>>Ok I want to be sure I understand what you are saying.
>>1. Trump is not a racist.(or at least there is no evidence of such)

No. You are saying he is a racist. I'm asking why you say that.

FWIW, I recall you calling Trump's travel executive order racist. That went all the way to the SCOTUS before that criticism was struck down. The squalling about racism was a "lie" to use your severe nomenclature. You may prefer to carry on as if "take it from me" is a proof in itself, but there's a track record to overcome.

>>2. Trump is not a climate change denier. (or at least there is no evidence of such)

No. You are calling him a climate change denier. I'm asking why you say that. Especially since (for the second time) his Rose Garden speech a) affirms his commitment to environment and b) lays out economic reasons not to sacrifice American jobs and wellbeing. You may choose to ignore all that for the next attack, or maybe you have grounds this time. What are they?

To add to earlier references: here's a citation for reduced emission levels in the US at a time when most industrialized nations that signed the accord, continued to post increases. I see that WAPO fact checked this and awarded it 3 Pinocchios- by converting to per capita emissions. Since when does the climate respond to per capita emissions rather than measured emissions?

Since this article, EIA has figures for 2018 showing a slight increase (largely due to heating over the extreme winter) with reductions to resume in 2019 and 2020.

https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/carbon/

>>Do I have those two things correct? Is this what you are REALLY saying to me?

No. You are the one making the statements. In asking why you say that, it's normal in adult discourse that you are ready to back up your statements with more than just other versions from like-minded individuals or news outlets. Certainly if I do express a view, usually I try to attach an actual citation or other reasoning. Call me on it if I don't.

As an example, here are some excerpts from his Rose Garden speech: it's quite a bit, but useful reading if people are convinced Trump doesn't care for the environment:

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. This includes 440,000 fewer manufacturing jobs — not what we need — believe me, this is not what we need — including automobile jobs, and the further decimation of vital American industries on which countless communities rely. They rely for so much, and we would be giving them so little.

According to this same study, by 2040, compliance with the commitments put into place by the previous administration would cut production for the following sectors: paper down 12 percent; cement down 23 percent; iron and steel down 38 percent; coal — and I happen to love the coal miners — down 86 percent; natural gas down 31 percent. The cost to the economy at this time would be close to $3 trillion in lost GDP and 6.5 million industrial jobs, while households would have $7,000 less income and, in many cases, much worse than that.

Not only does this deal subject our citizens to harsh economic restrictions, it fails to live up to our environmental ideals. As someone who cares deeply about the environment, which I do, I cannot in good conscience support a deal that punishes the United States — which is what it does -– the world’s leader in environmental protection, while imposing no meaningful obligations on the world’s leading polluters.

...

China will be allowed to build hundreds of additional coal plants. So we can’t build the plants, but they can, according to this agreement. India will be allowed to double its coal production by 2020. Think of it: India can double their coal production. We’re supposed to get rid of ours. Even Europe is allowed to continue construction of coal plants.

In short, the agreement doesn’t eliminate coal jobs, it just transfers those jobs out of America and the United States, and ships them to foreign countries.
This agreement is less about the climate and more about other countries gaining a financial advantage over the United States. The rest of the world applauded when we signed the Paris Agreement — they went wild; they were so happy — for the simple reason that it put our country, the United States of America, which we all love, at a very, very big economic disadvantage. A cynic would say the obvious reason for economic competitors and their wish to see us remain in the agreement is so that we continue to suffer this self-inflicted major economic wound. We would find it very hard to compete with other countries from other parts of the world.

We have among the most abundant energy reserves on the planet, sufficient to lift millions of America’s poorest workers out of poverty. Yet, under this agreement, we are effectively putting these reserves under lock and key, taking away the great wealth of our nation — it’s great wealth, it’s phenomenal wealth; not so long ago, we had no idea we had such wealth — and leaving millions and millions of families trapped in poverty and joblessness.

The agreement is a massive redistribution of United States wealth to other countries. At 1 percent growth, renewable sources of energy can meet some of our domestic demand, but at 3 or 4 percent growth, which I expect, we need all forms of available American energy, or our country — (applause) — will be at grave risk of brownouts and blackouts, our businesses will come to a halt in many cases, and the American family will suffer the consequences in the form of lost jobs and a very diminished quality of life.

Even if the Paris Agreement were implemented in full, with total compliance from all nations, it is estimated it would only produce a two-tenths of one degree — think of that; this much — Celsius reduction in global temperature by the year 2100. Tiny, tiny amount. In fact, 14 days of carbon emissions from China alone would wipe out the gains from America — and this is an incredible statistic — would totally wipe out the gains from America’s expected reductions in the year 2030, after we have had to spend billions and billions of dollars, lost jobs, closed factories, and suffered much higher energy costs for our businesses and for our homes.

As the Wall Street Journal wrote this morning: “The reality is that withdrawing is in America’s economic interest and won’t matter much to the climate.” The United States, under the Trump administration, will continue to be the cleanest and most environmentally friendly country on Earth. We’ll be the cleanest. We’re going to have the cleanest air. We’re going to have the cleanest water. We will be environmentally friendly, but we’re not going to put our businesses out of work and we’re not going to lose our jobs. We’re going to grow; we’re going to grow rapidly. (Applause.)