Hey, it's modern writing. If two words sound somewhat alike, they may be used interchangeably. Worrying about what words actually mean is so old-fashioned.
Tsk
I am an old fart. Sorry if effensive.
I do understand the differences, but even at that they can be deceiving when trying to decide which one should be used. I hate global warming discussions, but let us take it for an example, shall we? Both words can be interchangeable, but they can change the meaning somewhat of the sentence, where intent of the sentence is effected.
I could say:
The use of fossil fuels and the destruction of forests has brought about (effected) climate change.All that to say, I am still unsure if I used the correct word or not. However, the main point is, my use of effected, truly affected your responses. Yet, it can be said correctly that Jim Robinson's effect on political discussion since the late 1990s, has even affected the financial status of many by allowing free debate to take place.
I could also logically say:
The use of fossil fuels and the destruction of forests has influenced or made a difference regarding (affected) climate change.
However, to really get you thinking, I could argue that while some claim fossil fuels destruction of forests has (Affected/Effected) climate change, others would claim there is no connection between the two, because only the sun can actually affect climate change by effecting the weather patterns, not the use of fossil fuels. (This one is tricky!)