59
By WalkTheOtherWay / Sunday 1 February 2015 02:29 / Canada - Toronto
Add a comment
You must be logged in to be able to post comments!
Create my account Sign in
Top comments
Comments
By  184886837272837  |  31

Well... you certainly didn't do the best job of representing whatever side you were arguing for.

By  Hollywoodgirl79  |  18

I do that all the time, OP. I'm the worst at debate because I always get tongue tied and say the worst thing possible. They'll start believing in climate change when their houses are underwater.

Reply
  Brandi_Faith  |  33

23, because in the FML it says he was having a debate about climate change. When he was talking about volcanoes it was in regards to the effects of climate change. :)

Reply
  be82tw  |  16

@32, @7-Volcanos would be drivers, not effects, of climate change. More importantly, BOTH sides of the debate invoke the carbon cycle. In particular, many people who are skeptical of human driven global warming will reference the amount of CO2 from non human driven sources, such as vulcanism. There are also arguments about whether CO2 is on balance a result or a driver of climate change and whether climate change is a positive or negative feedback cycle. My point isn't pro or con global climate change (and the debate is INFINITELY more complicated than that, really), but rather that you are making rather broad assumptions as to OP's position. And, frankly, his position doesn't matter: slipping into buffyspeak in a debate is just not a good thing. Sorry OP.

Reply
  be82tw  |  16

@23--In science, few things are considered "scientific law," and frankly even those go out the window if we find new ways to test them. The fact is, no model of climate change has accurately predicted the climate trend we are experiencing. Climate change models had to be drastically changed to account for some of the extremely hard winters in recent years, as an example: that is why the term "Polar Vortex" is suddenly used (incorrectly) so much and why we now say climate change instead of global warming. This is not a bad thing: proving what is wrong with a model allows us to refine and correct bad assumptions, which allows us, error by error, to approach the truth. But it also shows that we DON'T know everything about how climate changes over long periods of time. There is a lot of prestige, power and, crass but true, money on the line for people to claim to have all the answers.

Reply
  Crypticedge  |  6

@52 actually there have been great many models that explained this would happen, they even made a shitty movie called the day after tomorrow that was partially a parody of the very model that has consistently been proven to be accurate. Only a very small subset of science denying individuals think that it's inconclusive, and 98% of all climate scientists are in agreement that it is both man made and that it is an imminent danger to life on earth. The 2% that disagree? Funded by the oil industry. Follow the money.

Reply
  Baustigt  |  40

But the difficult and controversial subjects are precisely the ones we SHOULD be arguing about. Otherwise ignorance just runs rampant and unchallenged. And stupid people come into power. And then things like Scientology happen.

Loading data…