Florida senator and possible presidential contender Marco Rubio does “not believe human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it.”
The Washington Post editorial board published a serious and convincing commentary that such a stance is un-presidential citing “multiple lines of independent evidence” that recent warming is mostly human-induced.
In a hilarious satire on the absurdity of such an outlier position (not directed specifically at Rubio, but the general point of view he espouses), HBO comedian John Oliver hosts a “mathematically representative climate change debate” (caution: strong language):
“You don’t need people’s opinions on a fact … The debate about climate change is not whether or not it exists, it’s what we should about it,” Oliver says.
I concur. There is room for legitimate debate on the severity of the consequences of climate change and what to do about them. But summarily dismissing the root cause of recent observed warming is an unsupportable, extreme position inviting derision and unworthy of a presidential candidate.