Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Trump Misunderstood MIT Climate Research, University Officials Say (reuters.com)

Posted by msmash on from the lost-in-the-translation dept.

MIT officials said U.S. President Donald Trump badly misunderstood their research when he cited it on Thursday to justify withdrawing the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement. From a report: Trump announced during a speech at the White House Rose Garden that he had decided to pull out of the landmark climate deal, in part because it would not reduce global temperatures fast enough to have a significant impact. "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 Celsius reduction in global temperature by the year 2100," Trump said. "Tiny, tiny amount." That claim was attributed to research conducted by MIT, according to White House documents seen by Reuters. The Cambridge, Massaschusetts-based research university published a study in April 2016 titled "How much of a difference will the Paris Agreement make?" showing that if countries abided by their pledges in the deal, global warming would slow by between 0.6 degree and 1.1 degrees Celsius by 2100. "We certainly do not support the withdrawal of the U.S. from the Paris agreement," said Erwan Monier, a lead researcher at the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, and one of the study's authors. "If we don't do anything, we might shoot over 5 degrees or more and that would be catastrophic," said John Reilly, the co-director of the program, adding that MIT's scientists had had no contact with the White House and were not offered a chance to explain their work.

5 of 361 comments (clear)

  1. Not "misunderstood" by XXongo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't think Trump "misunderstood" the science; he didn't have any understanding of the science in the first place.

    1. Re: Not "misunderstood" by negRo_slim · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Science or not, funneling American wealth to third world countries via a non-binding agreement is enough of a reason to oppose participation in this treaty and to be glad it was never submitted to be potentially ratified.

      --
      On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
    2. Re: Not "misunderstood" by quantaman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Try reading it.

      India specifically gets US dollars to fund it's green industry pretty much forever. China gets to keep uping emissions for 13 years and then the US pays them to use green energy that they are already building. Russia just gets to ignore the entire thing.

      Several other 3rd world countries also gets US dollars but not as bad as the above. It was a horrible accord that only an idiot would sign *John Kerry*

      So what part do you disagree with?

      1) The part that global warming is a real and serious problem.

      Or 2) the part where the US helps other countries reduce their emissions, as a result of the US being one of the nations most responsible for the problem, who benefited the most from prior emissions, and who is most capable of dealing with the problem.

      I think #1 is quite true, and once you accept #1 then #2 makes a lot of sense as well. For all the talk of cash transfers to 3rd world countries many on the right seem to think the only "fair" way to deal with global warming is for the West to keep living like kings while the developing world goes pre-industrial.

      --
      I stole this Sig
  2. Re:Of course it was Trump by thebullshitpatrol · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Holding the president accountable for decisions that his brand, and whoever is associated with it, makes?

    Is there any president who we give a pass for making retarded world-scope decisions because of "jargon, confusing verbiage, and passive voice"? Maybe if the president of the united states and his advisors can't reason with jargon, confusing verbiage, and passive voice, they should look into alternate career paths.

    Maybe Obama just misunderstood the TPP.

  3. Re:Let's focus on the trivial by penandpaper · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How is disagreeing with the political solution akin to "somehow believe they've falsified an entire field of research"?

    You can think AGW is real and disagree on funneling money to poor nations. In addition, you can disagree with how much foreign aid Isreal receives and disagree on money transfer in the Paris Accord. These things are not mutually exclusive.