To alarmists both arguments are valid - just use whichever one is more convincing to the person you're talking to. The objective is stop using fossil fuels no matter what.

Im not sure what is this type of debate good for.

What "both" arguments are so-called alarmists using? What's an alarmist, exactly?

And yes, the objective is to stop using fossil fuels. That's not exactly a secret agenda, it's the whole fucking point.

What is denier, exactly?

Seriously, there is no debate with this rethoric.

You missing the point, again.

Do you have a point? Please communicate better. I may well be speaking to a bot.

Stop using labeling and listen other opinions better. Your rethoric could be used by other side with switched words - this type of debate does not bring anything new that others could learn from. You belive in something, others don't or vice versa.

> Your rethoric could be used by other side with switched words

Yawn. "Both sides are equally valid" is a tired argument. Truth and lies are not the same.

The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt. - Bertrand Russell

Better stupid and right than intelligent and wrong.

To "alarmists" both "climate change does matter" and "China isn't the only problem" are valid arguments because that's a logical AND: "it's a problem and we're causing it, so we should do something". When you inverse it you use DeMorgan's law and you have to disprove one, either "it's not a problem" or "we can't do anything to stop it" but they typically do it in a way where one purported disproof invalidates the other, for some reason. They argue both "it's not a problem" and "it's a problem but we can't do anything to stop it".

Did you mean to respond to the other person who responded to me?

Yes