Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Politics
posted by n1 on Thursday June 01 2017, @04:44AM   Printer-friendly
from the Smart-move!-Very-good-for-America. dept.

President Donald Trump plans to make good on his campaign vow to withdraw the United States from a global pact to fight climate change, a source briefed on the decision said on Wednesday, a move that promises to deepen a rift with U.S. allies.

White House officials cautioned that details were still being hammered out and that, although close, the decision on withdrawing from the 195-nation accord - agreed to in Paris in 2015 - was not finalized.

[...] The source, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Trump was working out the terms of the planned withdrawal with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt, an oil industry ally and climate change doubter.

[...] The CEOs of Dow Chemical Co, ExxonMobil Corp, Unilever NV and Tesla Inc all urged Trump to remain in the agreement, with Tesla's Elon Musk threatening to quit White House advisory councils of which he is a member if the president pulls out.

Source: Reuters

On Twitter, Trump indicated that an announcement was coming soon.

"I will be announcing my decision on the Paris Accord over the next few days," he wrote. "MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!"

[...] Opponents of the climate deal were concerned after White House economic advisor Gary Cohn told reporters that the president was "evolving on the issue" during his trip overseas.

His daughter Ivanka and son-in-law Jared Kushner reportedly channelled support for the deal behind the scenes at the White House, encouraging climate change activists that Trump might change his mind. Trump's Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, the former Exxon CEO, also supported remaining in the treaty.

Source: Brietbart


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01 2017, @07:59AM (5 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01 2017, @07:59AM (#518744)
  • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by khallow on Thursday June 01 2017, @12:40PM (4 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday June 01 2017, @12:40PM (#518816) Journal
    Typical ad hominem fallacy. Because a venue has been "criticized for inaccuracy", then we can outright ignore everything posted on that site. Do you know what else has been "criticized for inaccuracy"? Climate researchers. Should we as a result ignore everything ever done by a climate researcher? At some point, we should actually consider the claims made and the supporting evidence, such as it is, provided, rather than base our conclusions on tribal politics.
    • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01 2017, @12:50PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01 2017, @12:50PM (#518822)

      Ad hominem, but not necessarily a fallacy. Depends on who does the critising.

      • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by khallow on Thursday June 01 2017, @06:49PM (1 child)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday June 01 2017, @06:49PM (#518987) Journal

        Ad hominem, but not necessarily a fallacy. Depends on who does the critising.

        Duh. But since it's not me committing the fallacy, then it's a fallacy.

        • (Score: 2, Insightful) by aristarchus on Thursday June 01 2017, @10:27PM

          by aristarchus (2645) on Thursday June 01 2017, @10:27PM (#519075) Journal

          Typical ad hominem fallacy.

          Not so typical, more of a trifecta of a non-fallacy. Climate change denial? Check! Brietbarf News? Check!! khallow coming to the defense with a badly thought out accusation of ad hominem? Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner! Not a fallacy. Fake news.

    • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday June 03 2017, @08:28PM

      by aristarchus (2645) on Saturday June 03 2017, @08:28PM (#519973) Journal

      Because a venue has been "criticized for inaccuracy", then we can outright ignore everything posted on that site.

      Not so much the "inaccuracy", my dear khallow, more the mendacity. Hanlon's razor applies in most cases (do not attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence), but in the case of these sources it does not because it has become fairly obvious to anyone arguing from good faith that these sources have been intentionally inaccurate, on purpose, with malice aforethought, and therefore calling them out is not an instance of an argumentum ad hominem. They are lying. Yes, scientists may occasionally be inaccurate, but for the most part, and by common consensus, they are not doing so intentionally, except in the tiny minds of twisted climate deniers, like some people who post here on SoylentNews. Allow me the privilege of not having to name names.