Bob SparksTwo weeks ago, Sen. Marco Rubio appeared on ABC’s “This Week.” He said a number of things, but this is what perked up the ears of America’s newshounds:
“I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it.”
The reaction was swift. Among the many descriptions assigned to Florida’s junior senator was “willful dunce.”
Let us set the stage. Not long ago, the Pew Research Center published a poll gauging the temperature of Americans on the topic of climate change.
According to Pew, 67 percent of Americans believe climate change is occurring. The same poll also revealed that 44 percent are convinced that human activity is the cause.
Look at Rubio’s statement carefully. When he uses the term “these dramatic changes,” that sounds like someone who concedes climate change is occurring (he does, saying it is cyclical). In other words, he would be on the side of the 67 percent. Are they willful dunces?
When he says “I don’t believe that human activity” is causing climate change “the way these scientists are portraying it,” it would seem to put him on the side of the 56 percent of the Pew poll who need further convincing. Are they willful dunces?
America’s news media can play an important role in discussing climate change. But if some become dishonest cheerleaders, they only further the “liberal media” stereotype.
The Los Angeles Times provides a perfect example. The day after Rubio’s ABC appearance, Times writer Brian Bennett wrote a clever, but woefully dishonest, assessment of Rubio’s remarks.
Bennett said Rubio’s position would leave him “in good stead” with GOP primary voters, but leave him “at odds with the views of most Americans.” Bennett used the Pew poll as the basis for his assertion.
If Rubio and 67 percent agree that climate change is occurring, and if Rubio and 56 percent are unconvinced of man-made global warming, how does that put him “at odds” with most Americans? Who is the willful dunce here?
As one who believes climate change is occurring, I offer five suggestions to the media, policymakers and the “human activity” side for increasing the 44 percent share of public opinion.
- Be honest and get willful dunces off the stage. First, stop the false attacks like the one carried out by the Los Angeles Times. Second, call out those spreading false hysteria. For example, when Al Gore tells a German audience in 2008 “the entire (north) polar ice cap will be gone in five years,” remind everyone the caps are still there five years later. When Harry Reid says, among many other stupid things, the Koch Brothers (!) are “one of the main causes” of climate change, follow the lead of the Washington Post, who assigned him “3 Pinocchios.”
They hurt their own cause. Get the hook for them and others like them.
- Explain the glacier melts from long ago. Climate change normally occurs in cycles. Thousands of years ago, parts or all of several northern states were under glaciers. Those glaciers formed and melted without human activity. Explain clearly why 2014 is different.
- If human activity is the cause, explain what the U.S. should do and why. Our country continues to take steps to lessen the release of greenhouse gases. Los Angeles is a great example. While other emerging industrial countries are contributing most of the pollution, we are adding more renewable energy into our portfolio. Please clearly explain how economically harmful policies like Cap and Trade can make up for the inaction by other big polluter industrial nations and third world countries. Or, explain your plan for getting these nations to join the effort.
- Encourage private investment in renewables. Plenty of human activity skeptics believe in the use of renewable energy because it is good policy. Instead of government picking winners and losers like Solyndra, make it easier for American investors to earn a profit by risking capital on wind, solar and other renewable projects. Foreign investors, including those from oil producing countries, are already feasting at the table.
5. Show good faith. Give the other side a victory. Successful negotiations result in the over-used term of “win-win.” Those promoting man-made climate change can give the other side a victory without really giving up anything. You should back away from the hysterical opposition to the Keystone XL Pipeline. According to the U.S. State Department, the pipeline’s alteration of global greenhouse gas emissions is unlikely. A growing number of Democrats are supporting the pipeline. This is a no-brainer.
Rubio does not need me, or anyone else, to defend him. To the contrary, the polls show the other side needs to make a better case to him and the majority of Americans.
Bob Sparks is a business and political consultant based in Tallahassee. Column courtesy of Context Florida.
