It's time for a Marco Rubio thread?

[sunmaster14]

Also, there are more than three types of folks regarding AGW. For example, there are those who believe it is happening, but they think it is a small negative at worst, and may even be a good thing, but in any event not worth doing anything dramatic about, except continued research.

 

[foophil]

Here's an example:

Marco Rubio is a Roman Catholic(*), which sucks because Roman Catholics are evil and they condone child molestation, and they all believe that the Pope, who is a hypocritical dickwad, is infallible (**).

*Note that this is NOT the thread to discuss things like religion and Roman Catholicism. Take that elsewhere. This is to simply state what his religion is.

**I don't actually believe any of that. Some of my best Catholics are friends.

My post was nothing like this. It was a literal statement of fact as I explained. You are using clear opinions here. I will not discuss this further as there is no purpose to it.

Also, there are more than three types of folks regarding AGW. For example, there are those who believe it is happening, but they think it is a small negative at worst, and may even be a good thing, but in any event not worth doing anything dramatic about, except continued research.

You are correct here. I'll concede there are 4 types if it makes you happy.

 

[DavidJames]

My post was nothing like this. It was a literal statement of fact as I explained. You are using clear opinions here. I will not discuss this further as there is no purpose to it.



You are correct here. I'll concede there are 4 types if it makes you happy.

Don't allow yourself to be taken into the weeds. You are correct, Rubio is an AGW denier. That is a statement of fact.

 

[sunmaster14]

My post was nothing like this. It was a literal statement of fact as I explained. You are using clear opinions here. I will not discuss this further as there is no purpose to it.

I disagree. I found your post provocative and tendentious. It gave me the urge to dispute your characterization and your so-called facts, and it would annoy me to let it go unchallenged. Therefore, if I see such claims, and I have the time, I will challenge them. If you don't want such claims to be challenged, don't make them.

You are correct here. I'll concede there are 4 types if it makes you happy.

There are more actually. But in your view are all except the "accepting" type properly tarred with the "denier" label? The word denier, of course, was chosen as a label for AGW narrative opponents, specifically because it conjures up images of Holocaust denial. As such, I consider the label offensive.

 

[lobosrul]

There are more actually. But in your view are all except the "accepting" type properly tarred with the "denier" label? The word denier, of course, was chosen as a label for AGW narrative opponents, specifically because it conjures up images of Holocaust denial. As such, I consider the label offensive.

The word denier is an adjective describing a person who denies something. Its not a pejorative and saying that it was a purposely chosen word for political purposes to describe a person who denies AGW is without any basis whatsoever.

Rubio denies that global warming is caused by man. Saying he is an AGW denier is just rephrasing. He doesn't believe (at least when he speaks publicly) that AGW is exaggerated but completely denies the existence of it.

ETA: if someone called you a Bigfoot denier would you be offended (assuming you don't believe in Bigfoot)?

 

[foophil]

I disagree. I found your post provocative and tendentious. It gave me the urge to dispute your characterization and your so-called facts, and it would annoy me to let it go unchallenged. Therefore, if I see such claims, and I have the time, I will challenge them. If you don't want such claims to be challenged, don't make them.

Feel free to actually dispute where I was wrong then. Does Rubio deny AGW is happening or not? If he does deny it, does he use the usual tactics and excuses?

I'm pretty sure you'll find I was accurate in my post. It wasn't meant as an attack of anyone's character so I'm not sure how you've gotten annoyed by it. I didn't mean to offend you.

 

[newyorkguy]

Marco Rubio has repeatedly said he thinks climate change is occurring naturally.
In May 2014:

“I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it,” Rubio said on ABC's "This Week." Link

As a Senator from Florida his state is one of the states that is already beginning to see pervasive flooding as a result of rising sea levels. Scientific American found Rubio's position today is the same:

Marco Rubio (junior U.S. senator from Florida) believes climate change is happening, but not that it is caused by man. “And I do not believe that the laws that they propose we pass will do anything about it, except it will destroy our economy,” he has said. Rubio supports the Keystone XL pipeline and offshore oil and gas drilling. If elected, he would lift the ban on oil exports, stop the EPA’s Clean Power Plan, and nullify federal regulations on fracking. He took the No Climate Tax pledge and voted against extending the Production Tax Credit. link

 

[aleCcowaN]

please </AGW>

Rubio has probably many other defects.

His ability to adapt his discourse regarding the age of the Earth is amazingly worrying.

Public Policy Polling (very strange indeed*) publishes today a poll showing that in a 4 candidate scenario (Trump, Cruz, Rubio and _¡jeB) Rubio beats the rest with a 32% (Trump 31%, Cruz 23% and ¡jeB 8%)

*I'll analyse it in the Trump! thread after reading its 45 page dossier

 

[newyorkguy]

Forbes business magazine (a pretty conservative source) criticized Rubio for his comments in an interview he did with GQ magazine in 2012.

"I’m not a scientist. I don’t think I’m qualified to answer a question like that. [“How old do you think the Earth is?”] At the end of the day, I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all. I think parents should be able to teach their kids what their faith says, what science says. Whether the Earth was created in 7 days, or 7 actual eras, I’m not sure we’ll ever be able to answer that. It’s one of the great mysteries.” - Marco Rubio link to article

Rubio went on to say -- this is kind of his standard answer -- that, "I think the age of the universe has zero to do with how our economy is going to grow." That what matters is our economy and growing it.

The Forbes writer, Alex Knapp, suggested that it does matter in terms of our economy, it matters greatly. The scientific consensus is that the Earth is 4.54 billion-years-old. That's based on the tools and methods science uses to measure the planet's age. Using those methods is how they came up with 4.54 billion years. Much of our technology is based on variations of those same methods. If the Earth is actually 9,000-years-old (as Rubio thinks is quite possible) and science missed the mark by 4.54 billion years (minus 9,000) what else are they wrong about? Knapp wrote:

The bottom line is that this economy, at its root, is built on a web of scientific knowledge from physics to chemistry to biology. It’s impossible to just cherry pick out parts we don’t like. If the Earth is 9,000 years old, then virtually the entire construct of modern science is simply wrong.

 

[sunmaster14]

Forbes business magazine (a pretty conservative source) criticized Rubio for his comments in an interview he did with GQ magazine in 2012.



Rubio went on to say -- this is kind of his standard answer -- that, "I think the age of the universe has zero to do with how our economy is going to grow." That what matters is our economy and growing it.

The Forbes writer, Alex Knapp, suggested that it does matter in terms of our economy, it matters greatly. The scientific consensus is that the Earth is 4.54 billion-years-old. That's based on the tools and methods science uses to measure the planet's age. Using those methods is how they came up with 4.54 billion years. Much of our technology is based on variations of those same methods. If the Earth is actually 9,000-years-old (as Rubio thinks is quite possible) and science missed the mark by 4.54 billion years (minus 9,000) what else are they wrong about? Knapp wrote:

That is a completely crap argument. Science has progressed just fine in the US despite the fact that there are many people who believe in God and the power of prayer, and even crazier things. Eisenhower was a religious wacko, and he successfully commanded the allied forces in Europe during WWII. Whether Rubio actually believes in Genesis (doubtful) or wants to believe (more plausible), or just says he believes out of respect for his religious heritage and contempt for those who hold his religion in contempt (most likely of all) is of little consequence. It's not like he is going to implement a litmus test and only accept scientific advice from people who believe in creationism.

 

[newyorkguy]

Not talking about believing in God or the power of prayer; where did that come from? Talking about believing the Earth is actually 9,000 years old and that science got that really wrong when they came up with the 4.54 billion years figure. There are many scientists who have strong religious beliefs but I don't think any of them would answer, "Nine thousand years," when asked how old the Earth is.

 

[sunmaster14]

Not talking about believing in God or the power of prayer; where did that come from? Talking about believing the Earth is actually 9,000 years old and that science got that really wrong when they came up with the 4.54 billion years figure. There are many scientists who have strong religious beliefs but I don't think any of them would answer, "Nine thousand years," when asked how old the Earth is.

Knapp's argument is essentially a strawman argument. He's basically saying that anybody who believes (or in this case, refuses to deny publicly) that the Earth is 9,000 years old is incapable of believing in science and therefore is unqualified to be President. That argument is manifestly ridiculous. Obama has trouble with 8th grade math. Is he unqualified to be President?

On second thought, scratch that last part. It's not helping my argument.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Obama has trouble with 8th grade math.

{edit to add}
Notice how I didn't bother to ask for a cite?

 

[newyorkguy]

Knapp is not saying anybody who believes that the Earth is 9,000 years old is incapable of believing in science. It's the reverse. Rubio said the "age of the universe has zero to do with our economy..." Knapp is saying if someone -- who wants to be President -- actually believed science could be that wrong, how confident can they be in some of our technology?

If you take it as a rational thought, that it may well be true the Earth is only 9,000 years old and science got it very wrong, it should make you wonder how reliable science is in other areas.

 

[Ladewig]

"I’m not a scientist. I don’t think I’m qualified to answer a question like that. [“How old do you think the Earth is?”] -

He is not a scientist so he is not qualified to answer.

A president appoints many people. He needs to know who is qualified to hold these posts. A president who cannot look at competing theories and decide which one is correct is not qualified to be president.

The difference we are talking about is six orders of magnitude. An error that large is the equivalent of saying the distance from NYC to London is 18 feet. I would share my opinion on whether the distance is 18 feet or 3500 miles but I am not a navigator so I am not qualified to answer that question.

 

[Puppycow]

He is not a scientist so he is not qualified to answer.

A president appoints many people. He needs to know who is qualified to hold these posts. A president who cannot look at competing theories and decide which one is correct is not qualified to be president.

The difference we are talking about is six orders of magnitude. An error that large is the equivalent of saying the distance from NYC to London is 18 feet. I would share my opinion on whether the distance is 18 feet or 3500 miles but I am not a navigator so I am not qualified to answer that question.

So qualified to be president but not qualified to answer that question, right?

Because only a professional scientist could possibly know the correct answer . . .

 

[foophil]

Knapp is not saying anybody who believes that the Earth is 9,000 years old is incapable of believing in science. It's the reverse. Rubio said the "age of the universe has zero to do with our economy..." Knapp is saying if someone -- who wants to be President -- actually believed science could be that wrong, how confident can they be in some of our technology?

If you take it as a rational thought, that it may well be true the Earth is only 9,000 years old and science got it very wrong, it should make you wonder how reliable science is in other areas.

This is the argument I made in the earlier thread on 'which party is the bigger science denier' (or whatever it was called). My point was that if a president cannot take the vast overwhelming consensus from experts in said field on a topic, and agree with or accept that conclusion is accurate, then they will likely fail to come to the correct or appropriate decision in many other fields where experts and their opinions are more divided. All around, they would make a poor leader.

Rubio, while not the worst of the pack of republicans, is definitely not making a strong case that he can listen to and follow what the experts say.

 

[pgwenthold]

President Obama visited a mosque the other day. Yeah, that's not going to go over well....

Well, here's what Obama said in his remarks

First, at a time when others are trying to divide us along lines of religion or sect, we have to reaffirm that most fundamental of truths: We are all God’s children. We’re all born equal, with inherent dignity. And so often, we focus on our outward differences and we forget how much we share. Christians, Jews, Muslims -- we’re all, under our faiths, descendants of Abraham. So mere tolerance of different religions is not enough. Our faiths summon us to embrace our common humanity.

Rubio's response

I’m tired of being divided against each other for political reasons like this president’s done. … Always pitting people against each other. Always! Look at today: He gave a speech at a mosque.

The bastard! Dividing people like that. What is divisive about what he said? Hey, I could see it. The "we are all God's children" might be exclusive of atheists. I'm sure that's the problem Rubio has, right?

Oh, it's the "we're all born equal, with inherent dignity." There you go. Obama is being divisive because he doesn't appreciate those who don't think we all have inherent dignity.

Or is he being divisive because he calls us to embrace our common humanity? By not being divisive, he is being divisive!!!!!

(I'm sure he's also intolerant of intolerance, which is just as bad or worse than regular intolerance)

 

[Shalamar]

President Obama visited a mosque the other day. Yeah, that's not going to go over well....

Well, here's what Obama said in his remarks


Rubio's response


The bastard! Dividing people like that. What is divisive about what he said? Hey, I could see it. The "we are all God's children" might be exclusive of atheists. I'm sure that's the problem Rubio has, right?

Oh, it's the "we're all born equal, with inherent dignity." There you go. Obama is being divisive because he doesn't appreciate those who don't think we all have inherent dignity.

Or is he being divisive because he calls us to embrace our common humanity? By not being divisive, he is being divisive!!!!!

(I'm sure he's also intolerant of intolerance, which is just as bad or worse than regular intolerance)

It's because President Obama is the worst person and president in the history of everything. By trying to unite people, and speaking in a Mosque, he's proving how Muslim he is, and spitting in the face of proper good christian Americans.

Rubio will save the country by uniting all people! Perhaps he'll unite Americans by making sure only Christians can be American?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Making sure all Americans are Christian is a valid way of uniting us all.