Okay, let's do that.
Let's count the factual statements in the article. Make sure you count out loud, feel free to use your fingers as well:
Lets actually see what facts are:
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/fact
<header class="luna-data-header" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(102, 102, 102); font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px;">noun</header>
1.something that actually exists; reality; truth:Your fears have no basis in fact.
2.something known to exist or to have happened:Space travel is now a fact.
3.a truth known by actual experience or observation; something knownto be true:Scientists gather facts about plant growth.
4.something said to be true or supposed to have happened:The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.
5.Law.. Often, facts. an actual or alleged event or circumstance, asdistinguished from its legal effect or consequence.Compare question of fact, question of law.
1. Trump himself has tweeted that he will make an official announcement in the coming days.
FACT! Trump 1, Tibs gets credit for listening to POTUS
2. The truth is, Paris was a landmark achievement, establishing a durable global climate regime for the first time since the original “framework convention” was agreed to in 1992.
Opinion of writer. Not a fact. see 4 above
3. The Paris Agreement is ambitious, universal transparent, and balanced.
Opinion of writer. Not a fact. An attempt at a description, clearly biased by role.
4. It brings China, India, and other developing countries fully into the regime.
Incomplete. Not until after 2030 as mentioned in article.
5. It combines strong, aggregate goals with a “bottom-up” structure in which
countries decide their emissions targets for themselves and then continually update those targets on five-year cycles.
No wonder so many agreed. Everyone gets to make their own rules. This is a FACT! Good catch Tibs, you noticed the part that makes the entire agreement useless.
6. Paris (agreement) boxes no one in; all are urged to aim high, but targets are not legally binding.
As above, the opinion of the writer is that the agreement is not legally binding --- what is the point then, eh?
7. It succeeded with strong U.S. leadership every step of the way.
Derp. Opinion of biased writer.
8. The entire world has signed on, save only Syria and Nicaragua.
You can fool all of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time. Thanks President Trump!
9. It appears that the president now means to expand that group of two to include the United States of America.
Opinion of writer, but demonstrates functionality with simple math, absent from rest of his discussion.
10. Pulling out of Paris would cause serious diplomatic damage.
Opinion, speculation, etc. OR was this about Steelerfan and Paris Hilton?
11. The countries of the world care about climate change. They see it as a profound threat.
Opinion of writer, countered by 5 & 6 above. Poor, circular argrument structure.
12. They recognize there is no way to meet that global threat without an effective global regime.
Opinion of writer. Speaking for entire world community now. Not the least bit arrogant.
13. And they understand that the Paris regime cannot work in the long run if the world’s indispensable power has left the table.
Opinion of writer, clearly contradicting 5&6 above.
14. The president’s exit from Paris would be read as a kind of “drop dead” to the rest of the world.
Opinion of the writer. Clearly political.
15. As Ronald Reagan’s secretary of state, George Shultz, said recently about Paris, “[g]lobal statecraft relies on trust, reputation and credibility, which can be all too easily squandered. …
f America fails to honor a global agreement that it helped forge, the repercussions will undercut our diplomatic priorities across the globe.”
Tricky one. What Shultz said was factual in that he said it, but clearly his opinion. Lets score one FACT for Tibs!
16. Such a decision would fly in the face of nearly across-the-board support for Paris among top American companies, in sectors ranging from oil and gas to retail, chemicals, utilities, agriculture, finance, information, and autos.
Opinion of biased writer, based on clear political aims of his boss whilst in power for 8 years.
17. Business leaders know climate change is real.
LOL. Biased opinion of biased writer based on zero working models.
18. They know Paris is an agreement they can work with.
Another arrogant opinion about knowing what "they" know. Yeesh.
19. They know having U.S. negotiators at the table to protect their interests on matters like intellectual property and trade is crucial.
Uh, irrelevant. What does IP and trade have to do with climate? Plus the whole "they know" opinion of biased writer thing.
20. They know that the transition to clean energy is one of the biggest economic plays of this century, that climate change is a major driver of this transition, that the United States is perfectly positioned to lead with our unmatched culture of innovation
Trifecta! three "they know" statements attributing much to others. Biased opinion.
21. Opting out of Paris will undermine this opportunity to expand markets, create jobs and build wealth.
Irrelevant and clearly biased opinion of writer.
22. The withdrawal crowd has offered up bogus legal arguments that misunderstand the agreement, but they are just excuses.
No linkage to facts; just more biased opinion.
23. The real reason for their opposition is that they reject the importance of containing climate change in the first place.
FACT!!!!!!!!!!! So he does understand!?!?!
24. Remember OMB Director Mike Mulvaney’s words: “we're not spending money on [climate change] anymore; we consider that to be a waste.”
FACT!!!! Notice any trends in the facts?
25. But we are far past the point when we should be discussing whether climate change is a live risk.
Biased opinion. Based on a complete lack of verification of global warming models, including rather embarrassing counter-evidence. What is "live risk"?
26. The Pentagon calls it a “threat multiplier” in vulnerable regions of the world.
Many who work/served for the Pentagon have noticed many other "threat multiplier"s that have been politically ignored: see Manchester, San Bernadino, Phillipines, Indonesia, Egypt, etc.
27. The National Intelligence Council says climate change “will almost certainly have significant effects, both direct and indirect, across social, economic, political, and security realms during the next 20 years.”
Reality check: I didn't know what the National Intelligence Council was, so please read the link, first I found in my search about what they really said about climate when Obama was POTUS:
https://climateandsecurity.org/2016/03/17/the-national-intelligence-council-call-for-climate-future-scenarios/
Clear biased misrepresentation attempt by writer. Thanks for catching this Tibs! -1 Nonfactual
28. Firms like BlackRock, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, and Shell, among others, have produced serious climate reports focused on the transition needed to meet the goals of Paris.
It is all about the money. Follow the money. See Davenport's spot on comments about same issue with insurers.
29. Weather-related losses have tripled since the 1980s.
Counting these damages has changed significantly; not factored into to biased reports meant to sell insurance. Clear misunderstanding of business by writer.
30. There is no significant outside constituency arguing for America to leave.
FACTUALLY INCORRECT. The significant constituency is the same as those who caused the Electoral College to select TRUMP as POTUS.
31. There is a massive outside constituency—world leaders, Fortune 100 CEOS, civil society—urging us to stay, even if the price for Trump staying is a downward adjustment of our target.
This is how things get negotiated. Just read the line again. The new POTUS can cut a better deal and that will still make all happy/agreed. This DEMONSTRATES that the author, the chief US negotiator of the Paris Accord, did a poor job for the US, at best. Why the hell would anyone rely on anything this clearly ineffectual person has to opine? FACT that ruins credibility of writer.
32. Around the world, I believe countries will stay in the Paris climate agreement and work to build it into a regime that will enable us to meet the climate challenge.
And my biased opinion is that the Steelers will go 19-0; just like every year at this time.
That's a lot of set of hands Confluence. Nice try yet again to wish a problem away, or simply ignore real world issues. It's what makes Trump supporters so precious.
