UK, Switzerland and Conservapedia

[Deadlift]

For those who do not live in Europe or Russia (most of you I suppose), our temperatures are dropping these days because a freezing cold wind from Siberia named Buran is hitting us.

With this said, I'll leave Conservapedia aka The Trustworthy Encyclopedia, namely the last bastion of the good ol' values of American neoconservatism and young-earth, fundamentalist Protestantism in this secular and spineless ensemble that is the internet, handle the matter:

Some parts of the UK are set to feel colder than the Arctic Circle as the “beast from the east” sees freezing temperatures sweep the country.

Britain set to battered by snow. Health chiefs advise to stock up on food and medicine. Army on standby as heavy snow to cripple Britain.

Switzerland, a beacon of creationism in Europe and a much more advanced country and resilient country than nanny state Britain, is hit with its coldest temperature in six years - yet the country will not ever be crippled by snow/ice.

If only Britain hadn't been weakened post Darwinism, then it might not be crippled by snow in winter. Apparently, the British cannot afford to buy as many snow plows as the Swiss who better prepare for winter.


Are these cold temperature in Europe caused by global warming?

Anyone can disagree with this logic? I bet you can't.

 

[Our Lord Sasuke]

In Transylvania it is very cold and at this period it should be at least 10°C

 

[Sagebee]

I'm a bit confused what's the point it's trying to convey is it saying that a country that predominately believes in creationism is prepared for global warming, I don't see global warming denial as a religious issue but a political/financial issue.

 

[Uverdore9]

Man I cant understand all those complex words you used lol. Can you give me a clarified version of your OP; Man? I realized it's about cold temperatures or something Rofl.

 

[Deadlift]

In Transylvania it is very cold and at this period it should be at least 10°C

Below zero I suppose?

 

[HowDidIGetPrem]

I can oppose it with a single phrase.

Some parts of the UK are set to feel colder than the Arctic Circle as the “beast from the east” sees freezing temperatures sweep the country.

Britain set to battered by snow. Health chiefs advise to stock up on food and medicine. Army on standby as heavy snow to cripple Britain.

Switzerland, a beacon of creationism in Europe and a much more advanced country and resilient country than nanny state Britain, is hit with its coldest temperature in six years - yet the country will not ever be crippled by snow/ice.

If only Britain hadn't been weakened post Darwinism, then it might not be crippled by snow in winter. Apparently, the British cannot afford to buy as many snow plows as the Swiss who better prepare for winter.


Are these cold temperature in Europe caused by climate change?

 

[Fountain]

It's "climate change" now lol. As much as they tried to push it they couldn't prove that blatant hoax that it was global warming so they changed it to climate change. They did the same thing recently with the whole cheddar man story. First they were trying to say that everyone came from Africa based on an ancient fossil found in Africa. They found even older fossils in Europe and so they changed it to breaking news "Cheddar Man discovery proves early brits were dark-skinned"!!! Another preposterous claim based on a single skeleton that makes absolutely zero sense all things considered.

I think this person gives us a pretty fair explanation why.

[video=youtube;V690mntZD7A]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V690mntZD7A&t=779s[/video]

And this one makes another great point too.

You must be registered for see links

There's a lot of people actually who have debunked this propaganda.

They will always keep brewing new stories to push their progressive agendas. That's what they did with global warming. They can't prove shit and they twist their stories if need to.

I'm just waiting now to see what they will come up with next.

 

[HowDidIGetPrem]

It's "climate change" now lol. As much as they tried to push it they couldn't prove that blatant hoax that it was global warming so they changed it to climate change.

Wtf Fountain??? You do realize the name climate change isn't to fool unsuspecting morons, right?? It's to clear up the misconceptions that ignorant people would assume from the name. Those same ignorant people using a simple name to oppose it politically while ignoring its substance. Global warming's first name "inadvertent climate modification" actually has more in common with climate change anyhow.

Also don't address the creators behind different hypotheses with "they." People in different scientific fields are not in on some elaborate scheme, and there's actually a lot of rivalry alongside disdain going on. Why the push for anti-intellectualism? Anyways, a certain comic comes to mind.

You must be registered for see images

 

[Fountain]

Wtf Fountain??? You do realize the name climate change isn't to fool unsuspecting morons, right?? It's to clear up the misconceptions that ignorant people would assume from the name. Those same ignorant people using a simple name to oppose it politically while ignoring its substance. Global warming's first name "inadvertent climate modification" actually has more in common with climate change anyhow.

I thought "they", as in everybody involved in pushing the idea of global warming to the people made it pretty clear firsthand. It was only after it was disproven countless times that they change the narrative to climate change. And when i say narrative i do mean narrative, cause there's a big difference between saying there's global warming and then oh it's just climate change now.

 

[HowDidIGetPrem]

I thought "they", as in everybody involved in pushing the idea of global warming to the people made it pretty clear firsthand. It was only after it was disproven countless times that they change the narrative to climate change. And when i say narrative i do mean narrative, cause there's a big difference between saying there's global warming and then oh it's just climate change now.

They aren't saying anything different, Fountain. They're only giving it a more appropriate name. Climate change entails the earth's climate going towards the relative extremes of cold and hot. It was never about the earth only getting hotter specifically; Laymen made that assumption and peddled it.
Climate change is a fact that cannot be debated, so there's a pretty obvious reason why its deniers mostly attack the name. It's akin to me renaming a hairless, black cat called "Snowball" to "Obsidian." It's the same cat, but people will have a more accurate idea of what my cat looks like when I say I have a cat named Obsidian.

Now.. I want to point out that you've been speaking of hypotheses and theories being "debunked" so I'm concerned there. Are the debunkers actual professionals, or are they just practitioners of pseudo-science? You'd be hard pressed to find any actual scientists that deny it. The denial is mostly pushed by corporations to begin with, so I'm not quite sure how people are so trusting of it.

 

[Fountain]

They aren't saying anything different, Fountain. They're only giving it a more appropriate name. Climate change entails the earth's climate going towards the relative extremes of cold and hot. It was never about the earth only getting hotter specifically; Laymen made that assumption and peddled it.
Climate change is a fact that cannot be debated, so there's a pretty obvious reason why its deniers mostly attack the name. It's akin to me renaming a hairless, black cat called "Snowball" to "Obsidian." It's the same cat, but people will have a more accurate idea of what my cat looks like when I say I have a cat named Obsidian.

Now.. I want to point out that you've been speaking of hypotheses and theories being "debunked" so I'm concerned there. Are the debunkers actual professionals, or are they just practitioners of pseudo-science? You'd be hard pressed to find any actual scientists that deny it. The denial is mostly pushed by corporations to begin with, so I'm not quite sure how people are so trusting of it.

If it was never about the earth getting hotter then why did they specifically tried to sell it as such and specifically called it global warming? Again, there's a big difference.

 

[HowDidIGetPrem]

If it was never about the earth getting hotter then why did they specifically tried to sell it as such and specifically called it global warming? Again, there's a big difference.

Okay.. I gave off the wrong message. It is about the earth getting hotter, but not exclusively. It's about the earth reaching the relative extremes of cold and hot and the effects of that(like Lousiana's land being swallowed). I swear that there is no lie when I say the theory hasn't changed its content how you're assuming. Only the name was changed while content got expanded. You're just arguing against the label and a popular example of it.

 

[Deadlift]

If it was never about the earth getting hotter then why did they specifically tried to sell it as such and specifically called it global warming? Again, there's a big difference.

Whether you call it global warming or climate change is irrelevant really, if you think that "they" changed its name to make it easier to swallow or that they're two different concepts then you are wrong.

It's understandable that it's difficult to believe a theory called "global warming" in the face of the snowstorms that hit America a couple months ago and are hitting Europe now, but anyone only slightly familiar with this concept knows that while the overall temperatures will increase, the weather will get more and more unstable, especially in the temperate areas. I would argue that such a scenario fits what we're witnessing pretty well. In other words, "global warming bogus because cold" is just a strawman attack.

Of course you can post YouTube videos all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that climate change denial has in common with stuff like the flat Earth theory, young Earth creationism and Jesus mythicism the fact that they're rampant on the internet but are considered nothing more than a joke by the overwhelming majority of scholars.

 

[Lightbringer]

If it was never about the earth getting hotter then why did they specifically tried to sell it as such and specifically called it global warming? Again, there's a big difference.

Global Warming is a sub-category of climate change.

And yes the Earth has been getting hotter every year and the last two were the hottest years on record.

Just because a region's weather is cold doesn't mean that the global temperature hasn't risen, hence global warming.

Here is a map that literally shows the changes in global temperature since 1884.

You must be registered for see links

 

[Fountain]

Whether you call it global warming or climate change is irrelevant really, if you think that "they" changed its name to make it easier to swallow or that they're two different concepts then you are wrong.

It changes everything. Global warming refers to glabal warming, as in the earth getting hotter. It's in the name "global warming". They were being very specific about it. Not in calling it global warming but in making sure that they literally meant it. Climate change on the other hand refers to climate change in general, it can be anything. There's a big difference in going from the earth is melting to uh oh no it's not, let's call it climate change now.

It's understandable that it's difficult to believe a theory called "global warming" in the face of the snowstorms that hit America a couple months ago and are hitting Europe now, but anyone only slightly familiar with this concept knows that while the overall temperatures will increase, the weather will get more and more unstable, especially in the temperate areas. I would argue that such a scenario fits what we're witnessing pretty well. In other words, "global warming bogus because cold" is just a strawman attack.

Of course you can post YouTube videos all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that climate change denial has in common with stuff like the flat Earth theory, young Earth creationism and Jesus mythicism the fact that they're rampant on the internet but are considered nothing more than a joke by the overwhelming majority of scholars.

Comparing climate change denial with ridiculous flat earth theories and the likes kind of shows how out of touch you are. It's not about denying climate change it's about the blatant hoax that was global warming for the longest time, and how they had to change it to climate change because it was disproven many times and they couldn't sell their agenda of *global warming anymore wich the democrats pushed for for so long. There are even scientists that have claimed the earth hasn't gotten warmer but it's actually getting colder, yet another reason why they might've changed it to climate change.

But if you still wanna buy into it then by all means. I'm not gonna change your mind.

 

[Lightbringer]

It changes everything. Global warming refers to glabal warming, as in the earth getting hotter. It's in the name "global warming". They were being very specific about it. Not in calling it global warming but in making sure that they literally meant it. Climate change on the other hand refers to climate change in general, it can be anything. There's a big difference in going from the earth is melting to uh oh no it's not, let's call it climate change now.



Comparing climate change denial with ridiculous flat earth theories and the likes kind of shows how out of touch you are. It's not about denying climate change it's about the blatant hoax that was global warming for the longest time, and how they had to change it to climate change because it was disproven many times and they couldn't sell their agenda of *global warming anymore wich the democrats pushed for for so long. There are even scientists that have claimed the earth hasn't gotten warmer but it's actually getting colder, yet another reason why they might've changed it to climate change.

But if you still wanna buy into it then by all means. I'm not gonna change your mind.

A dunce cap for you, sir.

You must be registered for see images

 

[Deadlift]

It changes everything. Global warming refers to glabal warming, as in the earth getting hotter. It's in the name "global warming". They were being very specific about it. Not in calling it global warming but in making sure that they literally meant it. Climate change on the other hand refers to climate change in general, it can be anything. There's a big difference in going from the earth is melting to uh oh no it's not, let's call it climate change now.



Comparing climate change denial with ridiculous flat earth theories and the likes kind of shows how out of touch you are. It's not about denying climate change it's about the blatant hoax that was global warming for the longest time, and how they had to change it to climate change because it was disproven many times and they couldn't sell their agenda of *global warming anymore wich the democrats pushed for for so long. There are even scientists that have claimed the earth hasn't gotten warmer but it's actually getting colder, yet another reason why they might've changed it to climate change.

But if you still wanna buy into it then by all means. I'm not gonna change your mind.

It is pretty easy to accuse someone of being "out of touch" as an excuse to deal sloppily, if at all, with the points that have been made. If all we had were some ambiguous appeal to climate change made by some nobodies without any evidence or substance to it then you may have had a point. But since we live in the information age it would be pretty easy for you to google "climate change" and find out that it's nothing like the indefinite thing you're talking about. If, instead, you're suggesting that someone is trying to sugarcoat the name "global warming" into something more ambiguous then I owe you an apology: your theory is not on par with the others I mentioned. It is more ridiculous than all of those combined.

If you are telling me that "it's not about climate change denial but the blatant hoax that was global warming" then I would just ask you to stay on topic. This thread is about a fundamentalist copy of Wikipedia linking successful dealing with snowstorms with rejection of the theory of evolution and throwing a cheap shot at climate change. What Democrats are allegedly doing is something I have no clue with since I don't live in the US, so if you are going to disagree with me I'm sure our discussion would be far more interesting if you refrained from resorting to red herrings.

Finally, the comparison I made between climate change denial and the other crazy theories was just meant to show that they're not taken seriously almost anywhere in scholarly circles. Of course you can still find someone with good credentials endorsing them. Hasn't Ken Ham played the videos of scientists declaring their commitment to young Earth creationism in his debate with Bill Bye? When however the scholarly consensus is so overwhelming as in the cases of both YEC and climate change denial then that takes priority. Dismissing the consensus to favor the claims of the fringe is itself an act of bad scholarship.

 

[Fountain]

A dunce cap for you, sir.

You must be registered for see images

Please never stop being a degenerate.

 

[Lightbringer]

Please never stop being a degenerate.

Lol, says the Neo-Nazi apologist that denies empirical science and archaeology.

The irony is profound.

 

[Fountain]

It is pretty easy to accuse someone of being "out of touch" as an excuse to deal sloppily, if at all, with the points that have been made. If all we had were some ambiguous appeal to climate change made by some nobodies without any evidence or substance to it then you may have had a point. But since we live in the information age it would be pretty easy for you to google "climate change" and find out that it's nothing like the indefinite thing you're talking about. If, instead, you're suggesting that someone is trying to sugarcoat the name "global warming" into something more ambiguous then I owe you an apology: your theory is not on par with the others I mentioned. It is more ridiculous than all of those combined.

If you are telling me that "it's not about climate change denial but the blatant hoax that was global warming" then I would just ask you to stay on topic. This thread is about a fundamentalist copy of Wikipedia linking successful dealing with snowstorms with rejection of the theory of evolution and throwing a cheap shot at climate change. What Democrats are allegedly doing is something I have no clue with since I don't live in the US, so if you are going to disagree with me I'm sure our discussion would be far more interesting if you refrained from resorting to red herrings.

Finally, the comparison I made between climate change denial and the other crazy theories was just meant to show that they're not taken seriously almost anywhere in scholarly circles. Of course you can still find someone with good credentials endorsing them. Hasn't Ken Ham played the videos of scientists declaring their commitment to young Earth creationism in his debate with Bill Bye? When however the scholarly consensus is so overwhelming as in the cases of both YEC and climate change denial then that takes priority. Dismissing the consensus to favor the claims of the fringe is itself an act of bad scholarship.

You're getting on my nerves with your bullshit and i don't feel like spending hours attempting to reason with you or deal with your hypocrisy, so let's leave it at that. You're entitled to your opinion and i'm entitled to mine. I'm not gonna try to change your mind.