Yep, none of these satisfy and it's obvious if you take them seriously and not literally, and put them in context. >"I don’t agree with the notion that some ar

Yep, none of these satisfy and it's obvious if you take them seriously and not literally, and put them in context. >"I don’t agree with the notion that some are putting out there, including scientists, that somehow there are actions we can take today that would actually have an impact on what’s happening in our climate," A serious reading would indicate Rubio is saying the US doesn't have policy levers to solve the problem - not that humans cannot ever have any effect on climate. >Roger Wicker, US senator voted No on an amendment to confirm Climate Change is real Interesting that he was the only senator to vote no, including Marco Rubio above. Does this give you any pause about your first example? Since you know, you just contradicted yourself right there with your own evidence. Regarding Wicker himself, his position is "scientific data on rising global temperatures is not conclusive" which is not the same as "humans can't affect climate". >There’s a list of senators who voted against that climate change is caused by humans Again, you are lying. They didn't vote against climate change being caused by humans to any degree. They voted against "human activity significantly contributes to climate change" which is a much stronger statement. Again the pattern: Take any nuanced position and misquote it as saying the climate can't possibly change because of people, and then say how ridiculous it is. It is ridiculous, which is why nobody says that. Regarding Trump, he did use the word "hoax", but that doesn't mean he thinks the climate never can change at all or that humans can't possibly affect it. Look at what he actually meant. Snopes is a radically biased source so not useful in this discussion. Regarding your last paragraph, you are simply moving the goalposts. You changed it from "they deny the climate changes" to "they are politicking to avoid my preferred policies". Nobody would deny that people obfuscate and double-talk in politics. That's not the question at hand. My position stands.