CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
It ties into your question precisely, because it is another example of the exact same fallacy. I also explained why your question is a fallacy, so I'm not really interested in your generic wall of denial.
There would be no "men funneling electricity" comparison 2,000+ years ago, so it is obvious that man didn't create climate change or lightning 2,000+ years ago. The only answer 2,000 years ago is nature.
Nobody has ever suggested man created climate change, either ancient or modern. Hence, your statement is both a straw man argument and a red herring, in that it is a conclusion which -- while correct -- has no relevance. It is therefore simply a form of misdirection.
There was drastic climate change in ancient times.
There is a stack of scientific evidence that man is negatively affecting the climate in modern times. Hence, this statement is also a red herring fallacy.
There has been no drastic climate change anywhere near this scale in your lifetime.
Despite having your fallacy explained and exemplified, instead of revising it you appear to simply be trying to force it down my throat. There have been no surges of electricity as large or as dramatic as a lightning storm in my lifetime, but this does not prove electricity is not real. You are simply trying to forcibly conflate two non-related phenomena and pretend that the existence of the first disproves the existence of the second. It doesn't, so stfu.
There was drastic climate change in ancient times.
There is a stack of scientific evidence that man is negatively affecting the climate in modern times. Hence, this statement is also a red herring fallacy.
Define "negatively affecting". If you need more rain where you're at and the climate gets wetter, that's not a negative affect to you. It's semantics. You still haven't defined how the climate "should be" to say whether any theoretical change is "negative" or not.
I'm giving you an example of huge climate change examples that cannot be attributed to man.
For unknown reason, since huge climate change which is not attributable to man obviously does not disprove that man can make huge climate changes of his own. It isn't difficult to understand how you're using a logical fallacy, bronto. You are just refusing.
For unknown reason, since huge climate change which is not attributable to man obviously does not disprove that man can make huge climate changes of his own.
The climate hasn't changed much in centuries. You are trying to convince me something is there that no one can even see.
It isn't difficult to understand how you're using a logical fallacy, bronto. You are just refusing.
I don't know what a bronto is. I only speak English.
The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia.
You still are yet to show us any drastic climate change. You are claiming there is a drastic change while not once showing us that there even is one in the first place.
You still haven't shown us what the climate "should" look like to say it's being affected in a "negative" way.
The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia.
You are simply trying to forcibly conflate two non-related phenomena and pretend that the existence of the first disproves the existence of the second.
They are related. If you tried to say your team can't score because of Joey Bag of Doughnuts, and I show you your team not scoring many times before Joey Bag of Doughnuts was on your team, that casts reasonable doubt on the claim that he is the problem.
You can sit there and declare he is "the problem" because he is there now, but if your team sucked prior to him being on it, the claim that he is the problem is certainly in doubt. Maybe your team just sucks with or without him.
It is the same here. We have massive climate change prior to industrialization. We now have comparably minor climate change during industrialization. The constant variable is climate changing no matter what in either scenario.
No, they clearly are NOT related. You have shown us absolutely no evidence that the existence of sunken cities proves that mankind is not harming the environment in an egregious manner. You are simply talking complete bollocks like the moronic idiot you are.
No, they clearly are NOT related. You have shown us absolutely no evidence that the existence of sunken cities proves that mankind is not harming the environment in an egregious manner.
I have shown you an example of extreme climate change that is generated by the Earth on its own, with or without man.
You are simply talking complete bollocks like the moronic idiot you are.
I have shown you an example of extreme climate change that is generated by the Earth on its own
And I showed you an example of electricity which is generated by the Earth on its own. Therefore, by your very own logic man does not generate electricity.
You see how that works, you obnoxiously silly child?
You have no idea what thermostats of the past were calibrated to to know there has actually been any serious temperature change. For all you know, it's cooled half a degree. I think it might have cooled 2 degrees.
SUPER STUPID is the so called melting ice in Greenland raising the levels of the Pacific Ocean ????????? LMMFAO !!!!!!! SUPER STUPID is California under water yet?
It's a good question.. I'm gonna ask a scientist..
Sure ya are con. You're going to also ignore that the climate cycles to extreme cold and extreme hot naturally, in cycles, pre man, according to....scientists...
Most of them are due to land shifts or volcanic activity. Back then they knew the land was fertile but didn't know about tectonic plates, they weren't entirely aware of what caused volcano's nor did they realize that volcanic activity from a great distance could cause a tsunami.
Of course their ignorance in where to build doesn't have anything to do with man made climate change today. We still build in dangerous location but our actions and technology now contribute a great deal to the climate. Yes Earth has changed over time and will continue to do so but again, that doesn't mean we aren't adjusting it to our detriment as well.
Jewel are you saying the Leftist Elite should not burn fossil fuel all the while saying the common people are adding to the fake Climate Chaos issue ? What makes sense in the confused world you people exist in ?????????
I'll make you tap dance with a banana up your ass while I fuck a jar of mayonaise. Then I will make you a sandwich with the mayonaise and you won't be able to tell because jizz looks like mayonaise.
Leftist are you saying that Leftist weren't entirely aware of what caused volcano's?
Just about everything you say is as ridiculous as this statement. Honestly I rarely waste my time trying to debate with you anymore, God knows you never read or comprehend what's being said.