to the stone age. I’ve yet to see one of them take up residence in a cave, but that’s what they advocate with wanting to ban all fossil fuel. I know a bot that thinks all fossil fuels are evil and should be outlawed; yep and she’s traveled the world several times over…..#hypocritevileprog

      Oh they’ll claim they want renewable energy, blah, blah. Well you know what? That’s not feasible at this point they might as well insist we get our power from unicorn droppings. Very few put their money where their mouth is, they just want to be part of the “in crowd” and believe in the “right” causes. They’re too blinded to step back and look at reality, but hey they’re useful idiots.

      I personally have no doubt that in time we may well get to a point where we don’t need fossil fuels, in fact we may find that alternate sources become cheaper and are more plentiful. I hope we get to that point for a variety of reasons, but we’re not there yet.

      • The Klown says:

        You can’t mandate the use of new technologies that don’t exist yet. Pouring a bunch of money into new technologies doesn’t guarantee they will work or be cost-effective.

  30. The Klown says:
  31. The Klown says:

    On WWTBAM they had a question about which celebrity had fewer twitter followers than Barack Obama’s 37 million. The “correct” answer was Taylor Swift.

    I just checked and Taylor had 40 million followers. I corrected a previous oversight and she now has 40 million + 1

  32. The Klown says:
  33. helenk3 says:

    billion dollar contract to British company for obamacare. employees to sit and do nothing. so under backtrack we pay American people to sit home and British people to sit at computer and do nothing.
    what is wrong with this picture?

  34. helenk3 says:


    i know all will be thrilled and underwhelmed now that oprah is buying rights to michael sam series

Comments are closed.