Marco Rubio says very little about climate change

I was stunned by the lack of anything substantive in Marco Rubio's interview statement on climate change.  It's confused, vacuous, and pandering.  By the title of the article, you might perceive that the author agrees with that assessment.  Full disclosure here:  I read the whole article and agreed with the author of it, which is why I say that this statement is confused, vacuous, and pandering, because that's basically what the author said it is.

And that's what it is.

From "Marco Rubio's intellectually vacuous position on climate change":

"Humans are not responsible for climate change in the way some of these people out there are trying to make us believe, for the following reason: I believe the climate is changing because there’s never been a moment where the climate is not changing.  The question is, what percentage of that … is due to human activity? If we do the things they want us to do, cap-and-trade, you name it, how much will that change the pace of climate change versus how much will that cost to our economy? Scientists can’t tell us what impact it would have on reversing these changes, but I can tell you with certainty, it would have a devastating impact on our economy."

Questions:

1.  Who are "some of these people", and in what way is climate not changing that they are trying to make us believe it is changing?  (Can we have a few names? )

2. If you have a question about how much climate change is due to human activity, why don't you ask some experts who can give you a good answer?  (I can give him a few names.)

3.  How much will uncontrolled climate change cost our economy, in terms of agriculture, extreme event damage, infrastructure deterioration, resource use, and mitigation?   (Quick answer: a lot.)

4.  What are your reasons for "certainty" that economic impacts would be devastating?  (Probably because he believes without question everything the Heartland Institute writes.)

5.  Have you evaluated the use of a carbon tax to address some of your scenarios?  (Very unlikely.)

Pathetic.  Or as the author (Stephen Stromberg) says:

"But most important, he [Rubio] keeps it all really vague. He opposes some unspecified policies favored by unspecified “people” because of an unspecified amount of skepticism about the science. He seems to admit that humans have some role in driving climate change, not as much as “some” claim, but he doesn’t say how much. And he fails to articulate what policies he does favor."

But wait ... this is a GOP Presidential candidate.  To expect much better would be comical.