Ocean News

The justice and power is on our side.
We don't have to convince AGWers of anything.
They need to convince everybody.
Or they can't win.
Well, I'm not convinced.
And I will try to assist undecided folks, with understanding the AGW propaganda and motives.
So they aren't suckered in.

The USA will wait and see.


http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/27/senate-passes-bill-blocking-a-carbon-tax/

 

A wise man can learn from the mistakes of others.
A fool won't learn at all, and will keep repeating the same old mistakes, even his own.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/27/senate-passes-bill-blocking-a-carbon-tax/

"Many Republicans have pointed to Australia’s recent experience with the carbon tax. The country repealed the tax after only about two years as residents and businesses were hit by higher energy costs and rising joblessness.

In fact, Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s conservative governing coalition was elected to office in a landslide victory in 2013. One of the main planks of Abbott’s campaign was to repeal the carbon tax.

“The carbon tax is bad for the economy and it doesn’t do any good for the environment,” Abbott told The Washington Post. “Despite a carbon tax of $37 a ton by 2020, Australia’s domestic emissions were going up, not down. The carbon tax was basically socialism masquerading as environmentalism, and that’s why it’s going to get abolished.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/27/senate-passes-bill-blocking-a-carbon-tax/#ixzz454mMhY31

 

Uniqueness of water, some things you didn't know.

https://youtu.be/2vFlD5yK4lM

Above is a one minute introduction to the documentary.
Other excerpts from "APA" film available on youtube.
APA means WATER

and this one.
https://youtu.be/R8VyUsVOic0

 

EPA means NO water:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970204731804574384731898375624

 

That which we call a rose...
http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html

 

This thred kneeds sum humur.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Gv0H-vPoDc&nohtml5=False

 

This one is about black helicopters and stuff. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-0...p1FdxTAsbpgAipLqxcf7vlzNW8AWMGQ&nohtml5=False

 

Quote
If meat could talk, would you still eat it?

http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/w...132/if-meat-could-talk-would-you-still-eat-it

What we found is that people use intelligence information in a way that prevents them from having to feel bad about participating in the harm inflicted on intelligent animals in their own culture. People ignore information about the intelligence of animals when an animal is already used as food in one’s culture. But when people think about animals that are not used as food, or animals used as food in other cultures, they do think an animal’s intelligence matters.

So it is possible that providing animals with the means to speak to us would not change our moral attitude at all – at least not for animals that we already eat.

We have to remember what should already be obvious: animals do talk to us. Certainly they talk to us in ways that matter for our decisions about how to treat them. There is not much difference in a crying frightened child and a crying frightened piglet. Dairy cows that have their calves stolen from them soon after birth are believed by some to bemoan the loss weeks afterwards with heart wrenching cries. The problem is that we often do not take the time to really listen.

 

That quote doesn't tell the whole story.

The unemployment rate and energy prices were not dramatically affected by the carbon tax. The main reason energy prices went up is because energy companies had spent piles of money upgrading their assets in anticipation of a growing need for power. This need didn't eventuate. Power usage has been decreasing instead due to efficiency gains.

The result was that the power companies not only had to recoup the costs of upgrading their assets, they had to do this while selling less power. Obvious result is that price per kW/h went up, quite a lot. This, in turn, encourages people to make greater efficiency gains. It may interest you to know that power prices have continued to rise, even though the carbon tax is long gone.

Also, the cash returns that Abbott promised to voters as a result of abolishing the carbon tax never eventuated. This was largely because he had basically lied about the cost in the first place, so the money wasn't there to give back.

In other words the Daily Caller, and your Republicans, are operating by the old adage of "never let the facts get in the way of a good story".

Of course Abbott is no longer PM anyway, because he was so abysmally bad at the job. He's also a well-known science denier, as are many of his friends.

 

Abbott is well known for his declaration that climate change ( not just AGW) is "crap". Even if by some mischance he turns out to be right, it will be have been a guess, and the idea of a guesser at the top level is a worry.

 

No, you can't justify using "science denier" for folks that aren't naive enough to swallow AGW lies.
YOU are the folks claiming the "science " is settled.
Real science is NEVER settled.
That is an unscientific attitude and dogma, and makes YOUR crowd the science deniers.

 

If you know as much about science as you like to claim, then you should know that phrases like "the science is settled" are usually used to indicate an overwhelming amount of evidence in favour of something, and little or no evidence against it.

For example, "the science is settled" when it comes to Newton's physics being applicable at everyday scales and speeds. It is hypothetically possible for an apple to suddenly fall upwards, or for a mass to accelerate such that F /= ma, but these things have never been observed and there is no real reason to think they ever will be.

When people say "the science is settled" regarding climate science the situation is, or should be, similar. This is not at all unscientific, nor is it dogma. It does not involve denial of science. On the contrary, it involves accepting the scientific evidence even if you don't like what it is telling you. Or, to put it bluntly, your assertions are rubbish.

Science deniers are people who deny the scientific evidence purely because they don't like what it is telling them.

 

Your assertions that AGW has similar credibility and esteem as Newton's Laws of Gravity is the rubbish.

 

But whatever ya'll decide in Australia, or anywhere else, the USA will WAIT and SEE.
The majority doesn't believe man causes climate change.
So man can't do anything to slow or stop it.
Your hypothesis is blatantly arrogant.

 

Apparently, the majority disagrees with you.

http://ncse.com/news/2016/03/latest-climate-poll-from-gallup-0016974

So, not only does the majority of US citizens currently accept that humans are causing climate change, but a majority has accepted this since at least as far back as 2007.

So "we, the people" have their own ideas and you do not speak for them.