I read the news today (oh boy) - Current world events | Page 128 | Fab Forum | The Beatles Bible

Going back to your last reply, @Wigwam, I’m afraid we don’t agree.

You think the pure numbers matter while I think them irrelevant and that it’s the percentages that matter.

You think the 17.4 million is the important thing while I think that it only represents 37.48% of the electorate that matters.

On prorogation, yes, agreed that a new Queen’s Speech is necessary, but that could be done in the first week of November, after the 31st October deadline has passed (one way or another), and the length of the prorogation was/is unnecessarily long when the usual length of proroguing for a Queen’s Speech is 3 or 4 days.

You, following the Government line, suggest only a few days lost because of the recess for the party conferences, ignoring the fact that Parliament looked likely to vote against any recess. That’s the big difference between prorogation and a recess – prorogation is decided by the PM and cannot be opposed by Parliament, while a recess needs to voted on by the Commons and looked likely to be voted against.

And as the Court of Session ruled today, the length of this prorogation was/is to prevent proper and necessary Parliamentary scrutiny of the Government.

We will see what the UK Supreme Court say next week, but that the highest court to examine the arguments so far has found against the Government must be worrying Boris.

Also interesting that the Government’s lawyers made no attempt to suspend the effect of the ruling until the Supreme Court case, meaning Parliament should be recalled, but looks like waiting until the Supreme Court ruling without asking permission.

And as for how a no deal Brexit affects me, I live in the UK and receive sickness benefits because of my physical and mental health issues. That income has already been greatly affected by austerity. If the effects of a no deal Brexit prove as bad as leaks of the Government’s Yellowhammer papers suggest, I’ll be hit by rising prices in the shops, especially on fresh food, limited availability on some goods, fresh food being an example, as well as the 7 medications I need to take daily, and a government no longer able to spend on public services in the way Boris has been running around declaring in recent weeks – another reason Boris has been trying to get an election before Brexit.

Methane from the Government and the Conservative ERG.

Anyway, why I came here…

Climate change denier Donald Trump has moved against California setting lower car emissions than federal standards, which 13 other states and DC have also adopted. Even four of the largest car manufacturers (Ford, Honda, Volkswagon, & BMW) don’t agree with him.

Yes, they could make cheaper cars, but they think more damaging cars.

There was, and still is, the hope that when Trump pulled out of the Paris Agreement, the states would carry on regardless – and now he seems to be taking away the states rights to react appropriately should they disagree with him.

Good to see California already launching a legal challenge defending state rights against federal government, and especially against Presidential decree.

Hopefully the courts will rule against this intrusion on the rights of a State to set its own pollution standards, all the way to the Supreme Court.

@Wigwam said

You trundle out……..’Climate change denier Donald Trump’  

I’m interested……. has Trump ever specifically denied that Climate change exists?

He does, depending on the day, accept climate change is happening, however rejects the scientific evidence that it is man-made.

For instance:

So Obama’s talking about all of this with the global warming and the—a lot of it’s a hoax, it’s a hoax. I mean, it’s a money-making industry, okay? It’s a hoax, a lot of it.

from a speech on 30 December 2015; or talking to the editorial board of the Washington Post on 21 March 2016:

I think there’s a change in weather. I am not a great believer in man-made climate change. I’m not a great believer. There is certainly a change in weather that goes – if you look, they had global cooling in the 1920s and now they have global warming, although now they don’t know if they have global warming. They call it all sorts of different things; now they’re using “extreme weather” I guess more than any other phrase. I am not – I know it hurts me with this room, and I know it’s probably a killer with this room – but I am not a believer. Perhaps there’s a minor effect, but I’m not a big believer in man-made climate change.

or you could have a tweet from 29 January 2014:

Snowing in Texas and Louisiana, record setting freezing temperatures throughout the country and beyond. Global warming is an expensive hoax!

or another tweet from 28 December 2017:

In the East, it could be the COLDEST New Year’s Eve on record. Perhaps we could use a little bit of that good old Global Warming that our Country, but not other countries, was going to pay TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS to protect against. Bundle up!

or his 60 Minutes interview with Lesley Stahl on 18 October 2018

Lesley Stahl: “Do you still think that climate change is a hoax?”

President Donald Trump: “I think something’s happening. Something ‘s changing and it’ll change back again. I don’t think it’s a hoax, I think there’s probably a difference. But I don’t know that it’s manmade. I will say this. I don’t wanna give trillions and trillions of dollars. I don’t wanna lose millions and millions of jobs. I don’t wanna be put at a disadvantage.”

Lesley Stahl: “I wish you could go to Greenland, watch these huge chunks of ice just falling into the ocean, raising the sea levels.”

President Donald Trump: “And you don’t know whether or not that would have happened with or without man. You don’t know.”

Lesley Stahl: “Well, your scientists, your scientists–”

President Donald Trump: “No, we have–”

Lesley Stahl: “At NOAA and NASA–”

President Donald Trump: “We have scientists that disagree with that.”

Lesley Stahl: “You know, I– I was thinking what if he said, ‘No, I’ve seen the hurricane situations, I’ve changed my mind. There really is climate change.’ And I thought, ‘Wow, what an impact.’”

President Donald Trump: “Well– I’m not denying.”

Lesley Stahl: “What an impact that would make.”

President Donald Trump: “I’m not denying climate change. But it could very well go back. You know, we’re talkin’ about over a millions–”

Lesley Stahl: “But that’s denying it.”

President Donald Trump:  –of years. They say that we had hurricanes that were far worse than what we just had with Michael.”

Lesley Stahl: “Who says that? ‘They say’?”

President Donald Trump: “People say. People say that in the–”

Lesley Stahl:” Yeah, but what about the scientists who say it’s worse than ever?”

President Donald Trump: “You’d have to show me the scientists because they have a very big political agenda, Lesley.”

Lesley Stahl: “I can’t bring them in.”

President Donald Trump: “Look, scientists also have a political agenda.”

He has become more nuanced over the years, but his basic rejection of man-made climate change continues to shine through.

The China argument, used by many, is a crock.

You do what you can do, rather than say that you won’t because someone else won’t. The next step from that argument is why should any of the countries still signed up to the Paris Agreement do anything if America won’t, and then we all go to hell in a handcart.

And what he is trying to do isn’t only to do with climate change, but also rolling back a State’s right to set to it’s own pollution standards.

Oh, I’m critical of China as well, @Wigwam.

I just don’t agree with the argument that if they do nothing nobody else should, just as I’d disagree with any country (and, thankfully, there have been none) who followed Trump’s example and pulled out of the Paris Agreement.

What interests me is the planet and how we can keep it habitable for those that follow us, rather than shrugging my shoulders and saying there’s a good chance I’ll be gone long before the worst happens.

Though that’s not a certainty as the weather continues to get worse year on year.

So, when Trump calls it a “hoax” and an “expensive hoax”, that you think is just questioning?

And, I’m sorry, there is scientific consensus on climate change and its causes. Yes, you can still find scientists who argue against, but they are a tiny minority, and you can still find scientists who argue against vaccines based on discredited evidence, who don’t believe in evolution, who believe the world was created in six days…

Trump has just become more equivocal as he’s become more political and realised being so anti would lose him votes.

You also ignore the point of him taking away the rights of a State to disagree and set their own standards.