"Alarmists say that CO2 is the only thing that affects climate"
I would agree that this is a ridiculous statement to make. A much better one is to say that alarmists have too easily dismissed other factors that affect the climate including human ones like land use, aerosols and urban energy expenditure. This is becoming much more clear with recent global surface temperature data.
By the way, this question is in itself a strawman argument to try and show your "opposition" doesn't have a leg to stand on. How ironic.
Sagebrush mostly uses false, taken out of context and irrelevant "quotes", he uses straw man arguments and rarely debates the science. The facts are that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that without greenhouse gasses the earth average temperature would be 33C colder (a giant snowball) and that we have added 40% more CO2 to the atmosphere. There is not one person who denies these facts, so deniers use a different tactic and set up straw men because they have nothing else.
Part of the solution to get the debate back to the science is to expose their mentality by posting quotes made by them, like the following quotes by Sagebrush (a self proclaimed Christian and ardent AGW denier) : "Execute all those who voted for OBAMA" and "Hire the handicapped, they are fun to watch!"
I also find referring heir straw man arguments to Skepticalscience dot com a simple way to deal with them as they keep a list of the more common denier claims and debunks each and every one of them. And to show how each of their "new ideas" have been answered time and time again.
My advise for you is to stick to the facts when answering question and post questions like this in philosophy as you will get better replies there then any one here (including me) can give you.
You've got to be like 12. Let me grab the lowest common denomenator from the other side, claim that's their strongest argument, and repeat.
We have proof that warmons don't make that claim because the ozone hole is keeping antartica from melting like we thought it would, natural variability is keeping the earth from warming like we predicted, the warming is hidden somewhere in the ocean.
The Billionaires have paid good money to fake "scientists" to deny Global Warming anyway they can. And it's been very successful. LOTS and LOTS of right wing morons have signed up for the HOAX idea. You can read their stinking lies here everyday on Answers.
Doesn't much matter what stupid argument you use - you can really screw up our efforts to do anything about Global Warming. And stupid people don't know what Straw Man is.... or care. They just feel the need to serve their Billionaire Masters.
Of course, but it doesn't make them seem a tenth as stupid as people who chant denier and heretic at people with legitimate scientific queries, they're like some kind of religious nut jobs akin to Jehovah's witnesses
break the wall down
It isn't skeptics that pretend the world's climate is driven by CO2. It never was before but alarmists pretend to know because evil humans and capitalism is around now, they must be the cause right now. If you think that is a stupid argument, you should consider not supporting it.
They keep making them, so obviously not. Left to themselves the denialists av effectively destroyed their own arguments
According to "Inconvenience Truth" the world only had until 2008 to stop global warming. Now it is TOO LATE.
90% of humanity will die HORRIBLE deaths from floods, hurricanes, droughts, blizzards, tsunamis and earthquakes.
Only the Lear jet people like Michael Moore and Al Gore will survive the coming climate APOCALYPSE in their underground mansions.
People often post absurd strawman arguments here, (for example, "Alarmists say that CO2 is the only thing that affects climate") and then tear them down. Don't they realize that this makes them look too stupid and/or weak to take on a real argument from the opposition? Why do people do that kind of thing? Any other thoughts?
What, on Earth, is this berk rambling on about?
I think they are too stupid to realize they state things that make them look stupid :)
Well if you don't agree with it, post why you don't show your intellect and answer the question with rebuttal.
As I see it, you haven't done so well in the refutation department.
EDIT: Oh, I see it now! All you have to do is deem it a strawman argument. Once this is done you merely declare it a strawman argument and that automatically bestows intellectual superiority over the other person's position.
The term strawman, according to Wikipedia, "The usage of the term in rhetoric suggests a human figure made of straw which is easily knocked down or destroyed, such as a military training dummy, scarecrow, or effigy." So if it is so easy to knock down as it has no defense, knock it down not brush it off. That is the truly intellectual response
