Evolution and Christianity and Salvation

[tackattack]

Really protests and lighting things on fire don't work to change policy? I wouldn't have ever guessed that. </sarcasm> It's exactly my point. Lining companies pockets by taxation slowly doesn't work, and neither does rioting, burning things and hurting people because of a steep increase in price.

Taxes must be increased slowly to prevent riots is your actual point. The fact is taxes don't HAVE to be increased at all. It's not proven that throwing more money at something stops people from getting that thing, much less it's effect on where that money goes. What has been shown repeatedly is that taxing commodities benefits the rich. Benefits to the rich increase the likelihood of lobbyists for policies that continue to make them rich. By taxing gas, slowly or steeply, it just hurts the less wealthy and benefits the wealthy, and probably exacerbates the initial problem. Taxes on commodities hurt the populous, fines and regulation hinder companies. Not that there isn't some bleed over but generally doesn't that hold true?

With respect to the specific taxes in question, carbon taxes, it actually has proven to work, and the fears that this would tank an economy or hurt the poor appear to have been unfounded.

Poor implementation certainly could make it unworkable, or hurt the poor.  That's the case with just about anything, ofc.  The difference between instances in which it does what it's supposed to do and those when it doesn't (or causes some other issue) appear to revolve around implementation and educating the public.  Mostly because a well implemented but poorly communicated plan can work and still cause social unrest.  Gotta hand-hold some people all the way to their own better interests.

My mistake, I thought we were discussing taxing gas at the consumer point. If I understand it correctly Carbon tax is a tax on fuels extracted from the Earth at that upstream point. Then the costs are pushed downhill to consumers as markets allow. Ok, so it's like a federally instituted sin tax like taxing liquor and cigarettes because they're bad for people and we want to socially discourage that is effective at stopping those things? It might work, might not, I don't know the stats on that. If it does work it is because it is implemented upstream and it's really more of a permanent fine for something we want to stop needing. None of that mitigates where the money goes or what it's used for. Where has it been successful?

[The Grand Nudger]

As you mentioned, all costs are pushed downhill.  That's not a variable, at least not in the in the absence of price controls.  Implementing something upstream will do the same thing.  I do know the stats, and you could too if you looked them up - which you probably should.  

Sweden is the current darling of the carbon taxation model. There are others, you can certainly find them on your own, and we've been comparing the successes -and- the failures. The short version of a long story is that carbon taxes, in and of themselves, do work and don't crash economies. Those are fossil fuel industry canards meant to build public opposition. Insomuch as they might make product x more expensive..well, yeah, that's the point. If we're worried that this would then harm the poor, the answer to that is to earmark a portion of those revenues to offset the cost specifically for the most vulnerable consumers. Similarly, we have to account for labor displacement.

To use a simplified example that's even more aggressive than carbon taxation..if we wanted to aggressively tax gas vehicles out of existence, then we would have to put some of that revenue towards public transportation and the retraining of automotive workers, and all of this would have to be communicated to the public so transparently and so well that they then had confidence in the plan. We know by reference to successful -and- failed attempts that these are the criteria.

[Drich]

I wasn't calling you stupid.

good lord brother.. you seem to view everything I say through 'stupid color lenses.' I don't think everything is stupid nor did i say you think I'm stupid. I said in direct repose to you being 'bothered by scrolling a wall of text just to get to a you are stupid comment bothered you.. I made the point that I spent hours putting together that wall of text, and if scrolling down it was such a big bother, you should try researching everything I did and compile that wall yourself if you want to know 'bothered' just to have the person you are putting such a great effort into just ignore it like a common moron. meaning that was the source of the frustration of name calling. that's what these guys do. the more you put into something the cheaper and faster they hit the dummy panic button and stop reading, and start withthe one line insults that could fit any number of things you might have to say!

To deny that humans have had historically no negative impact impact on their environment is a stupid stance to take.

just like you took no time to read what I said... you just repeating you position over and over despite the research and effort on my part. because again masked in a climate debate is the real reason for the discussion!!! That you seemed to miss.. That is one of faith. The only reason I provided all of that ther data was to show a preference or an expendture of faith in al gore's science verse what was believed and supported over the last 500 or so years. Again the object was faith and how they use it with in their precious religion without thought most of the time. they just believe like sheep because they are shown to believe in things packed a certain wa by a certain group or authority. Never the less it is the same faith God requires. a faith they claim not to have. by showing their belief in a 20 year old theory verse 500 years of proof and data shows an exterme amount of faith considering most of them do not understand how and why the 'sky is falling.'

That has been the overall flavor of your posts. If you are arguing that the numbers are not accurately representative and there are better solutions when those are factored in, then make that point.

and if you simply read a line or two and tried to assess the body of my workby the first few lines??? Would you not then draw the same wrong conclusion you just did?

To be honest I readnot one word of anything you say, because I hnestly do not care. I know you are doing what you do to the best of your ablity. which for me is enough to let you work the ground like you are the only person here. Unless you address me. then i read ever word and contimplate what and where you are going then I read to make sure my conclusions are indeed your own. then think and formulate a response often times line by line.

A courtesy it is clear you do not extend to me, as you are so far off topic itis a wonder you bothered to quote anything I said. As this is you telling me how it is i differ from you (what I am doing differntly and wrong)

I also commented on your wall of text because there is a forum rule on quoting large posts as well as it's improper netiquette to quote large posts or re quote videos, etc as per the forum netiquette guide located here : https://atheistforums.org/thread-3469.html . Just making you aware because it seems to be a habit of yours.

there is also a rule about calling people out but that does not seem to matter much does it when you are again taking the chance on telling me how i am teaching things the wrong way.

I'm sure the effort to respond to the opponents every point is appreciated in your discourse, it's simply your delivery that might make people prone to not read it. See my quote of you for an example.

Again if i wrote the text. It was a quoting error douche, i wish i could go back and fix it but at the time it was posted I was out the door, and by the time I saw it the next day it was too late.

Sorry you do not like my long posts but again i take the time to address everything for a reason. I do not hide my broken theology or bad understanding God behind general answers that are supposed to sum up pages of dialog. no I pick out every single question and concern and give them a thorough answer each and every time! If that bothers you old sport just put me on ignore or simply do not read my posts. you will not hurt my feelings either way.

[The Grand Nudger]

If your overarching point was that it takes faith to accept hard data and basic chemistry, you are plain and simply wrong.  If you thought that you'd presented some alternative to agw, you are plain and simply wrong, and wouldn't have been able to demonstrate your overarching point with that even if you hadn't been.

[tackattack]

@Drich It may have been your point that the same faith is required to believe in Al Gore's science as a Christians faith in God, which is good as that's closer to the topic of the thread than the long derailed conversations about climate change. After reviewing every word and link in your past 20 posts it would have been a lot easier just to say that, but it really appeared you were arguing about incorrect facts regarding climate change and demanding apologies from the chicken littles in the thread. There are rules about calling people out by creating a thread. please review them more closely. As I don't think this is on topic, important, recoverable or productive, I'll bow out of the thread now. Have a wonderful rest of your day.

[Amarok]

Accept it isn't Al Gores science . Al Gore isn't a scientist nor are any of his opinions a confirmation or refutation of the science behind climate change .

---

it really appeared you were arguing about incorrect facts regarding climate change and demanding apologies from the chicken littles in the thread.

Too bad he has yet to show any incorrect facts aside his own and there are no "chicken littles" in this.  thread . But there is one . There is only one fools who's driving into a wall while declare it doesn't exist .




"the wall doesn't exist it's all an evil ploy by Al Gore to tax you "