Marco Rubio Is Not A Scientist, Is A Idiot
Marco Rubio -- fresh young hipster candidate for A New American Century (that already started a decade and half ago, but he's not a mathematician, man) -- explained his views on climate change in an interview with Bob Schieffer on "Face the Nation" that is so painful, your ears will bleed, so if that's not your thing, you can read our transcript (YOU'RE WELCOME) and let your eyes bleed instead.
SCHIEFFER: You have said, if I’m correct, that humans are not responsible for climate change. Did you say that?
RUBIO: What I said is, humans are not responsible for climate change in the way some of these people out there are trying to make us believe, for the following reason. I believe that climate is changing because there’s never been a moment where the climate is not changing. The question is what percentage of that, what is due to human activity. If we do the things they want us to do -- cap and trade, you name it -- how much will that change the pace of climate change, versus how much will it cost our economy. Scientists can’t tell us what impact it will have on reversing these changes. But I can tell you with certainty it will have a devastating impact on our economy.
First, attention must be paid to Old Man Schieffer's stellar journalism skills. Because yes, Rubio has said humans are not responsible for climate change. Repeatedly. It's the sort of thing you can look up before the interview, so you know you are indeed correct when you quote a candidate back to himself and ask him to explain why the hell he thinks that.
And now for the answer, which Rubio seems to think is a pretty good one because he's been saying the same thing for a while, with a few minor tweaks to his statement, since he's running for president now and wants to give off that extra "I know what I'm talking about" vibe. In May 2014, for example:
I don’t agree with the notion that some are putting out there — including scientists — that somehow, there are actions we can take today that would actually have an impact on what’s happening in our climate. Our climate is always changing. And what they have chosen to do is take a handful of decades of research, and say that this is now evidence of a longer-term trend that’s directly and almost solely attributable to manmade activity.
Rubio, who has admitted he's "not a scientist, man" still doesn't agree with "these people" who ARE scientists. And those people pretty much all agree -- that one dude who's been raking it in from the fossil fuels industries to deny climate change notwithstanding -- that human activity does contribute to climate change, and that is a bad thing. They have yet to be polled on whether they also agree Rubio is a moron, but we imagine we'd find consensus there too.
Rubio's "certainty" that doing anything to address climate change will destroy the economy is kinda cute, though, isn't it? He can only name one of the proposed fixes, but he's sure all that other stuff, whatever it is, would be devastating too. And what is the point of saving the planet so it doesn't burn up and kill us all if the economy goes to hell, right? Yeah, right. Except for no, wrong. As the New York Times reported last September, the Global Commission on the Economy and the Climate found that -- shocker! -- addressing climate change could actually save us money:
In decades of public debate about global warming, one assumption has been accepted by virtually all factions: that tackling it would necessarily be costly. But a new report casts doubt on that idea, declaring that the necessary fixes could wind up being effectively free. [...]
Perhaps the most important overall point of the report is that economic policies around the world are still aligned to favor fossil fuels, even though unchecked emissions from coal, oil and natural gas represent a potentially grave risk to future generations. “We have to get the prices right,” said Helen Mountford, who worked on the report and is the director of economics at the World Resources Institute, a Washington think tank.
Nowhere is this issue clearer, the commission said, than in the $600 billion a year spent to subsidize fossil fuels, more than six times the level of subsidies going to renewable energy.
But what do those people know? They are just scientists and economists, whereas Marco Rubio, who is neither a scientist nor an economist, IS a guy running for president! And he's a member of the party that knows all that "climate change" hooey is a bunch of hooey, and the fossil fuels industries says never mind about all that, you just keep buying those SUVs and drill, baby, drillin', and if all of that fails, God'll fix it anyway. So "these people" must be wrong, and Rubio must be right. He's quite certain of that.