Dear Global Warming Deniers

[IPD]

I've seen some stupidity come out of mike over the years, but this seems unprecedented. Seriously---you didn't even watch his vid.

1. he starts by insisting that pollution is a problem that must be dealt with--regardless.
2. he states that the earth's warming trend only makes sense when you look it over a VERY long period of time.
3. he states that our sun's activity dictates much more "climate change" than any other factors.
4. he uses evidence from other planets to underscore this point.
5. he states that historically there's a cooling trend ever 400 years, and we're OVERDUE for one.

seriously, it's all spelled out. if you want to disagree with it, fine...but at least put forth a token effort to do so intellectually. defaulting to conspiracy theory bullshit and rhetoric is a sure-fire way to get yourself branded as a moron in no time flat.

[eljefefx]

defaulting to conspiracy theory bullshit and rhetoric is a sure-fire way to get yourself branded as a moron in no time flat.

That is Mike in a nutshell.

[Chris@Rvengeperformance]

It always seems like when someone feels their argument is weak they must attack you and try to associate you with the extremists on the subject, when you may not think that way at all.

For instance, just because I don't think the federal government should tax every cubic millimeter of pollution I create, doesn't mean I think I should have a constant tire fire in my back yard.

[Echo419]

You guys love to say "oh it was cold this year, problem solved! case closed" and ignore the last 20 years of record warmth... Because you choose to ignore the facts. make up all the excuses you want to adapt to your agenda.

well when someone says, "it was warm this year. see we're all gonna die!" it's hard not to throw the exact same thing back in their face when it's cold the following year.

[Echo419]

I've seen some stupidity come out of mike over the years, but this seems unprecedented. Seriously---you didn't even watch his vid.

1. he starts by insisting that pollution is a problem that must be dealt with--regardless.
2. he states that the earth's warming trend only makes sense when you look it over a VERY long period of time.
3. he states that our sun's activity dictates much more "climate change" than any other factors.
4. he uses evidence from other planets to underscore this point.
5. he states that historically there's a cooling trend ever 400 years, and we're OVERDUE for one.

seriously, it's all spelled out. if you want to disagree with it, fine...but at least put forth a token effort to do so intellectually. defaulting to conspiracy theory bullshit and rhetoric is a sure-fire way to get yourself branded as a moron in no time flat.

are you telling me that very source of all warmth, energy and life on this planet has an influence on the temperature of the planet? I donno. sounds like right-wing hate speech to me.

[NickS VR4]

are you telling me that very source of all warmth, energy and life on this planet has an influence on the temperature of the planet? I donno. sounds like right-wing hate speech to me.

Of course not. The sun us a very stable, static source if energy.

And Mike, you can say we had 29years of Warmth, but the warm/cold cycles are much longer than that, so if you laugh at a 1yr sample, I can laugh at your 20yr sample, because you really need a 400-2000yr sample at minimum. Probably closer to the 2000 year. Also, the more data the better.

By the way, were on a really long warm cycle, if you start the data at the ice age. That really is undeniable.

[Echo419]

seriously though. I don't think anyone wants dirty water to drink or dirty oceans and lakes to swim in. they don't want to get cancer from dirty air or get sick from it. there's a line for being reasonable and just being and a mindless moonbat.

Of course not. The sun us a very stable, static source if energy.

And Mike, you can say we had 29years of Warmth, but the warm/cold cycles are much longer than that, so if you laugh at a 1yr sample, I can laugh at your 20yr sample, because you really need a 400-2000yr sample at minimum. Probably closer to the 2000 year. Also, the more data the better.

By the way, were on a really long warm cycle, if you start the data at the ice age. That really is undeniable.

but but but GWB and his evil capitalist oil buddies! Suburbans! WHAT ABOUT THE CUTE BABY ANIMALS AND OUR CHILDREN!?

[green-lantern]

Of course not. The sun us a very stable, static source if energy.

And Mike, you can say we had 29years of Warmth, but the warm/cold cycles are much longer than that, so if you laugh at a 1yr sample, I can laugh at your 20yr sample, because you really need a 400-2000yr sample at minimum. Probably closer to the 2000 year. Also, the more data the better.

By the way, were on a really long warm cycle, if you start the data at the ice age. That really is undeniable.

[stealthee]

Common sense isn't Mike's wheelhouse.

[Echo419]

Common sense isn't Mike's wheelhouse.

he probably thinks a "Wheelhouse" is where momma and poppa Enkei raise baby RPF01's