Science/Environment climate hustle documentary

[RupieDupie]

but it sounds like you're implying that the financial cost of what the government is doing to boat people, isn't somehow being passed onto the rest of us? it either comes straight out of our taxes (and therefore is an opportunity cost vs whatever else you could do with that money), or it's paid for with bond credit, which has a nice pricetag attached re spending cuts and/or tax increases at some point down the road.



i don't feel you've supported your implicit assertion that taxation doesn't change behaviour (when it quite obviously does).

Yeah but they probably moved some money from one pot of money that people don't care about like health and education, or sold off some Australian assets or land to foreign investors, or robbed children at gunpoint for their lunch money. Who can explain the inner workings of a psychopath? But they definitely did not tax the people smugglers nor said anything nice about them.

W.r.t. your second paragraph, I'm starting to wonder what this discussion is all about if the carbon tax worked. Why are we having this discussion if the problem is already fixed?

 

[Long Live HFC]

W.r.t. your second paragraph, I'm starting to wonder what this discussion is all about if the carbon tax worked. Why are we having this discussion if the problem is already fixed?

i have already answered this question.

 

[RupieDupie]

i have already answered this question.

So you would argue the recent increase in cost by big business of electricity cost means they are showing initiative to tackle climate change?

 

[RupieDupie]

i have already answered this question.

I thought about this more, Australians accepting increased taxation as a government acting on their wishes is like Pleb Morality. Remember that Aesop Fable where the frogs ask their God to give them something to govern them, and then their God gives them a stork who *s up all the frogs, it is like that, except without any morals as well as any moral to the story. We're getting ****ed over big time, and accepting it because we believe it is addressing a concern. Pleb Morality.

 

[Long Live HFC]

So you would argue the recent increase in cost by big business of electricity cost means they are showing initiative to tackle climate change?

seriously man, this is getting tiresome. i've spelled it out as simply as i can, and provided sources. if you don't understand what's being discussed by this point it's not my fault.

 

[RupieDupie]

seriously man, this is getting tiresome. i've spelled it out as simply as i can, and provided sources. if you don't understand what's being discussed by this point it's not my fault.

I thought this was good robust discussion, but I don't believe you have convinced me and I believe I have been unable to convince you. I definitely understand what you are stating, you are stating that taxing big business, who pass the cost onto the customer, reduces whatever the problem it it that the Government is trying to solve. I disagree. Furthermore I believe this kind of thinking is consenting to the butt raping that Government regularly provides to the Australian public, and therefore making it consensual sex rather than a butt-raping.

 

[Eaglespur]

http://sacredgeometryinternational.com/randall-carlson-climate-change-real-deniers

Well worth the read guys.

 

[Long Live HFC]

I definitely understand what you are stating, you are stating that taxing big business, who pass the cost onto the customer, reduces whatever the problem it it that the Government is trying to solve. I disagree.

yeah you disagree, but that's literally all you've said. you haven't supported that disagreement with anything at all. because ultimately, your disagreement relies on an implicit assumption that taxation doesn't change behaviour, when we all know that it does. you also haven't supported your "disagreement" that consumers should be responsible for the financial or lifestyle choices that they make.

Furthermore I believe this kind of thinking is consenting to the butt raping that Government regularly provides to the Australian public, and therefore making it consensual sex rather than a butt-raping.

and the tripling of the tax-free threshold was what, a reach around?

 

[RupieDupie]

yeah you disagree, but that's literally all you've said. you haven't supported that disagreement with anything at all. because ultimately, your disagreement relies on an implicit assumption that taxation doesn't change behaviour, when we all know that it does. you also haven't supported your "disagreement" that consumers should be responsible for the financial or lifestyle choices that they make.



and the tripling of the tax-free threshold was what, a reach around?

If the argument fits though, why do I need to continue to change it?

Thus, I can always point out that;
1) climate change would already be tackled if this solution worked, therefore the problem does not even exist anymore (and you've made your arguments)
2) business can increase the product cost to give the same solution (and you've made your arguments)
3) when the government is serious about a problem, like "boat people" they tackle the issue proactively (and you've made your arguments)
4) accepting increased taxation to solve a problem the government cannot be ****ed solving is pleb morality (and you've made your arguments)

Hence the stalemate we are currently at

 

[Long Live HFC]

like i said, tiresome. unless you have some kind of learning or reading disability (and if so i apologise) you are obtusely refusing to actually discuss anything even remotely on topic.

 

[RupieDupie]

like i said, tiresome. unless you have some kind of learning or reading disability (and if so i apologise) you are obtusely refusing to actually discuss anything even remotely on topic.

Unfortunately not, because I can summarise your argument as follows;

1) anthropogenic climate change is occurring
2) a climate tax can tackle climate change

What's so complicated for me to understand about that argument?

But what you are forgetting is;

3) Australia introduced a climate tax years ago. Fact.

Therefore if your argument is correct;

4) climate change has now been tackled...

 

[bombersfan4000]

I would be interested if he did an honest recap of the claims he made 11 years ago and how the predictions predictions fared.

And address the British court case which found a number of factually incorrect statements were in the film.


But somehow i dont think he will do that.

And the climate change government funded departments, scientists & UN have wasted trillions of tax payer funds haven’t gotten a thing right and nothing is asked!

The irony in the hypocrisy

 

[bombersfan4000]

Unfortunately not, because I can summarise your argument as follows;

1) anthropogenic climate change is occurring
2) a climate tax can tackle climate change

What's so complicated for me to understand about that argument?

But what you are forgetting is;

3) Australia introduced a climate tax years ago. Fact.

Therefore if your argument is correct;

4) climate change has now been tackled...

Climate change has been around for thousands of years so has man made!
Volcano ash
FFS the omissions a cow lets off is classed under man climate change!

Another tax
Lol just another revenue raiser and more useless government departments created filled with people idiots who continue to manipulate date and make claims every few years after to continue to be found BS
But but we had the science wrong!

 

[LuckyHawk]

Australia contribute 3% of total CO2 emissions p.a. Thats 3% of the 3 parts per million increase of CO2 gas in the atmosphere p.a.
(the 3 parts is a high end figure). Therefore we are responsible for 1 part per 11 million of the increase. What the hell are we
worried about. There is no need for wholesale change and knee jerk reactions affecting the way we live. Man made climate
change is the greatest con of all time.

 

[Lebbo73]

madmug so as not to go off topic on the Trump thread

Here is one example of debate being stifled:
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/sacked-academics-160000-legal-bid/news-story/1e5c

“Physics professor Peter Ridd, sacked by James Cook University last week for allegedly breaching the institution’s code of conduct, has raised $160,000 in only three days to help fund his legal case against the university.

On Saturday, after Professor Ridd’s sacking was revealed in The Australian, the scientist reopened his GoFundMe page and closed it on Monday night after the $160,000 target for his legal defence had been reached.

The money is additional to $100,000 raised in only two days in February for his legal case, which he launched against the university last year.

In his case Professor Ridd alleges senior staff of the university exhibited bias towards him and had not acted fairly or in good faith.

Professor Ridd, a researcher in coastal oceanography and reef systems, has said that other scientists, including former colleagues, at JCU have exaggerated dangers to the Great Barrier Reef, saying that events such as coral bleaching occur naturally at regular intervals followed by recovery.

• 
  
  
  • READ MORE
• Comment: Wrong to rid itself of RiddDON AITKIN

In a statement on Sunday JCU explained the sacking, saying it had no objection to Professor Ridd raising scientific research issues. “However, the university has objected to the manner in which he has done this. He has sensationalised his comments to attract attention, has criticised and denigrated published work, and has demonstrated a lack of respect for his colleagues and institutions in doing so,” deputy vice-chancellor Iain Gordon said in the statement.

Professor Gordon said Professor Ridd’s “academic freedom is not and has never been at issue and is not related to the termination of his employment”.

“His employment was terminated by reason of his repeated refusal to comply with the university code of conduct and the repeated disrespect he showed for the university as a senior employee,” he said.

Commenting on the case, federal Education Minister Simon Birmingham said “researchers and universities should be willing to have their work stand up to scrutiny”.

“Any university should be encouraging their researchers and students to ask questions, not shutting down debate,” he said.

Professor Ridd said yesterday his next step was to wait for the court case.

“We expect to win,” he said.”

 

[Thegibbsgamble]

Yeah, but taxing business does not solve the issue it only passes a cost onto the customers.

You're missing the whole point of the tax
If those taxes are redirected into planing trees,
Allowing the indigenous more control of the environment and solar powering people's homes who can't afford the tax.solar powering government buildings ect. Investing in renewable energy

Then the companies profiting from the destruction of our planet will have to change

 

[madmug]

madmug so as not to go off topic on the Trump thread

Here is one example of debate being stifled:
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/sacked-academics-160000-legal-bid/news-story/1e5c

“Physics professor Peter Ridd, sacked by James Cook University last week for allegedly breaching the institution’s code of conduct, has raised $160,000 in only three days to help fund his legal case against the university.

On Saturday, after Professor Ridd’s sacking was revealed in The Australian, the scientist reopened his GoFundMe page and closed it on Monday night after the $160,000 target for his legal defence had been reached.

The money is additional to $100,000 raised in only two days in February for his legal case, which he launched against the university last year.

In his case Professor Ridd alleges senior staff of the university exhibited bias towards him and had not acted fairly or in good faith.

Professor Ridd, a researcher in coastal oceanography and reef systems, has said that other scientists, including former colleagues, at JCU have exaggerated dangers to the Great Barrier Reef, saying that events such as coral bleaching occur naturally at regular intervals followed by recovery.

• 
  
  
  • READ MORE
• Comment: Wrong to rid itself of RiddDON AITKIN

In a statement on Sunday JCU explained the sacking, saying it had no objection to Professor Ridd raising scientific research issues. “However, the university has objected to the manner in which he has done this. He has sensationalised his comments to attract attention, has criticised and denigrated published work, and has demonstrated a lack of respect for his colleagues and institutions in doing so,” deputy vice-chancellor Iain Gordon said in the statement.

Professor Gordon said Professor Ridd’s “academic freedom is not and has never been at issue and is not related to the termination of his employment”.

“His employment was terminated by reason of his repeated refusal to comply with the university code of conduct and the repeated disrespect he showed for the university as a senior employee,” he said.

Commenting on the case, federal Education Minister Simon Birmingham said “researchers and universities should be willing to have their work stand up to scrutiny”.

“Any university should be encouraging their researchers and students to ask questions, not shutting down debate,” he said.

Professor Ridd said yesterday his next step was to wait for the court case.

“We expect to win,” he said.”

You quote one example, of one marine biologist, highlighted by Bolt & the Oz paper. So the Universities has no good reason for this?

What about Trump effectively killing off the US EPA? Thats ok of course.

 

[Lebbo73]

You quote one example, of one marine biologist, highlighted by Bolt & the Oz paper. So the Universities has no good reason for this?

What about Trump effectively killing off the US EPA? Thats ok of course.

No it isn’t ok depending on what he killed off! If he killed off anything to do with restricting carbon emissions releases, that is a good thing. The evidence flys in the face of those who believe it causes climate change.

 

[Bradesmaen]

No it isn’t ok depending on what he killed off! If he killed off anything to do with restricting carbon emissions releases, that is a good thing. The evidence flys in the face of those who believe it causes climate change.

Evidence? There is no evidence. It's misread data from one person...

Seriously, does anyone else on this forum actually understand how to read?

 

[bombersfan4000]

Evidence? There is no evidence. It's misread data from one person...

Seriously, does anyone else on this forum actually understand how to read?

Yes everyone else is stupid except you!

 

[RupieDupie]

You're missing the whole point of the tax
If those taxes are redirected into planing trees,
Allowing the indigenous more control of the environment and solar powering people's homes who can't afford the tax.solar powering government buildings ect. Investing in renewable energy

Then the companies profiting from the destruction of our planet will have to change

But you’re presuming there is a humane government acting in the best interests of the populace, the Australian Gubmint only looks out for the Australian Gubmint and their buddies.

The easier way to mitigate the issue, at a household level, is to give every household solar panels to supplement their energy intake, and also contribute to the grid, it’s not as if the technology doesn’t exist, it’s not as if Australia doesn’t have any sunshine.

The cost, I imagine, would be about the same as it is to keep the 3 refugees locked up in an offshore detention centre.

 

[Thegibbsgamble]

But you’re presuming there is a humane government acting in the best interests of the populace, the Australian Gubmint only looks out for the Australian Gubmint and their buddies.

The easier way to mitigate the issue, at a household level, is to give every household solar panels to supplement their energy intake, and also contribute to the grid, it’s not as if the technology doesn’t exist, it’s not as if Australia doesn’t have any sunshine.

The cost, I imagine, would be about the same as it is to keep the 3 refugees locked up in an offshore detention centre.

That idea is very good and productive. Helps mitigate poverty as well

However

The use of fossil fuels is less than half the problem. The destruction of the earths ability to filter carbon is the major issue

Who pays for this.

 

[madmug]

No it isn’t ok depending on what he killed off! If he killed off anything to do with restricting carbon emissions releases, that is a good thing. The evidence flys in the face of those who believe it causes climate change.

This is the nub of the problem. The data on the Anthropogenic cause of our current climate effects is solid by the accounts of the vast majority of qualified researchers & research papers. Having science based argument is fine. The majority are in the affirmative in so far as to the causes of current climate change.

Quoting Bolt, Monckton or any other commentator is just embarrassing. They have no more clue than me. I tend to believe the weight of data based evidence. Opinion & 'belief' really matters not.

 

[Thegibbsgamble]

This is the nub of the problem. The data on the Anthropogenic cause of our current climate effects is solid by the accounts of the vast majority of qualified researchers & research papers. Having science based argument is fine. The majority are in the affirmative in so far as to the causes of current climate change.

Quoting Bolt, Monckton or any other commentator is just embarrassing. They have no more clue than me. I tend to believe the weight of data based evidence. Opinion & 'belief' really matters not.

Strange.

The causes of global warming are undeniable but people still feel the need to argue.

Yet the issue of same sex marriage highly debatable and the side with all the history and science abused

Strange world.

 

[madmug]

Strange.

The causes of global warming are undeniable but people still feel the need to argue.

Yet the issue of same sex marriage highly debatable and the side with all the history and science abused

Strange world.

Thats what 'belief' does. Thats why we use the scientific method to try to understand the world, what we do in it & to it & advance ourselves.

Belief is what dummies use to kid themselves in the world of reality. They usually start from their prejudices & biases & work from that basis.

Belief in some metaphysical being is fine. Operationalising it to dominate over others is when it becomes 'not fine'