Tuesday, November 06, 2007

What is wrong with Marco Rubio? by gimleteye

Thanks to the Tallahassee Democrat for a story that should have appeared in The Miami Herald: “Rubio not pleased with Crist’s battle against global warming.”

“House Speaker Marco Rubio, who has challenged Governor Charlie Crist’s more aggressive approach to fighting the problem, is about to weigh in. The West Miami Republican has scheduled, “The Science and Economics of Global Warming.”

Interesting. The last we heard from Mr. Rubio was in the weekend Herald, where the House Speaker gave unintelligible responses about his failed leadership on property tax reform.

Mr. Rubio is out of the Gaston Cantens mold of cherub-faced, young Cuban-American Republicans: he alluded darkly to powerful forces in the state capitol who frustrated his plans and frittered away his efforts at leadership.

So, what’s up with Mr. Rubio injecting himself into the climate change debate? A job with Exxon?

In the past year, Governor Charlie Crist has pushed Florida out of the Dark Ages on climate change, where his predecessor kept the state, right into the present. It must make the Growth Machine very uncomfortable to be moved in a direction not of their choosing. Patience is short. Housing markets have crashed, and cash equity is dropping faster than water levels in Lake Okeechobee. "Can't we just have our building boom, back?"

I googled the keynote speaker of Rubio’s event—Dr. John Reilly, an associate professor with MIT.

Surprise: Mr. Reilly is one of the scientists cited by the US Senate’s climate change buffoon, Senator James Inhofe, Republican Oklahoma, who single-handedly ensured that debate on global warming would never cross the threshold of US Senate action for nearly a decade.

Senator Inhofe in a signature speech, “Catastrophic global warming alarmism not based on objective science” Part 2 , cites the man who is Mr. Rubio's keynote speaker today as one of the signatories of the following statement:

"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

According to Inhofe: Dr. John Reilly, of the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, established the benefits of CO2 on flora.

In other words: global warming isn’t going to be so bad.

And if I were a betting man, I'd bet that Marco Rubio in Tallahassee today is going to claim that Governor Crist is taking the state in the wrong direction on reform of state policies related to global warming.

Does that sound like political revenge, to you too?

For now, the best indication is how Rubio feels about his failed leadership on property tax reform: it was the fault of dark forces. This is what Rubio told the Herald on Saturday: “There are people in Tallahassee that don't want it. . . . I don't know who they are because they don't want to show their faces, but it seems to me that in Tallahassee there is a group of people who don't want change, because they don't like who's going to suffer. And, honestly, they are punishing the people with their attitude.”

Is Rubio going to use global warming policies to punish Florida, just to throw a monkey wrench in Governor Charlie Crist's forward-thinking plans?

To the Herald, Rubio answered the following question: Has your relationship with the governor changed? Rubio: No. At a personal level, our relationship is good. This is nothing personal. The governor is a very good man, a decent person, a man who works and who wants the best for our state.

Uh-oh. Sounds like the moment before the long knives are unsheathed.

If Marco Rubio is using climate change to strike at Governor Crist: doesn’t that rise to the threshold of coverage by The Miami Herald?

29 comments:

Geniusofdespair said...

Ditto on Rubio...I think he is one strange dude...putting it mildly.

Anonymous said...

Seeking better contacts with Rep. donors for next office he plans to run for. Not just a job with EXXON (climate whore and pimp) but their PAC money.

Anonymous said...

Ah...and the ultra left, anti-cuban, Kucinich voting, DFA folks come out of the woodwork.

I think the herald tried to translate an interview done in Spanish into an article written in English, which accounts for the "unitelligable responses".

All of the sudden, if someone doesn't drink the "Global Warming Koolaid", they must be a shill for an oil company.

Damn those young cuban republicans, things would be soo much better with those psuedo-intellectuals like Dan Gelber running the show.

Anonymous said...

That's a moderate view, Moderate? You sound cranky, like maybe whatever you put in your coffee in the morning, ran out.

Geniusofdespair said...

The person is better known as "not a moderate" on Eye on Miami readers. The person is just a moderate in his or her brain. Hey, Not a Moderate, have you been watching the mainstream media..the Today show is broadcasting from the north and south pole. You can make up your own mind with your OWN eyes.

Anonymous said...

and not a single person interviewed by Ann Curry or Matt Lauer claimed the effects were man made

Anonymous said...

P.S. - I'll lobby for the US to sign the Kyoto Treaty just as soon as China signs it and Inda adheres to it.

Anonymous said...

Its not called "Global Warming" anymore since they realized temps have actually dropped since 2002 now its called "Climate Change" - ask Al Gore, Lemmings....

Anonymous said...

If you do not believe that global climate change is happening, and is largely caused by humans, you are clearly blind or gullible. The huge corporate interests have done a great job at spreading fear and lies about this issue, but anyone with half a brain should be able to avoid this blatant trap, and see what is really happening to our world. Moderate -- your views are not in line with the majority of Americans and overwhelming majority of the entire world. And you must not have children. Otherwise, you would care a little more about what the future holds.

Anonymous said...

There is no "consensus" on the cause and effects of climate change. Scientists know the sun causes most of it, the earth itself causes a lot, and people cause a small percentage. Everything else is guesswork.
However, we can't do much about the sun or earth, but we can change oue own behavior, even if the effects are minimal. Every little bit helps, but lets not scream like Chicken Little that the sky is falling. Its not. And its OK to speak out against the left-wing anti-capitalist hysteria. Thirty years ago the Tree Huggers were screaming "Global Cooling!" because some data supported that. Now its "Global Warming" based on similarly inconclusive data. That the majority of the population is gullible enough to believe both isn't consensus -- its just the result of the slick PR of activists who won't tolerate a rational debate.

Anonymous said...

Dear Readers:

Please cut and paste the following URL into your browse.

A lot of innaccurate points have been raised in some of the comments, above, which may be answered if you have the patience for letting facts sink through preconceived notions.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/about/

Anonymous said...

If the majority of Americans and the overwhelming majority of the world feel this way, why hasn't there been a sweep of all elected seats by environmentalists.

Oh by the way, since China and India don't agree with this climate change thing, I believe it would be dificult to gain an "overwhelming majority of the entire world" (your exact words) without those two countries. After all, together they make up about 1/3 of the population.

Anonymous said...

Combat Global Stasis!

Anonymous said...

Representative democracy in the United States, at all levels of governance, is in shambles. Take your pick: television paid advertisement for political campaigns, Atlas Shrugged, campaign fundraising "laws", industry lobbyists and the revolving door with regulatory agencies, or too much lead paint and mercury in people's brains.

Anonymous said...

I thought everybody knew long ago that Rubio was 100% wrong in all he said. I can not believe that the person who signs as moderate really believes what he or she says. I guess there are still a lot of crazy people in this world.

Anonymous said...

No, apparently I didn't get the memo that Rubio is 100% wrong. He is brilliant and has passion for his ideas, even if you disagree with them (as I do sometimes). I also think there are too many Chicken Littles out there on the Global Warming farce. Rubio seems to have a healthy dose of skepticism on that issue.
At least he doesn't see UFOs like Kucinich. THAT man is crazy.

Geniusofdespair said...

And you all believe that the earth began with Adam and Eve and that hell is down and heaven is up?

Where did all these putz readers come from? Oh, right we are in Miami. How could I forget. And who said Rubio is brilliant, was that his mother?

Anonymous said...

Lets just move forward like the lost civilization of Easter Island and start getting worried after we cut down the last tree. (see The Tipping Point)

If you want the markets to analyze the risks of Global Climate Change just look at insurance premiums and re-insurance world-wide.
India, Brazil, developing S.E. Asia, and China can easily be coxed into caring about climate change, just put pressure on the global outsourcing of Western multi-national corporations and the so called "free" trade regimes we labor under. Then sit back and watch the results happen if like magic. In fact if we just force corporations to pay for their environmental externalities instead of free riding (hear that "never take responsibility for their actions" Union Carbide of India) off the rest of us then progress on Climate Change will occur.

However, lets not act rashly, since there are just so many trees in the New and Old World rain forests of South America and S.E. Asia we have lots of time until we cut them all down.

Anonymous said...

So I used to enjoy reading this blog and occaisionally posting to help pull some of you guys back from the edge of constant liberal despair and whining.

But obviously, its too late.

You guys show your true colors every time, and that is why those you support never win elections. You all live in a fantasy world where every stance you take is always the righteous one and anyone who disagrees is obviously stupid.

I am exactly as moderate as mensa is intelligent and Genius is well a genius.

I will be checking out for a while folks. It's obviously time to find a blog with a healthier amount of back-and-forth, rather than the typical leftist sycophants.

Good Luck.

You guys have turned into what you despise, "the oposite side of the coin of the politicians you hate", no better, just as entrenched in what you believe is right, and unwilling to open your eyes.

It's pretty typical of the liberal mindset to believe that you must be smarter than everyone else and that because none of your candidates ever win, you throw that "they just don't get it card" around.

Have you ever stoped to think, maybe you just don't get it?

Of course not.

Anonymous said...

You know, the right had its chance to capture the American imagination with its ramblings based on fear and hate. It aint gonna work this time, dude. Next time you post, Moderate whoever you are, try to re-read what you've written to see if it makes any sense at all.

Anonymous said...

Actually, what Moderate wrote makes sense. Some bloggers are quick to insult anyone who disagrees with their worldview. How about a rational debate here? Aren't we supposed to prefer that to closed minds?
Too much of the climate change debate is based on hysteria over how much humans cause, rather than hard science. Actually, the fear-mongerers insist there cannot be a debate, as only evil corporations disagree with their Stailinist orthodoxy.
Rubio is brilliant, even if you disagree with him. You should hold off on ad hominem insults to his defenders. Its awfully arrogant to be so dismissive.
The Left tries very hard to rule through fear and hatred - its not peculiar to the Right. They love to demonize opponents and shut down debate.
The attack re "Adam and Eve" shows disdain for religious conservatives - an unnecessary attack as none of the posts mentioned religion.

Geniusofdespair said...

Not a Moderate and other:

My name: Genius of Despair means just that:

I am a genius of despair. Not a Genius in general. And, I know mensa. Mensa is indeed the IQ 160 plus. Mensa cares deeply about Miami's future.

When presidential candidates don't believe in evolution, it is pretty sad. I think the same about Global warming. We are fortunate to have Rosensteil School of Marine and Atmospheric Science right here in Miami. Please name a scientist there that doesn't believe in Global Warming.

People insult us bloggers all the time. Big deal. I still don't think Rubio is brilliant. I think he in manipulative. Should I call him genius of manipulation because that fits? I still think his mother is writing the comments.

Geniusofdespair said...

P.S. Readers, don't take yourselves so seriously, this blog is also about having a little fun with each other. Not a Moderate amuses me and I wish I were amusing Not a Moderate but I guess it is not to be. Having different opinions is interesting and ragging on each other's opinions is fun too.

See Sally have fun. Jane has fun too! Life is too short not to.

Anonymous said...

Ragging is indeed fun. But at least that is a response to the substance of the other blogger's point. Gratuitous insults are not responsive. You are better than that.
Not Marco's Mother

Anonymous said...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/

Do yourselves a favor: spend half an hour, an hour, reading at the website above. Is that too much to ask? It is non-partisan, fact based. Does that make any sense?

Geniusofdespair said...

marco's brother --- nope. not better than that.

http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics#Stages%20of%20Denial

Anonymous said...

US Dept. of Commerce
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

Is the climate warming?
Yes. Global surface temperatures have increased about 0.6°C (plus or minus 0.2°C) since the late-19th century, and about 0.4°F (0.2 to 0.3°C) over the past 25 years (the period with the most credible data). The warming has not been globally uniform. Some areas (including parts of the southeastern U.S.) have, in fact, cooled over the last century. The recent warmth has been greatest over North America and Eurasia between 40 and 70°N. Warming, assisted by the record El Niño of 1997-1998, has continued right up to the present, with 2001 being the second warmest year on record after 1998.

Linear trends can vary greatly depending on the period over which they are computed. Temperature trends in the lower troposphere (between about 2,500 and 26,000 ft.) from 1979 to the present, the period for which Satellite Microwave Sounding Unit data exist, are small and may be unrepresentative of longer term trends and trends closer to the surface. Furthermore, there are small unresolved differences between radiosonde and satellite observations of tropospheric temperatures, though both data sources show slight warming trends. If one calculates trends beginning with the commencement of radiosonde data in the 1950s, there is a slight greater warming in the record due to increases in the 1970s. There are statistical and physical reasons (e.g., short record lengths, the transient differential effects of volcanic activity and El Niño, and boundary layer effects) for expecting differences between recent trends in surface and lower tropospheric temperatures, but the exact causes for the differences are still under investigation (see National Research Council report "Reconciling Observations of Global Temperature Change").

An enhanced greenhouse effect is expected to cause cooling in higher parts of the atmosphere because the increased "blanketing" effect in the lower atmosphere holds in more heat, allowing less to reach the upper atmosphere. Cooling of the lower stratosphere (about 49,000-79,500ft.) since 1979 is shown by both satellite Microwave Sounding Unit and radiosonde data, but is larger in the radiosonde data.

Anonymous said...

What should concern us most in south FLA is sea level rise. As the polar ice caps melt - and they are melting, far more rapidly than projected - it will hardly matter in coastal areas worldwide whether it's a little cooler here or a lot warmer over there. It's interesting that the overall global surface warming trend described above corresponds nicely with the advent and spread of industrialization, but I'm sure it has nothing to do with human activity.

Anonymous said...

Now, 2 new nuclear power plants right in the path of sea level rise... it will take FPL 15 years to build the new reactors... and how long will it take to dismantle them?