Politicsclimatechangemarcorubio

Tue May 13, 2014, 07:53 PM

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:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/05/13/3437492/rubio-source-climate-denial/

29 replies, 2541 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 29 replies Author Time Post
Reply Rubio Can’t Name A Single Source Behind His Climate Denialism (Original post)
Strange Luck May 2014 OP
TotallyNotNuclearDem May 2014 #1
Verle Mann May 2014 #28
One Who Grows May 2014 #2
JayVeeNYC May 2014 #3
BenghaziOracle May 2014 #4
JayVeeNYC May 2014 #5
hap May 2014 #6
BenghaziOracle May 2014 #8
JayVeeNYC May 2014 #10
BenghaziOracle May 2014 #11
hap May 2014 #12
BenghaziOracle May 2014 #15
hap May 2014 #19
BenghaziOracle May 2014 #20
hap May 2014 #23
Verle Mann May 2014 #29
BenghaziOracle May 2014 #7
JayVeeNYC May 2014 #9
Tin Ear May 2014 #24
hap May 2014 #13
Strange Luck May 2014 #18
EGTrise May 2014 #21
D.Libby May 2014 #26
brokenbike May 2014 #14
Gilmour Girl May 2014 #16
Dyfar May 2014 #17
ReTooled May 2014 #27
mindwalker_2pi May 2014 #22
Heyu May 2014 #25

Response to Strange Luck (Original post)

Tue May 13, 2014, 07:54 PM

1. Of course he can't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TotallyNotNuclearDem (Reply #1)

Wed May 14, 2014, 08:28 AM

28. He can, but won't, because "David and Charles" might be seen as biased.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Strange Luck (Original post)

Tue May 13, 2014, 07:55 PM

2. the party of "no facts, no science" has no issues with making shit up....

stunning - to be wrong about pretty much everything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Strange Luck (Original post)

Tue May 13, 2014, 07:55 PM

3. Meanwhile, Florida is ground zero for climate change

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Strange Luck (Original post)

Tue May 13, 2014, 09:16 PM

4. Serious question my friend...

 

What can mankind do at this point to reverse this "so-called" man caused Climate Change? More accurately what can we Americans do when China builds a coal plant like every 4 days and has no regulations? you do know that the air over there is "connected" to the air over here right?

We're all screwed so why make it more miserable?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BenghaziOracle (Reply #4)

Tue May 13, 2014, 09:19 PM

5. Um, infrastructure, coastal management,

Update water supply systems, sewers for ocean overflow, electrical grids, green energy alternatives, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JayVeeNYC (Reply #5)

Tue May 13, 2014, 09:22 PM

6. Imagine the jobs that would be created.

Or, more to the point, think of the jobs that could have been created over the past 8-10 years if certain people weren't so invested in denying scientific reality!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hap (Reply #6)

Tue May 13, 2014, 09:24 PM

8. for someone to have a job they must create something that someone else wants or needs and can afford

 

to buy... "make work" projects are a waste of money.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BenghaziOracle (Reply #8)

Tue May 13, 2014, 09:27 PM

10. Are you satire? What is your profession?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JayVeeNYC (Reply #10)

Tue May 13, 2014, 09:29 PM

11. silly question... and insulting. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BenghaziOracle (Reply #8)

Tue May 13, 2014, 09:32 PM

12. Tell you what,

after you've seen a bridge collapse, then you can come talk to me about "make work." Our infrastructure is not a waste of money.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hap (Reply #12)

Tue May 13, 2014, 09:36 PM

15. Well I believe that's a state issue

 

where is the waste going then? Citizens are already taxed enough for local infrastructure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BenghaziOracle (Reply #15)

Tue May 13, 2014, 09:46 PM

19. It didn't have to be a state issue.

You folks (yes, the taxed enough already folks) made that decision. And at the state level, how has that gone? How much has that cost?

I'm a taxpayer, but incredibly, I have the capacity to understand that cutting taxes leads to decreased tax revenue. Decreased tax revenue leads to less money for projects. It ain't rocket science.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hap (Reply #19)

Tue May 13, 2014, 10:32 PM

20. Then fund the bridge with those who use it

 

Analyze the traffic, determine which companies use it for conducting business and make the new bridge a toll bridge until it's paid for. Allow exemptions for poor of course.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BenghaziOracle (Reply #20)

Tue May 13, 2014, 10:42 PM

23. But you're the small government people.

Traffic analysis & associated processes takes time and money. You hate that and know perfectly well that you would vote against it.

Try again, please.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BenghaziOracle (Reply #15)

Wed May 14, 2014, 08:30 AM

29. Average citizens ARE taxed too much. The wealthy too little.

Why should income earned from owning be taxed at a lower rate than income earned by working?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JayVeeNYC (Reply #5)

Tue May 13, 2014, 09:23 PM

7. so you're saying spend billions of dollars maybe trillions

 

and it won't make any real difference. Not good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BenghaziOracle (Reply #7)

Tue May 13, 2014, 09:26 PM

9. No real difference? Saving lives, food supply,

and trillions in economic commerce while cleaning our environment won't make a difference?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JayVeeNYC (Reply #5)

Tue May 13, 2014, 10:48 PM

24. ahhh, so adaptation to a changing climate. So why the obsession with the cause?

Since its changing, its changing. Its coming so adapt accordingly.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BenghaziOracle (Reply #4)

Tue May 13, 2014, 09:34 PM

13. "At this point"

Let me ask you, then: are you even a little bit ashamed that so-called conservatives have spent the last decade stone-walling and lying about climate change, and now, only now, the argument shifts to, "Well, what can we do at this point, now that it's too obvious to ignore?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BenghaziOracle (Reply #4)

Tue May 13, 2014, 09:45 PM

18. Some answers:

1. China builds such plants partially because businesses here in the US invest money with them and send manufacturing jobs there to avoid EPA regulations here.

2. When someone is bleeding you don't just shrug it off, you try to stop the bleeding. Having serious discussions about how should be worth it to everyone - but the rw and fundie Christians in particular see this as either an affront or pushing towards a one world government run by the anti-christ (google up some gaia/beast/666 etc).

3. Make technology to combat emissions free use tech. Push down the cost for long term benefits. Investors and people in management look for short term gains to cut and run with to the detriment of us all in long term.

4. Mitigate where you can. Don't know where? Look. When you have people whining that even to look is bad you won't get anywhere. Either the problem exists or it doesn't. If it does work for a solution.

5. Don't listen to the people who say 'god will save us!' - yeah, he has done a great job of that so far. He gave us a 'garden of eden' and this is what the stewards do with it? All to worship the golden calf of cash. The rw cares nothing for god or country, they worship only one thing - money. And if they have to part with any of it to keep the skies clear or the rivers clean they whine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BenghaziOracle (Reply #4)

Tue May 13, 2014, 10:38 PM

21. Reversal isn't possible with today's technology.

Slowing and stopping the warming at a manageable level is.

The current CO2 levels assure an increase of at least 2 additional degrees C from where we are now. That increase will occur over decades instead of the thousands of years that it has historically taken for such changes. It's speed will cause a lot of problems, and it is going to happen.

If we continue to increase CO2 levels far beyond where they are now, the temperature increase will continue and accelerate for hundreds of years to come. Estimates are between 8 and 12 degrees C on top of what is already locked in, if we extract and burn all the sequestered carbon we have available.

The physics part is pretty simple. The earth is pretty big and has a lot of different ways to move heat around, which makes exact predictions impossible, but the greenhouse effect of different mixes of atmospheric gases is not complicated and has been studied and quantified for about 120 years. In spite of weather and climate cycles and variability, the total planetary heat content is increasing pretty much as predicted by the greenhouse equations.

The climate science part of it is more complex and uncertain; we just don't know what that much additional heat will do. We need to find a way to stabilize atmospheric CO2. Soon. Or the next few hundred years will not be pretty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BenghaziOracle (Reply #4)

Tue May 13, 2014, 11:01 PM

26. Dumbos like Rubio the Rube

"make it more miserable" with their stunningly stupid yapping

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Strange Luck (Original post)

Tue May 13, 2014, 09:35 PM

14. He says, China and India. What a dolt!

India is fairly far down the list of greenhouse gas emitters. If I recall correctly, India ranks at about eleventh or twelfth. Does anyone here have quick access to their place on the list?

But it's not about India, it's about how foolish Rubio is in exposing his own ignorance of the subject.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Strange Luck (Original post)

Tue May 13, 2014, 09:37 PM

16. Surprise, surprise, surprise.

So typical.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Strange Luck (Original post)

Tue May 13, 2014, 09:42 PM

17. Science is ungodly to many Republicans

The Republican party will keep shrinking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dyfar (Reply #17)

Tue May 13, 2014, 11:02 PM

27. It has more to do with politics

I don't think Republicans would eschew science so readily if that wasn't so appealing to the anti-science electorate. I'm sure they're not giving up their electricity and computers because they're "amoral devices of sin"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Strange Luck (Original post)

Tue May 13, 2014, 10:39 PM

22. He just didn't want to talk about his butt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Strange Luck (Original post)

Tue May 13, 2014, 10:50 PM

25. Rubio is a joke going nowhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Politicsclimatechangemarcorubio