Fact Checking Trump

The place to discuss politics and policy issues that are not directly related to matters of faith.

Moderator: KeithE

Fact Checking Trump

Postby KeithE » Sat Jun 03, 2017 1:41 pm

Trump’s Paris Accord Withdrawal speech set a new low in truthfulness even for him. The fact checkers are having a field day.

US Today
PolitiFact
ABC News
NYTimes you can listen to this one
FactCheck.org
CBSNews short but good
NPR includes full text (annotated)
The Guardian
WashingtonPost and I could go on and on.

If you have little time or interest read the 5 largest lies at The Vox. The 5 subtitles are:

1) No, an agreement cannot be both nonbinding and draconian (Spoiler: Paris is the former)
2) No, Paris cannot be “renegotiated”
3) No, abiding by the agreement will not cost the US a bazillion dollars
4) No, China and India are not getting away with anything
5) No, other nations are not laughing at us behind our backs — or they weren’t, anyway

These are backed up in the The Vox link above.

-------------------- My views ------------
On this last point 5), we have just joined ranks with only 2 other countries - Syria, Nicaragua (who objected because Paris was too light on large emitters). The world is now laughing at us. Now if Trump champions a new more more stringent agreement, he’ll truly be a leader. But that will not happen.

{correction: even isolated North Korea, and war torn Iraq and Yemen did sign it - I had heard on TV somewhere that North Korea had not signed}
--------------------------------------------
On the jobs front, Trump is so sure that the World has been giving the US a bad deal economically (genuinely, not just a storyline to get elected) that he relies uncritically on the worst scenario of the most biased estimate of what the Accords would do economically to the US. In short his judgement is seriously impaired by his bias about the US being cheated.

The report he found: Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Regulations On the Industrial Sector was published in March 2017 by NERA - the Right Wing's go-to place for biased economic studies.
NERA was founded by Irwin Stelzer, senior fellow and director of the right-wing Hudson Institute’s Center for Economic Policy. In Oct. 2004, The Guardian described Stelzer as the “right-hand man of Rupert Murdoch,” the CEO of News Corp., which owns Fox News.


Among the assumptions in this “study":
Yale professor Kenneth Gillingham {Yale Economist, Energy Focus} said the study assumes certain hypothetical regulations, but "one could easily model other actions with much lower costs,"
- it also ignores the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, like avoiding the negative effects of climate change, and;
- that other countries don’t make emission reductions in line with the Paris Agreement, therefore leading American companies to relocate
{looking at the job loss numbers in the study, that's the leading cause for its purported 1.7M to 2.7M job losses by 2025; but other countries - 195 of them - are staying in, which invalidates this study unless Trump gets all 195 countries to withdraw, while the US stays with its 26-28% reduction in ghg emissions until 2030- baseline year being 2005}
- that industries are static and don’t change to adapt to the regulations, and;
- that there would be no increase in clean electricity generation compared to the baseline scenario.

In other words, the NERA model makes assumptions that generate an extreme result

{ } my interjections

I’ll add - that the study assumed that there would be no new jobs in the clean energy sector (already very false as there are ten times the clean energy jobs in California alone (>500,000) than there are coal jobs in the country (~50,000)).

And the study provides for six scenarios (all with the above flawed assumptions) with job losses said to be between 1.7M to 2.7M by 2025 but Trump picks the one with the worst job losses (2.7M) of course. Extreme of a very flawed study.

Read this for more about the NERA “study"

Totally bogus study, to say the least.

While other countries (most notably China) are subsidizing clean energies big time, we continue to subsidize old technology (which does not need it) like the oil, gas, and coal industries to the tune of $3.2B/year and will soon (if Trump has his way) reduce our subsidies to the future sources of clean energy and jobs.

2013 US energy subsidies

Trump's Plan Risks more Jobs than it Saves-Financial Times
Trump plans a 69 percent budget cut, large staff reductions at clean energy office

Fortunately, our private industry will keep putting money into clean energy, because it is in the near term future. Tesla's New Solar Shingles. Musk, btw, just dropped out of 2 Trump’s tech advisory councils

-----------------
On the technical front, the claim Trump made is badly misconstrued, probably purposefully. He claimed the Paris Accords if implemented would only lead a a 0.2 C deg difference in global temperature.

As this statement from MIT makes clear the 0.2C difference was how much the Paris Accords (with the current Nationally Determined Contributions) would be better than the Copenhagen agreements (such as they were).
First, the 0.2 degree-figure used in the talking point reflects the incremental impact of the Paris Agreement compared with the earlier Copenhagen agreement. If you instead compare the impact of the Paris Agreement to no climate policy, then the temperature reduction is much larger, on the order of 1 degree Celsius — 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit — by 2100. This would be a significant reduction in the global temperature rise, [url]though much more is needed if the world is to achieve its goal of limiting warming to 2 degrees Celsius or less[/url].


Thus the MIT study says and recommends that we need more than just the Paris Accords if we are to limit warming to what scientists says we need to survive without serious degradations to our habitat (2C). Trump badly misuses the good name of MIT. Don’t be fooled.

Second, the analysis accounts only for countries’ pledges under the Paris Agreement, assuming no further strengthening of the commitments in years after 2030. The Paris Agreement is a milestone of the ongoing UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which is committed to ongoing annual meetings to regularly revisit and ratchet up nations’ climate goals, making them more ambitious over time.


Thus there is hope to keep the global temperature rise (since industrialization, we are already at 1C increase) to under 2C. As our understanding of what we can withstand and what we can do in terms of mitigation increase, we as a global community can keep it under control without “geoengineering” (e.g sulfates additions to upper atmosphere).

MIT's conclusion:
The relevant MIT researchers believe that the Paris Agreement is an unprecedented and vital effort by nearly 200 countries to respond to the urgent threat of global climate change.


Trump lies (or is recklessly careless) again.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
http://www.weatherly.org/discoverycenter
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8409
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Fact Checking Trump

Postby David Flick » Mon Jun 12, 2017 5:08 am

.
      It's been nearly two weeks since you posted this thread. No one has responded this far. I plan to respond sometime to your fact checking later. However, you spurred my interest in researching and reporting on the hysterical responses made by those who opposed Trump's Clexit (exit from tne Paris Climate accord) Thought I'd do it from my blog. Here it is...
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8414
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Fact Checking Trump

Postby KeithE » Mon Jun 12, 2017 9:23 am

David Flick wrote:.
      It's been nearly two weeks since you posted this thread. No one has responded this far. I plan to respond sometime to your fact checking later. However, you spurred my interest in researching and reporting on the hysterical responses made by those who opposed Trump's Clexit (exit from tne Paris Climate accord) Thought I'd do it from my blog. Here it is...


I like your term Clexit. Clever. And you blog is excellently formatted. Sadly your responses are all sarcastic and blowhard words - no DATA or backup with FACTS.

Don’t have time until tomorrow to throw together the DATA and FACTS around Trump’s extremely wrong and biased announcement -

1) wrong on the takeaway of the 0.2C effect of the Paris Accord (spoiler it is technically correct but misleading - the Paris Accords as they stand now are ineffective, but Trump ignored that we are near 5C over pre-industrial periods by 2100 which would worsen the degree of catastrophe we are already in). The takeaway should be much more than Paris is needed. Paris is only a framework where countries can up their commitments every year if they want to. Not sure that will be adequate and I can hope that Trump Clexit may backfire and increase those commitments - yet to be seen. As such, I support the Paris Accord but will continue to monitor to see if it ends up as sufficient.

2) biased, ignorant and based on a very flawed NERA study in the claims of 2.7 million jobs lost.

---------------------

Since our last blowups,

My reading on Climate Change has centered on means to Drawdown ghgs as well as growth in documented climate catastrophes. I now realize that there are several means to reduce CO2 and other ghgs that we can use if the political landscapes allows it. I now say we are not in an “existential” threat, but we continue to be in a “catasthrophic” threat especially to those affected by climate catastrophes that have increased from 350/year in 1980 to 900/year in 2010.

My study of Global Warming have been following monthly temperature anomalies (both UAH and GISS) that have both shown that we have now seen the end of the temp reduction following the El Nino major increase in early 2016 (which destroyed all those silly plots from David with “No change for 18 months” with a horizontal line drawn through increasing data) . The temp anomaly has now increased in May along the lower envelope of exponential growth we have seen since 1980.

----------

More backup with graphs, etc., coming tomorrow - have grandson staying with us today, Wednesday and Thursday this week. I also have had some contact with Roy Spencer which is still being played out. I'll describe that.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
http://www.weatherly.org/discoverycenter
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8409
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Fact Checking Trump

Postby Sandy » Mon Jun 12, 2017 11:31 am

In spite of the insanity and inept confusion in the White House, it looks like intelligence and common sense will prevail anyway.

http://www.talkmarkets.com/content/stoc ... ost=138278
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cities-stat ... agreement/
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... 102582856/
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8193
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: Fact Checking Trump

Postby David Flick » Tue Jun 13, 2017 2:18 am

Sandy wrote:In spite of the insanity and inept confusion in the White House, it looks like intelligence and common sense will prevail anyway.
    Yeah sure, it's the epitome of "intelligence" and "common sense" for loony governors and mayors to flush million$ upon million$ of hard earned taxpayer dollars down the sewer to support a meaningless fraudulent climate pact. These people think they are pulling one over on Trump by ignoring his decision to withdraw from the accord. It's insane. Their efforts to make an impact on climate change won't amount to a hill of beans. The joke is on them.
http://www.talkmarkets.com/content/stoc ... ost=138278
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cities-stat ... agreement/
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... 102582856/
    You made my point perfectly by posting these three links. See my reply above...
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8414
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Fact Checking Trump

Postby Sandy » Tue Jun 13, 2017 9:49 am

Hysterical responses? :lol: I see facts cited in all three articles, documentation, and sources. That's your problem. You don't have any.

I don't see any hysteria. What I see are well reasoned people, including a pretty significant portion of the business community, who have recognized the impact of global warming not only on their lives and the environment, but on their ability to make money as well, and they're going to bypass the politics and continue to hold the standards of the Paris agreement. It might turn out that an international agreement like this one might not even be necessary, since it seems that the investments made toward clean energy are paying off for the developers and investors, in both exponential job creation and dividends they can deposit in the bank. It's like anything else. Necessity is the mother of invention, and when people were made aware of a problem, they began to develop ways to overcome it. Clean energy and environmental consciousness are new ideas, and of course, there is always resistance to anything new. Just ask anyone who has served in a church. But like anything else, over time, the technology develops, the cost drops, and the new thing becomes the norm.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8193
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: Fact Checking Trump

Postby KeithE » Tue Jun 13, 2017 11:26 am

Sandy wrote:In spite of the insanity and inept confusion in the White House, it looks like intelligence and common sense will prevail anyway.

http://www.talkmarkets.com/content/stoc ... ost=138278
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cities-stat ... agreement/
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... 102582856/


That is the good news. Already wind and solar are cheaper to produce than coal and electric companies are switching over to natural gas/wind/solar and not upgrading coal-fired plants. Renewables = 69.5% of New US Electricity Capacity in 2015, 30.5% is natural gas and 0% for coal-fired plants. Renewables are still getting cheaper.

These 6 Charts Show That Trump Won’t Stop The Renewable Energy Revolution Anytime Soon more a worldwide view.

Gas and oil (not coal) is still the primary source used for cars and trucks and that is a large part of the energy market. The only thing stopping solar cars from taking over is battery weight for longer trips w/o refueling, and distribution sites along major routes. That distribution should be part of any infrastructure plan as the was offered to oil industry when cars started (subsidies that started in 1918).
Image

Now since 2009 (Obama), fossils fuel subsidies have dropped somewhat and renewables increased. In FY2013, the federal energy tax subsidies are broken down as follows:
Renewable energy: $7.3 billion (45 percent)
Energy efficiency: $4.8 billion (29 percent)
Fossil fuels: $3.2 billion (20 percent)
Nuclear energy: $1.1 billion (7 percent)

Trump will no doubt change that mix - he has said he will help coal. But coal will never come back. Apparently Trump’s Energy Secretary Rick Perry is targeting wind, solar for cuts (details not yet available - usually budgets are very detailed by this time).
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
http://www.weatherly.org/discoverycenter
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8409
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Fact Checking Trump

Postby KeithE » Tue Jun 13, 2017 12:14 pm

Listen/watch the MIT Study Researchers Fact Check of Trump’s speech. The MIT Study said that difference would be 0.6-1.1C (not 0.2C as Trump claimed). There is another study by Bjorn Lomborg that says the Paris Accords only matters 0.17C by 2100. Both the Lomborg and the MIT Study assumed the current Nationally Determined Commitments (NDCs) continue from 2030 to 2100 with no new more commitments.

A plot from the Lomborg Study shows what is happening (noting that the Paris delta is more like 1C difference from Business of Usual by 2100)
Image

Remember that most climatologists say we must keep the temperature rise since the pre-industrial days to 2C (goal 1.5C). Neither study would say we can keep the global temperature below 2C above pre-industrial. Thus the natural takeaway from the plot above is that (regardless of which study one believes more) we must do much more than Paris, something the Paris Accords acknowledge. The framework accepts annual updates to country's NDCs as they get comfortable with their initial steps.

We are already at 1.24C in 2016 (2017 will probably be lower maybe 1.1C; 2016 had a strong El Nino).

Image

So the argument is whether or not 2C is an overly stringent requirement, and not whose study is more accurate. IOWs, can our grandchildren live with 3.6C(Paris - MIT Best Case) to 4.7C (Business as Usual) in 2100 and increasing thereafter? Well consider just the increase in climate related disasters in recent decades.

Image

It is undeniable that natural climate disasters have increased at least two fold since 1980 coinciding with the increased temperature since 1980. Note that on the above chart, “Geophysical Events” (earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanoes) in purple are related to climate and they have not increased. So subtracting them we see we had ~350 catastrophes in 1980 and ~900 catastrophes in 2010 due to climatic factors. That is a 257% increase. By 2050 that would probably be at 500% increase and who knows by 2100. It is “catastrophic" to those caught up (death, injuries, houses) in these climate disasters (storms, floods, landslides, heat waves, droughts, wildfires).

Enough for now- there is much more ill effects from global warming and the costs thereof. And a lot to tell about job creation in renewables.

Trump is harming our jobs, our climate and our global leadership/reputation.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
http://www.weatherly.org/discoverycenter
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8409
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL


Return to Politics and Public Policy Issues

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest