# My Note to President Trump on the Climate Accords 5-31-2017 **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 1, 2017, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-note-to-president-trump-on-the-climate-accords-5-31-2017/787815 "2017-06-01T03:24:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2017, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-note-to-president-trump-on-the-climate-accords-5-31-2017/787815/41 "2017-06-01T20:58:44Z")
> [@Barack\_Obama](#): > > That person’s first pages on google mention them stating Climate Change is not the most important issue facing the world… That alone disqualifies anything he does as it will be heavily influenced under his bias misunderstanding of science. > IT appears their entire career there is reports of Psuedo science, and “appears to have no basis in fact” > I don’t take this chart seriously anymore. I considered it may be true as off at it seemed, now I’m deeming it worthless crap. Great! You can “deem” it whatever you want. IDGAF. I’m interested to know if anyone else has done any actual analysis of the anticipated effects of the Paris Accord and if they reached a different conclusion. That information would be very useful to me. Do you know if anyone has? ---
**Author:** ![Barack\_Obama](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/dc4da7/32.png) [@Barack\_Obama](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Barack_Obama)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2017, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-note-to-president-trump-on-the-climate-accords-5-31-2017/787815/42 "2017-06-01T21:06:07Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I’m not tearing up anything, but apparently the President does have this power. > > That doesn’t sound like a title with many tangible benefits associated with it. Being a leader in environmental protection will mean your country’s energy is not dependent on green house emitters. Let alone the fact china now is going to be the most technological energy consumer in the world. Other countries that also agreed to the paris accord, will look towards china as a way to become more self dependent on energy. Not needing to rely on big oil, or fossil fuels. Plus when you’re investing in NEW technology that will pay for it’s self 100x over in the future, then you’re overall increasing your economy and production. I know you may not be capable of grasping this but being technologically and scientifically conservative makes you an ape. Humans are capable of progressing and comprehending new subject matter. They’re capable of evolving the way they use tools, where as apes repeat the same thing over and over until they accidentally do something new that’s useful, or someone else shows them. That’s an analogy for conservatives specifically Republicans in America choosing to stick with energy sources that pollute the environment on a mass scale. It is presently profitable for them to do so, and only benefits the present interests of a few people. Where as the long term effects greatly outweigh their short term pleasures. Instead of taking climate change as serious of a threat as it is, america has chosen to ignore it and be primitive. Once more shit hits the fan and the climate change is affecting everyone directly, then maybe the apes in office will follow china’s lead and probably invest in chinese technology to improve our own conditions. China without a doubt along with the rest of the world will invent new and more sustainable based energy technology. Where as america is going to roll around in it’s own filth until we’re miles behind everyone else like we are in Education today. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2017, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-note-to-president-trump-on-the-climate-accords-5-31-2017/787815/43 "2017-06-01T21:09:13Z")
Nevermind, you don’t seem to have the information I’m seeking. I’m not sure it even exists. ---
**Author:** ![BeepKillBeep](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/9e8a1a/32.png) [@BeepKillBeep](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BeepKillBeep)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2017, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-note-to-president-trump-on-the-climate-accords-5-31-2017/787815/44 "2017-06-01T21:10:52Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > It appears that [this is the source of the information](http://www.lomborg.com/press-release-research-reveals-negligible-impact-of-paris-climate-promises). > > Do you know if Dr. Lomborg is right or wrong? Do you know if anyone else has put out an estimate of the expected effects of the Paris Climate Accords? Lomborg is not exactly a particularly credible source given his history of simple errors\* on the subject of climate change. - - Whether deliberate or not, and honestly, I think it not deliberate. I think Lomborg is just a fairly poor scientist and likes being a personality and the best way he can do that is to be controversial. ---
**Author:** ![Barack\_Obama](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/dc4da7/32.png) [@Barack\_Obama](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Barack_Obama)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2017, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-note-to-president-trump-on-the-climate-accords-5-31-2017/787815/45 "2017-06-01T21:13:44Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Great! You can “deem” it whatever you want. IDGAF. I’m interested to know if anyone else has done any actual analysis of the anticipated effects of the Paris Accord and if they reached a different conclusion. That information would be very useful to me. Do you know if anyone has? The conclusion is fucking irrelevant to you if you knew what you were talking about. If 2 degree increase will cause all the shit it’s going to cause, then why would you pull out a deal that can even decrease the projected tempature. Why would you rather do nothing at all about it? What do you think trump is going to do? How is he going to make America the leader of enviromental protection, how is he going to give us the cleanest air. Do you even listen to what he says, understand what he does, or comprehend what you’re talking about? [![](https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/cBqsS1HmGih6AR9YmsS7Ds-2gqI=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/7291239/global_CO2_emissions_graphic.jpg) ](https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/cBqsS1HmGih6AR9YmsS7Ds-2gqI=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/7291239/global_CO2_emissions_graphic.jpg) ---
**Author:** ![Barack\_Obama](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/dc4da7/32.png) [@Barack\_Obama](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Barack_Obama)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2017, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-note-to-president-trump-on-the-climate-accords-5-31-2017/787815/46 "2017-06-01T21:15:07Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Nevermind, you don’t seem to have the information I’m seeking. I’m not sure it even exists. > **[4 things to know about the Paris climate agreement](https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/6/1/15724162/trump-paris-climate-agreement-explained-briefly)** > > The Paris climate agreement, explained in 500 words. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2017, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-note-to-president-trump-on-the-climate-accords-5-31-2017/787815/47 "2017-06-01T21:17:32Z")
> [@Barack\_Obama](#): > > If 2 degree increase will cause all the shit it’s going to cause, then why would you pull out a deal that can even decrease the projected tempature. Why would you rather do nothing at all about it? My answer would depend on what the costs / side effects of the agreement are. Trump seems to have reached the conclusion that it was too much cost for too little benefit. That’s not, on it’s face, a wholly unreasonable conclusion. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2017, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-note-to-president-trump-on-the-climate-accords-5-31-2017/787815/48 "2017-06-01T21:17:55Z")
> [@sleestak](#): > > I think what the U.S. does will have very little impact on what Germany does. Or India. Or China. They need energy and will do what they need to get it, even if the U.S. signs a pact that will reduce global warming by [.05 degree C in the year 2100](http://www.lomborg.com/press-release-research-reveals-negligible-impact-of-paris-climate-promises). [This](http://www.lomborg.com/sites/lomborg.com/files/graph_3_smaller_.jpg)is a handy picture. > > Slee Just for starters, what the US does will certainly have impact on the more than 5 billion tons of CO2 it spews into the air every year. It will not likely have much impact on what the EU does but the EU has already been proactive on this issue for a long time. China and India are on board with the Paris accords but their commitments are likely to be undermined by the US withdrawal, which is a significant blow to a global agreement that necessarily requires international solidarity. The global warming reduction you quote and the “handy picture” are both strangely at odds with the actual goals of the Paris agreement, wherein the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change [has clearly stated](https://www.c2es.org/international/negotiations/cop21-paris/summary) that the objective was to “reaffirm the goal of limiting global temperature increase well below 2 degrees Celsius, while urging efforts to limit the increase to 1.5 degrees”. Perhaps this disconnect between the scientifically based goals of the Paris COP21 agreement and your allegations can be explained by the fact that both your cites come from a website run by Bjorn Lomborg, with whom many of us are familiar. Lomborg is a borderline climate change denialist and defender of industrial emissions, and is notable for having been [investigated for scientific fraud](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg#Accusations_of_scientific_dishonesty), and found guilty by the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty, but partially excused in at least one instance because, having no background whatsoever in climate science, it was deemed unfair to accuse him of scientific dishonesty on a subject that he knew nothing about. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2017, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-note-to-president-trump-on-the-climate-accords-5-31-2017/787815/49 "2017-06-01T21:41:37Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > My answer would depend on what the costs / side effects of the agreement are. Trump seems to have reached the conclusion that it was too much cost for too little benefit. That’s not, on it’s face, a wholly unreasonable conclusion. Trump is not qualified to reach such a conclusion. The job of any responsible political leader is to take advice on scientific matters from scientific experts, and not put ideology before science. That’s why institutions like the National Academy of Sciences exist – to act as expert advisers to the legislative and executive branches of the federal government on matters of science. And the NAS, along with the national academies of every major country in the world, has for decades been advising of the urgent need for emissions mitigation to address climate change. A conclusion that ignores the scientific consensus on a major problem is, on its face, a wholly unreasonable conclusion. Coming from the guy who called climate change a “hoax”, it is not, however, much of a surprise. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2017, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-note-to-president-trump-on-the-climate-accords-5-31-2017/787815/50 "2017-06-01T21:42:23Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > My answer would depend on what the costs / side effects of the agreement are. Trump seems to have reached the conclusion that it was too much cost for too little benefit. That’s not, on it’s face, a wholly unreasonable conclusion. For starters, a lot of the new jobs thanks to cars that Ford and Fiat/Chrysler are going to make (and claimed to be saved/created by Trump) rely on the long run on low to no emission standards that are going to be dropped by the Trump administration now. They are less likely to be successful and Ford just announced they did not had a good year, they were counting on new standards and regulations (related to the climate accords) to be in place. What Trump did is not only unreasonable, but stupid. ---
**Author:** ![Barack\_Obama](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/dc4da7/32.png) [@Barack\_Obama](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Barack_Obama)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2017, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-note-to-president-trump-on-the-climate-accords-5-31-2017/787815/51 "2017-06-01T21:45:10Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > My answer would depend on what the costs / side effects of the agreement are. Trump seems to have reached the conclusion that it was too much cost for too little benefit. That’s not, on it’s face, a wholly unreasonable conclusion. Trump is a man who creates entire news stories over a typo. He demonizes others, and praises authoritarians. He’s displayed levels of ignorance that nobody thought he could realistically win even the primaries. Because trump thinks the sacrifice isn’t worth saving the world, you’re going to jump all over him and full heartedly agree? Are you a person or a robot? People have free will and can think on their own. Now tell me how reducing the impact climate change has on the entire world, doesn’t justify the costs of investing in renewable energy? Let’s consider the education, and competency of who we’re dealing with. Almost every country in the world has signed onto this agreement. Trump, who just so happens to be the most incompetent world leader, is the one who decides to pull out the paris agreement. Obama the previous president, wanted the paris accord. The big oil companies, understood and accepted the paris accord. Trump is the only delusional man baby who thinks he’s doing something productive by pulling out the accord and continuing to rely on green house emitting energy sources. When everyone in the village tells me the town drunk is an idiot, then I see the town drunk acting like an idiot, why the fuck would I not conclude the town drunk is an idiot? Trump’s decision was utterly ignorant, incompetent, and self destructive. We would of been 100x better off financially if we invested in renewable energy sources and invested in environmental protection innovations. We could of had the next half century 100% under our control had we been the ones to first start producing renewable energy technology. We can do it, but with trump in office we’re not going to. The only people who will do a single thing that will actually help the economy, help job growth, and help the climate is a progressive. Someone who isn’t going to play patty cake with people trying to stay in their safe space. Those snowflakes in washington are going to have to get the fuck out, because we’re losing so fucking much thanks to this idiot in office. We’re not only losing our position, we’re losing our fucking lives. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2017, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-note-to-president-trump-on-the-climate-accords-5-31-2017/787815/52 "2017-06-01T21:47:34Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Trump is not qualified to reach such a conclusion. The job of any responsible political leader is to take advice on scientific matters from scientific experts, and not put ideology before science. That’s why institutions like the National Academy of Sciences exist – to act as expert advisers to the legislative and executive branches of the federal government on matters of science. And the NAS, along with the national academies of every major country in the world, has for decades been advising of the urgent need for emissions mitigation to address climate change. A conclusion that ignores the scientific consensus on a major problem is, on its face, a wholly unreasonable conclusion. Coming from the guy who called climate change a “hoax”, it is not, however, much of a surprise. Has the National Academy of Sciences done the sort of cost-benefit analysis we’re discussing? ---
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2017, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-note-to-president-trump-on-the-climate-accords-5-31-2017/787815/53 "2017-06-01T21:54:26Z")
I’m no fan of Trump these days but this silly accord needed to be withdrawn from. It was an accord of hot air and wishful thinking; it had zero chance of being ratified by the Senate and would have had zero effect on global warming. If the US withdrawal kills the whole thing then it’s none too soon. Just maybe they’ll all eventually hammer out an effective way to combat global warming in the future. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2017, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-note-to-president-trump-on-the-climate-accords-5-31-2017/787815/54 "2017-06-01T21:54:55Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Has the National Academy of Sciences done the sort of cost-benefit analysis we’re discussing? I think they are not much related to what to do about the issue, they just report on the phenomenon and the basics of what needs to be done to control it. Now, what you are talking about is about how do it and why is that we have to get going. Economists like the former president-elect of the American Economic Association, already did it; and many others before. > **[Nordhaus Sets the Record Straight - Climate Mitigation Saves Money](https://skepticalscience.com/nordhaus-sets-the-record-straight-climate-mitigation-saves-money.html)** > > Yale's William Nordhaus is one of the foremost experts on climate economics.  His research has frequently been misrepresented by climate 'skeptics' to argue that CO2 limits will harm the economy.  For example, Christopher Monckton cited a climate... > [@](#): > > As we demonstrated in our response, Monckton completely misrepresented the work of Tol (and Nordhaus, by extension), and thus his claim is 100% wrong. The reality is that the overwhelming majority of economic studies on climate find the cost of climate inaction greatly exceeds the cost of action (Figure 1). That’s why there is a consensus amongst economists with climate expertise that we should reduce greenhouse gas emissions (Figure 2). Come to think of it, this is about the 10th time I cite Nordhaus and his analysis. As said many times, it is taking longer than we thought. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2017, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-note-to-president-trump-on-the-climate-accords-5-31-2017/787815/55 "2017-06-01T21:58:43Z")
> [@aldiboronti](#): > > I’m no fan of Trump these days but this silly accord needed to be withdrawn from. It was an accord of hot air and wishful thinking; it had zero chance of being ratified by the Senate and would have had zero effect on global warming. If the US withdrawal kills the whole thing then it’s none too soon. Just maybe they’ll all eventually hammer out an effective way to combat global warming in the future. Knowing the deniers in Congress and what Trump said before, their way to combat global warming will never show up. ---
**Author:** ![up\_the\_junction](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f1d935/32.png) [@up\_the\_junction](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/up_the_junction)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2017, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-note-to-president-trump-on-the-climate-accords-5-31-2017/787815/56 "2017-06-01T22:06:33Z")
Great opportunity for China to take the global lead and moral high ground, and why wouldn’t you: > [@](#): > > Beijing and Brussels have been preparing to announce their intention to accelerate joint efforts to reduce global carbon emissions. > > According to a statement being prepared before an EU-China summit in Brussels on Thursday and Friday, the new alliance will say they are determined to “lead the energy transition” toward a low-carbon economy. > > The EU’s climate commissioner, Miguel Arias Cañete, told the Guardian: “The EU and China are joining forces to forge ahead on the implementation of the Paris agreement and accelerate the global transition to clean energy.” It’s like the USA is moving back in time to the last century, alone. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2017, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-note-to-president-trump-on-the-climate-accords-5-31-2017/787815/57 "2017-06-01T22:23:52Z")
Suppose we went for it, worldwide commitment to sustainable green energy. And suppose it works. Not that hard, wasn’t that long ago that the whole notion of solar energy as viable _did_ look impossible. Where are we now, one genius away? Couple of breakthroughs, harnessed together by us clever monkeys? Then even the subsistence farmer has access to energy equivalent to two water buffalo, three donkeys. Cheap, sustainable green energy from as many local sources as us clever monkeys can make. Maybe “golden age” is an exaggeration. Then again, maybe it isn’t. Imagine. And then we find the new and conclusive evidence that proves we were wrong all along, that global warming is not the ultimate Big Hairy Ass Deal. And there we are, stuck with this huge leap forward. What a fucking disaster! We achieve a galactic level blessing by being wrong! Terrible, huh? Imagine! ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2017, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-note-to-president-trump-on-the-climate-accords-5-31-2017/787815/58 "2017-06-01T22:27:24Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > I think they are not much related to what to do about the issue, they just report on the phenomenon and the basics of what needs to be done to control it. Now, what you are talking about is about how do it and why is that we have to get going. Economists like the former president-elect of the American Economic Association, already did it; and many others before. > > [Nordhaus Sets the Record Straight - Climate Mitigation Saves Money](https://skepticalscience.com/nordhaus-sets-the-record-straight-climate-mitigation-saves-money.html) > > Come to think of it, this is about the 10th time I cite Nordhaus and his analysis. As said many times, it is taking longer than we thought. Thanks for the cite. It’s lead me to [something to read](http://cowles.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/pub/d20/d2057.pdf). Nordhaus seemed skeptical of the efficacy of the Paris Accords last fall: > [@](#): > > While the Paris Agreement on climate change of 2015 (see Paris Agreement 2016) has recently been ratified, it is limited to voluntary emissions reductions for major countries. No binding agreement for emissions reductions is currently in place since the Kyoto Protocol expired in 2012. Countries have agreed on a target temperature limit of 2 °C, but this seems far removed from actual policies, and probably infeasible, as will be seen below. The fact is that most countries are on a business-as-usual (BAU) trajectory of low or no policies to reduce their emissions, taking non-cooperative policies that are in their national interest but far from ones that would be a global cooperative policy. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2017, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-note-to-president-trump-on-the-climate-accords-5-31-2017/787815/59 "2017-06-01T22:27:46Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Has the National Academy of Sciences done the sort of cost-benefit analysis we’re discussing? Yes. Has Trump? Some of the NAS reports dealing with such policy issues can be found [here](https://www.nap.edu/read/1605/chapter/1), [here](https://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/other-reports-on-climate-change/valuing-climate-damages-updating-estimation-of-the-social-cost-of-carbon-dioxide-2017/), [here](https://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/other-reports-on-climate-change/the-power-of-change-innovation-for-development-and-deployment-of-increasingly-clean-electric-power-technologies-2016/), [here](https://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/other-reports-on-climate-change/cost-effectiveness-and-deployment-of-fuel-economy-technologies-for-light-duty-vehicles-2015/), [here](https://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/other-reports-on-climate-change/new-report-reducing-risk-on-the-east-and-gulf-coasts/), and [here](https://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/other-reports-on-climate-change/policy-options-for-reducing-energy-use-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions-from-u-s-transportation/), just for some examples. Also, the IPCC regularly assesses [mitigation costs and options](http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg3/). Furthermore, if any federal policymaker or agency requires a specific type of cost-benefit analysis and policy recommendation above and beyond what NAS is already doing, NAS is chartered for the specific purpose of responding to just such science-based requests, as for example they did in response to the challenges made against Michael Mann’s “hockey stick” temperature reconstructions. Did Trump ask them, or did he just blunder ahead with his embarrassingly ignorant belief that “climate change is a hoax” to the delight of the stupid rubes who voted for him? To try to defend this knee-jerk nonsense as a reasoned cost-benefit analysis is so obviously unsupportable that it’s absurd, since no actual facts were involved or cited – this decision was effectively announced early in the campaign, and was a major draw for many of the ignoramuses who voted for him. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2017, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-note-to-president-trump-on-the-climate-accords-5-31-2017/787815/60 "2017-06-01T22:43:25Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > … no actual facts were involved or cited … Did you actually listen to / [read Trump’s announcement](https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/06/01/statement-president-trump-paris-climate-accord)? This much at least seems fairly straightforward to refute. > [@](#): > > 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. I suppose you could argue that the National Economic Research Associates are mistaken, but it seems pretty clear that Trump gave at least this one citation. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-note-to-president-trump-on-the-climate-accords-5-31-2017/787815.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-note-to-president-trump-on-the-climate-accords-5-31-2017/787815.md?page=4)