Yesterday Marco Rubio, the Senator of Florida, discussed with ABC that the human impact on climate change isn’t as drastic as scientists are portraying it to be. He also says that, “[he does] not believe that there are actions that we can take today that will have an impact on what’s happening within our climate.”
Two things can be said here. The first is, that without a scientific background, Rubio is quite gutsy to challenge scientists without providing his own thorough scientific research to support it. The second thing to be said here, is that as Florida currently sits as one of the most vulnerable states to damage from rising sea levels, the senator must have a lot of conviction in his theory in order to press it.
As many people commonly state that stats and data can be manipulated to say anything, to Rubio’s point, scientific reports on the human effect on climate change could theoretically be “exaggerated.” In fact, A recent Gallup poll shows that one in four Americans believe that climate change is not a serious concern. Interestingly enough the poll also shows that 4 out of 10 scientists agree that global warming is not an issue, nor is it an issue largely caused by humans.
Yet the Pentagon itself has acknowledged global warming, and is actively taking the necessary steps to create a plan to dissuade any chances of possible climate change disasters. Whether the argument holds true or exaggerated isn’t a debate that government institutions are discussing, as they continue to plan emergency systems “in the event of” a global warming disaster.
It is reported that Rubio helped to enact a carbon emissions cap bill in 2008 but has since “distanced himself.” Many people who worked with Rubio on the bill have frequently called him a “flip flopper” on the topic. Rubio’s current stance is that the pressure to create laws that protect against the slightest impact on climate change, is actually harming the economy. Little elaboration on the economic effect have been provided.
Where do you stand on the global climate change debate? Is it all exaggerated data and research?