I think I said something like “You can absolutely win that part of this debate by pointing out a mine that will be opening up sometime in 2017”, in fact, I know that is what I said, as you just quoted it.
My point there was that that part of the debate was frustrating and pointless diversion that you chose to engage in to derail the main thrust of my point, and that this very minor point could be won on your part with a single piece of information that I had not been able to locate, (and was dubious as to whether it existed) and to be fair, took you quite a while as well.
And that’s fine if you don’t wish to. I don’t really care myself.
You pointed to mines that have been open for nearly a year as being a mine set to open, or a mine that is still (according to the mine owner’s website) in the planning and permitting stages, or a mine that has been running behind schedule in development that according to your link should be producing by now but is still trying to secure rights to even get access to it, and I pointed out those flaws.
Now, you find a news article that the mine owners say that the plan on opening as many as 3 mines this year, and I am willing to take that quote from the mine owners in a news article as a cite, because I am frankly exhausted with your attempts to find a mine that is actually in the final stages of opening to be producing coal (and jobs) within a relatively short and predictable timeframe.
The thing that is contrary to what you have said in the thread was that Trump’s speech was not deceptive. I am pointing out how it is deceptive.
If you agree that trump’s speech was in fact intended to deceive his audience into thinking that there were going to be tons of coal jobs flooding into the economy because of his actions on the paris deal then we are in agreement.
Otherwise, that is in fact the main part of my argument, one of which you have consistently ignored.
The broad point that I’ve been making since about post #111 was that the hyperbole about Trump’s “lies” was largely misplaced. Here are some quotes snipped from various posts in this thread:
After a bit of back-and-forth, and a lot of back-and-forth with you, most of the people that had made over-the-top declarations about being unable to find anything, or hardly anything true, seemed to back off from their original positions to some complaints about the impression the speech left listeners with, or that the tone or intent was deceptive, etc. IDGAF about that: It’s standard, run-of-the-mill politics for an elected official to spin stuff to their advantage and try to leave listeners with the rosiest possible view of the speaker and the speaker’s actions.
My goal was, as I stated some time ago, for the Dopers “struggling to find any true statement there, let me see if I can help you out”. I feel I’ve accomplished that. I don’t have any interest in defending or refuting the “impression” Trump’s speech left you with, or what you surmise his “intent” was, because I think that politicians of all stripes routinely do that as a matter of course.
You haven’t at all made your point. And I don’t think that “most of the people that had made over-the-top declarations about being unable to find anything, or hardly anything true, seemed to back off from their original positions”. You’ve pointed out that one mine is opening and that others are planned. That’s the extent of your rebuttal.
Because in order to have an effective plan for reducing global emissions to defined levels, one must have a coordinated agreement among all nations. The more than 180 nation signatories to the Paris COP21 agreement had no problem making those national commitments, and the US shouldn’t either.
Additionally, at the domestic level, federal regulations and other schemes like possibly cap and trade are the only way of ensuring that those commitments are met. By eliminating or rolling back federal regulations, the Trump regime is allowing rogue states and industries to cause a great deal of environmental damage and scuttle those efforts with complete impunity – organizations for example like Koch Industries that have been convicted of some of the worst environmental offenses in the history of industrial malfeasance. It’s all fine if one doesn’t give a crap about the environment, but it’s disastrous if one is serious about participating in the international collaboration to bring climate change under control.
While -2/10 of a degree is not very much, I think we should not minimize the importance of the fact that it’s not an increase of 2-5 degrees. I think that’s something that’s being consistently overlooked.
I’ll take this one since we’ve already discussed it.
Is what true or false? You need to define your questions accurately.
Did Trump say this? Yes, he did.
Is it true? No, not the way any reasonable listener or reader would interpret it. It’s only true if one adds the critical qualification that it’s only two-tenths of a degree less than the 2009 Copenhagen-Cancun proposal, not two-tenths of a degree less than the business-as-usual trajectory, which is what Trump was clearly implying.
In fact, compared to business-as-usual (approximated by RCP 8.5), the Paris objectives would achieve a temperature rise reduction of between 4 and 5.5 degrees Celsius (7.2 to almost 10 degrees F) which is astoundingly huge and obviously a very far cry from two-tenths of a degree.
Let me be very clear on this. Doing nothing, as Trump would like, will result in temperatures being 4 to 5.5 degrees Celsius (7.2 to almost 10 degrees F) higher by the year 2100 than complying with the Paris accord. Just another vivid illustration of how Trump’s claims were a pack of lies.
Is the statement I quoted by Donald Trump, snipped from his speech, true or false? That’s the question. PolitiFact and I are over here in the political mainstream, calling it “broadly accurate but needs some additional context.” You’re certainly entitled to your opinion that it is “Just another vivid illustration of how Trump’s claims were a pack of lies” but I hope you have the self-awareness to realize how far out in left field that view is.
I admittedly don’t have a deep level of knowledge about RCP 8.5, but just looking up Wikipedia, it seems to say that RCP 8.5 would result in a likely temperature increase of 2.6 to 4.8 degrees. Where are you getting 4 - 5.5? Does your statement ‘need some additional context’?
Nope. Instead of focusing on some website’s badly chosen words, I’m focusing on the actual facts. When someone says “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” it’s pretty damn obvious that the intended meaning is that compliance with the Paris agreement versus non-compliance with the Paris agreement will produce a difference of two-tenths of a degree. But in fact, as I’ve shown and will discuss with you a second time below, non-compliance and embarking on the path that Trump is laying out will produce a difference of multiple degrees Celsius – as much as 5.5 – by the end of the century, which is catastrophic in climate terms. Thus, Trump was shamelessly lying. The two-tenths of a degree came from a convoluted fabrication that has nothing to do with anything, as already discussed.
No, it doesn’t, but yours does. The numbers you quote are based on different metrics than the ones I’m talking about. They are temperature rise relative to modern-day temperatures (specifically, the 1986-2005 average) whereas I, and the Paris accord, are speaking of temperature rise relative to pre-industrial temperatures.
The numbers I quoted came from here. If you adjust the IPCC numbers from Wikipedia to be relative to pre-industrial temperatures, they’re much closer to what I quoted, 3.21 to 5.41 instead of 4 to 5.5. However, that’s for 2081-2100 average. The numbers would be somewhat higher for the end of the century. Beyond that, the small differences result from different models. Going from RCP forcings to temperature projections produces a lot of model variations because of different assumptions about transient climate response.
Ultimately it matters not a whit for purposes of this discussion, because even the more optimistic RCPs produce multiple-degree temperature rises, contrary to Trump’s blatant lie.
Remember that the CCES report was written during the Obama administration and made its projections accordingly. The policies of the Triumvirate of Stupid – Trump, Pruitt, Perry – are indeed quite similar to the don’t-give-a-damn assumptions of RCP 8.5, which is pretty much defined as business-as-usual with little effort toward mitigation. Since not one of those buffoons acknowledges even the reality of climate change, and are all adamantly opposed to any form of environmental regulation, that’s pretty much what we’d get from them. For Trump to then try to claim that this would make a mere two-tenths of a degree of difference (not only relying on everyone automatically assuming that this is the difference between trying to comply with the Paris accord or opting out of it, but probably hoping that everyone interprets that as Fahrenheit, too!) is perhaps a new low in shameless mendacity, even for Trump.
Are you actually saying there AREN’T outright lies in there? Have you read his speech, or did you listen to it?
“For example, under the agreement, China will be able to increase these emissions by a staggering number of years: 13. They can do whatever they want for 13 years. Not us.”
This is an outright lie; the Paris Agreement says nothing of the kind.
“Further, while the current agreement effectively blocks the development of clean coal in America, which it does…”
Outright lie. It does nothing of the kind.
“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. Think of it: India can double their coal production. We’re supposed to get rid of ours.”
This is a lie. The agreement says nothing at all about coal plants, and does not prevent the United States from building as many as it likes.
“Our tax bill is moving along in Congress, and I believe it’s doing very well.”
Outright lie. No tax bill was before Congress or moving along in it when Trump made this speech.
I found these in less than two minutes of scanning the text of the speech.
First, I want to apologize for being frustrating yesterday. I did not mean to be, I was just looking for these mines that are opening up, so that I could see what kind of jobs they would be providing, and was not finding them at all. I really expected you to “win” that part of the debate much more quickly and easily, and I was hoping to have some sort of list of mines that are opening and anticipated opening dates. I was a bit frustrated by your pointing to mines that were either in bureaucratic hell and not getting out any time soon, were already open, or were still in planning and permitting strategy as the mines that Trump was talking about opening. I do assume that there are mines opening up, somewhere, somehow, I just was looking for specifics. It is entirely possible that mines, being normally a fairly boring subject, just don’t have as much presence on line to find this info.
So, since we spent the entirety discussing one line of my post, and you have asked the same question here, I would like to see if we can put that behind us, and begin anew with an answer to your question.
“Further, while the current agreement effectively blocks the development of clean coal in America – which it does,”
This is a lie. The current agreement does not in any way shape or form block development of clean coal.
" and the mines are starting to open up. We’re having a big opening in two weeks. Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, so many places. A big opening of a brand-new mine. "
True enough…
“It’s unheard of. For many, many years, that hasn’t happened.”
Take it how you like. He might have tried, he’s not there.
"China will be allowed to build hundreds of additional coal plants. "
True, but, they are actually cancelling most of them.
"So we can’t build the plants, "
Lie, we can build them, we just are using cheaper natural gas for the purpose of producing electricity. We could build coal plants, but they would cost more to both build and run than natural gas plants.
"but they can, according to this agreement. India will be allowed to double its coal production by 2020. "
True, but there is a lot of context missing. They also plan on reducing their coal production further out. Honestly, it’s a bit complicated and confusing, but suffice to say, India’s plan was still well committed to the ideals of the Paris agreement.
"Think of it: India can double their coal production. We’re supposed to get rid of ours. Even Europe is allowed to continue construction of coal plants. "
2/3 True. India can double their production, Europe, should they choose, may build coal plants, but there is no requirement in the paris agreement that we get rid of ours.
“In short, the agreement doesn’t eliminate coal jobs, it just transfers those jobs out of America and the United States, and ships them to foreign countries.”
2 lies here, well, two lies and an accidental truth, maybe. The first phrase is true, in that the agreement doesn’t eliminate coal jobs, the second and third are lies, as it does not transfer those jobs, and those jobs are going to be largely automated overseas anyway.
Okay, now that we have parsed his statement, and you are welcome to correct me on anything you feel I got wrong, can we get into the point that the entire statement was a lie?
It is similar to when people take a true statement, and find a phrase in it, that out of context, is not true, and use that to claim the statement is false, or the speaker was a liar. In that statement of Trump’s, while there are phrases in the statement that are true, the context that they are in is a false statement.
Can you tell me why he felt the need to mention mine openings in a speech about leaving the paris agreement? What relevancy these mines have to it? Is there any reason why if he had talked about an applebee’s down the road opening, that that statement would have been any less relevant?
The reason that I say that his statement is deceptive, when taken as a whole, (as well as many of its parts) is because he is creating the impression that his decision to withdraw from the paris agreement is the reason for these coal mines opening, and he also implies that this is a reversal of a downward trend in coal related jobs.
If I say, “1+1=2, 2+2=4, 4+4=8, therefore 1=8.” Would you rate that comment as 3/4 true? That’s how I am really seeing trump’s statement there.
Yeah, and personally, I found one of the most appalling lies to be the two-tenths of a degree thing that I discussed over here and previously. It’s so mind-bogglingly egregious because there is absolutely no way to spin this as being anything other than intentional deception.
I haven’t seen much so far that’s persuaded me much away from that position.
Yes, I read it. I’m pretty sure I was the first one in this thread to provide an actual link to it.
Interesting. Here you bundled up several sentences and labeled the whole thing a “lie”. At a more granular level, k9bfriender found this:
Who’s do you think is the more accurate statement? Yours, that calls the whole thing a “lie”, or k9bfriender’s that labels some of it true and some of it lies.
And yet, PolitiFact didn’t feel that way about it. What’s a non-partisan and sincere inquirer to make of your insistence that “there is absolutely no way to spin this as being anything other than intentional deception” vs PolitiFact’s declaration that it was “broadly accurate”?
Thanks, and I apologize for the less-than-charitable tone of several of my posts.
Sure. Like I said, I think spinning things to your advantage is fairly typical behavior for politicians, so it’s not terribly interesting to me, and I don’t think it rises to the level of a “lie”. This speech didn’t stand out to me as particularly noteworthy for the level of spin inside of it. Others are certainly entitled to differing opinions.
I don’t have any particular insights to Trump or his speechwriters, so what follows is just guesswork: This was one of the more interesting parts of the speech for me. On the one hand, he’s arguing that the Paris Agreement “effectively blocks” coal, so he’s announcing his decision to pull out. In the same speech, he’s also highlighting new coal mines opening. Doesn’t sound like coal was very ‘effectively block[ed]’ to me. It’s a bizarre counter-point to his earlier claim, almost like he’s arguing with himself. The only reason I can think of for including it is that Trump wants to be seen as ‘making America great again’, and coal mines opening up is part of that, so he wants to highlight it, and give a nod to the coal miners that he’s really, really on their side. That’s the best explanation I’ve been able to come up with.
Impressions about the overall tone of the speech are largely personal and not really refutable. You feel this is above and beyond the normal politician’s spin. I don’t really. I’m sure if we analyzed some speeches by Obama or Hillary, we’d feel the reverse.
A statement that contains lies is a lie, even if it also contains some truth.
Truth is binary, and as such is subject to binary operations. In putting together a statement, all phrases use the AND operator. Therefore, if one phrase is false, then the statement itself is false.
If I said, “Today is thursday, the sky is green and polkadotted, my dog served me a nice eggs benedict this morning, and the Chinese will be allowed to build coal fired power plants, therefore, everyone will get a pony.” then by your logic, my statement is 2/5ths true. I disagree, and feel that that statement is entirely false.
The non-partisan and sincere inquirer who sincerely believes that Trump’s statement was “broadly accurate” should do the following. Carefully read this post in which I delineate for about the third time why the two-tenths of a degree thing is a blatant shameless lie, and then please point out exactly what is wrong with my information.
That’s really all I need to say and the only challenge I need to present. But I’ll say one more thing. We’re not talking about some subtle exotica here. If Trump’s statement was correct, it explicitly says that the Paris accords, the culmination of years of effort among more than 180 nations to lay the groundwork for a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, is completely useless and a waste of time; by implication, the UN, the UNFCCC, and all the scientists who support it are wrong on the science, and Trump is right.
Given the fact that Trump’s statement omits an absolutely critical piece of information which completely changes its meaning, given Trump’s track record of mendacity and non-stop lying, given Trump’s campaign statements that climate change is a hoax, given the connection that’s been made between pulling out of the Paris agreement and the malign influence of the climate-denying Koch brothers, please explain why we should believe Trump over the climate scientists who support the Paris accord. Please explain this, because otherwise we might be tempted to answer “right at this very moment” to the following question:
