Makes sense. Everything we buy is already produced overseas, why not extend that to content?
82 posts • joined 10 May 2010
Australia introduced a "Carbon Tax" last year. The purpose was to make Australians pay just a little bit more for mostly electricity related products - nothing you'd notice, or course - and in return completely fix the weather for the better.
I'm pleased to report after only one year the weather is already smashing, and a healthy industry has bloomed in rigging up subsidized home solar farms.
Congratulations Julia Gillard, Penny Wong, et al. And good for their friends who've done well from the solar boom by being in the right place at the right time. Who could see that coming? Only a genius.
This is how it's done.
Never mind the price of the lower end model, spec it up a bit and that's when you see the real divergence.
You pay another 100 pounds to get GPS (and 3G) and a further 80 pounds to get another 16GB of storage. And chances are you'll want to do that.
16GB is pittance, and it's a pain in the arse getting data on and off IOS devices unless you like waiting for hours while your Dropbox syncs, instead of minutes if the Internet didn't have to get involved.
Many Android tabs come with GPS as standard, can be expanded cheaply using a card slot and support USB OTG because it's really bloody useful. It's a pity reviewers of these products didn't knock a few points off their reviews for that.
Never mind, you can always email that 2GB MKV to yourself. Makes sense.
Australia's already fixed the weather by bringing in a Carbon Tax. As soon as you get off the plane you can feel the weather is exactly right, the way God (the one worshipped by Kevin Rudd) intended it.
I hope this is good news to all of you who are terrified by the drumbeat of articles like this.
Australia's Carbon Tax
It's also unpopular because:
only the most gullible believe making energy more expensive will directly improve the weather.
only the most gullible believe money from such a tax will result in the invention of an alternative energy source.
everyone understands making energy more expensive will worsen one's standard of living.
Plus, the sheer level of bluffing bullshit sprouted by those introducing has been breathtaking.
For the last few years I've been getting around 60 messages per day from one bot network. All the domains are registered by Moniker and Enom; they must register at least 100 a day.
Rarely watches and Viagra, this one does stuff like Raspberry Ketone, travel deals, loan advances and discount coupons. About ten different themes, spread across multiple slight variations. Every day without fail they come in around the time the USA gets out of bed.
Surely whoever's behind this insanity understands that this isn't marketing it's an attack that will take down an email address. But the same emails keep coming. Day after day after day.
Deniers, ye shall burn in Hell for eternity
We must heed the prophecy. End of Days is upon us.
Those amongst us who have sinned. Those amongst us who given birth to the beast that is the baby human. Ye shall burn in Hell for eternity.
For none is more guilty than the woman who brings upon the Earth the pestilence that is the human being. Who by its biological nature breathes out the very poison that is killing our planet.
Carbon, my friends, is the evil by which the Earth shall be delivered to the Devil. And ye who create it with your motor vehicles and your electric lights, ye shall be punished.
I urge you to repent before all is lost.
The only path to salvation is through flagellation in the form of taxation.
We must pay more. More for everything. And worry. Worry about everything.
It is the word of our prophets.
Or the exact opposite.
I've been studying the works of a German social engineer from the mid Twentieth Century - a forward thinking, yet deeply misunderstood vegetarian - who asserted that humankind should isolate genetic markers favourable to its survival and carry only those forward.
The genetic marker he had in mind is in fact the same gene common to 99% of the Green intellectual movement, one that manifests itself in a lighter shade of skin tone.
If were to simply weed out those who don't carry this Green intellectual gene - some 80% of the world's population - we would immediately solve the biggest crisis facing the human race, the overproduction of CO2.
I believe this could be the Final Solution.
I agree with the environmentalists. The only way to prevent the catastrophic temperature rise is to immediately abate C02 production. And the only way to do this with any chance of being effective is to cull at least 80% of the excess humans on the planet.
The hard part is deciding which to get rid of first. Who contributes least? Who do we continue having to prop up? Let's round them up, and gas the lot of them.
That's what you're getting at isn't it?
Re: Re: Will be interesting to see how the "mainstream" news media report this
It'll be even more interesting to see whether the Guardian etc print any kind of retraction for using a fake document in their smear.
If you need any further proof that there's an aggressive conspiracy that's manipulating the media to silence dissent on this issue, you need only follow the progress of this story:
Re: Re: Re: AGW denier propaganda
"6) Temperatures fall over several decades"
Very few so-called "skeptics" argue that temperatures haven't risen. But there is a significant school of thought that they won't continue to rise, for varying reasons. That's the thing with science, especially one as wooly as this: it's never settled.
Of course none of this matters, because the real issue is how we react to it. That's where the mountains of bullshit start, and no matter how much you want the sky to be falling you should still have the integrity to say no to the rampant profiteering that's been exploiting this scaremongering.
Taxing carbon will not suddenly invent cheap power. The incentive is already there for other reasons.
Re: Re: Y2Kyoto
""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. "
Indeed, most so-called "skeptics" - including Anthony Watts - would also answer "yes."
Lie gets halfway around the world
Heartland says at least one document is a fake:
Watts responds calmly:
Watts, McIntyre and other reputable scientists who are trying to move this subject forward would do well to distance themselves from conservative "think tanks" and slimy leftist creepfests like DeSmog Blog and their ilk.
Any scientist who doesn't consider themself instinctively a "skeptic" on any aspect of their chosen field should give up science and go work in the media or PR. And leave the fear peddling to the Guardian.
Re: Re: Not actually much money relatively.
Raising the cost of fossil fuel use raises the cost of living. Every part of living. Or put another way reduces the standard of living, contracts the economy and increases hardship.
It's fine to fantasize that making power more expensive will somehow make more expensive power more viable, but the goal should be making power cheaper.
If you think we're using a lot of C02 producing energy right now, just wait until the emerging industrial world, most of which lies in the tropics - and which has explosive population growth - demands air conditioning and the other trappings we enjoy right now.
Yes, there is a solution - if there is indeed a problem - and it's not changing our power source. It's culling 80% of the world's population. Starting with the most useless unproductive ones. Now which ones would that be?
Certainly save some money in aid wouldn't it?