The Money Mustache Community
Around the Internet => Antimustachian Wall of Shame and Comedy => Topic started by: englyn on July 17, 2014, 12:59:56 AM
-
I nominate the Australian Government for the Antimustachian Wall of Shame and Comedy for repealing the carbon tax:
http://www.news.com.au/national/australias-carbon-tax-has-been-axed-as-repeal-bills-clear-the-senate/story-fncynjr2-1226991948152
because yet again we're sacrificing actions for the future health of our planet for the sake of a tiny boost to our already-super-strong economy. Gah.
-
I will second your nomination.
-
+1
What fuckheads.
-
Indeed.
Our politicians are so short-sighted. It's sickening.
-
. . . but carbon dioxide is good for plants! Greenhouses use it to boost growth rates. Therefore it can't be bad for the environment. I'm not a scientist, but I once passed a grade 9 biology class, so you can trust me over all those so called 'experts'.
-
The global warming 'crisis' was manufactured to provide an opportunity for governments to implement a stealth consumption tax. When global warming didn't turn out as expected, the name was switched to climate change, and since the climate is always changing, the governments will have an excuse to keep taxing.
I'm glad to see Australia bucking the trend, and lowering their tax rate to keep money in the hands of the people. Any liberals here should be glad, too, since it wasn't the type of progressive tax they're clamoring for at every opportunity.
-
. . . but carbon dioxide is good for plants! Greenhouses use it to boost growth rates. Therefore it can't be bad for the environment. I'm not a scientist, but I once passed a grade 9 biology class, so you can trust me over all those so called 'experts'.
yeah, when I don't like/understand what the "scientists" are saying, i like to go with ma gut ;)
-
The global warming 'crisis' was manufactured to provide an opportunity for governments to implement a stealth consumption tax. When global warming didn't turn out as expected, the name was switched to climate change, and since the climate is always changing, the governments will have an excuse to keep taxing.
I'm glad to see Australia bucking the trend, and lowering their tax rate to keep money in the hands of the people. Any liberals here should be glad, too, since it wasn't the type of progressive tax they're clamoring for at every opportunity.
It's cool man, I already covered the satirically ignorant side of things.
-
The global warming 'crisis' was manufactured to provide an opportunity for governments to implement a stealth consumption tax. When global warming didn't turn out as expected, the name was switched to climate change, and since the climate is always changing, the governments will have an excuse to keep taxing.
I'm glad to see Australia bucking the trend, and lowering their tax rate to keep money in the hands of the people. Any liberals here should be glad, too, since it wasn't the type of progressive tax they're clamoring for at every opportunity.
It's cool man, I already covered the satirically ignorant side of things.
People on this site seem to love attacking the messenger rather than the message. The actual science indicates mars warmed up as much as the earth, which is surprising considering the amount of hot air produced by Al Gore. If mars warmed up, is it just a little possible that politicians were full of shit when they blamed it on CO2, and asked for more taxes and personal power?
Why people cheer to support the corrupt bastards with ever higher taxes must be above my pay grade...unless you were correct about being ignorant.
-
Your fine sense of humour goes along nicely with your understanding of climate change.
-
REDUCING POLLUTION IS ALL ABOUT PERSONAL POWER AND NOT AT ALL ABOUT IMPROVING HOW WE INTERACT WITH THE ENVIRONMENT.
RARAWRAWRAWRWARWR
BTW: Australian government are wangcasters.
-
I'd like to get in on the hatefest, but as a Canadian, my gov't is bound and determined to prevent anyone from talking about global warming so I better keep quiet.
Also, I own shares of Suncor, so I guess being properly diversified on the TSX means being a hypocrite. Sorry, I'm Canadian, what more can I say?
-
The global warming 'crisis' was manufactured to provide an opportunity for governments to implement a stealth consumption tax. When global warming didn't turn out as expected, the name was switched to climate change, and since the climate is always changing, the governments will have an excuse to keep taxing.
I'm glad to see Australia bucking the trend, and lowering their tax rate to keep money in the hands of the people. Any liberals here should be glad, too, since it wasn't the type of progressive tax they're clamoring for at every opportunity.
*interesting fact* Actually, they didn't change the name, they refer to different things. Global warming is the small increase of average global temperatures, climate change is the effect that this has on the climate, notably increased extreme events (including events that we don't think of as warm weather events like cyclones).
I disagree with every other point you made, but I'm sure I won't convince you, so I'll just inform you of the above error as it's not really something that should require convincing.
-
Whether global warming/climate change is or is not happening/caused by humans, it isn't anti-mustachian to eliminate a drain on the pocketbooks of a nation's population when that financial drain does alot of nothing to address the issue.
I suspect to the left wing authoritarians of the world, AGW was a expedient crisis. We have one guy who's slide show was the subject of many "how not to use data and statistics" lectures in my statistics class, a man who quietly positioned himself to profit heavily from the tax and trade system he proposed in the US. Additionally, every government legislative solution has been a money and power grab that was light on actual reductions in CO2.
I for one, see the data indicating that CO2 increases in response to an increasing global temperature just as strongly as I see it indicating that CO2 causes the temp increases. (remember, the tests they're running only show that they have an x% chance of being correlated, NOT that one causes the other. Often, the cause and effect can be mixed up.) Couple that with some of the solar phenomenons (mar's ice caps have been melting during this time period too...) and I don't think the case is as clear cut as alot of people think.
Imagine for a moment you're a climate scientist. You look at the data, and see that perhaps, the conclusion is tenuous. You think about voicing a dissenting opinion. But then you see anyone who voices the same opinion being destroyed by the media and the holders-of-the-funds and think better of voicing your opinion. I'd bet there's alot of that going on.
Also, I refuse to let it be thought that the whole "sensibility in finance" thing has been coopted by the liberal left in this country. Sorry, but no. There is nothing inherently left about this philosophy.
-
Literally nothing you're saying makes any sense or is even cognizant.
This is the dumbest fucking thread on this forum. It's almost as stupid as the environmental policy of Australia, but something that's entirely absent cannot be judged stupid.
-
Whether global warming/climate change is or is not happening/caused by humans, it isn't anti-mustachian to eliminate a drain on the pocketbooks of a nation's population when that financial drain does alot of nothing to address the issue.
Absoluely this ^
How many other countries have a carbon tax??? You only have to look at images and video of the amount of pollution China and other developing nations put out daily, plus the amount of carbon emitted through the use of automobiles worldwide to realise taxing the very small Australian population (because thats who ends up paying, not the big companies) is not going to do a single thing to stop or reduce global warming. Trust me, you won't see the pollution depicted in this random photo of China anywhere in Australia - we probably have some of the cleanest air on the planet (no doubt due to our government systematically breaking our manufacturing industry which is a whole nother topic)...
I personally am much more concerned about the amount of plastic floating around in our oceans, which is a more immediate threat to both our and the environment's health.
-
How many other countries have a carbon tax??? You only have to look at images and video of the amount of pollution China and other developing nations put out daily, plus the amount of carbon emitted through the use of automobiles worldwide
That's like saying "there's genocide happening in Africa, so killing one person in America (or, for the sake of this thread, Australia) is ok"
Someone else's terribly awful behavior doesn't excuse bad behavior. It's great that Australia has some of the cleanest air on the planet - that's no reason to go fucking it up again.
I will say I agree that taxing the Australian population isn't going to do much in the grand scheme of things, but my above point still stands.
-
I will say I agree that taxing the Australian population isn't going to do much in the grand scheme of things, but my above point still stands.
Are you quite sure I cannot persuade you to change your username to "Don Quixote?"
-
The global warming 'crisis' was manufactured to provide an opportunity for governments to implement a stealth consumption tax. When global warming didn't turn out as expected, the name was switched to climate change, and since the climate is always changing, the governments will have an excuse to keep taxing.
I'm glad to see Australia bucking the trend, and lowering their tax rate to keep money in the hands of the people. Any liberals here should be glad, too, since it wasn't the type of progressive tax they're clamoring for at every opportunity.
It's cool man, I already covered the satirically ignorant side of things.
People on this site seem to love attacking the messenger rather than the message. The actual science indicates mars warmed up as much as the earth, which is surprising considering the amount of hot air produced by Al Gore. If mars warmed up, is it just a little possible that politicians were full of shit when they blamed it on CO2, and asked for more taxes and personal power?
Why people cheer to support the corrupt bastards with ever higher taxes must be above my pay grade...unless you were correct about being ignorant.
Fun fact, global warming is not the only environmental impact of extra CO2 in the atmosphere. We also get acidification of the oceans, which affect our marine life and fish supplies. So while I believe this to have been a generally ineffective policy, I also think that failing to replace a policy that got us a tiny step towards less pollution with something better, and just leaving the space blank, is bad.
-
People on this site seem to love attacking the messenger rather than the message. The actual science indicates mars warmed up as much as the earth, which is surprising considering the amount of hot air produced by Al Gore. If mars warmed up, is it just a little possible that politicians were full of shit when they blamed it on CO2, and asked for more taxes and personal power?
No. The climates or Mars and Earth are different systems. What happens on one doesn't really tell us much about what happens on the other except in the rarest of circumstances. This is not one of those circumstances. The science on climate change is extraordinarily clear and is not in doubt. We don't need to rely on actual temperature measurements either: the theory neither expects nor requires temperatures to march steadily upward to be correct. I suggest you read up a bit.
-
I for one, see the data indicating that CO2 increases in response to an increasing global temperature just as strongly as I see it indicating that CO2 causes the temp increases. (remember, the tests they're running only show that they have an x% chance of being correlated, NOT that one causes the other. Often, the cause and effect can be mixed up.) Couple that with some of the solar phenomenons (mar's ice caps have been melting during this time period too...) and I don't think the case is as clear cut as alot of people think.
No, our tests show a causal link. People, this is 2014. The whole correlation/causation problem was solve circa 1840. We have the tools to deal with that kind of thing now. Not a problem.
I'm guessing you didn't make it past statistics 101 or AT BEST 102, am I right?
-
I want to comment but the point has already been made.
The CT was working as intended, and I believe its repeal will only slow, not reverse, the inevitable march towards cleaner technology. The day will soon come that hydro, wind and solar will be cheaper and more efficient than digging up fossil fuels.
May not be tomorrow, but it will be soon. And when it happens we will be left buying "made in china" solar panels, because our leader were too short sighted to invest properly in it now, just to keep their business mates in Big Coal and Big Power happy.
-
The global warming 'crisis' was manufactured to provide an opportunity for governments to implement a stealth consumption tax. When global warming didn't turn out as expected, the name was switched to climate change, and since the climate is always changing, the governments will have an excuse to keep taxing.
I'm glad to see Australia bucking the trend, and lowering their tax rate to keep money in the hands of the people. Any liberals here should be glad, too, since it wasn't the type of progressive tax they're clamoring for at every opportunity.
It's cool man, I already covered the satirically ignorant side of things.
People on this site seem to love attacking the messenger rather than the message. The actual science indicates mars warmed up as much as the earth, which is surprising considering the amount of hot air produced by Al Gore. If mars warmed up, is it just a little possible that politicians were full of shit when they blamed it on CO2, and asked for more taxes and personal power?
Why people cheer to support the corrupt bastards with ever higher taxes must be above my pay grade...unless you were correct about being ignorant.
poe?
-
Chap I knew who worked on the first international climate change agreement used to say that "global warming" made the problem sound far too benign, and that "climate change" was easily confused with the usual daily weather changes. A more accurate phrase would be "climate destabilisation". Unfortunately, you can't reliably grow food in a destabilised climate, and you can't rely on water ending up exactly where it is most convenient and least inconvenient.
Fortunately for those of us who don't have children, we will avoid the worst effects. Those of us who do have children and grandchildren will fortunately not be around to see them have to deal with the consequences.
-
I for one, see the data indicating that CO2 increases in response to an increasing global temperature just as strongly as I see it indicating that CO2 causes the temp increases. (remember, the tests they're running only show that they have an x% chance of being correlated, NOT that one causes the other. Often, the cause and effect can be mixed up.) Couple that with some of the solar phenomenons (mar's ice caps have been melting during this time period too...) and I don't think the case is as clear cut as alot of people think.
No, our tests show a causal link. People, this is 2014. The whole correlation/causation problem was solve circa 1840. We have the tools to deal with that kind of thing now. Not a problem.
I'm guessing you didn't make it past statistics 101 or AT BEST 102, am I right?
"didn't make it past" would indicate a lack of understanding of the material. "didn't have the stomach for" more than 101, would be the accurate statement. I do recall that those methods of determining C&E mathematically rely quite heavily on ASSUMPTIONS. this means it's far to open to biases from the people making those assumptions, and that's unacceptable to me on something this politicized. I did take a 4 week class on six-sigma methodology. One of the things I remember pretty clearly was that tests, where you isolate the deliberately change a couple of variables, were the best way to determine what the cause actually was.
This has not happened with climate change data. The fact is, they wouldn't be able to pass a gauge repeat-ability and reliability study on the temperature measurement systems in the first place, which is generally the first step taken. I could conceive of the DOE needed to test the cause-effect relationship here, but that has obvious practical problems.
Now, you say "our tests." Are you on the IPCC?
-
"didn't make it past" would indicate a lack of understanding of the material. "didn't have the stomach for" more than 101, would be the accurate statement. I do recall that those methods of determining C&E mathematically rely quite heavily on ASSUMPTIONS. this means it's far to open to biases from the people making those assumptions, and that's unacceptable to me on something this politicized. I did take a 4 week class on six-sigma methodology. One of the things I remember pretty clearly was that tests, where you isolate the deliberately change a couple of variables, were the best way to determine what the cause actually was.
They don't teach that kind of thing at all in 101, so you wouldn't even have been exposed to it. It's not open to biases and they don't rely on assumptions. The math is the math. Those with advanced training in the subject all agree. Those without advanced training are the only ones confused.
This has not happened with climate change data. The fact is, they wouldn't be able to pass a gauge repeat-ability and reliability study on the temperature measurement systems in the first place, which is generally the first step taken. I could conceive of the DOE needed to test the cause-effect relationship here, but that has obvious practical problems.
The theory doesn't rely on temperature measurement systems to begin with. The totality of the evidence is overwhelming. I repeat: this matter is not in doubt. It is settled. We are VERY certain.
-
You keep saying "we" "our". I'm curious about what "we" you're part of, if you don't mind?
-
Fun fact, global warming is not the only environmental impact of extra CO2 in the atmosphere. We also get acidification of the oceans, which affect our marine life and fish supplies. So while I believe this to have been a generally ineffective policy, I also think that failing to replace a policy that got us a tiny step towards less pollution with something better, and just leaving the space blank, is bad.
To me, this is one of the scariest aspects of increased CO2 emissions. The ocean is a huge source of food for EVERYONE. The more acidic the ocean gets, the more difficult it is for certain marine animals to construct shells. This, combined with the huge floating garbage patch we have in the middle of the ocean and over fishing by certain countries... man, talk about depressing. Is humanity really that stupid? I guess we are since we continually take the "me me me, now now now" approach.
Also, the price on carbon (carbon tax) was going to transition into an ETS... which many countries do have implemented. now, Australia has no policy to address climate change and continues to hand billions of dollars a year to coal companies to continue business as usual. Thankfully, China might actually come to the worlds rescue. They are quickly working towards building mega solar panel factories to slash the cost of solar to below that of coal.