Exclusive - U.S. envoys told to be coy on re-engaging in Paris climate deal: cable

[webfact]

Exclusive - U.S. envoys told to be coy on re-engaging in Paris climate deal: cable

By Yeganeh Torbati and Valerie Volcovici

 

FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Donald Trump holds up an executive order on "Energy Independence," eliminating Obama-era climate change regulations, during a signing ceremony at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) headquarters in Washington, U.S., March 28, 2017. REUTERS/Carlos Barria/File Photo

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. diplomats should sidestep questions from foreign governments on what it would take for the Trump administration to re-engage in the global Paris climate agreement, according to a diplomatic cable seen by Reuters.

 

The cable, sent by U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to embassies on Friday, also said diplomats should make clear the United States wants to help other countries use fossil fuels.

 

In the wake of President Donald Trump's announcement in June that the United States would withdraw from the accord, the cable tells diplomats to expect foreign government representatives to ask questions like: "Does the United States have a climate change policy?" and "Is the administration advocating the use of fossil fuels over renewable energy?"

 

If asked, for example, "What is the process for consideration of re-engagement in the Paris Agreement?", the answer should be vague: "We are considering a number of factors. I do not have any information to share on the nature or timing of the process," the cable advises.

 

A U.S. State Department official declined to comment on the cable.

 

Trump, a Republican, had campaigned on a promise to "cancel" the Paris deal, saying he believed it would cost the U.S. economy trillions of dollars while leaving developing nations such as China unfettered. In a sharp difference with the previous administration of President Barack Obama, a Democrat, Trump has several times called climate change a hoax.

 

In June, Trump left the door open to re-engagement if terms improved. The United States will "start to negotiate, and we will see if we can make a deal that's fair," he said.

 

The State Department guidance clarifies that right now, "there are no plans to seek to re-negotiate or amend the text of the Paris Agreement." But it adds: "The President is sincere in his commitment to look for a path to re-engage that takes into account his concerns for U.S. economic growth and energy security."

 

The Paris accord, agreed by nearly 200 countries in 2015, seeks to limit planetary warming by curbing global emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases that scientists believe drive global warming. The United States, under the Obama administration, had promised to cut emissions as much as 28 percent from 2005 levels by 2025.

 

Separate from the diplomatic cable, the Trump administration is reviewing a draft report written by scientists across 13 federal government agencies that shows the effects of climate change pose dire, near-term threats to the United States.

 

The Environmental Protection Agency declined to comment on the draft, which The New York Times published on Monday.

 

The report puts the White House in the awkward position of either clearing the report's findings or editing them.

 

"CLEAN AND EFFICIENT FOSSIL FUELS"

 

The diplomatic guidance makes clear that the United States intends to attend global climate summits during the prolonged process of withdrawing from the Paris deal to protect U.S. interests. The next summit is in November.

 

A U.S. official said a major priority in these talks would be to beat back attempts to have separate standards in the guidance on emissions cuts for rich and poor nations - long a sticking point in negotiations.

 

"There's certainly nothing in the policies of this administration that would make us think that we should be acting differently," the official said on condition of anonymity to discuss the internal memo.

 

The cable also anticipates questions over why the United States has changed its policy to make it easier for global development banks such as the World Bank to finance coal-fired power projects. In 2013 the Obama administration said the United States would oppose most coal projects, guidance since altered by the Trump administration.

 

"The new principles will allow the (United States) the flexibility to approve, as appropriate, a broad range of power projects, including the generation of power using clean and efficient fossil fuels and renewable energy," the cable said.

 

(Reporting by Yeganeh Torbati and Valerie Volcovici; Editing by Rich Valdmanis and Leslie Adler)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-08-09

[ardsong]

As the States claims (well that I.... at the top at least) that proper environmental behavior cost money, I propose that all other countries that do engage in the Paris climate accord put an import tax on all American imports to the percentage amount of their national percentage spend on environmental improvement.

 

It seems nowadays, the only thing that counts in the States is money, so hit them where it hurts the  most!

[Becker]

After the man-child was elected and I see photos of him with adoring fans I sometimes feel ashamed of being a white male.

His downfall can't come soon enough.

[HarrySeaman]

Force coal users to clean up emissions of hazardous materials (solid, liquid, or vapor) such as dust or smoke particles, ash, mercury, arsenic, or carbon dioxide and to securely dispose of these waste materials for thousands of years, or tax them the equivalent amount.  Suddenly the cost of coal would become clear to the world and its use would cease overnight.

 

 

Edited August 9, 2017 by HarrySeaman

[smileydude]

And the nightmare toupee begins.....over and over again

Edited August 9, 2017 by smileydude

[Scott]

Troll post and reply removed.  

[IAMHERE]

Good for Trump! It is about time America lets the rest of t he world save itself without the USA getting involved. 

[boomerangutang]

Science deniers, and common sense deniers (same same) shouldn't read the following article.  It's too much science and truth for them to stomach.  Better for them to just sit in their air-conditioned cocoons, and stay steadfast in their myopic allegiance to guru Trump.

 

npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/08/10/542720189/2016-hit-records-for-global-temperature-and-climate-extremes

[KunMatt]

On 11/08/2017 at 10:23 AM, boomerangutang said:

Science deniers, and common sense deniers (same same) shouldn't read the following article.  It's too much science and truth for them to stomach.  Better for them to just sit in their air-conditioned cocoons, and stay steadfast in their myopic allegiance to guru Trump.

 

npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/08/10/542720189/2016-hit-records-for-global-temperature-and-climate-extremes

I have a question that I can't find the answer to.  Maybe you can help.

 

Why does NOAA take this data;

 

 

 

Combine it with this data;

 

 

 

Then remove nearly all of the Blue coloured parts, and change it into this which is released to the public?

 

 

 

Honest question because I cannot find out why they always remove nearly all of the cold temperatures (including in the middle of the ocean) and replace them with above average temperatures.  There were regions in the first graphic which were -2°C which were manipulated into very above average Red temperatures.

 

Why Is that?

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, KunMatt said:

I have a question that I can't find the answer to.  Maybe you can help.

 

Why does NOAA take this data;

 

 

 

Combine it with this data;

 

 

 

Then remove nearly all of the Blue coloured parts, and change it into this which is released to the public?

 

 

 

Honest question because I cannot find out why they always remove nearly all of the cold temperatures (including in the middle of the ocean) and replace them with above average temperatures.  There were regions in the first graphic which were -2°C which were manipulated into very above average Red temperatures.

 

Why Is that?

Of course it's not an honest question. You're just being disingenuous. You must have gotten this from some anthropogenic climage change denial website and are posting it here.

[KunMatt]

3 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Of course it's not an honest question. You're just being disingenuous. You must have gotten this from some anthropogenic climage change denial website and are posting it here.

 

No, I got it from NOAA.

 

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/global-maps/

 

What's up with the personal attacks?  Why can we never ever discuss this without personally attacking people who are asking questions?

[ilostmypassword]

5 minutes ago, KunMatt said:

 

No, I got it from NOAA.

 

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/global-maps/

 

What's up with the personal attacks?  Why can we never ever discuss this without personally attacking people who are asking questions?

Well here's a link to an explanation. I can't say that I understand it yet, but it's clearly not about distorting data.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/dyk/global-mntp-percentiles

EDIT: It seems to me that the percentile map refers to a much longer time period. Dating back as far as 130 years. 

It just seems odd to me that you didn't do a search for "difference between temperature anomaly and temperature percentile". 

 

Edited August 12, 2017 by ilostmypassword

[ilostmypassword]

13 minutes ago, KunMatt said:

 

No, I got it from NOAA.

 

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/global-maps/

 

What's up with the personal attacks?  Why can we never ever discuss this without personally attacking people who are asking questions?

Yeah sure. Amazingly, astoundingly I did a search for fake NOAA maps and I found this:

https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/37119/did-noaa-publish-a-fake-map-with-temperature-data-it-doesnt-have/37147

As I suspected, more anthropogenic climate change denial BS.

 

Edited August 12, 2017 by ilostmypassword

[KunMatt]

4 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Well here's a link to an explanation. I can't say that I understand it yet, but it's clearly not about distorting data.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/dyk/global-mntp-percentiles

 

Apology accepted!

 

Isn't it strange how this new method was only recently introduced to fulfil a need in 2012?

 

And it is exactly distorting the data.  It has changed a region with more than a -2°C temperature average and manipulated the whole country into an above average temperature.  

 

Most of Africa appears to have no recorded data and it is modelled to be all above average temperatures dispute there being a couple of actual recording devices in Algeria and Nigeria which both read well below average temperatures.  All of this was manipulated away by this modelling system and the 2 real below average readings have both disappeared and the rest of central Africa, which agaon has no recording devices, has been modelled to be totalled above average which is probably incorrect.

 

Do you think those last 2 graphics represent the same data and what is reality?

[KunMatt]

Just now, ilostmypassword said:

Yeah sure. Amazingly, astoundingly I did a search for fake NOAA maps and I found this:

https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/37119/did-noaa-publish-a-fake-map-with-temperature-data-it-doesnt-have/37147

As I suspected, more climate denial BS.

 

I gave you the link to NOAA's website which has those graphics.

 

If you look at the code of my first post I used the http code from NOAA's site.

 

You owe me yet another apology.

 

And again I find it strange that you are trying so hard to attack the source of the data instead of discussing the actual data.

[ilostmypassword]

4 minutes ago, KunMatt said:

Apology accepted!

 

Isn't it strange how this new method was only recently introduced to fulfil a need in 2012?

 

And it is exactly distorting the data.  It has changed a region with more than a -2°C temperature average and manipulated the whole country into an above average temperature.  

 

Most of Africa appears to have no recorded data and it is modelled to be all above average temperatures dispute there being a couple of actual recording devices in Algeria and Nigeria which both read well below average temperatures.  All of this was manipulated away by this modelling system and the 2 real below average readings have both disappeared and the rest of central Africa, which agaon has no recording devices, has been modelled to be totalled above average which is probably incorrect.

 

Do you think those last 2 graphics represent the same data and what is reality?

Well, a few minutes ago you were claiming that you were honestly puzzled. And now you put up this stuff. Which goes to prove my point about your so-called innocent question.  

You can come clean now and tell us which denial site you got your info from.

Edited August 12, 2017 by ilostmypassword

[KunMatt]

2 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Well, a few minutes ago you were claiming that you were honestly puzzled. And now you put up this stuff. Which goes to prove my point about your so-called innocent question.  

You can come clean now and tell us which denial site you got your info from.

So your whole debating tactic unjust to call everyone a liar when you don't like the questions?

 

I never took those graphics from any conspiracy theory site, I spend a disproportionate amount of my time arguing with idiot conspiracy theoritsts about their idiotic conspiracy theories.

 

I got the info from NOAA and all of the links I used here are directly from the NOAA website.  You know this is true.

 

So you refuse to acknowledge my own questions about the data because you can't answer them or because you don't like the questions?

[ilostmypassword]

10 minutes ago, KunMatt said:

Apology accepted!

 

Isn't it strange how this new method was only recently introduced to fulfil a need in 2012?

 

And it is exactly distorting the data.  It has changed a region with more than a -2°C temperature average and manipulated the whole country into an above average temperature.  

 

Most of Africa appears to have no recorded data and it is modelled to be all above average temperatures dispute there being a couple of actual recording devices in Algeria and Nigeria which both read well below average temperatures.  All of this was manipulated away by this modelling system and the 2 real below average readings have both disappeared and the rest of central Africa, which agaon has no recording devices, has been modelled to be totalled above average which is probably incorrect.

 

Do you think those last 2 graphics represent the same data and what is reality?

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. All data points go back at least 80 years.

Edited August 12, 2017 by ilostmypassword

[ilostmypassword]

2 minutes ago, KunMatt said:

So your whole debating tactic unjust to call everyone a liar when you don't like the questions?

 

I never took those graphics from any conspiracy theory site, I spend a disproportionate amount of my time arguing with idiot conspiracy theoritsts about their idiotic conspiracy theories.

 

I got the info from NOAA and all of the links I used here are directly from the NOAA website.  You know this is true.

 

So you refuse to acknowledge my own questions about the data because you can't answer them or because you don't like the questions?

So, please link to the evidence that shows the NOAA is making up the data history?

[KunMatt]

2 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. All data points go back at least 80 years.

 

So when all of central Africa is greyed out in the latest dataset does that mean that no data was collected for that month?

[KunMatt]

Just now, ilostmypassword said:

So, please link to the evidence that shows the NOAA is making up the data history?

That's not at all what I said or am claiming.

 

Why are you twisting my words?  And you have the nerve to accuse me of lying!

 

As I said in my first posts, a whole region was changed from -2°C to above average temperatures.  The whole country.  The surrounding sea temperatures were only +0.5°C but somehow this cancels out the -2° to -4°C average temperature?

 

And again, the differences between the last 2 graphics where all of the Blue was erased and changed to either above average or average temperatures.  Do you think thatb3rd graphic is a good representation of the graphic before it?

 

Because to me, and probably most people looking at that graphic without understanding the model, it looks like it's been made so the graphic is much more red than it actually is.

[ilostmypassword]

5 minutes ago, KunMatt said:

 

So when all of central Africa is greyed out in the latest dataset does that mean that no data was collected for that month?

Stop misrepresenting the data. Not all of Central Africa looks like it's missng data. Just some of it. And you'll be relieved to know that I checked may and april and data was reported for those areas.

And you still haven't revealed where you got your alleged info that "Most of Africa appears to have no recorded data and it is modelled to be all above average temperatures dispute there being a couple of actual recording devices in Algeria and Nigeria which both read well below average temperatures."

[KunMatt]

1 minute ago, ilostmypassword said:

Stop misrepresenting the data. Not all of Central Africa looks like it's missng data. Just some of it. And you'll be relieved to know that I checked may and april and data was reported for those areas.

And you still haven't revealed where you got your alleged info that "Most of Africa appears to have no recorded data and it is modelled to be all above average temperatures dispute there being a couple of actual recording devices in Algeria and Nigeria which both read well below average temperatures."

That's my interpretation of that graphic.  There are 2 blue areas for Nigeria and Algeria and then most of Central Africa is grey.

 

So you agree with what I originally said, no data was collected for the grey area of Africa for June and the model filled it in as Red despite there being 2 blue areas to the west of it?  So in all likelihood this area of Africa so am talking about (Nigeria, Algeria and the grey patch) in real life is probably nothing like the graphic model.

 

If there was recording devices setup in a uniform spread throughout that entire Africa region accurately measuring the temperature it would probably be very different to that last graphic, right?

[KunMatt]

So are we done??

 

You were so vocal when you thought you could attack my argument instead of debating it.

 

Now you cannot debate it?

[ilostmypassword]

35 minutes ago, KunMatt said:

So are we done??

 

You were so vocal when you thought you could attack my argument instead of debating it.

 

Now you cannot debate it?

Believe it or not, some of us have a life outside of thaivisa. Occasionally we are called to attend to other matters.

[KunMatt]

9 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Believe it or not, some of us have a life outside of thaivisa. Occasionally we are called to attend to other matters.

 

Classic.  You post prolificallly until we get to the point you can no longer attack my post and suddenly you're too busy.

 

My posts are still up there.  Feel free to address them properly when you have the time.

[tomacht8]

The burning of fossil fuels and the use of nuclear energy should be reduced as quickly as possible.
Electricity generation with solar energy, wind power, wave power, geothermal use, gradient engineering should be expanded.
So that later the cooling plants can be operated to cool down the earth.

[KunMatt]

3 minutes ago, tomacht8 said:

The burning of fossil fuels and the use of nuclear energy should be reduced as quickly as possible.
Electricity generation with solar energy, wind power, wave power, geothermal use, gradient engineering should be expanded.
So that later the cooling plants can be operated to cool down the earth.

I totally agree, especially about the nuclear power.

[ilostmypassword]

55 minutes ago, KunMatt said:

That's my interpretation of that graphic.  There are 2 blue areas for Nigeria and Algeria and then most of Central Africa is grey.

 

So you agree with what I originally said, no data was collected for the grey area of Africa for June and the model filled it in as Red despite there being 2 blue areas to the west of it?  So in all likelihood this area of Africa so am talking about (Nigeria, Algeria and the grey patch) in real life is probably nothing like the graphic model.

 

If there was recording devices setup in a uniform spread throughout that entire Africa region accurately measuring the temperature it would probably be very different to that last graphic, right?

First off, I don't agree that no data was collected for the area in June. But yours seems a reasonable surmise. So let's say that there was no data collected there. I counted those grids. It looks to me like 11. Then I did a rough estimate of all the grids. It seem that there are over 3000 in the area for which there is mostly consistent data (the area excluding the polar regions. So what are you are contending is that on the basis of about 1/3 of 1 percent of the grid, that the whole grid is fiction?

And by the way here is your original question: "Why does NOAA take this data; Combine it with this data; Then remove nearly all of the Blue coloured parts, and change it into this which is released to the public?"

And the answer is NOAA doesn't do that at all. What you are contending is absolutely false... The first 2 maps you pictured were deviation from the average temperature over 30 years. The final map was for data ranging in age from 80 to 133 years old. It was not derived from the first 2 maps. So your question was based on false premises.

And now since I've answered your questions, for a wild change of pace, why don't you start answering some of mine?

For instance how do you justify this statement of yours?

"Most of Africa appears to have no recorded data and it is modelled to be all above average temperatures dispute there being a couple of actual recording devices in Algeria and Nigeria which both read well below average temperatures."

Really? No recorded data for most of Africa? Where did you come up with that notion? I showed you the image from NOAA which shows the age of their data and most of Africa has it going back at least 80 years.

[ilostmypassword]

30 minutes ago, tomacht8 said:

The burning of fossil fuels and the use of nuclear energy should be reduced as quickly as possible.
Electricity generation with solar energy, wind power, wave power, geothermal use, gradient engineering should be expanded.
So that later the cooling plants can be operated to cool down the earth.

You might like this article:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/12/world/americas/chile-green-energy-geothermal.html