Human activities play an important role in destroying the ecosystem.

[FlyingJesus]

1. Planets are formed in similar ways.

lmao only the first 4 planets in our solar system are even solid let alone built the same. If you want to debate a point you shouldn't depend on conjecture (Venus MIGHT have had a similar atmosphere to Earth) and false facts (planets are formed in similar ways)

[Conservative,]

Man-made global warming climate change has the same amount of truth and evidence as the 21st May Judgement Day prediction.

I'm sorry but I refuse to believe until sufficient evidence is put forward to me, that we are the cause of slight increases in global temperatures (minuscule...as in 10 to the -3/4/5).

The earth (as proven by scientists) goes through fluctuations of hot and cold periods. These have happened long before and will happen long after man kind existed.

30 years ago they taught in schools that there would be an ice age within a century or so. Then they taught us the planet is warming up too much and that the heat will go out of control. Now they have realised they don't have sufficient evidence for either and want more funding to put into pointless research so scare the governments by saying 'climate change' is happening. Yes, it is, on a very very small scale which is natural. However we have nothing to do with it.

[Celacia]

If you want to debate a point you shouldn't depend on...

Look, we're getting off topic and I don't feel like arguing this point, but you can't attack character or say something is wrong without backing up your claim.

And yes, planets are formed in the same way.

"The prevailing theory is that they are formed during the collapse of a nebula into a thin disk of gas and dust. A protostar forms at the core, surrounded by a rotating protoplanetary disk. Through accretion (a process of sticky collision) dust particles in the disk steadily accumulate mass to form ever-larger bodies. Local concentrations of mass known as planetesimals form, and these accelerate the accretion process by drawing in additional material by their gravitational attraction. These concentrations become ever denser until they collapse inward under gravity to form protoplanets.[65] After a planet reaches a diameter larger than the Earth's moon, it begins to accumulate an extended atmosphere, greatly increasing the capture rate of the planetesimals by means of atmospheric drag.[66]"

[FlyingJesus]

I can cook scrambled eggs in a pan, I can cook pasta in a pan, therefore eggs = pasta? This is essentially what you're suggesting now.

Earth and Venus are not anywhere near being the same planet, so your point that you originally brought up about greenhouse effects doesn't make any sense. I could say "MAYBE Venus was once a lush and vibrant planet but then lack of nuclear leakage and CO2 gases turned it into a desolate giant stormplain", but it wouldn't hold any weight in a debate.

[Celacia]

I can cook scrambled eggs in a pan, I can cook pasta in a pan, therefore eggs = pasta? This is essentially what you're suggesting now.

Earth and Venus are not anywhere near being the same planet, so your point that you originally brought up about greenhouse effects doesn't make any sense. I could say "MAYBE Venus was once a lush and vibrant planet but then lack of nuclear leakage and CO2 gases turned it into a desolate giant stormplain", but it wouldn't hold any weight in a debate.

I'm done trying to get through to you.

Also, stop making points without backing them up.

Be sure to read all the rules of the debating forums, which are located here.

[Celacia]

When I was referring to Venus, I didn't mean for it to distract from the issue at hand.

I merely listed it as an example of a planet that:
-Is solid
-Has an atmosphere
-Has an overabundance of greenhouse gasses that make the planet unlivable

I suggested that at one time:
-It may have been similar to Earth. I backed that up with facts like the crust of Venus is 500 million years older than Earths, our past ice ages were caused by global warming, which was initially caused by volcanic activity and other factors, much like Venus, Venus is in the Goldilocks zone, much like Earth, etc.

[-:Undertaker:-]

When humans advance technology, we don't usually like to go backward. People want to live with the same amenities they have experienced in the past. With our current advancements in alternative energy, we simply cannot supply the sheer amount of energy needed to power our homes, gadgets, vehicles, factories, etc.

Er we can actually. As of recent there have been massive shale gas and shale oil despoits found which will last for hudreds of years, coupled with the fact that the British Isles alone have enough coal to supply them for 350 years into the future. That is also not to mention the fact that there are vast oil and gas deposits not only that we know of, but those which we still have not explored.

The planet is bigger than humans like to imagine.

Wind = Clean, dependent, but just doesn't produce enough energy.
Hydroelectric = Dependent, destroys ecosystems, but overall an important energy source.
Geothermal = Short-term it's great, the elevation of areas using geothermal energy is dropping yearly, though. Also depends on the area.
Solar = expensive, daytime reliant, technology isn't good enough yet.
Nuclear = amazing energy output, dangerous, could be discontinued or changed, produces waste that we cannot efficiently destroy.

Indeed.

For us to continue living this way, we will need to use non-renewable energy, it's that simple. For us to reverse the atmospheric damage we would need to all but eliminate CO2 output for a little over 100 years.

This is something we do not need to do though because humans have a very little if no impact on the climate of the Earth and even if we did so, as you state - to prevent this we would have to go back to the stone age. World temperatures after all have fallen over the last 10 to 15 years, directly contradicting the claims of the AGW lobby.

[Celacia]

World temperatures after all have fallen over the last 10 to 15 years, directly contradicting the claims of the AGW lobby.

This type of rhetoric is ridiculous. Yes, there is variability, you're looking at a very small sample.

to prevent this we would have to go back to the stone age.

Nope. I'm just saying that the vast majority of our energy is supplied by fossil fuels and we don't have the resources, funding, or technology to change that at this point in time.

[-:Undertaker:-]

This type of rhetoric is ridiculous. Yes, there is variability, you're looking at a very small sample.

Well to be fair its not rhetoric, its just whats happened. Sure it doesn't fit into the AGW thesis, but too bad - afterall with Climategate we saw this confirmed, when the scientist/fraudster there said in an email (what he certainly wouldn't have said publically) that there has been cooling and that they simply cannot account for it when all their models predicted warming.

Nope. I'm just saying that the vast majority of our energy is supplied by fossil fuels and we don't have the resources, funding, or technology to change that at this point in time.

Indeed, thats my point.

[FlyingJesus]

I'm done trying to get through to you.

Also, stop making points without backing them up.

Be sure to read all the rules of the debating forums, which are located here.

Which points have I made without backup? Pretty sure I haven't actually been making new points for a few posts just taking yours apart, so it would be difficult for me to "stop" something that I'm not even doing... and I'm well aware of debate rules as well as debate etiquette, in which people don't bring up useless analogies to try proving a point that has no actual basis

You suggested that the Earth and Venus are similar enough that greenhouse gases are a probable cause of Venus' current state (and yes, you did infer that by simply replying "What about run away greenhouse effect? I don't suppose you've taken a look at Venus lately?")
You said that planets are formed in similar ways and tried using that to back up your ridiculous theory
You suggested that the way in which planets are created somehow means that they're all going to age the same way

And all of this because strangely enough on two solid planets the same materials exist. I see no backup of your argument, yet you're attempting to blast me for not backing myself up when I don't even have a need to. As for not meaning to change the subject, you're the one who threw Venus into the mix for no reason other than it having an uninhabitable atmosphere - I don't know if you tend to expect people to just bow down and agree with you when you come up with random theories but generally a debate does have people picking apart your ideas, especially absurd ones like that