VolcaNO

atleast its a brain fart and not a real one in a debate.

I think a brain fart might be worse during a debate. If it had been a real fart, the smell could have distracted the opponents.

All sympathies to OP, but it's true; OP honestly didn't represent their side in the best manner. Can't deny it.

Honestly that should be the scientific term for a volcanoe, it sounds much better

Definitely more descriptive. And more fun. Can be a volcano without exploding....but now, there's no question on the boom.

How do you know OP wasn't arguing against climate change? Side note I thought all those "debates" were settled by now.

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. :)

@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.

@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.

@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.