Slashdot Mirror
Trump Misunderstood MIT Climate Research, University Officials Say (reuters.com)
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.
I don't think Trump "misunderstood" the science; he didn't have any understanding of the science in the first place.
It's important to note that the contemporary strategy for pushing through the globalist / corporatist agenda is to attach "pork" to treaties that sound like they provide a greater social benefit.
The TPP was one such example. It was anything but a "free trade agreement". It was filled with trade legislation which created impediments to free trade and granted historically unprecedented advantages to corporations.
The Paris Climate Agreement contained language regarding gender equality. Why? What was that language doing in a climate change agreement. The gender equality issue is just one small point of many pieces of pork.
The point is *not* "but don't you support gender equality"?
The point *is* "why are our agreements becoming clouded with special interests"?
Is there anything he DOESN'T misunderstand (aside from repaying favors perhaps...)
"Imagination is more important than knowledge" - Einstein
Misunderstood? Or willfully misconstrued to fit an agenda?
Silence is a state of mime.
Not to put too fine a point on the issue but...
Was it Trump who misunderstood the study, or government advisers?
Was it Trump who misunderstood the study, or did the study not communicate clearly?
Did the study use a lot of jargon, confusing verbiage, and passive voice?
Did it make clear and specific projections, or was everything couched in "if this scenario and those people do that then something might change here to cause this effect"?
Is the news article cited above just completely and totally wrong, or has it been vetted for accuracy?
Any reason to bash Trump, I suppose.
Will Trump ever be called to account for these lies and distorted half-truths? His behaviour is going to cost many lives, and not just in the US. That amounts to something worse than criminal behaviour to my mind, and I would like to see him ultimately tried by an international court.
There is a difference between "misrepresented" and "misunderstood."
The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
That is a ridiculously and uselessly tiny amount of reduction. We'd be better off keeping industrial output the same as it is now and redirect a portion of it to climate engineering efforts like spraying silver dust into Earth orbit. The Paris agreement is equivalent to reducing industrial output by about half for what is likely to be less than 1 degree C of a net result, IF every nation on the planet adheres to it, that's insanity. 1% of our single nation's industrial output redirected toward climate engineering could get into the tens of degrees C within a decade, easily.
...Did the study use a lot of jargon, confusing verbiage, and passive voice? Did it make clear and specific projections, or was everything couched in "if this scenario and those people do that then something might change here to cause this effect"?
The study summary is here: http://meetingorganizer.copern...
The MIT press release summarizing results is here: http://energy.mit.edu/news/how...
I think it would be easier to simply list the things he *does* understand. That should be an incredibly short list.
I'm assuming "tying my own shoes" probably aren't on that list.
... Trump wanted to put one of his campaign promises in the "win" column.
America has spoken and that's precisely what America wants.
It is what it is.
Until America votes otherwise, we will continue to masturbate to thoughts of isolationism.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
And neither do most of his handlers. It was a line they put in to pad out a speech, and they could not care less if it was accurate or meaningful.
I think the correct statement would be whoever read the research to told trump that deliberately mislead him. Trump doesn't read anything pass 140 characters.
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.
The amount of "American wealth" that is "funneled to third world countries" is so small a number that you can't even see it in the pie chart of the government budget expenditures. It is absolutely and completely negligible.
If that's your objection, you are focussing on the trivial.
(The one exception here is American aid to Israel, if you want to call Israel a third-world country; totaling $127.4 billion. But most of that it military aid, not energy.)
MIT study says accord would yield a benefit of 0.6 degree and 1.1 degrees Celsius change by 2100. President weighs cost of implementing vs. MIT's expected benefit and says "too much work for too little effort."
So...what part of MIT's work did the prez misunderstand here? (It seems he got his cost info elsewhere, but what part of the benefit did he miss, exactly?)
CO2 has the properties it has regardless of your views on international agreements or your favorite international conspiracy. The universe well and truly doesn't fucking care about your fantasies. CO2 absorbs and re-emits solar radiation as it does, irrespective of whether you think some evil conspiracy is involved.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen: Believing CO2 controls the climate ‘is pretty close to believing in magic’ http://www.climatedepot.com/20...
I think the problem is that the issue was not reduced to 9 bullet points or less on a single sided sheet using only one and two sylable words.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
It might be different if every single prediction made by the "climate scientists" over the past 50 years hadn't been completely wrong.
It would be only news if Trump understood it. Or anything more complex than how to con people with simple tricks, really.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Because if you list the science he gets wrong, you will be here long after he is dead and buried.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Trump knows talk show hosts are the real experts on climate science: https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2017/06/01/withdrawing-paris-climate-agreement-trump-called-fox-news-host-advice/216748
He didn't misunderstand, he misrepresented the facts to fit his narrative. I don't know if he knew what he was saying was not true or if he was simply regurgitating what his staff fed him, but the end result is the same.
Well, you can a little bit now, or pay a whole lot later. Near as I can make out, we've only promised about $4 Billion, and $3 Billion was previously committed outside of Paris. You are aware that the U.S. total budget for 2017 is about $4 Trillion. Nice mathematical straw man you have there....you could work in the Trump administration, they have no mathematical literacy either.
Did you hear the people applauding him as he made the announcement? The smarmy waves of satisfaction coming off the man? That's what this whole thing is about. The science doesn't matter at all. Him understanding it or not doesn't matter at all.
This whole thing was about looking good in front of his base and gathering their applause. Nothing else. If he did understand the science or not, it would have been irrelevant to him. That wasn't the point at all.
This whole exercise was about standing on a stage and having people applaud him.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Right.
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/27...
You just sited someone saying 100 million years ago the earth was warmer than today so over the coarse of millions of years we aren't statistically out of the norm. The climate today is rather nice for humans. There were no humans a million years ago and there won't be any a million years from now. On geological scales the earth will be fine. I'm a bit more concerned about the lives of my children and grand children though. You know the next 100 years.
Trump chooses to believe what and who he wants to believe. In this case, it was Kimberly Guilfoyle of "The Five" on Fox News. This is no joke. When it comes to big decisions, Boss-T, the President of the United States, is picking up the phone to TV celebrities on deliberately-biased cable news shows, rather than the leading tech executives in the country, international diplomats, and god knows who else, including, apparently, MIT Scientists.
If Putin invades Poland, I wonder who he'll call to ask whether he should push the button on Russia?
Big win for Kimberly, though... she's got her eye on replacing Sean Spicer in his thankless job as Trump's mouthpiece, this making her the ONLY winner from this announcement.
Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
Since Mr. Trump seems to "UNDERSTAND" almost nothing, no big surprise! I would guess he would have to read a lot longer than his attention span will allow, to even come close to even a superficial understanding.
At the end of the day it is what it is.
Is the beginning of an infinite sequence.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Then if it's so important, why not do without the gender bullshit?
And if we're all going to die now, well, Trump offered to renegotiate the accord in a way that's more fair to the US. And who knows, would maybe even get approved by Congress, and therefore be binding! And the Europeans told him to pound sand.
Why do the Europeans hate the world and want us all to die?
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Maybe the scientists should have included more colorful charts, and mentioned Trump more:
National security officials put Trump's name in their briefings as much as possible so he will keep reading
Just because you know that stepping on the brake won't stop your car in time to prevent you from going over the cliff doesn't mean you should stop and press on the accelerator instead.
The Paris Treaty wasn't very good, especially since countries were only going to make half-hearted attempts to make the goals that weren't going to prevent us from going over 2 degrees C. But trying to reach mediocre goals is a heck of a lot better than the status quo which is a hell of a lot better than what is going on in the US where Trump and the Republicans are trying to resurrect the fossil fuels industry while at the same time kill off anything that competes with it with the exception of nuclear.
Sorry.
http://skepticalscience.com/comparing-global-temperature-predictions.html
Turns out your claim is a load of crap.
Unless you were talking about denier predictions and models....
It's not a question of conspiracies; just read the damn thing.
Here's the part he was referencing:
Parties acknowledge that adaptation action should follow a âoecountry-driven, gender-responsive, participatory and fully transparent approach, taking into consideration vulnerable groups, communities and ecosystems, and should be based on and guided by the best available science and, as appropriate, traditional knowledge, knowledge of indigenous peoples and local knowledge systems, with a view to integrating adaptation into relevant socioeconomic and environmental policies and actions.â
That paragraph alone should be enough to make any sane human being laugh in disgust and refuse to sign. And the rest of the agreement is full of similar nonsense.
At the end of the day, it is what it is.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
You win. lol
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Paris is about as strong as they could get without being a real treaty. It's all legal games to avoid having to really fight huge multi-national industries and their unprecedented power to corrupt and sucker millions around the globe.
Like the other lame "agreements" preceding it, Paris was just a step forward as the next agreements will gradually get stronger as the consequences motivate more and more people. Likely ending in global geoengineering efforts and a historic MESS which will be sold as "it could have been worse" and history condemning all our collective stupidity and selfishness.
Every denier needs to put their names on record so we can shame them for all of history; because they will be completely proven wrong and should go down badly in history. I don't think most have the courage; it's easy for them to not think beyond their lifespan, they lack the maturity.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
You need look no further than the Iran deal.
Obama needed a deal with Iran. He would not take no for an answer. The Iranians noticed this and held him upside down by the ankles and shook a billion dollars out of his (our) pockets.
See that "Preview" button?
Women commonly face higher risks and greater burdens from the impacts of climate change in situations of poverty, and the majority of the world’s poor are women.
and
Parties to the UNFCCC have recognized the importance of involving women and men equally in UNFCCC processes and in the development and implementation of national climate policies that are gender-responsive by establishing a dedicated agenda item under the Convention addressing issues of gender and climate change and by including overarching text in the Paris Agreement
So...my interpretation of the above is: don't just focus on the issues of a specific group but make sure this is for the common good, because lord knows the history of modern (or past) civilizations doesn't have a bad tendency to focus on certain groups which may be in power and not work for the common good.
yeah, I don't have a problem with what they are saying now that I understand it. They have an effing valid point.
You sorta hit the mark. Just the wrong target.
1 - climate changes
2 - we are causing it
3 - the changes will be bad (for us)
The image I posted is about #2. Your post is about #3. An argument regarding #3, even one much better than the one you made, even the best argument ever heard by human ears, says nothing about #2.
See that "Preview" button?
But pollution has CO2. CO2 is what plants crave! Crap, or maybe it's Brawndo? Brawdo has electrolytes. It's what plants crave! Environmental science is so confusing. Go away now, I'm 'batin'!
It looks just like what a covfefe looks like, duh.
The U.S. is the second largest carbon emitter in the world. And if you account for the global manufacturing that sells primarily in U.S. markets we are the largest. We are also the largest carbon emitters per capita, the American life style wouldn't scale to the world's population. We're not even sure if the American lifestyle will scale to the U.S.'s population in the near future.
Something is going to have to change and adapt, but by definition a Conservative is unwilling to make concessions that would alter our lifestyles or society.
This is why I propose that hard line Conservatives be loaded into protein vats and converted to food stock. Because eventually we'll be out of options and we'll have to eat the rich.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
So let me get this straight: it's the scientists that are super-greedy liars, and it's the Corporate Execs (i.e. Billionaires and millionaires) that are on the side of reason and are looking out for humanity and the planet?
Are these are the same billionaires that told us lead in gas was safe and tobacco didn't cause cancer.
C'est la vie
Sure, it makes no difference to whether you want to put a sweater on, but that's not the point. The troposphere is vast, and 0.2 C represents an immense amount of kinetic energy, which in turn drives dramatic changes in circulation and precipitation patterns. You can get a sense for this by calculating how much energy an average of 0.2 C represents.
Start with this: how much does a cubic meter of air weigh? Have you ever thought about that? A cubic meter of dry air at sea level weighs about 2.7 pounds. How much energy does it take to raise 2.7 pounds of dry air by 0.2 degrees? It turns out you can look that kind of thing up. It takes about 245 joules.
Now take that 245 joules/m^3 and multiply it by the volume of the troposphere. As you recall from calculus, you can approximate this by taking the surface area of a sphere 6,371,000 meters in radius and multiplying by the troposphere's roughly 11 km height. You should end up with a figure on the order of magnitude of 10^18 joules.
Or you can think of that as being roughly the same as 20,000 Hiroshima sized bombs. Granted the density of air 10 km up is somewhat less, but we haven't factored in the gigatons of water vapor in the atmosphere. Or interactions with the oceans; most of the excess energy goes into the oceans, and that in turn affects climate in countless ways. That's how palm trees grow in Southern Britain, even though Cornwall's further north than Maine.
And yet... You just can't feel a 0.2C change. Then again you can't feel the Coriolis force either, but that can bend a subtle pressure gradient hundreds of miles long into a cyclone, a feat no human agency can resist, much less match.
Scale matters. If there's anything scientific and mathematical literacy should teach, it's that. That's why the future of the planet can't be trusted to a semi-literate ignoramus.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Trump offered to participate in new negotiations. I believe he said that in good faith. Naturally the eurocrats lost their shit and rejected that out of hand.
There are 191 signatories to the Agreement. The only ones not on the agreement were Syria, Nicaragua, and the Vatican (because they aren't a full member state). When 1 state out of 191 changes their mind and wants to renegotiate an agreement that 190 other states agreed to, you tell them to either stick to their agreement or pound sand. Trump's offer to renegotiate was either a token gesture that he knew they wouldn't go for or he is so delusional as to his power as a businessman and "terrific negotiator" that he thought they would actually go for it.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
I don't understand your comment. Politifact have done their homework and fact checked the statements.
it's in my head
Environmentalists can't tolerate anything that dares breach their narrative, even science.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
"Trump Misunderstood___________________________________"....
A wide range of answers can be used. Something scientific that is opposed by the owned GOP pawns is obvious to the casual observer.
Do you want us all to be doomed? Why do you hate us so much? And there's the counterargument in a nutshell...which I was trotting out for comedic effect only.
I've rarely seen a more cogent and witty analysis. What an apt refutation! This is clearly the pinnacle of your distinguished career as an internet commentator.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
He got the point that there MIGHT be a fraction of a degree in temperaturre change a century from now in exchange for more and more economic damage to the American middle class and an acceleration of American budgetary nightmares from horrible economic growth rates and increased dependence on government in place of middle class manufacturing jobs.
These MIT jerks are just upset that the "social science" professors in the faculty lounge will be mad at them for providing Trump ammunition to abandon an Obamessaih policy. Time to put on the big boy pants at MIT and admit that the Paris accord was a crap sandwich for anybody in America not living in a college town either directly or indirectly on nearly unlimited college loans SOMEBODY will need to repay someday.
Just WHAT, substantively, did Trump supposedly get wrong? Let's face it, 0.6 degrees and 0.2 degrees are not far apart when predicting the future a hundred years out, particularly in a field where predicting temperatures within a full degree only three weeks out is nearly impossible.
Economies can be repaired, Ecosystems can't.
No point "pussyfooting" around by suggesting he misunderstood, Trump will just grab you by that.
Say it how it is.
He lied.
Trump repeatedly emphasized that we would build "clean coal". He said the phrase over and over, emphasizing the word "clean" most.
Then he withdrew from the Paris agreement to (I quote) "benefit the coal industry".
Why would he need to withdraw from the agreement if the coal is "clean"? This is a political stunt to make him look like he's got the average American workers' backs.
In May 2015, there were 69,460 jobs in coal mining itself — only 15,900 of which were extraction workers or helpers, mining machine operators or earth drillers. Meanwhile the U.S. Department of Energy said in 2016 that solar power employed 43 percent of the Electric Power Generation sector's workforce.
It's really all just PR gestures - taking as blatant a mainline Republican position as he can to keep his voting base behind him 100%.
That ratio wasn't very different back when India called the Paris accord "carbon imperialism" and got their terms renegotiated. They fought for a far more lenient CO2 ceiling such that they aren't obligated to do anything real about their emissions for years.
It was a bad deal. Trump axed it. That's exactly what we elected him to do.
Next up; NAFTA. Whatever doubt Canada and Mexico might have had about Trump's temerity should have evaporated yesterday. He'll stuff that one right down the shitter behind "Paris accord" and TPP if they fail to appear at the table.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
Economies can be repaired, Ecosystems can't.
You are a serious retard if you do not know ecosystems DO IN FACT heal themselves, they don't even need repairing. Have you ever seen an area decades after a bad fire? You don't need to repair ecosystems, fixing and adapting them is what nature does you blithering baboon!
Learn about nature man! Get outside! Holy crap you are being stupid.
Also if you think it is so easy to repair an economy once broken, why don't you go fix Venezuela... But fuck millions of people suffering and dying right? I can see you cackling with glee as society descends into the long night. Go move to Germany or France and watch it happen up close and personal, you'll derive maximum enjoyment.
In 50 years when planet is thriving, as it tends to do when warmers instead of cooler, and Europe is in deep decay and war and strife roil the land, I hope you think back to this very moment and feel the appropriate amount of raw shame at your words today.
I'll let you have the last response because there's no way I'm reading anything further from someone who knows as little as you about, well, anything. Time will issue the rebuttal to whatever nonsense you respond with, and that too shall remain etched in your brain to haunt you later.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The Sierra Club disagrees with you.
But even the article you linked to admits natural gas lowers CO2 emissions vs. coal (which is obvious to anyone who has the most basic understanding of chemistry and science - which I guess does not include Warming Alarmists). It just thinks the majority of reduction is from drop is overall usage - which still is not saying that natural gas does not lower CO2 emissions. Learn to read what you link to.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Trump never questioned the science of global warming, he withdrew the United States from a treaty that was never properly approved by the Senate and, in his opinion, was a "bad deal" for America.
Now, let's look at this:
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.
In order:
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
Let's call this the "best-case scenario"
"If we don't do anything, we might shoot over 5 degrees or more and that would be catastrophic,"
Let's call this the "worst-case scenario"
Let's also note that if we all follow "the pledges in the deal" the outcome will be the "worst-case scenario" less the "best-case scenario", or a 5 degree increase, reduced by between 0.6 and 1.1 degrees by 2100, in other words, the best outcome we can predict is a temperature increase of 3.9 degrees.
MIT's scientists had had no contact with the White House and were not offered a chance to explain their work.
No, MIT scientists were offered a chance to explain their work - their opportunity was in their written report that the White House staff cited.
Ken
He BIGLY Doesn't Care.
It is virtually impossible for Trump to LIE, because he actually has NO grounding in Reality, and LIKES IT THAT WAY.