 |
| Marco Rubio |
There is an old lawyer’s saying:
If the facts are on your side, pound the facts. If the law is on your side, pound the law. If neither is on your side, pound the table.
Since none of that would work for Rubio, he instead chose to pound his opponents and change the subject. Rubio did not prove his point, which could not be proven anyway, and instead diverted the audience’s attention just as a magician uses smoke and mirrors to divert an audience’s attention. As Rubio showed, there is more than one way to twist an argument!
So, since Rubio pounded neither facts nor law, let us look at what he did pound. Overall, he gave a remarkable statement of what passes for intellectual conservative orthodoxy. The assembled dignitaries thanked Rubio with thunderous applause, probably, as we shall see in a moment, because Rubio skillfully helped them miss the point. By sneering at the opposition and changing the emphasis, Rubio buried climate science below the level of a footnote.
First, let us remember that centuries of burning fossil fuels have raised the earth’s average temperature by about 1°C. That doesn’t seem like a lot, but if you multiply 1°C across the entire planet, well, that’s a lot of energy. Literally thousands of scientific studies have confirmed this beyond any arguable doubt. For example, a research team led by Shae Wolf of the Center for Biological Diversity stated that: “The evidence is clear that fossil fuels—and the fossil fuel industry and its enablers—are driving a multitude of interlinked crises that jeopardize the breadth and stability of life on Earth.” Similarly, the United States National Aeronautics and Space Administration affirms the scientific view about global warming: “The current warming trend is different because it is clearly the result of human activities since the mid-1800s, and is proceeding at a rate not seen over many recent millennia. It is undeniable that human activities have produced the atmospheric gases that have trapped more of the Sun’s energy in the Earth system.” [Italics added] Indeed, as far back as 1977, Exxon’s own scientists predicted that burning fossil fuels would warm the climate; indeed, they predicted the results with great accuracy.
Second, conservative orthodoxy denies climate change research. Since climate change research fails to support their side to any degree, one must assume that the multibillion-dollar oil, gas, and coal industries encourage this denial. Conservative orthodoxy avoids discussing science at all since they have little scientific evidence to give.
Third, lacking research or factual basis, Rubio's speech simply repeated conservative dogma. Accordingly, instead of proving his point, he dismissed climate science as if it were a religious cult:
“To appease a climate cult, we have imposed energy policies on ourselves that are impoverishing our people, even as our competitors exploit oil and coal and natural gas and anything else – not just to power their economies, but to use as leverage against our own.” [Italics added]That was Rubio’s entire statement about climate change. Now, Rubio’s brief comment obviously proved nothing. If you have little to say, say as little as possible! Still, Rubio’s shallow but crafty statement applied several powerful, albeit specious, persuasive methods:
1. Rubio adapted to American conservatives – his real audience – and they are eager to gobble up his point. Thus, he was content to insult climate scientists rather than to deal with their ideas. Rubio could dismiss the scientific consensus only because, for years, Fox News, talk radio, and conservative pressure have loudly ridiculed climate science. Thus, it comes as no surprise when a Pew survey found that Republicans are far less prone than Democrats to worry about climate change.
Thus, Rubio’s main audience didn’t need to hear evidence.
2. Audiences often think most about the point that the speaker talks about the most. By my count, Rubio spoke 45 words about the climate while devoting about 2,400 words to the unity of Western civilization. By burying his anti-climate point, Rubio led the audience to think about world partnership, not climate change. The world leaders may have bypassed Rubio’s climate point as they, with relief, praised his lengthy appeal for world partnership. Granted, both questions matter, but why bring up climate at all if he wasn’t going to develop the point?
3. Lacking evidence, Rubio kept his climate discussion brief. Actual arguments about the climate would invite refutation or ridicule, so why take the chance?
4. Finally, to the extent that Rubio offered arguments at all, he diverted attention from science to economics. He maintained that limiting fossil fuels would create short-term economic destruction: “not just to power their economies, but to use as leverage against our own.” Rubio diverted the audience’s attention by skipping the real argument.
What you don’t say matters as much as what you do say. Rubio dismissed the issue while saying nothing about climate science. Could Rubio’s rhetorical chicanery convince anyone that climate change is a hoax unless that person wants to be fooled? No, of course not. Nevertheless, can his make-believe intellectualism swing enough people to Rubio’s side to serve his cause? That, I fear, is entirely possible. Indeed, conservatives from Rick Santorum to Jonathan Turley have called Rubio’s absurd speech a masterpiece of statesmanship that might lead him to the White House. In the modern world of brokered power, leaders need support, but, sadly, they don’t need a majority, do they?
What you don’t say matters as much as what you do say. Rubio dismissed the issue while saying nothing about climate science. Could Rubio’s rhetorical chicanery convince anyone that climate change is a hoax unless that person wants to be fooled? No, of course not. Nevertheless, can his make-believe intellectualism swing enough people to Rubio’s side to serve his cause? That, I fear, is entirely possible. Indeed, conservatives from Rick Santorum to Jonathan Turley have called Rubio’s absurd speech a masterpiece of statesmanship that might lead him to the White House. In the modern world of brokered power, leaders need support, but, sadly, they don’t need a majority, do they?
If you have the facts, pound the facts. In Rubio’s case, if you have no facts, insult your opponents (“climate cult?”) and change the subject.
Earlier Posts about Climate Speeches
The Solution to Climate Change Is in the Cities: President Ursula von der Leyen's Speech at the European Energy Award
How Does Tucker Carlson Use Personal Attacks Instead of Proof about Climate Change?
by William D. Harpine
Copyright © 2026 by William D. Harpine
Image of Marco Rubio:
Official State Department portrait, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
