Marco Rubio, Climate Change, and the Dark Rhetorical Art of Changing the Point

Marco Rubio

“A climate cult?” That is how United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio addressed global warming at the Munich Security Conference on February 14, 2026.

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?

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

Well, She Got My Attention! Kamala Harris Talked about Climate for Earth Day

Kamala Harris speaking at the 2021 Leaders' Summit

Wildfires, heatwaves, cluttered islands, and hurricanes! If that doesn’t get your attention, nothing will. On Earth Day, April 22, 2021, Vice President Kamala Harris spoke at the Leaders’ Summit on Climate, a virtual meeting of dozens of world leaders.

No part of a speech is more important than its beginning and end. Public speaking textbooks tell students to begin their speeches with an attention-getter. A stirring quotation, a story, a clever analogy, or, better yet, a startling fact can draw the audience’s attention to the speaker and her message. Harris began her brief speech with a series of startling, if not horrifying, facts about climate change’s terrifying progress:

“Here in the United States, the storms hitting our Gulf Coast are worse every year. The wildfires in my home state of California have grown in intensity. And of course, no nation or region is immune. Whether it is Western Europe, where heatwaves have made it very difficult to stay indoors while risking a health risk, or the Pacific Islands, where rising sea levels threaten to encroach on the land and homes of lifelong residents, or in Central America, where last year, two major hurricanes devastated entire communities.” [italics added]

Earth from a million miles away

The startling facts that Harris cited were not only horrifying, but specific. She did not begin her speech with some boring, tedious generality like “climate change is hurting us.” To secure her audience’s attention, to drive home the Summit’s worldwide importance, she emphasized a series of growing climate problems. As a resident of the Gulf Coast, I found her first startling fact, the Gulf Coast storms, especially incisive. I lived through some of those storms.

Also, Harris cleverly mentioned climate hazards from across the world. Yes, she began with climate hazards in her own nation, but her brief paragraph traveled across the world. This was, after all, an international summit.

Kamala Harris: "Investing in the Potential and the Greatness”

Harrison Ford's September 2018 Climate Speech

Stevie Wonder's Hurricane Harvey Speech: Music and Speech Together

Speech professor Alan Monroe based his famous Motivated Sequence on the ideas of psychologists William James and John Dewey. The Motivated Sequence points out that audiences act according to what gets their attention. A speaker talking about climate change, on Earth Day or any other day, must begin by focusing people’s attention. As she launched the climate summit on Earth Day in 2021, Harris’ startling, even horrifying facts directed the audience to the crises that faced us. Those crises still face us today, three years later, on Earth Day, April 22, 2024.

How a speaker can get people's attention 

_________________

P.S.: Enter "climate" in the search box on the right for other posts about climate change speeches. 

by William D. Harpine

Copyright © 2024, William D. Harpine

Image of Earth: NASA
Image of Kamala Harris: White House YouTube channel

The Solution to Climate Change Is in the Cities: President Ursula von der Leyen's Speech at the European Energy Award

Climate Change, US National Park Service

The world’s oceans are rising, island nations are flooding, and increasingly violent storms whip across the planet. Conspiracy theorists, including at least one United States Senator, ridicule global warming as a hoax. Still, more responsible public leaders are working more quietly to put the brakes on climate change.

Senator Mike Lee Tries to Make Fun of the Green New Deal but Only Makes Fun of Himself

President Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, spoke virtually at the European Energy Award. Von der Leyen’s speech gave a brilliant insight: the solution to climate change lies in our cities. She changed the focus from what we should do to where we should do it.  Why didn’t we think of that earlier? Although von der Leyen talked about Europe, everything she said applies to the United States of America.

 

Von der Leyen Talked about Energy in European Cities

So, where do we fight against global warming? Von der Leyen said the fight is in the cities:

“The transition to an economy that is fully in harmony with our planet begins in each one of our cities. It begins with empowering people to choose public transport or bikes instead of private cars. It begins with smart systems for waste management. And with solid strategies to change the way we heat or cool our homes. Climate action is a responsibility that we all share.” [Italics added]

That’s also an important lesson for us in the United States: climate change policy – needs to start with cities. That’s where the most energy is used, and that’s where the solutions can best begin. Continuing, President von der Leyen pointed out what a large proportion of Europeans live in urban areas:

“Cities play a crucial role in this transition. 75 per cent of Europeans live in cities, and this is where 80 per cent of climate legislation is implemented. This is why it was so important to me to join you today.” [Italics added]

Those same lessons, however, apply to the United States as much as to Europe.


Yes, Most Americans Also Live in Cities

When President von der Leyen said that 75% of Europeans live in cities, my first reaction was, “Wow! That’s a lot!” The reader can imagine my surprise when I looked up the figures, learning that the United States, despite its wide prairies, massive deserts, and endless mountain ranges, is even more urbanized than Europe. And most energy use is urban. In the United States of America, we like to think of ourselves as rugged individualists, a nation of rugged cattle wranglers, pioneer families, and small farmers, tied to the land and inspired by the Waltons of television fame. In real life, however, the Center for Sustainable Systems at the University of Michigan estimates that 83% of people in the United States live in cities. That is a huge increase from the 64% who lived in urban areas in 1950.

Consider, for example, my home state of Texas. We have sprawling cattle ranches and oil fields. But Houston, San Antonio, and Dallas are among the nation’s 10 largest cities. (Austin ranks 11th!)


Can American Cities Help with Climate Change?

Can American cities make the same changes that von der Leyen sought in Europe? The challenges are great. Not only do we Americans love our automobiles, but few of our communities are set up for convenient bicycle or public transportation. For example, I live in Corpus Christi, a pleasant medium-sized city, but my neighborhood, like much of the city’s residential areas, looks like a typical suburban enclave. I live about 1½ miles from the nearest small supermarket, and there are no sidewalks most of the way. I need to walk about a mile just to get to a bus stop. Arriving at the bus stop, I would find that the bus runs only a few times a day. The nearest major shopping area, which features a Walmart and a large supermarket, is a 20-minute drive. Walk to Walmart? Not a chance. I’d need to cross a bridge with, you guessed it, no sidewalk and no bike lane. Rail transit? None. If I want to leave my neighborhood, I need to drive. This may largely be political: the United States’ political system underrepresents cities.

Of course, people who live in the countryside don’t want city voters to overwhelm them. William Jennings Bryan pointed out in his 1896 “Cross of Gold” speech in 1896 that the American economy depended on farms. We still need farms, ranches, mines, and outdoor recreation. At the same time, however, neither the economy nor political realities are bringing sustainable energy to the cities.

William Jennings Bryan’s “Cross of Gold”

So, yes, let’s think about where to work on climate change. If most people live in cities – and we do – can’t cities find ways to use less energy? Of course they can. Can our political and economic system adjust to an urban nation? An urban world?


Can We Work Together?

President von der Leyen said that we need to work together in that urban world. Can we get better energy policies? Von der Leyen sounded optimistic:

“In recent months, I saw so many positive efforts in cities across Europe. I hopped on a new hydrogen-fueled bus in Riga, Latvia. I learned about energy efficient social housing in Luxembourg. And I saw the plans to create new car-free areas in Malta. This transition is an opportunity to make our cities climate neutral and more livable.”

Yet, she cautioned that all of us need to take responsibility to deal with climate change. We need to live in the world the way it is today, not the way it was in the past. The science fiction movies of my youth often showed magnificent, futuristic cities with nearly-instant mass transit, livable spaces, and ultra-modern services. Guess what? That future could be now.

Can we, as President von der Leyen said, “make our cities climate neutral and more livable?” She concluded:

“The responsibility for climate action doesn’t just belong to world leaders. It is a choice for every community and every individual. The road to climate neutrality runs through our cities and regions.

“Thank you for your efforts. They are indispensable.”    

Indispensable indeed. What can ordinary people do? One thing, of course, is to vote for politicians who take climate change seriously. Public transportation, bike trails, and pedestrian-friendly city planning all require national and local government commitment. Homeowners who can afford it can install wind or solar power. A simple step is to combine driving trips to use less gasoline, and thus emit less carbon. The government of urban King County, Washington notes that recycling helps to reduce carbon emissions: “If you throw away even half the paper you use in a year instead of recycling it, you increase your climate pollution by the same amount as driving 526 miles.” Near my home, the Port of Corpus Christi is developing facilities to generate hydrogen fuel from renewable electricity sources. We need more of that kind of thing. When hydrogen burns, the only exhaust gas is pure steam.

 

Conclusion

President von der Leyen focused our attention on the vital but neglected side of climate change: green energy policies are, first and foremost, urban policies. Her point could apply to the United States even more exactly than to Europe. Her speech focused our attention, not so much on what to do, but where to do it. When we change the question that skillfully, we can often find better answers. So, can we do more in our cities to fight climate change?

True to form, the press paid little, if any, attention to the content of von der Leyen’s speech, preferring to focus on her wasteful use of private jets. No, she should not have flown on private jets, but her speech made powerful points. The press did not inform the public about those points. How can speakers better command press attention? Feel free to comment below.

______________

Earlier posts: 

Charles Michel’s Speech to the World Health Summit

Biden’s Speech at the Ford Rouge Electric Vehicle Center: Working Together for Climate Progress

Harrison Ford’s Climate Change Speech