Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   Tell me the truth, does this CO2 make me look fat?   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 481
    More: Interesting, carbon dioxide, laboratory animals, postdoc, International Journal of Obesity, carbon emissions, pilot study, university hospital, carbon dioxide emissions  
•       •       •

14449 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Mar 2012 at 2:11 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



481 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-03-16 02:19:28 AM  
HotIgneous Intruder:
Uchiha_Cycliste: I get this vague feeling that everyone that was involved in this thread should be ashamed.

Yeah. It's a real hoot how that green text drives some people into delirious apoplectic derangement.

Wow! Another great band name!
 
2012-03-16 02:29:45 AM  
Dr. Mojo PhD:
I'm going to say this as friendly advice, Jim, and you should take it this way. This is a halfway-there post. You're doing the right thing, going to citations, but you're leaving a massive hole in how you're doing it. Namely, you aren't backing up those citations with an argument of your own.

So, is inability to convert short term memory into long term memory ANOTHER one of your, um, "charming" deficits? Page after farking page of comments, for the last couple years? And, as I recall, I was often chided because I was THINKING, rather than parroting someone else.

Let me give you a few key words and phrases, and see if they dredge up anything from that septic tank you use for a brain. If not, it's back to the wet sheets and ECT for you.

AGW doesn't account properly for:
- Clouds - farking HUGE negative feedback
- Water vapor - Actually a negative feedback
- Cosmic Rays - amplifies insolation via clouds
- Solar Activity - modulates cosmic ray flux
- Earth's atmosphere is semi-transparent, not semi-infinite
- IPCC picks most alarmist numbers from a set, or makes up MORE alarming ones
 
2012-03-16 02:42:17 AM  
Dr. Mojo PhD:
As I recall, I pointed out that downtownkid was a racist by (again) quoting verbatim a racist statement he made -- apparently that's now flipping your shiat -- and your idea of saying variations of "sure, whatever" was insisting that he wasn't a racist or that I had no proof. Point in fact, even when I pointed out I'd provided his racist statement in the very thread in question, you continued to insist I'd never found anything remotely racist from him:

Wow. I read a bit of that thread... I hate to admit it, but I was quite surprised to find that you're anti-semitic. I have no idea WHY that surprised me.

avideditor.files.wordpress.com
Hail to One of America's Staunchest Allies, and
about the only sane government in the Middle East
NEVER AGAIN.
 
2012-03-16 02:46:00 AM  
Dr. Mojo PhD:
The problem with stupidity, Tatter, is people think above their station. Even a single thought beyond the level of your comprehension will appear like gobbledegook to you. By the nature of your stupidity, you think you're much smarter than you actually are, since the sum total of your understanding of the world only reaches an understanding people already possess and exceed. What you both possess, you understand, but where they exceed your capacity you're left fumbling in the dark, assured only that because it sounds like gibberish to you,. . .

Blah, blah, blah. Another incoherent rant. Lovely. Hey, just out of curiosity, how many axles can you wrap yourself around at the same time?
 
2012-03-16 02:50:01 AM  
common sense is an oxymoron:
Ahh, now I get it. The problem with you, Jim, is that you're having too little sex, whether unprotected or not.

Yeah. Have your mom quit her bridge club.
 
2012-03-16 02:53:27 AM  
common sense is an oxymoron:
Actually, one thing has changed: You now acknowledge that you didn't understand what the synchronized chaos paper was about at first.

Bite me. Really? I call bullshiat -- AGAIN, you lying sack. Where did I do that? I just put the link in the wrong section. Sue me.
 
2012-03-16 03:01:23 AM  

GeneralJim: In the Iran Revolution threads a while back, a couple of people had set their text to green in support of the Iranian people against their government. I thought that was a good idea, and did likewise. That ruthless theocratic regime is still in place, and I still support the Iranian people against it, so my text is still green. Besides, it gives the 'tards something to rage against when they can't counter my arguments; they can let of steam biatching about the color of my text.

But, of course, if you want to know what I am REALLY thinking, just ask Mojo. He has both "Dr." AND "PhD" in his name, so he HAS to be legit, right?


Ok.

Dr. Mojo PhD: When the Iranian protests were going down, Farkers adopted green text as a show of solidarity with the Iranians. You may remember the Fark logo even sported a green armband for a while. When the protests were over, everybody but Jim gave it up.


Welp, thanks for vouching for my credentials, Jim.

GeneralJim: Dr. Mojo PhD:

Literally none of what follows is true. Your claim that it's a 3D image that not even computer graphics of the 1960s could pull off? Debunked with actual examples of computer graphics, and how "wrapping" a UV mapped 2D texture to a 3D object does not result in an undistorted representation. Your claim that lasers is the only way (and you did claim this, regardless of your denying it) is false, from the mouth of the testers themselves.

God DAMN you're stupid. Or a pathological liar. I read the report, jerkwad. If you weren't such a jackass, you would note that I did NOT say that there were no computer graphics, dumbass


Do you even understand what you're responding to? I remember you once told us a rambling story about a client who was illiterate. I wonder if you weren't projecting again, if YOU aren't illiterate.

GeneralJim: No. But I DO think it should be a shield from deliberate attempts to drive someone totally insane, and from recruiting others to that truly evil and nasty plan.


You already are insane, Jim. I can't drive you there.

GeneralJim: Dr. Mojo PhD: We hold even the craziest of crazies accountable to the norms of society, Jim, and we are right to do so. We may find those so extremely mentally defective that they cannot comprehend what they've done to not be deserving of prison when they commit crimes, but the police will still arrest them, and the courts will still remove them from society.

No we don't you farking idiot. Insanity is a defense. Lots of people try to FAKE it, just so they can get away with a crime. If someone IS insane, they are found not guilty for that reason. Don't you EVER leave your parents' basement? Seriously, how dumb do you have to be to not be aware of the insanity defense? Does the Dumb-O-Meter even GO that high?


You really are illiterate, aren't you?

GeneralJim: Which insane beliefs are those? That climate sensitivity is not as high as the IPCC says it is, with lots of peer-reviewed papers to back that up? That an image on the Shroud which was unable to be reproduced until THIS YEAR could not have been made by ignorant medieval religious relic forgers? That I believe it when an organization publishes their goals? Just what that I believe is insane? Or is it your hate speech against my religious beliefs that makes them insane?


Your insanity is what makes you insane. Do you see where I quoted you above, where you're literally reading a description of the insanity defence in brief, and then, after reading that, having a spaz and asking me if I don't know what the insanity defence is?

That behaviour is abnormal and insane. You can tell when you're getting more and more towards meltdown as you start to spaz, hard.

GeneralJim: Wow. I read a bit of that thread... I hate to admit it, but I was quite surprised to find that you're anti-semitic. I have no idea WHY that surprised me.


Is this a thing that's real, Jim? Or this like UFO angels and how I don't know what the insanity defence is, or is this something in the real world that actually exists?
 
2012-03-16 03:04:26 AM  
common sense is an oxymoron:
It's messy, it's inconsistent, it's subtle...but the correlation is nevertheless real despite being far less than 1.0. You claim that your article list supports a low correlation (not a negative correlation, nor a lack of correlation) between CO2 and temperature, which is in fact supported by the actual data. If so, then this list's value in debunking AGW is precisely zero.

And here we see the Closet Dung Bird, a rare subspecies of the Shiatbird. He's in his native environment in this display, which is, WAY over his head. Notice how he puffs himself up? When he bends over and displays his gorgeous and impressive Ignorance Plumage like that, he's actually trolling for molesters. If all goes as planned, the Closet Dung Bird will be taken from behind, brutalized, and there will be a quarter on the night stand in the morning. And, after the mating, the new Closet Dung Bird will develop from the feces and molester sperm, and somewhere around sixth grade, will be ready to leave the nest and start displaying his own radiant ignorance to the world. Thus is the circle of life completed. Move along, the gift shop is next.

/ Sounds familiar, docent it?
 
2012-03-16 03:06:38 AM  

GeneralJim: Dr. Mojo PhD: I'm going to say this as friendly advice, Jim, and you should take it this way. This is a halfway-there post. You're doing the right thing, going to citations, but you're leaving a massive hole in how you're doing it. Namely, you aren't backing up those citations with an argument of your own.

So, is inability to convert short term memory into long term memory ANOTHER one of your, um, "charming" deficits? Page after farking page of comments, for the last couple years? And, as I recall, I was often chided because I was THINKING, rather than parroting someone else.

Let me give you a few key words and phrases, and see if they dredge up anything from that septic tank you use for a brain. If not, it's back to the wet sheets and ECT for you.

AGW doesn't account properly for:
- Clouds - farking HUGE negative feedback
- Water vapor - Actually a negative feedback
- Cosmic Rays - amplifies insolation via clouds
- Solar Activity - modulates cosmic ray flux
- Earth's atmosphere is semi-transparent, not semi-infinite
- IPCC picks most alarmist numbers from a set, or makes up MORE alarming ones


Once again, you put up a list of talking points without any input of your own.

I've posted (with explanations, something which you seem incapable of) a refutation to the water-vapor canard (it's an amplifier of other greenhouse gases). You only partially responded to my criticism of the semi-transparent vs. semi-infinite debate. You have not shown that cosmic rays are a more significant climatic driver than CO2. More than one person has posted refutations of the alleged correlation with solar activity (there actually was a correlation for a while, until the increase in CO2 overwhelmed the signal). And the IPCC does not conduct its own research. The feedback relationship between temperature and cloud cover is plausible but still unproven, but I'll give you that one anyway.

Still, one out of six sucks.
 
2012-03-16 03:08:17 AM  

GeneralJim: common sense is an oxymoron: It's messy, it's inconsistent, it's subtle...but the correlation is nevertheless real despite being far less than 1.0. You claim that your article list supports a low correlation (not a negative correlation, nor a lack of correlation) between CO2 and temperature, which is in fact supported by the actual data. If so, then this list's value in debunking AGW is precisely zero.

And here we see the Closet Dung Bird, a rare subspecies of the Shiatbird. He's in his native environment in this display, which is, WAY over his head. Notice how he puffs himself up? When he bends over and displays his gorgeous and impressive Ignorance Plumage like that, he's actually trolling for molesters. If all goes as planned, the Closet Dung Bird will be taken from behind, brutalized, and there will be a quarter on the night stand in the morning. And, after the mating, the new Closet Dung Bird will develop from the feces and molester sperm, and somewhere around sixth grade, will be ready to leave the nest and start displaying his own radiant ignorance to the world. Thus is the circle of life completed. Move along, the gift shop is next.

/ Sounds familiar, docent it?


So you've got nothing to explain why you don't understand that correlation is a range of -1 to 1, not 0 to 1? Ok then.
 
2012-03-16 03:14:37 AM  
trappedspirit:
GeneralJim:
I doubt many on a climate thread want to hear about your weight loss, eating habits,


Are you suggesting that he should keep the channel clear for you and Mojo to...do...whatever it is you are doing?

A good point. In my defense, the vicious hate speech against my religious beliefs was NOT my idea...
 
2012-03-16 03:16:42 AM  
Damnhippyfreak:
I'm thinking you would probably get better responses if you weren't very much in the habit of doing pretty much the same thing (as in bold).

You got off to a bad start there. Try for more honesty.
 
2012-03-16 03:20:04 AM  

GeneralJim: common sense is an oxymoron: It's messy, it's inconsistent, it's subtle...but the correlation is nevertheless real despite being far less than 1.0. You claim that your article list supports a low correlation (not a negative correlation, nor a lack of correlation) between CO2 and temperature, which is in fact supported by the actual data. If so, then this list's value in debunking AGW is precisely zero.

And here we see the Closet Dung Bird, a rare subspecies of the Shiatbird. He's in his native environment in this display, which is, WAY over his head. Notice how he puffs himself up? When he bends over and displays his gorgeous and impressive Ignorance Plumage like that, he's actually trolling for molesters. If all goes as planned, the Closet Dung Bird will be taken from behind, brutalized, and there will be a quarter on the night stand in the morning. And, after the mating, the new Closet Dung Bird will develop from the feces and molester sperm, and somewhere around sixth grade, will be ready to leave the nest and start displaying his own radiant ignorance to the world. Thus is the circle of life completed. Move along, the gift shop is next.

/ Sounds familiar, docent it?


You're the one who brought up correlation, and how a low correlation between CO2 and temperature disproved AGW. I showed you what "low correlation" actually means. You didn't like what you saw and couldn't find a friendly blog to link to in response, but I guess you felt compelled to say something. Personally, I think you would have been better off sitting this one out, but I guess the mind of the curator of the Dung Bird Museum works in strange and mysterious ways far beyond mortal reckoning.
 
2012-03-16 03:27:22 AM  

GeneralJim: A good point. In my defense, the vicious hate speech against my religious beliefs was NOT my idea...


Of course it was your idea, Jim. As has been demonstrated previously, you believe hate speech against religious ideas is just fine as long as they aren't your ideas:

GeneralJim: Wouldn't you WANT to "rob the planet of warmth" due to your quaint religious beliefs in AGW?

And you believe your religion belongs in scientific debate:

GeneralJim: Once again, science begins to catch up with the Urantia Book:

And you believe that people should get back what they put in:

GeneralJim: Jerks who don't like me are generally people who expect better treatment from people than they are willing to give.


Looking at the available evidence, we know you believe that AGW is a religious belief, and you feel free to denigrate it in the name of science. We know you feel the Urantia Book belongs in scientific debate, and we know that you believe in reciprocity.

From this, we can logically deduce that IF you believe denigrating a religion that horns its way into a scientific debate AND you believe your religion should horn its way into a scientific debate THEN you must be willing to get what you give.

Therefore, it could be no other person's but yours to welcome the abuse of your UFO cult. It was your idea. You may not have known it was your idea, but to have any idea other than that, you would have to abrogate previous ideas. You have never conceded that you have done so, and a priori ideas take priority since it's impossible to predict the future. There is no room for any other conclusion, given previous statements you have made.

Or will you now fault us for not reading your mind?
 
2012-03-16 03:43:15 AM  
Damnhippyfreak:
Heh. You could probably word the bit in bold in a better way given that you're responding to a point that explicitly states that "correlation does not equal causation" - that's exactly what you're doing here.

You farking STILL don't get it, do you? C=/=C failure is like TFA (remember it? (People are fatter, and its warmer, so warming fattened people up. FAIL.) The only correlation of significance IS the reverse, no doubt from the oceans. If you didn't spend all your time being a whiny little biatch every time I show THIS:

csccc.fcpp.org


MAYBE you would notice that while temperature certainly shows itself to be under control, it is CLEARLY not being controlled by carbon dioxide levels, which vary wildly, and have no apparent effect on temperature.

Now, pull your head out for a minute... I thought of a new way to try to pound this information into you... Look, above, at that carbon dioxide level. Given what we know about times closer to our own, you can bet that that level has, superimposed on it, a tiny little signal that follows the temperature swings by about 800 years, just like it does in OUR time scale. That signal is tiny, but it's real. It isn't controlling carbon dioxide levels any more than a few ppm. Something ELSE determines carbon dioxide levels. Do you get this?



Of course there's the larger issue of you ignoring the fact that the attribution of anthropogenic climate change isn't based on simple correlation.

Right. There's the wealth re-distribution, the carbon credits market, and vastly increased funding for climate research, along with big fat promotions for those who give the data a little "help" (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) in supporting the politically correct hypothesis.

But, there isn't any real correlation in terms of carbon dioxide controlling temperature, despite the lovely plumage above. So you don't even get as far as "correlation does not equal causation" before you run into trouble. But, if there WERE good correlation, you would still have to prove that it is due to carbon dioxide.
 
2012-03-16 03:53:02 AM  

GeneralJim: The only correlation of significance IS the reverse, no doubt from the oceans. If you didn't spend all your time being a whiny little biatch every time I show THIS:


Gee Jim, I wonder why people complain when you use that image:

csccc.fcpp.org
As posted by Jim, bearing the same watermark

i.imgur.com
Original version, bearing the legend "estimate of uncertainty".

I wonder why Mr. "Correlation Does Not Imply Causation" is so eager to hide the estimate of uncertainty part of the original image, choosing to use one that's been modified without indication of modification or change in attribution. Funny, that. It's almost like it would butcher his argument.

Nah, he's honest. He keeps using a graph he knows has been modified to deliberately suppress crucial information to present uncertain levels of atmospheric CO2 for a damn good reason, which he'll be sharing with us any minute now... any minute...
 
2012-03-16 03:55:06 AM  
lokisbong:
GeneralJim: Dr. Mojo PhD: We hold even the craziest of crazies accountable to the norms of society, Jim
No we don't you farking idiot. Insanity is a defense. Lots of people try to FAKE it, just so they can get away with a crime. If someone IS insane, they are found not guilty for that reason. Don't you EVER leave your parents' basement? Seriously, how dumb do you have to be to not be aware of the insanity defense? Does the Dumb-O-Meter even GO that high?

Seriously, how dumb do you have to be to not be aware of the fact people get sent to insane asylums? They still exist and insane people still spend time there. For doing things like murder and using the insanity defense. It may not be regular prison but you sill get put in a cage dumbass.

Look, I know you're not real keen on that whole "logic" thing, so let me clue you in. YES, people are locked up if they are dangerous crazy. You know, it kind of goes without saying that if someone is so crazy they have, for instance, killed someone, they are dangerous, and should be locked up. Other people are locked up in exactly the same way without having committed a crime.

What has not penetrated that pustule with your mouth on it is that as soon as people thus locked up are "cured," they are released. If they get there from a courtroom, they were found NOT GUILTY of any crime, but are remanded to custody in a place where, at least theoretically, they will be helped; they are NOT sent there as punishment for their crimes. As soon as they are no longer dangerous to themselves or others, they are let go. Compare that with prison, numbnuts.
 
2012-03-16 04:01:01 AM  

GeneralJim: Right. There's the wealth re-distribution, the carbon credits market, and vastly increased funding for climate research, along with big fat promotions for those who give the data a little "help" (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) in supporting the politically correct hypothesis.


In brief: No, maybe, no, no

Longer: There is no wealth redistribution, period. And why would there be? Why would Western governments and Western scientists collude to defraud Western civilization to enrich third world countries? There's no point, no endgame to it.

The carbon credits market is immaterial. The idea behind it is sound, but of course that doesn't change the fact that there's room for milking. Carbon credits do not buy you the right to pollute, they shift your burden of decreasing your CO2 output to an entity that can decrease it, resulting in the same global net change, but allowing businesses that need to produce more CO2 to fully function the ability to continue to do so. Nothing wrong with that.

Vastly increased funding is just stupid. Again, the idea that AGW is the only thing climatologists can study is stupid. If AGW stopped being a theory, the Earth would not stop having a climate. As has been pointed out, a generic amoral scientist whose only interest is making money can either enter a field with meager funds and compete with thousands of other climatologists and their papers, or go to a field with profits in excess of tens of billions of dollars, and compete with virtually nobody to publish their findings.

Big fat promotions for those who give the data a little help? If data forging happens, it's an statistical aberration, an outlier somewhere less than 0.5% of all scientists. They are rightly discredited. They are not given promotions.

You seem to believe massive amounts of climatologists are being so showered with money they no longer have to compete with each other in an arena of thousands, to the point that government grants outdo all the marketing and operating budgets of petro firms, all to conspire with said governments to give our money to Africa. Now tell us with a straight face how you aren't a conspiracy theorist.
 
2012-03-16 04:01:40 AM  
lokisbong:
Ok now they call them psychiatric hospitals but it is still a cage you are not allowed to leave until you sentence is done.

Oh, look at the Ignorance Plumage on THIS specimen! Splendid!


SUBMITTED IN EVIDENCE: this ^ from Loki'sDong, and

Dr. Mojo PhD: We hold even the craziest of crazies accountable to the norms of society, Jim

They always seem to have gaping holes in their knowledge in EXACTLY the same places. AMAZING!
 
2012-03-16 04:03:57 AM  

GeneralJim: Look, I know you're not real keen on that whole "logic" thing, so let me clue you in. YES, people are locked up if they are dangerous crazy. You know, it kind of goes without saying that if someone is so crazy they have, for instance, killed someone, they are dangerous, and should be locked up. Other people are locked up in exactly the same way without having committed a crime.

What has not penetrated that pustule with your mouth on it is that as soon as people thus locked up are "cured," they are released. If they get there from a courtroom, they were found NOT GUILTY of any crime, but are remanded to custody in a place where, at least theoretically, they will be helped; they are NOT sent there as punishment for their crimes. As soon as they are no longer dangerous to themselves or others, they are let go. Compare that with prison, numbnuts.


So exactly what I said then?

Dr. Mojo PhD: We hold even the craziest of crazies accountable to the norms of society, Jim, and we are right to do so. We may find those so extremely mentally defective that they cannot comprehend what they've done to not be deserving of prison when they commit crimes, but the police will still arrest them, and the courts will still remove them from society.


Exactly what I said, but which still got you spewing in a deranged tantrum.
 
2012-03-16 04:07:25 AM  

GeneralJim: Dr. Mojo PhD: We hold even the craziest of crazies accountable to the norms of society, Jim

They always seem to have gaping holes in their knowledge in EXACTLY the same places. AMAZING!


Really?

Dr. Mojo PhD: We hold even the craziest of crazies accountable to the norms of society, Jim, and we are right to do so. We may find those so extremely mentally defective that they cannot comprehend what they've done to not be deserving of prison when they commit crimes, but the police will still arrest them, and the courts will still remove them from society.


Your response:

GeneralJim: No we don't you farking idiot. Insanity is a defense. Lots of people try to FAKE it, just so they can get away with a crime. If someone IS insane, they are found not guilty for that reason. Don't you EVER leave your parents' basement? Seriously, how dumb do you have to be to not be aware of the insanity defense? Does the Dumb-O-Meter even GO that high?


Illiterate, crippled, and insane. The single ladies must love you.
 
2012-03-16 04:10:37 AM  
brantgoose:
I go away for a couple of days because of something I posted in a Photoshop thread and I come back to this. A whole damn thread on AGW and obesity with almost nothing about AGW and obesity.

I just wanted to say that AGW is not causing all the evils in the world: all the evils of the world are causing AGW.

Oh, holy crap. I thought we had seen it all... but, now, a Zen idiot. Jesus, they multiply like cockroaches.
 
2012-03-16 04:20:34 AM  

GeneralJim: brantgoose: I go away for a couple of days because of something I posted in a Photoshop thread and I come back to this. A whole damn thread on AGW and obesity with almost nothing about AGW and obesity.

I just wanted to say that AGW is not causing all the evils in the world: all the evils of the world are causing AGW.

Oh, holy crap. I thought we had seen it all... but, now, a Zen idiot.

Space Jesus, they multiply like cockroaches.

FTFY
 
2012-03-16 04:27:39 AM  

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: Heh. You could probably word the bit in bold in a better way given that you're responding to a point that explicitly states that "correlation does not equal causation" - that's exactly what you're doing here.

You farking STILL don't get it, do you? C=/=C failure is like TFA (remember it? (People are fatter, and its warmer, so warming fattened people up. FAIL.) The only correlation of significance IS the reverse, no doubt from the oceans. If you didn't spend all your time being a whiny little biatch every time I show THIS:

[csccc.fcpp.org image 640x404]


GeneralJim : this graph : : Linus : security blanket.

It's still been contradicted by every other graph you've put up next to it, though.

But, there isn't any real correlation in terms of carbon dioxide controlling temperature, despite the lovely plumage above. So you don't even get as far as "correlation does not equal causation" before you run into trouble. But, if there WERE good correlation, you would still have to prove that it is due to carbon dioxide.

It's a testament to your in-depth knowledge of science that you use "lack of close correlation" like it's the ultimate refutation of AGW, but you can't tell statistical correlation from bird plumage when you're staring right at it.
 
2012-03-16 04:44:13 AM  

common sense is an oxymoron: GeneralJim : this graph : : Linus : security blanket.

It's still been contradicted by every other graph you've put up next to it, though.


I do like the fact that it's also been modified to suppress an uncomfortable fact for Jim's argument (a fact that Jim has used to "falsify" AGW in the past, no less -- uncertainty). Was it you that called attention to the fact that it had been modified without altering attribution or watermark?

common sense is an oxymoron: It's a testament to your in-depth knowledge of science that you use "lack of close correlation" like it's the ultimate refutation of AGW, but you can't tell statistical correlation from bird plumage when you're staring right at it.


Again it's amusing that he seems to think correlation ranges from 0 to 1, and not -1 to 1. Amusingly he seems to have, in the past, suggested an inverse correlation between CO2 and temperature -- his water vapour (or "cloud cover, close enough" as he tends to call it) forcing model somewhat relying on the notion.

I wonder if he ever understands that if he presents two arguments, and argument A contradicts argument B, it appears that he's just trying to fling as much shiat at the wall as possible, and not that he has any coherent idea of what he's talking about.
 
2012-03-16 05:01:42 AM  
brantgoose:

www.revbilly.com


CALL AND ANSWER

We are poisoning the ecology with a surfeit of fossil water and fossil fuel.


We Poison our Mother

We are poisoning the economy with a surfeit of machines running on fossil fuels.

Lord, won't you buy me a Chevrolet Volt - My friends all have Prius, I must make amends.

We are poisoning our bodies and our minds with cheap calories and mindlessness.

Madonna Michelle, guide us.

We need to be mindful, we need to be wise, we need to be good.

Lord Gore, give us strength.

The virtue of frugality is dead.

Woe is us, punish us, Lord.

We are all gluttons, gourmands or gourmets.


Deadly sins consume us. Protect us, Lord.

If we are not eating too much, we are eating dainty luxuries that are flown to us from a hundred different countries.

Lord, have you any Grey Poupon?

Strawberries from Israel, Spain, Morocco, California, and South Africa are excessive as much as caviar from Iran and Truffles from Italy.

Lord, teach us to shop at Wal-Mart, and be humble in thine eyes.

Lettuce grown in the sandy deserts of California, Chile, and Israel is as much an excessive and destructive use of fossil fuels (in the form of drained aquifers and diverted rivers) as building snow ski hills in the deserts of the Gulf.

We tremble, Lord, lest Thou smite us.

Repeat with me The Earth's Prayer

"Our Planet, which art in heaven,
hallowed be thy name.
Your U.N. come,
their will be done,
on Earth as it is in Utopia.
Give us this day organic bread,
and forgive us our student loans,
as we also have forgiven ... oh, look, a squirrel.
And lead us not into petroleum,
but deliver us from oil."
AMEN
 
2012-03-16 05:07:01 AM  
Damnhippyfreak:
'That climate sensitivity is not as high as the IPCC says it is, with lots of peer-reviewed papers to back that up,but ignoring the vast majority that does say it is that high'

Really? Please, point them out.
 
2012-03-16 05:07:52 AM  

GeneralJim: First off, let me say how nice it is to find someone as religiously bigoted and hateful as you are to disparage one's beliefs.


GeneralJim: Or is it your hate speech against my religious beliefs that makes them insane?


GeneralJim: A good point. In my defense, the vicious hate speech against my religious beliefs was NOT my idea...


GeneralJim: brantgoose:

www.revbilly.com

CALL AND ANSWER

Repeat with me The Earth's Prayer


D'awww, look at Jim believing that he doesn't have to follow the rules and standards his persecution complex demands others adhere to.
 
2012-03-16 05:19:45 AM  
Dr. Mojo PhD:
Do you even understand what you're responding to? I remember you once told us a rambling story about a client who was illiterate. I wonder if you weren't projecting again, if YOU aren't illiterate.


www.deviantart.com


Is it possible to drown in stupid? If so, the mods should delete this post of yours as a public safety hazard.
 
2012-03-16 05:25:33 AM  
Dr. Mojo PhD:
You really are illiterate, aren't you?

Uh, yeah, that's the ticket. I just type shiat, and if the spelling checker okays it, BAM! It's posted.

www.reflexblue.org
Everybody cover your mouths!
 
2012-03-16 05:35:36 AM  
Dr. Mojo PhD:
Your insanity is what makes you insane. Do you see where I quoted you above, where you're literally reading a description of the insanity defence in brief, and then, after reading that, having a spaz and asking me if I don't know what the insanity defence is?

That behaviour is abnormal and insane. You can tell when you're getting more and more towards meltdown as you start to spaz, hard.


www.reflexblue.org
 
2012-03-16 05:40:59 AM  

GeneralJim: Uh, yeah, that's the ticket. I just type shiat, and if the spelling checker okays it, BAM! It's posted.


Yeah, that actually seems to be about the gist of it. Once again I notice you respond to ancillary insults to avoid addressing from the meat of the argument, namely this:

GeneralJim: Dr. Mojo PhD: We hold even the craziest of crazies accountable to the norms of society, Jim, and we are right to do so. We may find those so extremely mentally defective that they cannot comprehend what they've done to not be deserving of prison when they commit crimes, but the police will still arrest them, and the courts will still remove them from society.

No we don't you farking idiot. Insanity is a defense. Lots of people try to FAKE it, just so they can get away with a crime. If someone IS insane, they are found not guilty for that reason. Don't you EVER leave your parents' basement? Seriously, how dumb do you have to be to not be aware of the insanity defense? Does the Dumb-O-Meter even GO that high?


Tell me Jim, why do you want to avoid addressing or even quoting the fact that you managed to make an argument that, had you actually read the post, you'd know I already understood? Why do you want to avoid addressing or even quoting that you managed to map the concept of "social norms regarding behaviour" to "imprisonment, and only imprisonment"?

How did these two things happen, from a man as honest as yourself? And, since there's a reasonably adequate explanation for that, I'm sure, how is it that you failed to quote it, respond to the criticism, or address it in any way, choosing instead to focus on the concrete interpretation of "literacy" rather than understanding that it was an example of your precious hyperbole?

It seems almost -- I say almost, because your vociferous insistence that you are not insane tells us otherwise -- almost as if this is the mentality of a personality disordered individual. Black and white thinking, concrete and absolute thinking, double standards, deflection from criticism, projection. Now, all of this appears to fit this standard mould of behaviour for such an individual, but I'm sure you'll address the criticism promptly, explain why you interpreted what I said as the literal opposite of what I said, and put this matter to rest.

After all, I am such an idiot that it's contagious; doing so should be trivial for you, and you should be happy to do so. Any minute now.
 
2012-03-16 05:44:48 AM  

Dr. Mojo PhD: You can tell when you're getting more and more towards meltdown as you start to spaz, hard.


i42.tinypic.com
 
2012-03-16 05:47:48 AM  
Quick follow-up question:

You interpret "illiteracy" concretely and literally. You previously claimed that a "dumb-o-meter" would somehow break if it measured me.

Tell us, if we apply your concrete interpretations to your own post, why would we read what you say as implying that I was a mute, incapable of speech?

Once again we're forced to ask, "why do you believe you are special, and not beholden to your own standards? Why do you believe there's two sets of rules, one for you and one for everybody else? If you are not insane, why do you consistently display the behaviour of a personality disordered individual?"

Once again, we'll get a lot of screaming (nb. by this sane people will read "an increase in the consequent of the signal-to-noise ratio text posts," not any statement of literal yelling) and not a lot of answers.
 
2012-03-16 05:49:16 AM  
common sense is an oxymoron:
I've posted (with explanations, something which you seem incapable of) a refutation to the water-vapor canard (it's an amplifier of other greenhouse gases). You only partially responded to my criticism of the semi-transparent vs. semi-infinite debate. You have not shown that cosmic rays are a more significant climatic driver than CO2. More than one person has posted refutations of the alleged correlation with solar activity (there actually was a correlation for a while, until the increase in CO2 overwhelmed the signal). And the IPCC does not conduct its own research. The feedback relationship between temperature and cloud cover is plausible but still unproven, but I'll give you that one anyway.


suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com
 
2012-03-16 05:51:39 AM  

GeneralJim: Dr. Mojo PhD: You can tell when you're getting more and more towards meltdown as you start to spaz, hard.

i.imgur.com


Predictable; again with replying twice to the same post to increase noise generation. Not that we've come to expect well-thought-out rebuttals from you or anything.
 
2012-03-16 05:53:54 AM  

GeneralJim: common sense is an oxymoron:

I've posted (with explanations, something which you seem incapable of) a refutation to the water-vapor canard (it's an amplifier of other greenhouse gases). You only partially responded to my criticism of the semi-transparent vs. semi-infinite debate. You have not shown that cosmic rays are a more significant climatic driver than CO2. More than one person has posted refutations of the alleged correlation with solar activity (there actually was a correlation for a while, until the increase in CO2 overwhelmed the signal). And the IPCC does not conduct its own research. The feedback relationship between temperature and cloud cover is plausible but still unproven, but I'll give you that one anyway.

suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com


Which you will promptly demonstrate some time around never.

GeneralJim, who's so sure of his correctness, he never bothers to show it.
 
2012-03-16 06:35:50 AM  
common sense is an oxymoron:
You're the one who brought up correlation, and how a low correlation between CO2 and temperature disproved AGW. I showed you what "low correlation" actually means. You didn't like what you saw and couldn't find a friendly blog to link to in response, but I guess you felt compelled to say something. Personally, I think you would have been better off sitting this one out, but I guess the mind of the curator of the Dung Bird Museum works in strange and mysterious ways far beyond mortal reckoning.

Listen, I'm not trying to be mean here, but, there's no other way to put it than that you are astonishingly ignorant. Remember when you said that negative feedback of carbon dioxide warming would mean that the planet cooled? What you're saying here is at LEAST that dumb. Trust me on this.

Negative correlation means that the items are related in an inverse relationship. As an example, take cosmic ray flux and temperature. More cosmic rays, means that clouds forming are a little denser, and therefor reflect a little more of the Sun's energy back into space. So, as cosmic rays go up, temperature goes down. Since one is up while the other is down, the sign of their correlation factor is negative Now, how CLOSELY THEY TRACK is shown by the SIZE of the number, negative or positive. In other words, the absolute value of the CF tells how likely they are to have a causal relationship with each other. CF can vary from 1 to -1 (at least you got THAT right. They are often referred to the way percentages are. One half is actually 0.5, but we refer to that as 50%, or sometimes, when people who understand the concept are speaking, a CF of -0.33 will be referred to as a CF of 33. Because people KNOW it's 33 out of a hundred, and most people know the sign of what they are dealing with at least. YMMV.

So, when I say that the correlation between atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and temperature is in the upper twenties, that means that the number is actually between around 0.25 and 0.30. I normally leave the sign out, but in this case it is positive. Things at that level have very little causal relationship between them. And, YES, a level that low DOES mean that AGW is bollocks, as long as one includes the "official" estimates of how much the temperature will rise for each doubling of carbon dioxide percentage (which figure is also known as the climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide) in the definition of AGW.

This is another fact that eludes all of this gaggle of ignorant warmers: What's important about AGW is NOT whether or not increases in carbon dioxide levels will raise the temperature -- they will. The question is "By how MUCH?" Using electric cars means that the cars' tires (and all their moving parts, also) generate heat through friction. But the AMOUNT of global warming from tire friction is so small it certainly cannot be detected with current technology. And, the warming from carbon dioxide is almost as small.

In raw warming, meaning with feedbacks removed, the amount of carbon dioxide we have added should have warmed the planet by something like 0.25K by now. It's late, and I'm lazy, so if you want a closer estimate, go calculate it. But that does NOT take into account feedbacks. The "official" bullshiat line is that feedbacks are around a factor of two, meaning that the 0.25K of raw warming would translate to about 0.75K. That hasn't happened.

The reason that hasn't happened, and the models ALL predict high, unless unauthorized fixes are made to them, is that they assume that water vapor and clouds are positive feedbacks, of large size. They are not. In reality, that is by MEASURING the damn things, rather than running a simulation in which you assume they are large positives, they are found to be rather large feedbacks, all right, but NEGATIVE ones. Now, just to assume that the boneheads got the size right, but the sign wrong, that means that that raw warming figure of 0.25K would translate, not to 0.75K, but somewhere around 0.08K. That fits what we've seen MUCH better.

And, to get back to the CF, the reason the CF is so low is that the system works against any change in temperature caused by changing percentages of greenhouse gasses. The mechanism is by drying out the air in the upper troposphere. One GHG is reduced to counter the effects of another GHG gaining a higher concentration.

Hopefully this has reduced your ignorance by at least a tad. If not, well, too bad for you. I don't know how to make it any simpler than this.
 
2012-03-16 06:40:25 AM  
Dr. Mojo PhD:
GeneralJim: A good point. In my defense, the vicious hate speech against my religious beliefs was NOT my idea...

Of course it was your idea, Jim. As has been demonstrated previously, you believe hate speech against religious ideas is just fine as long as they aren't your ideas:

Well, I DO speak very much against YOUR religion, i.e. AGW. But that's only because your religion, if not stopped, will drive a stake into the heart of the world economy, and probably cause a double-digit percentage of people on the planet to die either of starvation or in food wars. But I am fine with any religion that is not trying to harm me or mine.
 
2012-03-16 06:43:11 AM  
Dr. Mojo PhD:
And you believe your religion belongs in scientific debate:

More lies. And, again, you're using that "YOU BELIEVE" crap. That only works if you can read minds. God knows you misinterpret every farking thing you read. You can't even count on THAT guiding you correctly.
 
2012-03-16 06:45:49 AM  
Dr. Mojo PhD:
Looking at the available evidence, we know you believe that AGW is a religious belief, and you feel free to denigrate it in the name of science. We know you feel the Urantia Book belongs in scientific debate, and we know that you believe in reciprocity.

From this, we can logically deduce that IF you believe denigrating a religion that horns its way into a scientific debate AND you believe your religion should horn its way into a scientific debate THEN you must be willing to get what you give.

Therefore, it could be no other person's but yours to welcome the abuse of your UFO cult. It was your idea. You may not have known it was your idea, but to have any idea other than that, you would have to abrogate previous ideas. You have never conceded that you have done so, and a priori ideas take priority since it's impossible to predict the future. There is no room for any other conclusion, given previous statements you have made.

Or will you now fault us for not reading your mind?

When you start with skull-farked assumptions, you end up with skull-farked conclusions. Your brain: GIGO.
 
2012-03-16 06:49:44 AM  
Dr. Mojo PhD:
I wonder why Mr. "Correlation Does Not Imply Causation" is so eager to hide the estimate of uncertainty part of the original image, choosing to use one that's been modified without indication of modification or change in attribution. Funny, that. It's almost like it would butcher his argument.

I'm not "hiding" anything, you flaming asshole. Jesus, take your farking meds and get some rest.
 
2012-03-16 06:52:10 AM  
Dr. Mojo PhD:
You seem to believe massive amounts of climatologists are being so showered with money they no longer have to compete with each other in an arena of thousands, to the point that government grants outdo all the marketing and operating budgets of petro firms, all to conspire with said governments to give our money to Africa. Now tell us with a straight face how you aren't a conspiracy theorist.

I'm an optimist. Looking for the good, you at least put "You SEEM to believe" this time before you unleash your verbal diarrhea. Baby steps.
 
2012-03-16 06:57:50 AM  
Dr. Mojo PhD:
D'awww, look at Jim believing that he doesn't have to follow the rules and standards his persecution complex demands others adhere to.

And, here you have it.

MOJO ADMITS AGW IS A RELIGION.
 
2012-03-16 07:05:07 AM  

GeneralJim: Well, I DO speak very much against YOUR religion, i.e. AGW. But that's only because your religion...


Ah. Borderlines do frequently engage in excuse making, after all. It's not wrong when you do it.

GeneralJim: More lies. And, again, you're using that "YOU BELIEVE" crap.


Actually I can explicitly state what you believe, because you yourself have explicitly stated it. Did you or did you not state the following?

GeneralJim: Once again, science begins to catch up with the Urantia Book:


You state explicitly that science is not as advanced as your cult holy book. Ergo, that holy book is the acme to which science should aspire -- it is what it needs to "catch up" to. Indeed, you yourself inserted it into a scientific debate.

GeneralJim: And, again, you're using that "YOU BELIEVE" crap. That only works if you can read minds.


GeneralJim: The problem is, you're a gnostic anti-theist. You have faith that there is no God.


Huh. Will we finally hear why you believe you're special, and can make dictums on what people do and do not believe (despite explicit evidence to the contrary) but think that others are attempting "mind reading" if they observe your behaviour and report on it?

Or will you dodge this like you dodge all other difficult-to-answer questions?

GeneralJim: God knows you misinterpret every farking thing you read.


I think you're projecting again, Jim. Let's see if we can find an example of just such a projection.

GeneralJim: We hold even the craziest of crazies accountable to the norms of society, Jim, and we are right to do so. We may find those so extremely mentally defective that they cannot comprehend what they've done to not be deserving of prison when they commit crimes, but the police will still arrest them, and the courts will still remove them from society.

No we don't you farking idiot. Insanity is a defense. Lots of people try to FAKE it, just so they can get away with a crime. If someone IS insane, they are found not guilty for that reason. Don't you EVER leave your parents' basement? Seriously, how dumb do you have to be to not be aware of the insanity defense? Does the Dumb-O-Meter even GO that high?


Yes, in fact, we can. Do you have some evidence that I've misinterpreted anything you've stated? Something you can quote fully, in context, explain where you said X, and where I read Y, where Y was the antithetical to X, and where there was no possibility of reading Y? I doubt it. Why is it we so often find evidence of you behaving in the very manner you accuse your enemies of behaving, Jim? And why is it you so often never cite examples of that behaviour, Jim? It's a simple question; if you're as honest and pure as you claim to be, you should have no problem answering it directly and succinctly.

You won't, however.

GeneralJim: When you start with skull-farked assumptions, you end up with skull-farked conclusions. Your brain: GIGO.


Ah. So what you're saying is the things you say are garbage. Well, we already knew that.

GeneralJim: I'm not "hiding" anything, you flaming asshole. Jesus, take your farking meds and get some rest.


Well, not hiding anything other than the legend "ESTIMATE OF UNCERTAINTY" emblazoned across the original graph, removed from your modified graph without any change in attribution or watermark. How odd, why would somebody do that? If the original graph said what it said, why did somebody feel the need to take the original and suppress that portion? It takes a pointless amount of effort to obliterate something that is not worth obliterating.

Can you find a valid, logical reason for that, Jim? Can you explain why a person would engage in such behaviour?
 
2012-03-16 07:06:34 AM  
Dr. Mojo PhD:
Yeah, that actually seems to be about the gist of it. Once again I notice you respond to ancillary insults to avoid addressing from the meat of the argument, namely this:

The "meat of the argument?" Really? Well, go pound your argument. Any argument with you is totally filled with the lies you can't seem to go a sentence without. Again....

Here's a post with a sample Mojo argument. (new window)
 
2012-03-16 07:13:05 AM  

GeneralJim: Dr. Mojo PhD: D'awww, look at Jim believing that he doesn't have to follow the rules and standards his persecution complex demands others adhere to.
And, here you have it.

MOJO ADMITS AGW IS A RELIGION.


Nope. I pointed out you believe AGW is a religion. Whether or not it is a religion is immaterial to whether or not you're acting hostile towards adherents of what you believe to be a religion, while simultaneously claiming the status of religious persecution. Of course, you already knew the distinction between acting on a belief, and that belief necessarily being true, as evinced by this post:

GeneralJim: or you actually think they are ill (whether or not you're right) and you're a MASSIVE dick for torturing the mentally ill, at least in your mind.


Why do you believe you're special, Jim? Why do you believe you don't have to adhere to the rules you demand of others?

Why is it you believe you're SO special you can answer a question about why you think you're so special that the rules don't apply to you by attempting to claim you're special and your own rules don't apply to you?

If you aren't insane, why do you engage in that behaviour, Jim? It's a simple question so, if you're correct, you should have an equally simple answer. And if the answer is so simple, one truly has to wonder why you answered a question as to why you believed you had a "special" status by attempting to justify it by again claiming a "special" status. All to be explained to the satisfaction of reason and logic any moment now.

In addition:

GeneralJim: MOJO ADMITS AGW IS A RELIGION.


GeneralJim: God knows you misinterpret every farking thing you read.


How is it that in a single post, you managed to contradict your own previously stated position no less than three times? If you aren't insane and projecting, how can that possibly be?
 
2012-03-16 07:14:54 AM  
Dr. Mojo PhD:
Well, not hiding anything other than the legend

The problem is your apparent "illiteracy" as you would put it, for your lack of understanding what the word "hide" means.

But, you're SUCH a farktard I'm not going to get sucked into any of your stupid OCD bullshiat minutiae derpfests. Just assume that whatever you say, I call you a liar for misusing language and your perverted thought processes. That's what happens anyway. If you say something I can amusingly mock, I will, or something so heinous that I feel to respond, I will, but I'm going to skim your posts ONLY for things to taunt you with, and ignore EVERYTHING else. You are not worth it. Buh-bye now.
 
2012-03-16 07:27:43 AM  

GeneralJim: The "meat of the argument?" Really? Well, go pound your argument. Any argument with you is totally filled with the lies you can't seem to go a sentence without. Again....

Here's a post with a sample Mojo argument. (new window)


That isn't a sample argument, Jim. That's you projecting again. For example, in your imaginary argument in which you're arguing with a person who behaves as you do but bears my name, you claim I behave thus:

Jim: "If I got a 2% reduction in income, I could handle that without much of a problem. Losing the income would be okay."

Mojo: "HA! What a liar. You couldn't live without money."
...
Mojo: "Nice deflection, but on 2012-03-15 06:08:28 AM you said "Losing the income would be okay," "THE INCOME," not 2%.

Jim: "ACK! You're taking that out of context. I said a TWO PER CENT CUT."


Except who do we know for a fact eschews context (and in fact attempts to deliberately suppress context) in favour of semantics games? You, Jim:

GeneralJim: Dr. Mojo PhD: We hold even the craziest of crazies accountable to the norms of society, Jim, and we are right to do so. We may find those so extremely mentally defective that they cannot comprehend what they've done to not be deserving of prison when they commit crimes, but the police will still arrest them, and the courts will still remove them from society.

No we don't you farking idiot. Insanity is a defense. Lots of people try to FAKE it, just so they can get away with a crime. If someone IS insane, they are found not guilty for that reason. Don't you EVER leave your parents' basement? Seriously, how dumb do you have to be to not be aware of the insanity defense? Does the Dumb-O-Meter even GO that high?


GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: GeneralJim: lokisbong:
No there are people right here on Fark claiming climate scientists get rich from "pushing the AGW scam" by way of the grants they receive. I won't go search out these comments but I have read them in the last month.

You are probably remembering some warmer "pretending" to be a skeptic, and actually BECOMING the straw man.

Ahem.

GeneralJim: And, no, despite the efforts of douchebags like you to portray MY position, there are only a few scientists getting rich. (Doesn't $10 million seem like a large lab fund? What has happened is that the amount of research money has increased 20-fold

Why do you warmer 'tards all share cognitive disorders? It looks like Phil Jones got an extra ten million... but, one guy is not "all the scientists getting rich." I can tell you, I can repeat it for you, but I simply cannot understand it for you.


Why is it that in everything you accuse others of, we find plenty of examples of you engaging in that behaviour, and you cannot cite a single example of us doing so, yet continue to insist we do? Why is that, Jim? If you aren't crazy, there must be a simple, adequate explanation that logically explains it. Yet so far, for years now, that explanation has yet to be forthcoming. Why?
 
2012-03-16 07:33:57 AM  

GeneralJim: The problem is your apparent "illiteracy" as you would put it, for your lack of understanding what the word "hide" means.


hide
1 [hahyd] Show IPA verb, hid, hid·den or hid, hid·ing, noun
verb (used with object)
1. to conceal from sight; prevent from being seen or discovered: Where did she hide her jewels?
2. to obstruct the view of; cover up: The sun was hidden by the clouds.
3. to conceal from knowledge or exposure; keep secret: to hide one's feelings.


Original Left, Altered Version Right
i.imgur.comcsccc.fcpp.org


Comparing the original version to the altered version, which has no change in attribution or note that it has been altered, it appears that the estimate of uncertainty has been concealed from sight, or prevented from being seen, which conceals knowledge of or exposure to the estimate of uncertainty for those viewing the altered version. Ergo we may say the estimate of uncertainty has been "hidden".

You're certain you're correct, so feel free to point out where and how the word "hide" has been misused. I'm sure you'll do so any minute now. Since it's all so obvious, of course, it should be effortless to "mock" me for using a word incorrectly. And why would you want to merely say so? After all, you are superior to me, it should require no effort to demonstrate which you will, of course, do.
 
Displayed 50 of 481 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report