Talk:United States withdrawal from the Paris Agreement

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 August 2020 and 5 September 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Steffany21.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Effects
We need to ensure balance in the Effects section. I don't know exactly what the source says as it is paywalled — I don't doubt for a second that some official somewhere who expressed some concern but in view of the fact that 194 countries representing 81% of the total greenhouse emissions are still in the agreement, someone needs to provide a cogent explanation why the removal of one country would put the accords in danger.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  20:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * It's presumably as the US is the second largest polluter (after china as I understand it) for CO2 emmisions of any country per this NYT article, feel free to expand that into the article if you have time EdwardLane (talk) 16:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that's non-responsive. The US accounts for roughly 20% 12% of GHG. Why would the withdrawal of the US create problems for the voluntary actions of the other participants?-- S Philbrick (Talk)  18:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * if (I presume) there is a (short term?) economic detriment to any nation enforcing restrictions on their use of fossil fuels - then only if everyone collectively imposes similar restrictions - does no individual nation gain an advantage, once one nation choses not to be part of the same process, then that ammounts to icitement for other nations to follow them. Or at least I think that's implied EdwardLane (talk) 16:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


 * While the reference listed is paywalled, so I haven't read the whole thing, the opening sentence reads:World leaders vowed to stick with the 2015 Paris Accord without the U.S.. That's the exact opposite of "putting the accords in danger". So does the article go on to refute its own opening sentence, in which case it's useless as a source for this claim, or does it go on to support its opening sentence, in which case it is a source that directly contradicts the claim?-- S Philbrick (Talk)  18:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I haven't seen any support, nor has anyone objected, so I plan to remove this shortly, as it is not supported, and in fact, contradicted by the source.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  16:27, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Reactions section needs balance
We need some balance in the reactions. While there are, without question, a number of notable political and business figures who are disappointed by the decision, there are many who support it. As of this writing, seven people are quoted in every one of them as opposed. As an aside, in many cases they evince cluelessness about the rationale of the underlying image but I suppose that's not our job to fix. However, one would hope we could find some reactions from people who have a clue.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  20:48, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this article is purposely ignoring commentators and groups that support President Trump's decision. NPOV applies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HammerFilmFan (talk • contribs) 3:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Great. Find some, source them and put them into the article. Britmax (talk) 13:23, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Please add the reactions from the "many who support it". sikander (talk) 14:15, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I will try to do this but I expect my contributions will be instantly reverted. Roberttherambler (talk) 15:48, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I've added a "Support" section. Lets see how long it lasts. Roberttherambler (talk) 16:15, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * So far, so good. Roberttherambler (talk) 17:28, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * But now it's gone. Roberttherambler (talk) 23:14, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Removed Republican support from lead
I have removed "However, Trump received support from most Republicans." from the lead. This appears to balance the lead but is not referred to or sourced in the body of the article. Britmax (talk) 21:18, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Well he is in in fact receiving support from most republicans so you just removed facts. That's counter productive. PayneAckerson (talk) 04:19, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * If you can find anything in the main body referring to this on the day I removed it please point it out. I couldn't. Britmax (talk) 13:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The support is coming from elected Republican officials, so far, despite the fact that a majority of Republican voters support the Paris Agreement. Fconaway (talk) 10:44, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Whether or not Republicans supported it is irrelevant. The lead is a summary of the main body text, and should not contain any content that isn't a summarization of the man body textCassieWTFordham (talk) 04:49, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Video and Text
I am currently migrating this video using video2commons. Once it's done, it should be visible here:



I only say this because I have to get to bed and the video is about 33 minutes long so I expect the rendering to take a few hours. Victor Grigas (talk) 02:05, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  12:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Link to text -- S Philbrick (Talk)  20:07, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

This article is incredibly biased
I'm not a supporter of his actions and I don't have a right-wing bias either, but this article reads too biased even for me. If I wanted to read current events with a bias then I'm quite sure I could pick up any news outlet out there.

I particularly think that the line saying that Angela Merkel is the "leader of the free world" is a bit too biased. I think someone needs to write the article in the fact-based manner, leaving the information on controversy to its own subheading. Lankandude2017 (talk) 10:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

If not Angela Merkel, then who? What country in the "free" world has been most predominant in, say, the past 10 years? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.177.1.212 (talk) 13:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * You mean the leader of the country where people critical of Islam or the government can get prosecuted for "hate speech"? That should be the leader of the "free world"? So yes I agree with the original poster that this article is full of leftist bias. Romanov loyalist (talk) 14:21, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with this and I removed it. Presumably it would be ridiculous to cite and write something like "Many journalists have commented that this reaffirmed Donald Trump's position as the God Emperor of the Western World." There's little difference. Nicolas Perrault (talk) 18:20, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree that this article is very lacking in neutral tone. There is no section, at all, for the trump administration's reasoning behind this decision. The only time their reasoning is mentioned is a brief sentance in the announcement section, which immediately contains an opposing opinion to dismiss it. This is followed by a long "Reactions" section which serves no purpose except to farther heap on negative opinions. The majority of the article is author opinion, carefully phrased to look like facts. This needs rewriting 82.69.100.180 (talk) 15:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

A good part of what I would have said about bias would be redundant with the above, except this: there is no mention that Trump said in the speech where he announced withdrawal that we would negotiate returning to it under terms "more fair" to the US, to American business, and the American taxpayer. Trump is all about negotiation; to omit his mentioning it is to completely distort the depiction. SvensKenR (talk) 16:21, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Then find a reliable source for it and put it into the article. Britmax (talk) 16:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with OP, this article is one of the more embarrassing POV pieces on Wikipedia. It doesn't even mention that this action was discussed during the campaign, which is amply documented at mainstream sources like The Atlantic . According to this article it's just something he woke up and decided to do one day, and it's only supported by literally three Republicans (United States withdrawal from the Paris Agreement). Nor is it mentioned that one of the reasons the President could make a unilateral decision is that the accord was not a treaty and never ratified by the U.S. Congress (NYT, "Obama Pursuing Climate Accord in Lieu of Treaty", August 2014). - Bri (talk) 17:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what you mean about the first point. The article says in the very first sentence that this was a campaign promise by Trump. It also says this in the first section "Background". I am not sure how you want to phrase the latter point, but you can simply add it to the article if you like. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 18:40, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Some are forgetting that we can only equally reflect the balance of the reliable sources, not those that exist in some abstract world. The sources seem to be heavily on the anti side: if editors feel the sources are not fairly represented they should find some sources that restore the balance and write them into the article. Britmax (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * That's not a valid way to edit an encyclopedia. Many countries in Europe, and India, have media cultures that take a left-wing stance in opposition to a right-wing government. Bavaria in Germany is the clearest example of this - right wing government and left-wing media always. Lankandude2017 (talk) 23:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * -This article is not incredibly biased, instead it accurately represents the overwhelmingly negative reaction to the decision. I myself have tried to incorporate sources detailing perspectives of assent (McConnell, Ryan, Delingpole and a few others), but they are thin on the ground.  Meanwhile, almost every scientist, analyst, campaigner and government leader has condemned Trump and his administration in pretty strong terms.  (The word 'disappointed' means something different in international diplomacy than it does at home.)
 * -In fact, there are many sources that could have been included which have been avoided for the very reason that we don't want the page to look like a deliberate hatchet job. See Vicente Fox's comments, for example, or yesterday's article in The Guardian about the recent $10million in donations from fossil-fuel companies to Republican senators who have been pushing for this (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/01/republican-senators-paris-climate-deal-energy-donations).
 * -Perhaps the article could indeed do with a section detailing the reasoning behind this decision, but I suspect that this section would also end up looking pretty negative too, for the reason that Trump's decision was patently not reasoned, and does not appear to lay the groundwork for the economic outcomes he claims it will produce. (See also The Washington Post's dismantling of the pseudo-factual content of Trump's speech, and his suggestion that he may be able to negotiate with the Democratic party on a new settlement, despite the fact that the Paris Agreement is not a Democratic party initiative.)
 * -I agree that it would be ridiculous to have a sentence describing someone as 'God Emperor of the Western World', but that is not what was written. 'Leader of the Free World' is an unofficial designation with a substantial and recognizable history in journalism and political discourse.
 * -The article is not author opinion disguised as facts. If the leader of China were to issue a statement revealing that Trump is correct that climate change is a hoax, or that a respected climate scientist in Mozambique were to declare that all the countries of the world should follow his example and leave the Accord, then that would and should go into the article.  Sadly for Trump's fans, however, the global political stage does not much resemble the pages of Breitbart News, and when someone does a silly thing -- sensible and disinterested people will be fairly unanimous in saying, 'that person has done a silly thing'.  Which is pretty much what has happened among most of the world's commentariat, and all of the world's leaders (except Poland's energy minister, I think?).  All the best :)   Cpaaoi (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * How about this source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/06/01/the-u-s-cant-quit-the-paris-climate-agreement-because-it-never-actually-joined/ There should be some discussion about the fact that this is not (from a USA point of view) a treaty (which would require ratification by the Senate).  Also, the source discusses the fact that because it is not a (USA) treaty, the 4 year withdrawal provision (stated as an absolute fact in the lead) might not be enforceable.
 * The article already emphasizes that this agreement is not a treaty.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  00:57, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Russian response in the lead
I have removed the following from the lead: However, Russian President Vladimir Putin defended Trump's right to decide, and stated that the world should "not worry [and] be happy". Firstly, there is no discussion of this matter in the article itself; so it's weird to put it directly in the lead. Secondly, it is the only international reaction mentioned in the lead: why? Thirdly, the lead presents it as some sort of break from the normal world reaction, which is not true. The Russian reaction was in line with the world reaction, as stated by Peskov in this Independent article: namely that US withdrawal would reduce the effectiveness of the Paris agreement. In the NBC news segment, Putin said the following (quoting from the NBC news report):

Putin, speaking at an economic forum in Russia, said that although he thinks it would have been better for the U.S. to try to change the agreement rather than leave it, he isn't rushing to condemn Trump for his decision.

Responding to a question from NBC’s Megyn Kelly on stage at the forum in St. Petersburg, Putin also downplayed the significance of the U.S. withdrawal from the accord given that the agreement is not binding.

Putin suggested that there will perhaps still be time to renegotiate the deal so that the U.S. will decide to remain.

“It’s not even come into force yet. It should come into force in 2021. So we still have time, if we work constructively we still have time,” said the Russian president who then, switching to English, quoted a popular song, “Don’t worry, be happy.”

If there is some sort of source which says that Russian reaction to Trump's withdrawal was anything unusual as compared to the world reaction, we can discuss it. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 18:22, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Waaaay too long, and too unbalanced
This article might as be renamed: "Angry people angrily shaking their fists because Trump"

Now I know the Paris withdrawal is the outrage du jour, despite few people knowing much about the accord. But here is why this article is waaay too long: It's not that big of a deal.

Firstly: If we take a look at popular opinion, only about 40% of Americans think that global warming will become a significant threat in their lifetime. If you ask Americans about what problems the nation faces today, global warming doesn't even show up among the biggest concerns. (Only if you ask leafing questions specifically about global warming do you get a reaction.)

Secondly: The Paris accord won't do much to change global warming. Environmentalists have been saying for years, that the Paris accord has been watered down too much and isn't ambitious enough. All the Paris accord does, is have each country set out a voluntary reduction target, and five years later report on whether it had been met or not. Consequences of failure to meet that reduction? Zero. Can we ensure countries won't set a symbolic target? Nope. All the important parts of the accords are voluntary, and it doesn't do much about two of the biggest problems: Overpopulation and emissions from China and India.

Suggested edits: I'm not going to make any deletions without consensus about the article. But here is what I suggest could be cut:

Reactions: Do we really need to hear what the Croatian environmental ministry says about the withdrawal? Nah... Same goes for most of the other reactions.

Political stunt making: Some governors and mayors tried to get some press, by saying that they'll live up to the Paris accord. This is of course completely meaningless, since there is no role for them in the accord, and since they lack the authority and powers to make a difference. This section could also be easily cut down.

The articles problem with balance could also be somewhat solved by cutting at least 2/3s of it. 192.38.140.8 (talk) 15:41, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * While I don't disagree with your propose renaming, Wikipedia reflects what reliable sources say, and that's what reliable sources are saying. Wouldn't it be nice if we could reflect what responsible sources say but that's an idealistic goal that will never be achieved.


 * Regarding your popular opinion comment, I'm sure you understand that we are an encyclopedia not a reflection of popular opinion polls. The English Wikipedia has over 5 million articles at least 4.9 million of which are viewed as less important than global warming. Would you propose we remove them all?


 * I can sympathize that we may not specifically care what the Croatian environmental ministry has to say, but it seems reasonable to include international reaction, and I don't have a foolproof suggestion on how to decide what to include and what not to. I see this article as evolving over time and perhaps in a few months or a couple years, someone will look at the international country by country reaction and rewrite it into a coherent narrative that outlines the main points without necessarily including each and every country's reaction. I suggest it's too early to do that now.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  16:37, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not the first one to comment on the fact that this article mostly comes across as an example of Trump-outrage porn. Somebody pointed out, that the article may be unbalanced, but Wikipedia only reports what reliable sources write, so that's the way it has to be.

That is a rather poor excuse.

Now imagine if this was an article about president Obama. One could easily trawl the internet for newspaper editorials and quotes from people of notoriety, concerning how disappointing a president he was, and how he failed with the hope and change. The reaction to posting 40 Obama=disappoint reactions in his article, would undoubtedly be: "Who cares what a Croatian newspaper says. It adds little of significance, aside from making the article too long". That should also be the reaction here. 192.38.140.8 (talk) 15:46, 3 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree that we don't need to include commentary from every country. In fact, we should be able to summarize the international reactions into something like "A vast number of leaders from other signatory nations expressed disappointment with the U.S. withdrawl from the Paris agreement." We could do similar for all but the most noteworthy reactions.- MrX 19:03, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the first poster Geoffreybmx (talk) 02:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Initial agreement
I'd like to tighten up the wording regarding the initial agreement. It currently reads:

initially agreed to by all 195 countries present at the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference in December of that year,

There are a couple problems with this phrasing. First, it's inconsistent with the phrasing in 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference, which states:

the text of which represented a consensus of the representatives of the 196 parties attending it.

In contrast, Paris Agreement says:

The language of the agreement was negotiated by representatives of 195 196 countries at the 21st Conference Update: I changed it to 196, because that's what the source says


 * One question is how many parties attended.
 * A second question is how many parties agreed.
 * A third question is the nature of the agreement.

This source Makes it clear that it not was in an up or down vote by each individual country at the convention; the initial approval was determined by consensus, and each country subsequently decided whether to sign on individually or not. I think this sounds like the most plausible answer, although we have to sort out whether there were 195 or 196 attendees.

We know that both Nicaragua and Syria have not signed on. Unless they initially agreed to sign on and later changed their view, I'm uncomfortable with the statement that every single attendee initially signed on. I think it's much more plausible that the agreement was settled by consensus, which doesn't mean that each individual country signed on or not at that meeting.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  19:42, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm leaning toward wording consistent with 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference, Although it would be nice to sort out whether 195 or 196 is the better number of countries attending. Update, multiple sources say 196 -- S Philbrick (Talk)  23:13, 3 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Both counts are correct. There were 195 countries but 196 parties, since the EU is a party but not a country.  TDL (talk) 21:46, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Coincidentally, I just ran across a reference making that point. Need to think through how best to rewrite all three articles, if necessary. A complication is that (I think) some sources say 196 countries.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  21:59, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

What a mess
196 parties 196 nations
 * CNN
 * accuweather
 * NPR

196 countries
 * EcoWatch (Although this makes no sense, as USA is not one of them)
 * Business Standard

195 countries
 * USA Today


 * European Commission

195 Signatories
 * UNFCCC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sphilbrick (talk • contribs) 22:14, 3 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm going to cry uncle on this issue - not all that critical, and difficult to sort out.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  00:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed removal
I like to discuss the first two paragraphs of the potential impact section. These two paragraphs essentially say that institutional investors are rethinking investment in carbon-reliant companies.

I don't dispute the factual nature of the assertion. My question is the relevance. I'll start by noting that both statements predate the announcement of the withdrawal. While it is theoretically possible that statements made prior to the withdrawal might end up being prescient, I see nothing in either the paragraphs or the lying references that bears any relationship to the Trump announcement. It was true, prior to the announcement, and in fact, prior to the 2015 and 2017 dates of the two statements, that institutional investors have been considering and moving toward divestment. It is also true that after the announcement the same movement is likely.

If someone makes an argument that divestment is likely to increase (or decrease) as a result of the announcement it might be relevant but there isn't even a hint of that. This sounds like someone read some material that had something to do with carbon and decided to drop it in. I think it should be removed but I'm opening up a discussion to see if someone thinks I'm missing something. At the moment, I don't see how this has anything to do with the impact of the announcement.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  20:43, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that those two paragraphs should go. They are unrelated to the subject here. Also, the second paragraph under "Effects" should be moved to "Potential impacts" - in fact those two section headings and their relationship need to be rethought, maybe make "Potential impacts" its own heading instead of a subheading under "Effects", or combine them. --MelanieN (talk) 22:18, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * While poking around, I see that one of them was lifted from 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference. I don't disagree that it is relevant there. I think someone just carried it over without thinking it through. (Still thinking through your other suggestions.)-- S Philbrick (Talk)  23:06, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I did not implement this deletion, and I am going to be AFC (away from computer) for a while, so up to you if you want to go ahead and delete the two paragraphs. While you continue to think about my other comments, which I myself don't have a clear recommendation on at this point. --MelanieN (talk) 02:06, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Just so it is clear for discussion purposes, I see that you did go ahead and remove those two paragraphs. I concur. --MelanieN (talk) 22:24, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

How to describe Trump's current attitude toward climate change?
The final paragraph of the "Announcement" section originally said Despite the significance of the announcement, Trump has been unwilling to say if he believes that human activity is contributing to climate change, and the White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer seemed to attempt to avoid the topic altogether, and did not know Trump's view on whether climate change is real or not..

I thought that language was argumentative and non-neutral, and I changed it to Since the announcement, Trump has been unwilling to say if he believes that human activity is contributing to climate change, and White House press secretary Sean Spicer said he does not know Trump's view on whether climate change is real or not.

After several intermediate revisions (mostly pushing toward more POV language such as "refused to say" and "hoax"), it was changed it back to the original version. The original version is currently in the article. Any thoughts about how best to say this? --MelanieN (talk) 22:13, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it is unreasonable to use terms like "unwilling" in Wikipedia's voice. It has only been a couple days, and no one has yet asked him. It is fair to say he hasn't weighed in on the subject (which makes sense, because his decision was made on economic grounds not scientific grounds), but until he is confronted in a press conference and avoids the question, it is far to early to make such a claim. S Philbrick (Talk)  23:02, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. I thought one of the sources used the term "unwilling" with regard to him but they don't exactly. The two people who have refused to answer the question (that IS a Reliable Source quote) are Sean Spicer and Scott Pruitt. How about replacing the above with In response to questions about whether Trump believes that human activity is contributing to climate change, both White House press secretary Sean Spicer and EPA administrator Scott Pruitt said they don't know his thinking. Trump himself has not commented on the issue. The sources are "Trump doesn't want to talk about climate change, and neither does his administration" and "Trump officials refuse to answer whether president believes climate change is a hoax"   Granted, "don't know his thinking" is a generous way to put it when the sources are saying "refused to answer". --MelanieN (talk) 23:56, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That sounds fair to me.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  00:39, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I changed it. We are going to have to continue to watch this page closely since it is on the front page in ITN. --MelanieN (talk) 02:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There are reliable sources that indicate Trump has released written statements indicating that he believes climate change is a hoax, and that he believes global warming was created by the Chinese. More recently, Trump is not making comments about the issue. I conveyed this with one concise sentence in this article, with references.—OhioOakTree (talk) 03:07, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the sentence added - citing his tweet about a hoax created by the Chinese. That was five years ago, and he later disavowed that comment, saying it was a joke. I'm going to remove it as outdated. Can we find anything he has said within the last year? Or a comment pointing out that he has ducked the issue, if that's the situation? --MelanieN (talk) 21:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Jeez, does this really matter? It sounds like we're dealing with an item of religious faith... What if Trump believes 50% of Climate change? What if he believes in it, and wants it to happen faster, cause then New York will have a nice Mediterranean climate? What if he's one of the many people who sorta believe in Climate change, but is still opposed to the Paris Accord?

Ladies and gentlemen, I'd suggest that the specifics of what he believes about climate change, is as irrelevant as whether he believes in the holy Trinity. What matters much more, are his reasons for pulling out of the Paris accords, and that could be put as simply as: "President Trumps decision to exit the Paris Accords, was driven by his administrations agenda of "America First" according to **SOURCE** At the announcement of the withdrawal President Trump declared that "he was elected President of Detroit and not Paris. According to Press Secretary Sean Spicer, the impact on the economy was the concern for the President **INSERT QUOTE**."

By focusing on this, rather than speculate about what Trump believes, we will save some space (something this article desperately needs), reduce the likelihood of future vandalism/edit warring AND the risk of bloat of Trump changes his mind in the future.

Perhaps most importantly: An encyclopedia should strive to be timeless, and this section needlessly dates it. I know it's the outrage 'du jour', and gets a lot of coverage for that reason. But nobody will say in ten years: "Gee I wonder what the 45th Presidents opinion on climate change was!" 192.38.140.8 (talk) 12:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, this matters. This article is about the "U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement" which is related to climate change. Some readers may want to know Trump's position on the topic, and statements that he has issued about the matter.—OhioOakTree (talk) 13:24, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I won't go so far as to say his views are irrelevant, but please note that the announcement did not include the phrase "climate change". Whatever one might think our unstated motivations, his explanation for his decision was couched primarily in economic terms. There is arguably a political element as well, as it is the carrying out of a campaign promise, but the explanation didn't even hint at a rejection of climate science issues.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  17:28, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * One can make an argument that by withdrawing from a climate agreement, the U.S. does not support the climate agreement.—OhioOakTree (talk) 21:21, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course, but one can disagree with a specific climate agreement without making any statement about climate science in general. You may recall that James Hansen, the so-called father of global warming, called the Paris agreement "a fraud really, a fake". I don't think anyone is accusing Hansen of being a denier for that statement. (No, I'm not missing that Hansen's criticism is that Paris doesn't do enough - the point still holds that disagreement with a specific agreement doesn't necessarily say anything about one's view about the science.) S Philbrick (Talk)  21:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Resignations from presidential advisory boards in protest
IMO this does not deserve to be a separate section. I have put it under "domestic reaction" for now. It doesn't fit neatly into the "Republicans" and "Democrats" subsections there; maybe we should get rid of those subsections as well, since some people making notable comments are private citizens and not representative of either party. I'm thinking we could just have several paragraphs under "Domestic reaction" without individual subsections (retaining the one for "states"). What do others think? --MelanieN (talk) 21:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)


 * This should be a subheader of "Business and industry" since the two people concerned are corp. executives. Neutralitytalk 03:06, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Good suggestion. I moved the material there. --MelanieN (talk) 16:31, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks good. I added the subheader.—OhioOakTree (talk) 17:42, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Twitter as a source
Over the last couple of days I have removed at least half a dozen links to Twitter as a reference for something somebody said. It is my understanding that Twitter should not be used as a source if there are secondary Reliable Sources available for the same material. Of course Twitter is not considered a Reliable Source, and furthermore it is primary while Wikipedia prefers secondary sources. If the comment is notable enough to include here, it will certainly be covered by secondary reliable sources. How do others feel about this?--MelanieN (talk) 16:38, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There's a discussion here with mized conclusions. Note the date is 2010 which is prior to Twitter introducing the concept of verified accounts which addresses some of the concerns in that discussion.


 * In particular, I can imagine that a verified account might identify a birthdate which might not be available in a better secondary source but that's a very special issue. I don't want to go quite to the extent of saying that anything worth noting will be available in a better source for this reason; I think you are generally correct but this is an exception which doesn't apply to the issues in this specific article.


 * WP:SELFSOURCE provides some guidance and specifically mentions Twitter.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  17:21, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Would you agree that if there are reliable secondary sources citing the quote, it would be better to use them rather than the primary source of the tweet itself? Or is something gained by using the actual tweet? --MelanieN (talk) 17:27, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Definitely agree.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  17:50, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Timothy Ball / "Radio America"
I have deep concerns about the use of this as a source. It's a short podcast interview with Timothy Ball, presented by Radio America, which is some sort of conservative talk radio network. The podcast/interview itself uncritically accepts Ball's statements, which are quite sweeping. I note that Ball's reaction appears to have gotten zero attention from any other source. Its noteworthiness is therefore in question.

But even if it's noteworthy (again, in doubt), its presentation is not acceptable. First is presenting this guy under "Scientists and environmentalists" without making clear that he is quite fringe - i.e., he does not accept the scientific consensus on climate change. This Ars Technica post notes that Ball "who co-authored a book denying the existence of the greenhouse effect (which exists)" and "frequently writes posts on a prominent contrarian blog accusing climate scientists of fraud (and sometimes comparing them to Hitler)." This Pulitzer Prize-winning source identifies Ball as a prominent climate change denialist profiled in the documentary film Merchants of Doubt.

Given all this, even if he was to be included here, for us to uncritically present his view, wedged in between the reactions of mainstream scientists and the reactions of the environmentalist groups, doesn't make sense at all. It violates WP:EVALFRINGE, for one thing. Neutralitytalk 04:35, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. The comment of one person, who is not in an influential political position (or otherwise noteworthy), does not belong in the article.—OhioOakTree (talk) 04:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * So an opposing point of view gets axed? This whole article appears one sided and opinionated - WP:RECENTISM. I have deep concerns of having opinions from the media, public, and other nations. The event should be stated with SOME pros and cons, per WP:POVFORM. Timothy Ball's story was picked up by learning and finance - eastonspectator.com and to be clear he does not support an opinion "Scientific opinion on climate change" as the article is named. - FOX 52 (talk) 05:48, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Neither of those are reliable sources either. And the "Easton Spectator" piece is actually republished from "TeaParty.org" which is from WorldNetDaily, a right-wing commentary journal. Not reliable for sources of scientific opinion. Neutralitytalk 05:57, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Still does not address the issue of the articles one sidedness - WP:RECENTISM. I have deep concerns of having opinions from the media, public, and other nations. The event should be stated with SOME pros and cons, per WP:POVFORM - FOX 52 (talk) 07:30, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "POVFORM" an essay, not a policy. WP:WEIGHT is a policy. So is WP:RS. I have no idea what your objection to "having opinions from the media, public, and other nations" is. If you want to discuss that, start another section on this talk page. As for "pros and cons," see WP:FALSEBALANCE. And I note that we already reference at least one climate change denier (Delingpole). Don't see the need for two. Neutralitytalk 14:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

First, let's look at the history. The sentence has undergone multiple reversions:


 * Those for the withdrawal like retired climatologist Timothy Ball said... (initial insertion, by FOX 52)
 * Retired climatologist and climate change denier Timothy Ball supported the decision, saying... (I did this one)
 * Retired climatologist Timothy Ball supported the decision, saying... (by FOX 52)
 * Retired climatologist Timothy Ball, who is skeptical of climate change, supported the decision, saying... (by OhioOakTree)
 * Retired climatologist Timothy Ball supported the decision, saying... (by FOX 52)
 * Neutrality then deleted the sentence.

I note that FOX 52 reverted twice, violating the 1RR rule. They had not been notified of the DS; I have now notified them.

Now to the real issue, whether to include this sentence: I agree that Ball is fringe, but I think it is important per BALANCE to include at least one comment in support, as long as we make it clear that his viewpoint is fringe (which previous versions did). I would like to restore it, even giving him the title of retired climatologist (he taught climate and atmosphere issues under the Department of Geography at the University of Winnipeg for 25 years). IMO it does not harm the article to include at least one voice supporting, when they are specified as a climate change denier and drowned out by the otherwise-unanimous chorus of opposition. --MelanieN (talk) 17:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't object to MelanieN's version. This clearly and prominently notes that Ball rejects the scientific opinion on climate change, which takes care of my major concern. I'd like comments from other users as well. Neutralitytalk 18:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC) Changing my mind on reconsideration - this is so marginal that the more I think about it, the more I become convinced that it doesn't belong, at least not under the "Scientists and environmentalists" statement. If we can find a source that says "Climate change deniers were pleased [cite]" then that can go somewhere but I am uncomfortable with giving any prominence to this fairly obscure figure on the outer fringes. Neutralitytalk 21:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * It's hard to put a nearly lone voice in a paragraph containing a wide reaction critical of the withdrawal, but inclusion may have some merit. Would it work to actually place it first, such as:
 * Retired climatologist? climatologist Timothy Ball, who is skeptical of climate change, supported the decision, saying "I'm glad that Trump had the fortitude to stick it out despite all the attempts to waylay him." But the response from other scientists and environmentalists was nearly unanimously critical of the U.S. withdrawal...
 * But I'm not sure if Ball can be called a climatologist. I don't see that his education was in that field, and he has never issued any peer-reviewed scholarly articles in that field. So adding such a statement to the article can be troublesome, but ideas are welcome.—OhioOakTree (talk) 21:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Give this information, I've revised my comment above. Neutralitytalk 21:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The whole idea of the edit was to point out that the article appears one sided, and there should be an opposing point of view - FOX 52 (talk) 23:50, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Re: Is he a climatologist? : Our article calls him a geographer because he taught in the geography department. But "Weather" falls under the Geography department at the University of Winnipeg. His thesis, at the University of London (1981), was on climate. So I don't think it's a stretch to call him a climatologist. --MelanieN (talk) 13:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * My mistake. It appears Ball has issued some academic-style papers on climate (total of 4, of which 1 is co-authored). They can be found by checking reference (#11) in the article about him. I did not see his name in List of climate scientists, but he can probably be added with no strong case of objections (maybe I'll do later). I "undid" my strikthrough above, and if there is a way to add him in this article I think it would be OK (my opinion). Just need to decide where to add the opposing point-of-view (first, last, or in middle)?—OhioOakTree (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I would suggest putting it first - in effect grouping the "support" and "oppose" comments together. Be sure to add "climate change denier". Not "skeptic" which is a misuse of the word "skeptic". --MelanieN (talk) 16:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

The United State Senate never ratified the treaty in the first place.
All this talk about the U.S. withdrawing from the Paris Treaty is missing the point that the United States Senate never ratified the Treaty in the first place. Edknol (talk) 20:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * This is already addressed in the article. Neutralitytalk 21:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

opposing point-of-view
This article should include an equal amount of opinions that support the withdrawal. The so-called 97% consensus (scientist believe in Global warming) has issues since the original questionnaire sampled a small group of scientist) The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change financialpost.com nationalreview.com. Which is why it wouldn't be right to call Timothy Ball a "denier" - refusal to admit the truth or reality of something. Yet WP's own article is based on an opinion, along with nasa's study that counters some of that opinion. Patrick Moore (environmentalist) would a another voice of opposition, so there should be some more research before just arbitrarily assuming some thing as fact - FOX 52 (talk) 18:49, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No. We go with the science. Consensus among scientists does not matter, the results of studies published in peer-reviewed journals matter. The published results are the reason for the consensus, and they are the reason why Wikipedia favors one point of view - the scientific one. Naming people who disagree does not change the facts. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:18, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * So throw NPOV & WP:BALANCE out the window? No I don't think so since the so-called fact is an opinion article. And there is more than just one guy with a differ point of view scientists opposing global warming FOX 52 (talk) 23:22, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You should actually read WP:NPOV instead of just quoting it - especially Neutral_point_of_view. The deniers are a loud minority that do not play a role within science anymore. They are only relevant because they still have an influence on powerful but ignorant people outside of science.
 * Compiling lists of dissenters is a method used by pseudoscientists to bolster their claims in the minds of laymen who do not know how science is actually done. Creationists do that, Einstein deniers, climate change deniers, astrologers, and so on. In scientific reasoning, actual reasoning is used instead of namedropping. And as I said, we follow the science here. I am sorry you cannot tell the difference, but that is your problem. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:38, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Awesome! You totally missed the point of the topic. - Nice civility - FOX 52 (talk) 22:35, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I am British so naturally I can read sarcasm. In what way was the above incivil? Britmax (talk) 22:50, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It implies that FOX 52 is ignorant. Roberttherambler (talk) 21:59, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * And Wikipedia does not follow the science, it follows the peer-reviewed papers. They are not the same thing. It is Wikipedia that does not know how science is actually done. Roberttherambler (talk) 22:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Then why don't you tell it how to do it? Do we need "alternative facts" to do "actual science"? --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I refuted his bad reasoning. If that is uncivil and thus forbidden, bad reasoning rules. That is not how WP works. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * So what was the point? You obviously hid it well. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's problem is that a small group of powerful editors believe that there is something magic about peer review. If a paper is peer-reviewed, this guarantees that it is accurate.  If it is not peer reviewed, this guarantees that it is inaccurate.  This is rubbish but it is very useful for these powerful editors because they can use lack of peer review to censor any views they disagree with. Roberttherambler (talk) 14:18, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That was Fox 52's point? I would never have guessed, since he didn't even mention peer review. How did you find it out?
 * Do those editors have user names? Can they be quoted as saying "there is something magic about peer review", "peer review guarantees accuracy" or "lack of peer review guarantees inaccuracy"? I suspect the notoriously stupid User:Strawman, who only writes easily refuted rubbish like that. (For future reference: That user does not exist at the moment of writing.)
 * As long as there is no better criterion for telling higher-quality sources from lower-quality ones, peer review is the best one. So, have you found a better criterion to replace it?
 * If no point is forthcoming, we can close this discussion as pointless. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy
Is the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy notable enough to be included in this article? More info here: "Maltese local councils join the fight against Trump’s climate move" at Times of Malta --Xwejnusgozo (talk) 10:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, no. The article is about the United States and I interpret that to mean the single legal entity, not a catchall meaning any legal entities within the country. If it belongs anywhere it belongs in Paris Agreement, but I'm not sure it significant enough to deserve mention in that article.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  22:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Hawking
claimed that Hawking's opinion about turning Earth to Venus is bollox. OK, I removed words about Venus and replaced them with a more general statement. Is it bollox, too? --Juggler2005 (talk) 11:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Why, in an article that is primarily about politics and tangentially about climate issues, would we include a statement from someone who has no demonstrated expertise in either field simply because they are famous for being an expert in an unrelated field? Would we add comments from experts in the entertainment field, a jewel expert, a yoga expert? I think not. So why include the comments of an accomplished physicist, on a subject way outside his field of expertise?-- S Philbrick (Talk)  22:51, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

International response
Do we really need a tedious and repetitive list of all the countries that have said something? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:21, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Climate-alliance.svg
 * Thanks bot, I updated the file's metadata and believe the reasons for proposed delete have been solved, but be on watch for further comments by others. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:02, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

flags??
Is it really necessary here to put a national flag in front of every foreign leader's comment about the action? I'm just asking, but it strikes me as overkill. I don't really see anything for or against this practice at our advice about flags, but maybe I'm not reading it closely enough. -- MelanieN (talk) 05:18, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Assertion in lead re communications questioned
The second paragraph of the lead includes the assertion, "Until the withdrawal takes effect, the United States may be obligated to maintain its commitments under the Agreement, such as the requirement to continue reporting its emissions to the United Nations." A supporting source is cited and the source does provide support. However, I noticed today that United States withdrawal from the Paris Agreement says, " Since the United States has not declared an intention to also withdraw from the 1992 UNFCCC, the United States will continue to be obliged to prepare National Communications." (writing there about the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change).

I don't know anything about this stuff, but this looks like a contradiction to me. Could some editor who does know something about this stuff please take a look at this? Thanks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

"The United States of America ratified the agreement on 3 September 2019"
The UNCC claims that the United States of America ratified the agreement on 3 September 2019 in https://unfccc.int/process/the-paris-agreement/status-of-ratification. What are they referring to? I expected this wikipedia page to have the answer, but it doesn't. --31.150.27.0 (talk) 08:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Is there any need to keep a prediction in the lead?
In the lead, it says, "Trump's withdrawal from the Paris agreement will impact other countries by reducing its financial aid to the Green Climate fund.[21]" Is there any need to keep that prediction there of what a Palgrave Communications article thought would happen in the future back in October of 2017 considering that now the withdrawal has now run its course and the US has been readmitted. At the very least, if this is not taken out of the article entirely, the tense should change so that it is no longer future tense.JMM12345 (talk) 19:51, 6 November 2021 (UTC)JMM12345