British lawmakers urge May to tackle Trump on climate change

[webfact]

British lawmakers urge May to tackle Trump on climate change

REUTERS

 

Britain's Prime Minister Theresa May speaks during the 2017 "Congress of Tomorrow" Joint Republican Issues Conference in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S. January 26, 2017. REUTERS/Mark Makela

 

LONDON (Reuters) - British lawmakers have written to Prime Minister Theresa May, urging her to challenge U.S. President Donald Trump on his views on climate change when the two leaders meet on Friday.

 

Trump has dismissed climate change as a "hoax" and vowed during his presidential campaign to pull the United States out of the 2015 Paris Agreement designed to curb greenhouse gas emissions blamed for global warming.

 

"As one of the world's largest emitters ... his approach to reducing emissions could determine whether we, in the UK and people round the world, experience or avoid the worst impacts of climate change," the letter from the cross-party Environmental Audit Committee said.

 

May is set to be the first foreign leader to meet the new U.S. President on Friday, with the talks expected to focus on trade.

 

Environmental Audit Committee chair Mary Creagh said that May should use the opportunity to demonstrate Britain's commitment to fighting climate change.

 

"The Prime Minister has said she won't be afraid to challenge the new President. So she should start by telling him climate change is not ‘a hoax’," Creagh said.

 

Scientists warn that rising global temperatures must be stalled to stave off the worst effects of climate change, including floods, droughts and rising sea levels.

 

(Reporting by Susanna Twidale; Editing by David Goodman)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-01-27

[jpinx]

There's plenty of evidence that man's contribution to what is perceived as global warming is not significant, but there's money to be made out of promoting these policies against it.

[zaphod reborn]

[RuamRudy]

1 hour ago, jpinx said:

There's plenty of evidence that man's contribution to what is perceived as global warming is not significant, but there's money to be made out of promoting these policies against it.

 

"A survey of 3146 earth scientists asked the question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009). More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master’s degrees. Overall, 82% of the scientists answered yes. However, what are most interesting are responses compared to the level of expertise in climate science. Of scientists who were non-climatologists and didn't publish research, 77% answered yes. In contrast, 97.5% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes."

 

Source (my formatting on the final sentence).

[jpinx]

51 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

"A survey of 3146 earth scientists asked the question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009). More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master’s degrees. Overall, 82% of the scientists answered yes. However, what are most interesting are responses compared to the level of expertise in climate science. Of scientists who were non-climatologists and didn't publish research, 77% answered yes. In contrast, 97.5% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes."

 

Source (my formatting on the final sentence).

That's a bit like asking all the SNP MP's if promoting independence is a good thing for Scotland -- their jobs depend on it

Edited January 27, 2017 by jpinx

[RuamRudy]

12 minutes ago, jpinx said:

That's a bit like asking all the SNP MP's if promoting independence is a good thing for Scotland -- their jobs depend on it

I am not sure that your analogy is particularly apt - people gravitate towards a political party that most represents their point of view. But what you are suggesting is that virtually all who responded to the survey by Doran (over 3,000 experts) had studied for their doctorates, an impressive feat which most never accomplish, then chose to put aside their professional integrity in order to chase lucrative careers as corporate shills? I thought I was prone to believing conspiracy theories but that is a stretch too far for me.

[jpinx]

55 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

I am not sure that your analogy is particularly apt - people gravitate towards a political party that most represents their point of view. But what you are suggesting is that virtually all who responded to the survey by Doran (over 3,000 experts) had studied for their doctorates, an impressive feat which most never accomplish, then chose to put aside their professional integrity in order to chase lucrative careers as corporate shills? I thought I was prone to believing conspiracy theories but that is a stretch too far for me.

I wrote that very much tongue-in-cheek -- nice to know I stretched your faith in conspiracies!

 

The reality is that there are so many sciences involved it is very hard to get a definitive history of climate over a statistically significant number of years -- maybe since civilised man?  It's a very confused picture and we're only getting local snapshots like the ice-core samples in Antarctica and elsewhere.  Whatever one might believe about climate change reasons, there's no denying it's happening, but it's not linear. 

"................The Pinatubo eruption pushed an umbrella-like cloud of rock, ash and gas more than 22 miles (35 kilometers) into the sky above the Philippines, and planet-cooling aerosols left by the gas lingered in the air around the globe for as long as three years..................."

"..........."I wouldn't be surprised if one happened tomorrow, but I wouldn't be surprised if another didn't occur for another 20 years," said Alan Robock, a climatologist at Rutgers University. "Nobody can predict how often they occur, and nobody can predict, even after the volcano starts to rumble, if it's even going to erupt with a big eruption or not.  All we can do is look at past data and see how often they have occurred.".........."

http://www.livescience.com/14513-pinatubo-volcano-future-climate-change-eruption.html

 

There's lots more information one could look at, but it's worth bearing in mind that CO² is not the biggest cause of warming,  it's a long way second to water vapour.  Given that fact, and that man-made CO² is a small proportion of what's in the atmosphere, man's influence is actual very very small, only inflated by his collective ego :)

 

 

Compound	Formula	Concentration in atmosphere[25] (ppm)	Contribution (%)
Water vapor and clouds	H 2O	10–50,000(A)	36–72%
Carbon dioxide	CO2	~400	9–26%
Methane	CH 4	~1.8	4–9%
Ozone	O 3	2–8(B)	3–7%
notes: (A) Water vapor strongly varies locally[26] (B) The concentration in stratosphere. About 90% of the ozone in Earth's atmosphere is contained in the stratosphere.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

 

"........The natural CO2 flux to and from oceans and land plants amounts to approximately 210 gigatons of carbon annually. Man currently causes about 8 gigatons of carbon to be injected into the atmosphere, about 4% of the natural annual flux......"

http://notrickszone.com/2013/03/02/most-of-the-rise-in-co2-likely-comes-from-natural-sources/

 

The science community is remarkably coy about making declarations of the overall proportions of the warming influence of the various gases and it becomes evident that man's emissions are a tiny fraction of the total figure.  CO² is 9-26% of the over all warming gases, and manmade CO² is 4% of that...  Looks like we're causing something between 0.36% and 1.04% ....  really??

 

P.S.  I hope TM has these figures so she doesn't waste time when talking to DT about getting  good deal going post IndyUK :)

Edited January 27, 2017 by jpinx

[RuamRudy]

10 minutes ago, jpinx said:

I wrote that very much tongue-in-cheek -- nice to know I stretched your faith in conspiracies!

 

The reality is that there are so many sciences involved it is very hard to get a definitive history of climate over a statistically significant number of years -- maybe since civilised man?  It's a very confused picture and we're only getting local snapshots like the ice-core samples in Antarctica and elsewhere.  Whatever one might believe about climate change reasons, there's no denying it's happening, but it's not linear. 

"................The Pinatubo eruption pushed an umbrella-like cloud of rock, ash and gas more than 22 miles (35 kilometers) into the sky above the Philippines, and planet-cooling aerosols left by the gas lingered in the air around the globe for as long as three years..................."

"..........."I wouldn't be surprised if one happened tomorrow, but I wouldn't be surprised if another didn't occur for another 20 years," said Alan Robock, a climatologist at Rutgers University. "Nobody can predict how often they occur, and nobody can predict, even after the volcano starts to rumble, if it's even going to erupt with a big eruption or not.  All we can do is look at past data and see how often they have occurred.".........."

http://www.livescience.com/14513-pinatubo-volcano-future-climate-change-eruption.html

 

There's lots more information one could look at, but it's worth bearing in mind that CO² is not the biggest cause of warming,  it's a long way second to water vapour.  Given that fact, and that man-made CO² is a small proportion of what's in the atmosphere, man's influence is actual very very small, only inflated by his collective ego :)

 

The science community is remarkably coy about making declarations of the overall proportions of the warming influence of the various gases and it becomes evident that man's emissions are a tiny fraction of the total figure.  CO² is 9-26% of the over all warming gases, and manmade CO² is 4% of that...  Looks like we're causing something between 0.36% and 1.04% ....  really??

 

I deleted the centre section only to keep the block small.

 

I am no scientist so I don't propose to even start to debate the issues from a technical perspective - but I am prepared to accept the judgement of those who are specialists. As far as I can see, the experts are overwhelmingly of the belief that we are having a direct and measurable impact on climate change. If the consensus was split down the middle, then I would not be so sure, but when the numbers are so stacked in support of the idea then I tend to accept it. Add to that the clear evidence of oil companies lying to the public for decades about the effects of their activities, and I am even more firmly sold.

 

18 minutes ago, jpinx said:

P.S.  I hope TM has these figures so she doesn't waste time when talking to DT about getting  good deal going post IndyUK :)

I am not hopeful, but I share your aspiration...

[jpinx]

14 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

I deleted the centre section only to keep the block small.

 

I am no scientist so I don't propose to even start to debate the issues from a technical perspective - but I am prepared to accept the judgement of those who are specialists. As far as I can see, the experts are overwhelmingly of the belief that we are having a direct and measurable impact on climate change. If the consensus was split down the middle, then I would not be so sure, but when the numbers are so stacked in support of the idea then I tend to accept it. Add to that the clear evidence of oil companies lying to the public for decades about the effects of their activities, and I am even more firmly sold.

 

I am not hopeful, but I share your aspiration...

You don't have to be a scientist to read the numbers.  0.36% and 1.04% is a tiny element in the total picture of Global warming -- assuming global warming isn't a recent phenomenum. 

 

 

[doctormann]

4 hours ago, jpinx said:

There's plenty of evidence that man's contribution to what is perceived as global warming is not significant, but there's money to be made out of promoting these policies against it.

 

Absolutely right but it goes further than that.

 

If a survey is being paid for  - and someone always pays - about the first question that is usually asked of the person/organisation that's footing the bill is generally, '"What answer would you like?"  The survey questions can be readily manipulated to produce the desired result and, of course, the subsequent statistical analysis can also put a slant on things.  I believe that Disraeli - former British PM - said something about that.  Lies, damn lies and statistics!

 

No conspiracy theory about that - I've been involved on both sides of the fence, so to speak, and that's just the way that things work.

 

[jpinx]

30 minutes ago, doctormann said:

 

Absolutely right but it goes further than that.

 

If a survey is being paid for  - and someone always pays - about the first question that is usually asked of the person/organisation that's footing the bill is generally, '"What answer would you like?"  The survey questions can be readily manipulated to produce the desired result and, of course, the subsequent statistical analysis can also put a slant on things.  I believe that Disraeli - former British PM - said something about that.  Lies, damn lies and statistics!

 

No conspiracy theory about that - I've been involved on both sides of the fence, so to speak, and that's just the way that things work.

 

Absolutely true -- always look at who commissioned and paid for the "research" -  directly or indirectly. 

[jesimps]

Depends on which side of the political divide you sit. Climate change along with racism, sexism, abortion, immigration, Trump, Brexit, capital punishment etc are merely tools of the left.

 

[jpinx]

9 minutes ago, jesimps said:

Depends on which side of the political divide you sit. Climate change along with racism, sexism, abortion, immigration, Trump, Brexit, capital punishment etc are merely tools of the left.

 

All tools are dual-purpose

[John1012]

3 hours ago, zaphod reborn said:

That is quite correct Zaphod.

[tpaul1]

Why do people who are not experts in the field of climate study, think their 'opinion' is worth a s$$t? This topic is not about touchy feely gut feelings and dismissing science. If I were sick and 97% of the doctors I consulted, diagnosed me with the same illness, I would be a fool to ignore them. Likewise any climate change skeptics who think that 5 minutes looking at Wikipedia makes them an expert in which chemical is responsible for climate change because CO2 is not the biggest greenhouse gas (per molecule, so what?) is just trying to justify the status quo because of their gut feeling.  I did a 3 years BSc Env, from UEA (same place that the skeptics tried to smear the CRU a few years ago) and yet I would not pretend to even begin to know the answer. Analysis of data by the experts who devoted their lives to the subject (from way back when I learned about it in the 80s and the data was just showing the issue until now) is as conclusive as you can be. Or using the doctor analogy once more do we wait until the patient dies and then do a biopsy to prove the doctors were correct? Anyone who is even sitting on the fence on this one is either stupid or has something to gain from the hydrocarbon industries. Trump probably fits both categories. The idiot already admits he doesn't read. Not a good basis to form an opinion on such serious issue.

 

If I were a climate scientist and I was in it for the money or because the science showed climate change to be a hoax, wouldn't it be more profitable and give me greater fame a status by showing this than being with the 97.5%? It is totally illogical to think these scientists are saying climate change is real and caused by man if it is a hoax. Conversely, big business and lobby groups have everything to lose when the World turns its backs on carbon fuels, so they would do better to get on board and diversify their businesses to support green technologies than to try to pretend there is no issue. Time will tell how stupid humanity is. Electing Trump is not a good indicator of the US population's intelligence or ability to grasp scientific facts. Let's hope the Chinese have a more rational and radical view of the future or frankly, we and a lot of other species are in for a very rough future.

Edited January 27, 2017 by tpaul1

[John1012]

Sharia May is not renowned for anything, except dithering and BS. It would be better if she just ignored the climate change believers and stuck to trade and national security. She  (the UK) is not in a position of strength, don't poke the bear, just offer an opinion, not a challenge. If man's influence on climate change could be proven beyond doubt, there would be no argument and then one could challenge, but as it cannot,then why disturb the conviviality of the meeting. We need the goodwill of the POTUS, he likes us anyway. We need the trade  and the influence of a friend internationally.

[John1012]

'Electing Trump is not a good indicator of the US population's intelligence or ability to grasp scientific facts. Let's hope the Chinese have a more rational and radical view of the future or frankly, we and a lot of other species are in for a very rough future. '  Quote from tpaul1.

 

For a seemingly highly intelligent person, a strange comment. For the average moron like me, man's influence on climate change has not been proven beyond doubt, it is the opinion of some of the scientific community. Prove it,and get the scientific community to support you then  I'll support you, as will the Donald I expect. Donald Trump offered an alternative to the criminal class who run Washington and the US population voted against the current inept corrupt political elite and elected him. There is some debate about the 'popular vote', but when a state like California has a huge  non  US citizen body voting, then the figures are somewhat inflated, so making 'popular 'irrelevant. Then there are the deceased voters, faulty voting machines etc.etc. (don't forget Russian hacking and FBI influence).

 

.

[tpaul1]

Quote

There's lots more information one could look at, but it's worth bearing in mind that CO² is not the biggest cause of warming,  it's a long way second to water vapour.  Given that fact, and that man-made CO² is a small proportion of what's in the atmosphere, man's influence is actual very very small, only inflated by his collective ego :)

 

The science community is remarkably coy about making declarations of the overall proportions of the warming influence of the various gases and it becomes evident that man's emissions are a tiny fraction of the total figure.  CO² is 9-26% of the over all warming gases, and manmade CO² is 4% of that...  Looks like we're causing something between 0.36% and 1.04% ....  really??

 

Sorry, but ' experts' like you just show your ignorance in the subject. Of course other gases give a greeenhouse effect. Without it the Earth would not be able to sustain life. What matters is the balance not the contribution of a particular gas in isolation. It is man made carbon emissions which are causing the increase not the total effect. if the temperature of the earth increases by just 2 degrees then this causes catastrophic climate change. How much is 2 degrees as a percentage of absolute temperature? Not much. Look at other planets and see what state they are in. The earth is in particular 'zone' which is perfect for life. All other planets yet explored are too hot or tool cold due to no greenhouse gases or to many. Also a few percent becomes even more significant since we think in years but climates rarely change much in tens of thousands of years. You don't need much greenhouse gas extra per year to cause this change if over a period of years, let alone hundreds . As it is, the oceans have been absorbing a lot but they will not be able to do so indefinitely and nobody knows when other mechanisms start making a significant contribution such as positive feedback loops from gases released from thawing permafrost and even deep ocean gases stored as methane ice etc. This is scary stuff and we really shouldn't be testing it because once the genie is out, it is hard to see how we can put it back.

 

Look at it another way, you have carbon deposited over millions of years from ancient bogs. You have more deposited from another period from millions of sea creatures over millions of years. In geological time terms, you then release them all at once and then are surprised that it effects the climate. What other outcome would you expect? The carbon is not 'man made' it man released from where it has been stored out of the atmosphere where it has not effected the biosphere and atmosphere since millions of years before there were even mammals let alone humans. It has nothing to do with ego, boasting what we can do to change things. It is more egotistical people who are dismissive of natural systems who think they can do what they want without consequence. Everything you do has an impact, it is our duty and responsibility to minimize this impact. Ignorance and greed are no longer good excuses. The information is there, the science is there. Just idiotic individuals refuse to acknowledge anything which interferes with their bigoted view of the World. 

[jpinx]

26 minutes ago, tpaul1 said:

Why do people who are not experts in the field of climate study, think their 'opinion' is worth a s$$t? This topic is not about touchy feely gut feelings and dismissing science. If I were sick and 97% of the doctors I consulted, diagnosed me with the same illness, I would be a fool to ignore them. Likewise any climate change skeptics who think that 5 minutes looking at Wikipedia makes them an expert in which chemical is responsible for climate change because CO2 is not the biggest greenhouse gas (per molecule, so what?) is just trying to justify the status quo because of their gut feeling.  I did a 3 years BSc Env, from UEA (same place that the skeptics tried to smear the CRU a few years ago) and yet I would not pretend to even begin to know the answer. Analysis of data by the experts who devoted their lives to the subject (from way back when I learned about it in the 80s and the data was just showing the issue until now) is as conclusive as you can be. Or using the doctor analogy once more do we wait until the patient dies and then do a biopsy to prove the doctors were correct? Anyone who is even sitting on the fence on this one is either stupid or has something to gain from the hydrocarbon industries. Trump probably fits both categories. The idiot already admits he doesn't read. Not a good basis to form an opinion on such serious issue.

 

If I were a climate scientist and I was in it for the money or because the science showed climate change to be a hoax, wouldn't it be more profitable and give me greater fame a status by showing this than being with the 97.5%? It is totally illogical to think these scientists are saying climate change is real and caused by man if it is a hoax. Conversely, big business and lobby groups have everything to lose when the World turns its backs on carbon fuels, so they would do better to get on board and diversify their businesses to support green technologies than to try to pretend there is no issue. Time will tell how stupid humanity is. Electing Trump is not a good indicator of the US population's intelligence or ability to grasp scientific facts. Let's hope the Chinese have a more rational and radical view of the future or frankly, we and a lot of other species are in for a very rough future.

What is an expert anyway?  The problem is too many supposed experts being paid for by the various interested bodies behind the campaign, in the same way as the oil companies have double-PhD's on their payroll to counter some of the bad publicity with "research".  

[tpaul1]

Quote

For a seemingly highly intelligent person, a strange comment. For the average moron like me, man's influence on climate change has not been proven beyond doubt, it is the opinion of some of the scientific community. Prove it,and get the scientific community to support you then  I'll support you, as will the Donald I expect. Donald Trump offered an alternative to the criminal class who run Washington and the US population voted against the current inept corrupt political elite and elected him. There is some debate about the 'popular vote', but when a state like California has a huge  non  US citizen body voting, then the figures are somewhat inflated, so making 'popular 'irrelevant. Then there are the deceased voters, faulty voting machines etc.etc. (don't forget Russian hacking and FBI influence).

How are morons like you going to accept it then? The way there will be no doubt in your mind is when the science is screaming in your face and it is to late to change things? Wait until the patient dies?

 

Climate change outside the US is accepted, period. It is only in the country where a huge percentage think the world is a few thousand years old do you have any large percentage of the populations in denial. What hope have we got getting through to such an ignorant population? (I'm not talking about all the population but worryingly, so many of them that they elected Trump). It is pathetic and I wouldn't care but we all have to deal with the consequences. So T May better tell Trump to get in the 21st century and be part of the solution and not the problem. The future of jobs in the US depends far more on them working in renewable industries (600K people in California alone) and not the coal (55k people.) it is not only China but huge steps are being made in Europe in renewables. Whole communities in Germany are taking on solar and wind projects. Intelligent and responsible populations who understand resources are finite and there are alternatives to the carbon addiction. 

 

[tpaul1]

4 minutes ago, jpinx said:

What is an expert anyway?  The problem is too many supposed experts being paid for by the various interested bodies behind the campaign, in the same way as the oil companies have double-PhD's on their payroll to counter some of the bad publicity with "research".

Unfortunately, we are not all able to interpret the raw data so you have to accept some things by experts. At some stage, any rational individual has to accept the data and conclusions of experts. Take the link between lung cancer and other diseases and smoking. The smoking lobby, at least up until recently, were denying any connection but anyone with a high school education would probably be willing to accept the findings of scientists the World over that there was a link. Why the reluctance with climate change? Because it is scary? We have to change? Maybe. I really can't answer that since I was on board in 1984 but some people are later than others when it comes to aceppting these things. Problem is, unlike smoking, it has much bigger consequences and we are changing things faster than we are willing to accept we have caused these changes. Man is an optimistic creature by nature and it has served s well in the past but now it is causing our demise if we are not careful

[jpinx]

2 minutes ago, tpaul1 said:

Unfortunately, we are not all able to interpret the raw data so you have to accept some things by experts. At some stage, any rational individual has to accept the data and conclusions of experts. Take the link between lung cancer and other diseases and smoking. The smoking lobby, at least up until recently, were denying any connection but anyone with a high school education would probably be willing to accept the findings of scientists the World over that there was a link. Why the reluctance with climate change? Because it is scary? We have to change? Maybe. I really can't answer that since I was on board in 1984 but some people are later than others when it comes to aceppting these things. Problem is, unlike smoking, it has much bigger consequences and we are changing things faster than we are willing to accept we have caused these changes. Man is an optimistic creature by nature and it has served s well in the past but now it is causing our demise if we are not careful

Nicely deflected -- now -- "..What is an expert anyway?...." 

...and can you explain why ".......the oil companies have double-PhD's on their payroll to counter some of the bad publicity with "research". ......"

 

[kaleevala]

1 hour ago, doctormann said:

I believe that Disraeli - former British PM - said something about that.  Lies, damn lies and statistics

I thought that was Winston Churchill! I LOVE that quote..

[doctormann]

11 minutes ago, kaleevala said:

I thought that was Winston Churchill! I LOVE that quote..

 

Allegedly, Mark Twain had something to do with the quote as well.  Seems to be attributed to several people.

 

To get back on topic though, I think that problem is that there is evidence that cyclical climate shifts have been going on for hundreds of thousands of years.  The evidence for that is locked in the antarctic ice cores and elsewhere.  I don't believe that there is too much disagreement that the global climate, overall, is currently in a warming phase.  The issue really is in deciding if the man-made contribution to this is significant and, if it is, whether we can do anything about it.  I suspect that the answers are 'not really' and 'very little, if anything'.

 

I don't have any problem with trying to reduce man-made pollution levels - must be awful in China - but we shouldn't assume that by so doing we are going to cure 'global warming' or have any significant effect on 'climate change'.

 

[jpinx]

4 minutes ago, doctormann said:

 

Allegedly, Mark Twain had something to do with the quote as well.  Seems to be attributed to several people.

 

To get back on topic though, I think that problem is that there is evidence that cyclical climate shifts have been going on for hundreds of thousands of years.  The evidence for that is locked in the antarctic ice cores and elsewhere.  I don't believe that there is too much disagreement that the global climate, overall, is currently in a warming phase.  The issue really is in deciding if the man-made contribution to this is significant and, if it is, whether we can do anything about it.  I suspect that the answers are 'not really' and 'very little, if anything'.

 

I don't have any problem with trying to reduce man-made pollution levels - must be awful in China - but we shouldn't assume that by so doing we are going to cure 'global warming' or have any significant effect on 'climate change'.

 

Climate Change is NOT Global Warming -- and therein lies the confusion.  Of course the climate is changing, but whether it is heading for some catastrophe is not predictable.  Man likes to think he is in control of his world, but that has been disproved so many times now it's laughable that people believe the 1% or so that man is adding makes any significant difference...

[doctormann]

1 minute ago, jpinx said:

Climate Change is NOT Global Warming -- and therein lies the confusion.  Of course the climate is changing, but whether it is heading for some catastrophe is not predictable.  Man likes to think he is in control of his world, but that has been disproved so many times now it's laughable that people believe the 1% or so that man is adding makes any significant difference...

 

Absolutely right!

[dunroaming]

Anyway getting back to May's visit to the USA.  One quite savvy thing she has done is making a speech to congress before her meeting Trump.  She was able to do her selling pitch to them, obviously to confirm Britain's commitment to the USA rather than Trump himself.  In that way he cannot claim ownership of their discussions.  Unlikely she will openly criticise the POTUS but she won't make much progress either, especially on trade deals.

[RickBradford]

Quote

 If I were sick and 97% of the doctors I consulted, diagnosed me with the same illness, I would be a fool to ignore them.

Equally, if you found out that those doctors had only checked your temperature, and found a tiny rise, which might or might not be caused by a mild infection, then you would be a fool to throw yourself off a high building in a fit of despair.

 

The fabled 97% of climate scientists agreed that a ) the earth has warmed since 1850 and b ) human activity has probably played some part in that rise.

 

Nowhere was it stated in the Doran study that came up with the 97% figure, that this situation was dangerous, or threatening, or even likely to be a minor inconvenience. So there is really no point in committing economic suicide by relying on expensive and unreliable energy sources like solar or wind at the expense of tried and trusted fossil fuels.

 

It's amazing that parliamentarians in the UK are still trying to make mileage over climate change; they wore that toy out years ago.

[chilli42]

Whether not humanity is the primary cause of climate change, it seems an irrefutable fact that the climate is changing and that does not bode well for humanity.  Are we going to stand by and watch things go to hell in a hand basket or does humanity get off its collective backside and do something about it?  The number of deaths globally last year due to pollution was placed at 7 million.  If this number is even half right that is more people than were killed by ISIS or in Afghanistan or Iraq  ... all of which have received attention and resources.  Is it not a worthy goal to save 7 million people a year by eliminating pollution?  Start small, the big things will fall into place.

[dunroaming]

I get the feeling that both sides here are p*ssing in the wind.  Neither side is going to budge so probably best to judge by what is happening around you.  I know I am experiencing climate change but maybe there are some out there that aren't.  After all that is said we can only go by what we see for ourselves.