The Trump thread: All things Donald

[joan1984]

Sounds like women are doing pretty well today, Lois, and if there are problems then Title IX gives individuals what they may need to convince a court otherwise, yes? Like at Baylor?  Why must we hire excess Federal Workers to help with the same things folks can do themselves. 

A 8% reduction in Fed workers barely is a nic, in overall scheme, and 8% here, 35% there, 42% over there, pretty soon we are talking about real Winning!

I am sure those who are let go will do well at whatever hey attempt.

We certainly dodged a bullet when Hillary decided not to campaign, cause her winning was a "lock"... started believing their own spin... she was blaming near everyone but herself in recent speeches, whining vs. winning.

Elections matter.

Title IX is about basic fairness.  Why are you against being fair, Joan?  Are you against women having equal opportunities in education? 

[horny guy]

i must be missing something. how is it that women don't have the same ability to learn.

[RopeFiend]

Trump pulled out of the Paris Accords for the wrong reason: it'd hurt his buddies in industry.  He really doesn't give a shit about the people in Pittsburgh unless they're millionaires.

I applaud the action, though.  There's ample evidence in the historical record that carbon dioxide levels are NOT coupled to global temperature, other than loosely.  When we go into an ice age, CO2 levels fall.   That's because the biosphere goes into the fuckin' freezer; it's an effect, not a cause.  CO2 levels have been up to 5 times higher than they are today, and the earth was cooler.  Water vapor has a much larger effect on global temperature than CO2 does, so much so that it utterly swamps any minor effect of 'CO2 warming'.  Hell, even at the poles (where you'd expect CO2 to have a predominant effect), there's zero evidence that CO2 = higher temperatures.  They've picked an unsupportable position to spend giga-bucks on, and there's WAY better things than reducing CO2 emissions.  

Fuck the Paris Accords, they have their heads up their asses.

[horny guy]

Thanks for explaining it well rope about global warming. I'm disagree with your opening opinion though. Seems everyone voices their opinions without facts these days.

[Northwest]

Trump pulled out of the Paris Accords for the wrong reason: it'd hurt his buddies in industry.  He really doesn't give a shit about the people in Pittsburgh unless they're millionaires.

I applaud the action, though.  There's ample evidence in the historical record that carbon dioxide levels are NOT coupled to global temperature, other than loosely.  When we go into an ice age, CO2 levels fall.   That's because the biosphere goes into the fuckin' freezer; it's an effect, not a cause.  CO2 levels have been up to 5 times higher than they are today, and the earth was cooler.  Water vapor has a much larger effect on global temperature than CO2 does, so much so that it utterly swamps any minor effect of 'CO2 warming'.  Hell, even at the poles (where you'd expect CO2 to have a predominant effect), there's zero evidence that CO2 = higher temperatures.  They've picked an unsupportable position to spend giga-bucks on, and there's WAY better things than reducing CO2 emissions.  

Fuck the Paris Accords, they have their heads up their asses.

What a bunch of ignorant nonsense. I will continue to listen to those who actually have some knowledge of subject, and continue to ignore people who read a paragraph or two on some website and think it gives them the same credibility as a rigorous scientific education.

[horny guy]

you shot it down northwest.. what are your views and beliefs on the topic?

[Katiebee]

We joined Syria and Nicaragua as non-participants in the accord. Yeah, the only thing pulling out did was relinquish another area of leadership.

Trump isn't making America great, he is surrendering leadership to China and Russia.

[Northwest]

Bingo, Katiebee. Once again, you hit the nail squarely on the head.

you shot it down northwest.. what are your views and beliefs on the topic?

I think my views are implicit in my message. I believe in the integrity of the scientific process, in the value and rigor of the educational process which scientists must endure and master in order to raise to the top of their fields, and I believe that extraordinarily deep knowledge of subject is an absolute minimum requirement for credibility in this area. And I know with certainty -- not believe, but know -- that this topic area has been completely fogged by people claiming expertise and understanding which they can't in fact back up. In short, the field is crammed with liars, cheats and buffoons, who talk out of their asses, and whose claims of certainly of knowledge are most often matched in direct relationship to their level of ignorance.

On this subject, I'm from Missouri; show me.

If RopeFiend (or you) are a Ph.D level scientist, in climate studies or one of the significantly related fields, active in your area of expertise and at the top of your field, I will retract my comments and apologize. Otherwise, I will base my assumptions on the conclusions of those who meet the criteria I laid out above. They are many, they are vocal, and the are, for all intents and purposes of one mind on the subject. Humans releasing CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) are causing the planet to warm, and it is creating an immediate and severe environment crisis.

I would no more give credence to a layman on a subject of such staggering importance, than I would take medical advice from that same person if I had potentially terminal cancer.

[joan1984]

  Sooner or later, the elites will run out of other people's money. Let us lead the way for them, and get those grubby AlGore hands out of our taxpayers pockets.

  Making America Great Again, thank you, President Trump.

[horny guy]

With all that said I find it interesting that the earth has the ability to recycle. I know this is a basic and primitive word but things like the oil spill in the gulf a few years ago for example. Yes there was serious damage on the shores but out to sea, the ocean seemed to take care of itself and renew. How about the massive dust-clouds during a volcano... give it time and it was cleared. We have come a very long way in making things cleaner over the last 50 years that I've noticed. This can still be done without being part of this organization. I have no PHD but I'm relatively certain that the world wont be destroyed in my or my childrens lifetimes.

[Lois]

Destroyed is a very subjective standard.  There's a documentary on the Permian Extinction that shows an absolute worst case scenario. Let's hope it doesn't  get that bad.  But with the bleaching of the oceans corals, and a rise in the waters, mass extinction of many life forms is highly likely.

[JulesVern]

Pulling out of the Paris accord was a meaningless gesture. The Paris accord wias voluntary and all of the restrictions could've been self-modified at anytime by any participant. Trump is really good at empty gestures.

Being good at empty gesture is pretty much ALL he is good at. Mainly, he is pathetic.

[Northwest]

With all that said I find it interesting that the earth has the ability to recycle. I know this is a basic and primitive word but things like the oil spill in the gulf a few years ago for example. Yes there was serious damage on the shores but out to sea, the ocean seemed to take care of itself and renew. How about the massive dust-clouds during a volcano... give it time and it was cleared. We have come a very long way in making things cleaner over the last 50 years that I've noticed. This can still be done without being part of this organization. I have no PHD but I'm relatively certain that the world wont be destroyed in my or my childrens lifetimes.

I would shade things differently, and I suspect that I think the problem is more serious than you do, however, I don't fundamentally disagree with what you say above. If we were to explore it, I suspect we would find that we agreed on some things, perhaps quite a few things.

But go back now and look at my comments in sequence and in context, look at exactly what I said, and look at what I reacted to. I disputed the voice of authority which RopeFiend assumed, especially since the view he was espousing was completely at odds with the perspectives of those who actually do know what they are talking about.

[Northwest]

  Sooner or later, the elites will run out of other people's money. Let us lead the way for them, and get those grubby AlGore hands out of our taxpayers pockets.

  Making America Great Again, thank you, President Trump.

Joan, all that Koolaid is staining your teeth red. It makes you look kind of creepy. You might want to take a break for a while.

[Lois]

That's what GOP corruption does to you.

[Athos_131]

Fact-checking President Trump’s claims on the Paris climate change deal

In his speech announcing his decision to withdraw from the Paris Accord on climate change, President Trump frequently relied on dubious facts and unbalanced claims to make his case that the agreement would hurt the U.S. economy. Notably, he only looked at one side of the scale — claiming the agreement left the United States at a competitive disadvantage, harming U.S. industries. But he often ignored the benefits that could come from tackling climate change, including potential green jobs.

Trump also suggested that the United States was treated unfairly under the agreement. But each of the nations signing the agreement agreed to help lower emissions, based on plans they submitted. So the U.S. target was set by the Obama administration.

The plans are not legally binding, but developing and developed countries are treated differently because developed countries, on a per capita basis, often produce more greenhouse gases than developing countries. For instance, on a per capita basis, the United States in 2015 produced more than double the carbon dioxide emissions of China — and eight times more than India.

Here’s a roundup of various statements made by the president during his Rose Garden address:

“We’re getting out, but we will start to negotiate, and we will see if we can make a deal that’s fair.”

Each country set its own commitments under the Paris Accord, so Trump’s comment is puzzling. He could unilaterally change the commitments offered by President Barack Obama, which is technically allowed under the Accord. But there is no appetite to renegotiate the entire agreement, as made clear by various statements from world leaders after his announcement.

“China will be allowed to build hundreds of additional coal plants. So, we can’t build the plants, but they can, according to this agreement. India will be allowed to double its coal production by 2020.”

This is false. The agreement is nonbinding and each nation sets its own targets. There is nothing in the agreement that stops the United States from building coal plants or gives the permission to China or India to build coal plants. In fact, market forces, primarily reduced costs for natural gas, have forced the closure of coal plants. China announced this year that it would cancel plans to build more than 100 coal-fired plants.

Gary Cohn, chairman of Trump’s National Economic Council, recently told reporters that “coal doesn’t even make that much sense anymore as a feedstock. Natural gas, which we have become an abundant producer, which we’re going to become a major exporter of, is such a cleaner fuel.”

“Compliance with the terms of the Paris accord and the onerous energy restrictions it has placed on the United States could cost America as much as 2.7 million lost jobs by 2025, according to the National Economic Research Associates. This includes 440,000 fewer manufacturing jobs — not what we need.”

Trump cited a slew of statistics from a study that was funded by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Council for Capital Formation, foes of the Paris Accord. So the figures must be viewed with a jaundiced eye. Moreover, the study assumed a scenario that no policy analyst expects — that the United States takes drastic steps to meet the Obama pledge of a 26 to 28 percent reduction in emissions by 2025.

Moreover, the study did not consider possible benefits from reducing climate change. A footnote says: The study “does not take into account potential benefits from avoided emissions. … The model does not take into consideration yet-to-be developed technologies that might influence the long-term cost.”

Trump also cited the impact by 2040, including a “cost to the economy” of nearly $3 trillion in lost gross domestic product. But in addition to an unrealistic scenario, that number must be viewed in context over more than two decades, so “$3 trillion” amounts to a reduction of 6 percent. The study concludes coal usage would almost disappear, but innovation in clean energy sources would slow considerably, which also raises the cost of complying with the commitments.

Environmentalists say greater investment in clean energy will lower costs and spur innovation. That may not be correct either, but it demonstrates how the outcomes in models of economic activity decades from now depends on the assumptions.

“Even if the Paris Agreement were implemented in full, with total compliance from all nations, it is estimated it would only produce a two-tenths of one degree — think of that, this much — Celsius reduction in global temperature by the year 2100. Tiny, tiny amount.”

Trump is referring to research by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in a 2015 report. Researchers found that proposed emissions cuts in the Paris plan would result in about 0.2 degrees (Celsius) less warming by 2100, if the cuts were not extended further.

John Reilly, lead author of the report, said he “disagrees completely” with Trump’s characterization that the 0.2 degree cut is a “tiny, tiny” amount that is not worth pursuing. As a part of the deal, countries reexamine their commitments and can exceed or extend their pledges beyond 2030. The intent of the research was to say the Paris deal was a small step, and that more incremental steps need to be taken in the long run.

“The logic that, ‘This isn’t making much progress on a serious problem, therefore we’re going to do nothing,’ just doesn’t make sense to me. The conclusion should be — and our intended implication for people was — not to overly celebrate Paris, because you still have a long journey in front of you. So carb up for the rest of the trip,” Reilly said.

“The green fund would likely obligate the United States to commit potentially tens of billions of dollars of which the United States has already handed over $1 billion. Nobody else is even close. Most of them haven’t even paid anything — including funds raided out of America’s budget for the war against terrorism. That’s where they came.”

It is incorrect that other countries have not contributed to the United Nations’ Green Climate Fund. In fact, 43 governments have pledged money to the fund, including nine developing countries. The countries have pledged to pay $10.13 billion collectively, and the U.S. share is $3 billion. As of May 2017, the United States contributed $1 billion of the $3 billion it pledged.

Trump implies that the money was taken out of U.S. defense monies. But the U.S. contributions were paid out of the State Department’s Economic Support Fund, one of the foreign assistance programs to promote economic or political stability based on U.S. strategic interests. Republican lawmakers have criticized the use of this fund, saying Congress designated the money to prioritize security, human rights and other efforts unrelated to climate change.

“China will be able to increase these emissions by a staggering number of years, 13. They can do whatever they want for 13 years. India makes its participation contingent on receiving billions and billions and billions of dollars in foreign aid from developed countries.”

China, in its Paris Accord commitment, said that, compared to 2005 levels, it would seek to cut its carbon emissions by 60 to 65 percent per unit of GDP by 2030. India said it would reduce its emissions per unit of economic output by 33 to 35 percent below 2005 by 2030; the submission does seek foreign aid to meet its goals and mitigate the costs.

Both countries pledge to reach these goals by 2030, meaning they are taking steps now to meet their commitments. India, for instance, seeks to have renewable power make up 40 percent of its power base by 2030, so it is investing heavily in solar energy. The country is now on track to become the world’s third-largest solar power market in 2018, after China and the United States. China is also investing heavily in renewable energy.

“Believe me, we have massive legal liability if we stay in. As president, I have one obligation, and that obligation is to the American people. The Paris accord would undermine our economy, hamstring our workers, weaken our sovereignty, impose unacceptable legal risk and put us at a permanent disadvantage to the other countries of the world.”

Trump is referring to concerns raised by White House counsel Don McGahn that staying in the Paris agreement would bolster legal arguments of climate advocates challenging Trump’s decision to roll back the Clean Power Plan.

The Clean Power Plan is a flagship environmental regulatory rule of the Obama administration, and proposes to cut carbon emissions from existing power plants 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. It is crucial to the United States meeting its carbon emissions reductions pledge in the Paris agreement. But it has been placed on hold while under litigation.

According to Politico, McGahn raised concerns that the Paris agreement “could be cited in court challenges to Trump’s efforts to kill Obama’s climate rules. McGahn’s comments shocked State Department lawyers, who strongly reject both of those contentions, the sources said.”

“Not only does this deal subject our citizens to harsh economic restrictions, it fails to live up to our environmental ideals. As someone who cares deeply about the environment, which I do, I cannot in good conscious support a deal that punishes the United States, which is what it does.”

For years, Trump has touted his strong record on the environment. But the evidence is quite slim. We awarded Four Pinocchios to his claim that he is a “very big person when it comes to the environment,” who has “received awards on the environment.”

Environmentalists have criticized many of Trump’s projects, particularly for his plans to build a golf course on protected sand dunes and chopping down hundreds of trees for a golf course renovation. As a businessman, Trump or his property did win two environmental awards. In 2007, the Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, N.J., received an award for “environmental stewardship through golf course maintenance, construction, education and research.” Three years later, the golf course was cited for a series of environmental violations.

In 2007, Trump won a “Green Space Award” for donating 435 acres of land to the state of New York. He had purchased the land to build a golf course, but withdrew plans after opposition from local residents and environmental restrictions. The land was never developed into a park, and New York closed it after budget cuts in 2010.

#Resist

[Athos_131]

Trump’s reasons for leaving the Paris climate agreement just don’t add up

President Trump railed against the Paris climate agreement in the White House Rose Garden on  Thursday, but it was hard to reconcile his description of the climate accord with the real one.

“As of today, the United States will cease all implementation of the nonbinding Paris accord and the draconian financial and economic burdens the agreement imposes on our country,” Trump said — a phrase seeming to contain a logical contradiction. If the agreement is nonbinding, then what burdens can it impose?

And that contradiction gets to the heart of why Trump seemed, on Thursday, not to be arguing against the Paris agreement itself, but rather, against the Obama administration’s pledge under that agreement, in which the United States would cut by the year 2025 its emissions by 26 to 28 percent below their 2005 levels.

But the agreement does not require a particular level of emissions cuts for a particular country; rather, the United States and any other nation can choose its own level of emissions reductions.
“It seems very unnecessary to have to withdraw from the Paris agreement if the concern is focused on the U.S. emissions target and financial contributions,” said Susan Biniaz, who served at the State Department as the United States’ lead climate change lawyer from 1989 until earlier this year. “The U.S. can unilaterally change its emissions target under the agreement — it doesn’t have to ‘renegotiate’ it — and financial contributions are voluntary.”

“If the president believes the Paris agreement is a bad deal for the U.S. because our voluntary emission commitments are more stringent than those of other large emitters, the U.S. can reduce the ambition of our domestic policies while still remaining part of the agreement, rather than giving up our seat at the table and undermining U.S. leadership and credibility,” added Jason Bordoff, who heads the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University.

Similarly, Trump argued that the United States would try to “begin negotiations to reenter either the Paris accord or [a] really entirely new transaction, on terms that are fair to the United States, its businesses, its workers, its people, its taxpayers.”

But it seems near-impossible to reassemble every country in the world to start from scratch on the Paris agreement, when those countries are already busily implementing it.

“The notion that other nations would ‘renegotiate’ Paris is absurd, since they have already bent over backwards in the Paris deal to accommodate all major U.S. priorities, including voluntary emissions limits, action by developing countries and a nonlegally binding agreement,” said Paul Bledsoe, who served as a climate policy adviser in the Clinton administration and is now a lecturer at American University’s Center for Environmental Policy.

“Other countries are very unlikely to be interested in renegotiating the Paris Agreement or in negotiating an alternative agreement,” added Bob Perciasepe, president of the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, in a statement. “But the United States still retains the right to adjust the terms of its participation in the Paris Agreement by revising its target.”

And then, there were Trump’s claims about how other countries, such as China and India, would presumably take advantage of the Paris deal, to the United States’ disadvantage.

Niklas Höhne, a professor at Wageningen University in the Netherlands and a founder of the NewClimate Institute, commented by email that this part of the speech, too, didn’t add up:

As a scientist, I was amazed by the many wrong assertions that he used. He said that China will be allowed to build hundreds of additional coal plants. This is true in principle, but China canceled the building of new coal power plants and absolute coal use has declined in three consecutive years. He said that India may double their coal production, but also India is slowing its growth of coal use and just stated that the recent coal plants in construction may not be necessary until 2022.

And then there are Trump’s assertions about what the agreement would actually do to the climate.

“Even if the Paris Agreement were implemented in full, with total compliance from all nations it is estimated it would only produce a two tenths of one degree – think of that, this much – Celsius reduction in global temperature by the year 2100,” Trump said.

But that’s not correct, according to John Sterman, a researcher at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who works to analyze climate change scenarios, and Andrew Jones, a researcher with the think tank Climate Interactive.

Their analysis shows that the current country level pledges under the Paris agreement would reduce the planet’s warming by the year 2100 down from 4.2 degrees Celsius (7.6 degrees Fahrenheit) to 3.3 degrees Celsius (5.9 degrees Fahrenheit), or nearly a full degree Celsius.

And of course, that’s just the beginning — the Paris agreement is structured so that it increases the ambition of the countries that belong to it over time, always in a voluntary manner, asking each to do what it can. So over time, the agreement’s ability to reduce the warming of the planet should improve.

And that will probably still be the case — even though, for now at least, the United States won’t be a part of it.

#Resist

[Athos_131]

Explanations for Kushner’s meeting with head of Kremlin-linked bank don’t match up

#Resist

[Lois]

No one ever accused Trump of being a Brainiac.

Furthermore he was elected to represent ALL Americans.  61% of the American public wants to stay in the climate deal.  He has betrayed us.

[JulesVern]

With all that said I find it interesting that the earth has the ability to recycle. I know this is a basic and primitive word but things like the oil spill in the gulf a few years ago for example. Yes there was serious damage on the shores but out to sea, the ocean seemed to take care of itself and renew. How about the massive dust-clouds during a volcano... give it time and it was cleared. We have come a very long way in making things cleaner over the last 50 years that I've noticed. This can still be done without being part of this organization. I have no PHD but I'm relatively certain that the world wont be destroyed in my or my childrens lifetimes.

I would shade things differently, and I suspect that I think the problem is more serious than you do, however, I don't fundamentally disagree with what you say above. If we were to explore it, I suspect we would find that we agreed on some things, perhaps quite a few things.

But go back now and look at my comments in sequence and in context, look at exactly what I said, and look at what I reacted to. I disputed the voice of authority which RopeFiend assumed, especially since the view he was espousing was completely at odds with the perspectives of those who actually do know what they are talking about.

The funny thing is that I would agree that he is correct. Earth is a marvel and will go on and on as long as the Sun continues to shine. However, the same cannot be said about all the life that inhabits the Earth. And that is of course where our problem lies. There is little we can do to truly the 'Destroy' the Earth but we can and are poisoning it to the point that most, if not all, life on it will not survive.