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.

(MSNBC)   Northeast to be assaulted by several inches of Global Warming. EVERYBODY PANIC   (usnews.msnbc.msn.com ) divider line
    More: Scary, Western Pennsylvania, Heavy rains, wind gust, weather services, East Coast, eastern United States, National Weather Service, Camp Springs  
•       •       •

13489 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Apr 2012 at 5:43 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-22 06:14:17 PM  
Before I state the following, let me say I believe climate change is occuring and humans are responsible.

But, those that blame every day it is hot outside on global warming are as retarded as those that say since it is cold outside, global warming is not happening.
 
2012-04-22 06:17:18 PM  

Little.Alex: SweetSilverBlues: I don't understand why global climate change is so hard to accept. It's been pretty farking obvious over the last few decades.

It cyclical. It happens and will continue to happen with our ever changing place in the universe, galaxy, solar system.

What I'm not convinced of is man's artificial influence, but I'm not closed to the idea either.

The world is coming out of "The Little Ice Age". So what (sane) people are really debating is how much of the change is man made.

The very ignorant see a glacier melting, and don't know that global temperatures fluctuate, and start praying to Dr. Al Gore. It's become a strange little religion.


Very agreed.
 
2012-04-22 06:19:37 PM  

machoprogrammer: Before I state the following, let me say I believe climate change is occuring and humans are responsible.

But, those that blame every day it is hot outside on global warming are as retarded as those that say since it is cold outside, global warming is not happening.


You're probably right, although sometimes I do make the mistake of getting that reactionary.

But days like these are blips on the radar in the big picture, unless it happens more and more frequently of course....but that requires looking decades out before noticing a trend.
 
2012-04-22 06:20:52 PM  
 
2012-04-22 06:24:21 PM  
jeblis:
This is Fark, always assume a headline (and most comments) are a troll.


i40.tinypic.com
More Good Advice...

 
2012-04-22 06:25:02 PM  
I weep for the number of people that couldn't pass 6 grade earth science.

And it isn't about religion. I have some bible thumper friends that do understand what is going on.
 
2012-04-22 06:26:08 PM  
As someone who's sitting in a Pennsylvania looking at a big grey sky I think I can be of some service.

First, the thing about these global warming spewers - they don't realize that scientists who support global warming aren't talking about a major snowstorm or a tornado happening. Freak weather events like that happen... all time. "Scientific" (more on the quotes) data shows a trend of about 0.33 degrees increase on average. It doesn't account for flooding or a few lightning storms. The quotes... is because even that data was proven to be flawed at on that famous 3rd edition report I had to research a few years ago. Scientists who had evidence that did not support the conclusion they were looking for were ignored.

I'm not saying pollution ain't a problem. I'm saying that you idiots who attribute snow in April or a few warm days in December are missing the mark well more than Glen Beck ever has.

/back to the real issue. C'mon Phillies what are you doing?
 
2012-04-22 06:27:07 PM  

Little.Alex: Dr. James Hansen's growing financial scandal, now over a million dollars of outside income

A Summary of James E. Hansen's NASA Ethics File

By Christopher Horner

NASA records released to resolve litigation filed by the American Tradition Institute reveal that Dr. James E. Hansen, an astronomer, received approximately $1.6 million in outside, direct cash income in the past five years for work related to - and, according to his benefactors, often expressly for - his public service as a global warming activist within NASA.

This does not include six-figure income over that period in travel expenses to fly around the world to receive money from outside interests. As specifically detailed below, Hansen failed to report tens of thousands of dollars in global travel provided to him by outside parties - including to London, Paris, Rome, Oslo, Tokyo, the Austrian Alps, Bilbao, California, Australia and elsewhere, often business or first-class and also often paying for his wife as well - to receive honoraria to speak about the topic of his taxpayer-funded employment, or get cash awards for his activism and even for his past testimony and other work for NASA.

Link


So the article is really about how Chris Horner doesn't like that travel expenses are not reportable income? Or is it that he doesn't understand that scientists have, as part of their job, the responsibility to speak about their results?

Note that the reason you occasionally fly first class and get to take your spouse is that you're tired of traveling to far flung corners of the world for 5 days to stay in yet another hotel and be away from the comforts of home. Travel sounds fun until you have to do a great deal of it and then you discover that being mostly stuck in a hotel in Paris isn't much different from being mostly stuck in a hotel in NY or Chicago or Tokyo or Sydney. Moreover, the taxpayer isn't paying for these trips.
 
2012-04-22 06:28:05 PM  

Xaxor: [onfinite.com image 634x640]


/It may not be snow, but the mechanics are the same


Warmer temperatures cause more snow. This is what the warming alarmists actually believe.
 
2012-04-22 06:29:32 PM  
What a coincidence, because Subby's mom got several inches last night. Hard to tell which way she liked it the most. She's pretty freaky.
 
2012-04-22 06:30:14 PM  
Looking at both sides, it seems that they're both so insane about pushing and defending their ideas that I don't know who is right.

Maybe there's a middle ground, where Earth's global climate naturally fluctuates over thousands to millions of years, and our influence in the last couple of hundred has made the changes happen either faster or stronger?
 
2012-04-22 06:30:40 PM  

Little.Alex: Al Gore


DRINK!
 
2012-04-22 06:31:51 PM  
Da ya think chicken & beer (the meal of the Sox) will cure the global warming?
 
2012-04-22 06:34:49 PM  
He doesn't believe it Global Warming Climate Change ...

HERETIC!

DOUBLE PLUS CRIME THOUGHT!

GRAB YOUR PITCHFORKS!

BURN HIM! BURN HIM!

www.whydidigowrong.co.uk

That will teach him for calling me closed minded.
 
2012-04-22 06:37:52 PM  

LaughingRadish:
Okay, that may explain precipitation in general. How about the record cold snaps?


I can't find the right analogy, but if you push one thing the wrong way, the other connected things will react in an abnormal way as well. The increased precipitation and increased temperatures affects the atmosphere's 'balance', causing wider and wider shifts in weather. It's not as simple as that, but the atmosphere is a large and very complex system, and changing one thing will change many others.
 
2012-04-22 06:38:41 PM  
Last time I saw a weather pattern like this was in March of 93.

We got 34 inches of snow in 24 hours.

I'm thankful this one is happening way later in the winter season.
 
2012-04-22 06:39:37 PM  
MY WEATHER MACHINE WORKS!!! XD
 
2012-04-22 06:41:17 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Little.Alex: The very ignorant see a glacier melting, and don't know that global temperatures fluctuate, and start praying to Dr. Al Gore. It's become a strange little religion.

I never saw that myself and I don't pray to Al Gore.

I just figure that regardless of your opinion of Global Warming/Climate Change, it would just be common sense not to trash the planet we live on.

Seems like the ones that deny Climate Change though are few and far in between and the ones that actually are relevant in the scientific community are significantly propped up by the oil and gas industry.

/My two cents


----------------------------
I've been reading-up on AL...it looks like he (among other doc politicians) get thier info fr/ Jules Verne & friends (1800s). I guess they had global warming too eh.
 
2012-04-22 06:42:07 PM  

badhatharry: Warmer temperatures cause more snow. This is what the warming alarmists actually believe.


Do you even know how weather works? It's not 'a little system here, and another system there' it's 'one big system with many many inputs'.
 
2012-04-22 06:42:27 PM  
Mrtraveler01:
The believers have science for the most part to back them up. The deniers just have whatever they read on a blog.

Oh, really? Why not post to me from the skepticalscience blog why the following peer-reviewed papers (New and expanded list) are all garbage and worthless?

Failing that, you can always BURN MY APOSTATE HOUSE DOWN.


Peer-Reviewed literature showing that climate sensitivity is actually MUCH less than the IPCC suggests, 2.0 to 4.5 K, at 66% certainty. Data from OBSERVATIONS show the least sensitivity, "data" from models show the most.

Improved constraints on 21st-century warming derived using 160 years of temperature observations (new window)
Data Source: Observational -- Sensitivity: (1.3 to 1.8 K)

An Observationally Based Estimate of the Climate Sensitivity (new window)
Data Source: Observational - Sensitivity: (1.7 to 2.3 K)

Probabilistic estimated of transient climate sensitivity subject to uncertainty in forcing and natural variability (new window)
Data Source: Mostly Observational - Sensitivity: (Most Likely: 1.6 K, Range: 1.3 to 2.6 K, 90% certainty)

The Climate Sensitivity and Its Components Diagnosed from Earth Radiation Budget Data (new window)
Data Source: Mostly Observational - Sensitivity: 0.7-2.4 K using best fit, 1.0-3.6 K using worst case

On the generation and interpretation of probabilistic estimates of climate sensitivity (new window)
Data Source: Analysis of other papers - Sensitivity: Upper limit of 4.5 K, > 95% certainty

On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth's Radiant Energy Balance (new window)
Data Source: Comparison of Observed and Modeled results - Sensitivity "substantially" lower than models indicate, but not quantifiable with existing data


The stable stationary value of the Earth's global average atmospheric Planck-weighted Greenhouse gas optical thickness.
(new window)
Data Source: Observation and Modeled - Climate sensitivity approx. ¼ that of current CGM models

Climate Sensitivity Estimated from Temperature Reconstructions of the Last Glacial Maximum (new window)
Data Source: Primarily Modeled - Climate sensitivity: (1.7 to 2.6 K, 66% probability)

Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth's Climate System (new window)
Data Source: Primarily Observation - Climate sensitivity: (0.6 to 1.6 K)

A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions (new window)
Data Source: Comparison of Modeled and Observed - Conclusion: No positive feedback, models are inconsistent with reality

On the diagnosis of radiative feedback in the presence of unknown radiative forcing (new window)
Data Source: Comparison of Modeled and Observed - Conclusion: GCM predictions do not correlate with reality.

On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data (new window)
Data Source: Primarily Observation - Climate sensitivity: (0.5 K)

Tropical Water Vapor and Cloud Feedbacks in Climate Models: A Further Assessment Using Coupled Simulations (new window)
Comparison of Modeled and Observed - Conclusions:
- CGMs overestimate WV feedback from 25% to 45%, depending on model.
- All models greatly underestimate cloud albedo negative feedback

Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary atmospheres (new window)
Primarily Mathematical, using Observation - Climate sensitivity: (0.24 to 1.10 K)

Note that when the suggested correction to the math error is included in the models, they at least sort of accurately predict the present from historical data. Without the corrections, they do not. Awkward.
Descriptions of and discussion about the above article:

0. Modeling Global Warming (Miskolczi Part 1)
4. Models of Greenhouse Effect
5. Greenhouse Effect Physics
6. Greenhouse Heat Engine

 
2012-04-22 06:44:10 PM  
I've got several inches I could assault you with instead, subby...
 
2012-04-22 06:44:11 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Looking at both sides, it seems that they're both so insane about pushing and defending their ideas that I don't know who is right.

Maybe there's a middle ground, where Earth's global climate naturally fluctuates over thousands to millions of years, and our influence in the last couple of hundred has made the changes happen either faster or stronger?


There's a scientific ground that doesn't have people either saying that everything people do is bad bad bad and we are killing the Earth, or nothing people can do to the Earth can ever be bad because God wouldn't let it happen.

The problem is, you then have to learn some science to read it first hand in the scientific literature. That's just too much work for most people.
 
2012-04-22 06:44:58 PM  

Xaxor: it's 'one big system with many many inputs'.


Like subby's mom.
 
2012-04-22 06:48:23 PM  

Fear_and_Loathing: I live in the southern NE. Just MONSOON here. No snow. still sucks. Only highpoint is the Sox/NYY game will be cancelled. There is a Dog!


Yea, and Dog sayeth, "Woof, I shall have mercy on thee, Red Sux," and he caused-eth it to rain, sparing the Sux another asswhoopin'. Forsooth. Verily.
 
2012-04-22 06:49:56 PM  
*LOVE* watching the AGW peeps scramble when someone measures the depth of snow by units of "global warming...."

They are so easy to rile.

Thanks, subby. :-)
 
2012-04-22 06:52:31 PM  

Baryogenesis: Little.Alex: Dr. James Hansen's growing financial scandal


[www.hiddenpcmaster.com image 410x293]


Helluva chin wattle......
 
2012-04-22 06:53:29 PM  
some days it's hot, some day it's cold. you can't make this stuff up.
 
2012-04-22 07:02:01 PM  
Mugato:
Who to believe, the majority of the scientific community or people whoes finances would be personally and negatively affected by the acceptance of GW?

Well, kudos on using the correct logic. If you started with actual FACTS, you might even reach a correct conclusion. A few facts for you:

1. Energy companies "helped" write the proposed legislation. They made it produce even MORE profits for them.
2. Because of Fact #1, energy companies now SUPPORT draconian carbon legislation: More profit, for longer.
3. Environmental groups are spending an order of magnitude more money than energy companies to influence the "science" involved.
4. Governments are spending MORE than an order of magnitude more than even the environmental groups.
5. Governments stand to gain TRILLIONS of dollars on carbon taxes, and gain control over almost all business activities
6. The IPCC process has been repeatedly corrupted.
7. In cases described in Fact #6, 100% of the corruption has been in favor of environmental activist groups.
8. Climate science now gets 20 TIMES the funding it did before the artificial climate panic
9. Going back to pre-panic funding would mean a 95% cut in research money for climate science.

There... now run your logic with the facts. What you get is: "Do I believe the governmental political organizations, and the political organizations of the scientific community, people whose finances would be personally and negatively affected by the rejection of AGW?"
 
2012-04-22 07:02:18 PM  

Mrtraveler01: dukwbutter: Climate change is the new religion. It has nothing to do with science. It has everything to do with believing...having faith that, at the lowest level, humans are poison for the earth, right down to the carbon dioxide they emit when they breathe. If it's colder, then that's "Weather", but if it's warmer, then that's "Global Warming" or "Climate Change". So, when you look at it through that lens, then yes, you could certainly convince yourself that klimate change is real. It isn't. It's junk science. A global fraud perpetrated by shysters, clueless new-age hippies, women, and men too dumb to understand science.

I live with my mom

Too obvious.


Yeah, because to not believe in AGW, you would have to be a troll. Have a look at all these idiotic trolls:


http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-support i ng.html
 
2012-04-22 07:05:31 PM  
Is subby another RW dumbass? Having more heat pumped into the atmosphere causes increasing instability & greater extremes in whether conditions - like having a snow storm in April. It creates a more chaotic system. Global climate change (which is the correct term) does not mean we won't see snow anymore.
 
2012-04-22 07:05:31 PM  

GeneralJim: 1. Energy companies "helped" write the proposed legislation. They made it produce even MORE profits for them.
2. Because of Fact #1, energy companies now SUPPORT draconian carbon legislation: More profit, for longer.
3. Environmental groups are spending an order of magnitude more money than energy companies to influence the "science" involved.
4. Governments are spending MORE than an order of magnitude more than even the environmental groups.
5. Governments stand to gain TRILLIONS of dollars on carbon taxes, and gain control over almost all business activities
6. The IPCC process has been repeatedly corrupted.
7. In cases described in Fact #6, 100% of the corruption has been in favor of environmental activist groups.
8. Climate science now gets 20 TIMES the funding it did before the artificial climate panic
9. Going back to pre-panic funding would mean a 95% cut in research money for climate science.


img62.imageshack.us
 
2012-04-22 07:07:54 PM  

KrispyKritter: some days it's hot, some day it's cold. you can't make this stuff up.


like subby's mom?
 
2012-04-22 07:15:41 PM  
I have trouble with any argument where it is misrepresented to "advocate" for it.

I've seen this on both sides of the GW debate; asshats tend to proliferate on topics like this.

So it's no wonder that many people base their support on belief and intuition since you can't believe either side.

/not that there's anything right with that.
 
2012-04-22 07:20:36 PM  
C'mon subby... give it a break, all you're gonna do is get the global warming fundies all mad.
 
2012-04-22 07:23:21 PM  

GeneralJim: Mugato: Who to believe, the majority of the scientific community or people whoes finances would be personally and negatively affected by the acceptance of GW?
Well, kudos on using the correct logic. If you started with actual FACTS, you might even reach a correct conclusion. A few facts for you:

1. Energy companies "helped" write the proposed legislation. They made it produce even MORE profits for them.
2. Because of Fact #1, energy companies now SUPPORT draconian carbon legislation: More profit, for longer.
3. Environmental groups are spending an order of magnitude more money than energy companies to influence the "science" involved.
4. Governments are spending MORE than an order of magnitude more than even the environmental groups.
5. Governments stand to gain TRILLIONS of dollars on carbon taxes, and gain control over almost all business activities
6. The IPCC process has been repeatedly corrupted.
7. In cases described in Fact #6, 100% of the corruption has been in favor of environmental activist groups.
8. Climate science now gets 20 TIMES the funding it did before the artificial climate panic
9. Going back to pre-panic funding would mean a 95% cut in research money for climate science.

There... now run your logic with the facts. What you get is: "Do I believe the governmental political organizations, and the political organizations of the scientific community, people whose finances would be personally and negatively affected by the rejection of AGW?"


All of those assertions might be of interest if I didn't understand the physics and chemistry involved. However, as I do, I can bypass the conspiracy part and go straight to the data, the methods for collecting the data, and the models to fit the data. It's a far more decisive way to address the issues than weaving various conspiracy theories.
 
2012-04-22 07:23:37 PM  

wxboy: TravisBickle62: Why do they spell it "Nor'easter" instead of "Northeaster"?

Why is Worcester pronounced "Wuss-ter"?


If one were to go by how my grandmother (from MA) it is pronounces it, it is pronounced Wusstah.

Also, how is snow in April in the Northeast (or in the Midwest where I live) news. It typically happens every other year or so.
 
2012-04-22 07:24:38 PM  
The whole, "Nor'easter" thing is retarded. Spell it out normally, for Christs sake.
 
2012-04-22 07:24:43 PM  
This is awsome
eventually this will become such a common meme among conservatives that they won't even question it. So pretty soon hannity glenn and such will start to sound really insane and not even realize it.

"Hurrr hurrr, I suppose all this here SNOW in washington july is because of GLOBAL WARMIN'!!!!, Herp a derpy durrr!!!"

By then everyone else will realize how insane they sound and they won't even be in on the real joke.


Hypnozombie
 
2012-04-22 07:25:30 PM  

GeneralJim: o, you're pro-GW? Pfft.


No one sane is pro-GW. We're anti-GW. We want GW not to happen. You, OTOH, are pro-head-in-sand.

Warmers NEED their opponents to be that dull, even if THEY have to supply the stupid.

It ain't the "warmers" that provided such stupid as this:

Global warming is caused by Air Fairies. They will continue to warm the planet unless appeased. The way to appease Air Fairies is to give up drinking, smoking, and sex. I expect you to do what you can, on the slight chance that Air Fairies are real, and need appeasing.
 
2012-04-22 07:27:44 PM  

namatad: but the majority of people who believe in GW, believe in it like it is a religion.


no they don't. go fark yourself troll
 
2012-04-22 07:29:46 PM  
This isn't a real Global Warming thread.....there's no graphs. What happened to all the fark experts on global warming and their piles and piles of graphs?

I feel cheated.

.
..
...
Oh, and name calling, petty insults, juvenile taunts?
 
2012-04-22 07:31:05 PM  

Kazan: namatad: but the majority of people who believe in GW, believe in it like it is a religion.

no they don't. go fark yourself troll


Bing. There's one. Phew. I thought I'd mixed up the site with Womens Television Network forum.
 
2012-04-22 07:33:20 PM  

wademh: GeneralJim: Mugato: Who to believe, the majority of the scientific community or people whoes finances would be personally and negatively affected by the acceptance of GW?
Well, kudos on using the correct logic. If you started with actual FACTS, you might even reach a correct conclusion. A few facts for you:

1. Energy companies "helped" write the proposed legislation. They made it produce even MORE profits for them.
2. Because of Fact #1, energy companies now SUPPORT draconian carbon legislation: More profit, for longer.
3. Environmental groups are spending an order of magnitude more money than energy companies to influence the "science" involved.
4. Governments are spending MORE than an order of magnitude more than even the environmental groups.
5. Governments stand to gain TRILLIONS of dollars on carbon taxes, and gain control over almost all business activities
6. The IPCC process has been repeatedly corrupted.
7. In cases described in Fact #6, 100% of the corruption has been in favor of environmental activist groups.
8. Climate science now gets 20 TIMES the funding it did before the artificial climate panic
9. Going back to pre-panic funding would mean a 95% cut in research money for climate science.

There... now run your logic with the facts. What you get is: "Do I believe the governmental political organizations, and the political organizations of the scientific community, people whose finances would be personally and negatively affected by the rejection of AGW?"

All of those assertions might be of interest if I didn't understand the physics and chemistry involved. However, as I do, I can bypass the conspiracy part and go straight to the data, the methods for collecting the data, and the models to fit the data. It's a far more decisive way to address the issues than weaving various conspiracy theories.


Yes, but science and data aren't nearly as much fun as trying to hypothesize how the lizard men and the illuminati are blinding us all to the truth through the clever use of Al Gore and how they plan to monetize the whole scheme as they herd us all toward their Orwellian one-world government.

I mean really, how can science compete with that?
 
2012-04-22 07:33:50 PM  
hubiestubert:

Why is Worcester pronounced "Wuss-ter"?

If one were to go by how my grandmother (from MA) it is pronounces it, it is pronounced Wusstah.

Also, how is snow in April in the Northeast (or in the Midwest where I live) news. It typically happens every other year or so.

Must be from bahston. We from the area call it wis-tah.

As for Climate Change, it's happening. But, the nice thing about the NE is that were going to get wetter, and more moderate temperatures. Basically we become the west coast.

Once the rivers and communities get used to it, it's actually going to be a overall advantage. Hell, it's probably going to revitalize farming up here.

Unlike Texas, where they're going to turn into the Arizona desert east.
 
2012-04-22 07:38:31 PM  

meow76: http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-support i ng.html


(facepalm)

http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=15&t=745&&n=571
 
2012-04-22 07:39:08 PM  
I feel sorry for anyone who thinks that humans are responsible for global climate warming derp.., there is proof of long standing deserts that were once oceans, and vice-versa throughout earths history. Jungles and rain forests that were once barren plains.

There were certainly no factories or cars or severe carbon output, and the population was very very low. So who was to blame for that?

Anytime people in power and money get involved, we peasants cannot fathom the lengths of deceit that they would travel to promote their agendas. They never let an opportunity go to waste, and they have so many self hating guilt ridden liberal white people who will follow like little sheepies and soooo want to tell people how everyone who doesnt agree is a big bad republican cigar chomping fat cat gun nut corporate monster racist.

diediediediediediediedie a slow death I wanna cut off your eyelids and feed you nothing but sleeping pills.
 
2012-04-22 07:45:10 PM  

publikenemy: I feel sorry for anyone who thinks that humans are responsible for global climate warming derp.., there is proof of long standing deserts that were once oceans, and vice-versa throughout earths history. Jungles and rain forests that were once barren plains.


I feel sorry for anyone who thinks humans are responsible for forest fires. There's proof of lightning strikes and drought causing fires throughout Earth's history. There were certainly no cigarettes or sever camping output, so who was to blame for that?
 
2012-04-22 07:49:17 PM  

Baryogenesis: publikenemy: I feel sorry for anyone who thinks that humans are responsible for global climate warming derp.., there is proof of long standing deserts that were once oceans, and vice-versa throughout earths history. Jungles and rain forests that were once barren plains.

I feel sorry for anyone who thinks humans are responsible for forest fires. There's proof of lightning strikes and drought causing fires throughout Earth's history. There were certainly no cigarettes or sever camping output, so who was to blame for that?


Terrible analogy and comeback..meaningless. Usually if someone cannot come up with a sufficient answer, they ask a question as an answer.
 
2012-04-22 07:51:14 PM  

indarwinsshadow: Kazan: namatad: but the majority of people who believe in GW, believe in it like it is a religion.

no they don't. go fark yourself troll

Bing. There's one. Phew. I thought I'd mixed up the site with Womens Television Network forum.


most people have him on ignore.. he just earned promotion from tagged-to-ignored
 
2012-04-22 07:53:21 PM  

publikenemy: Baryogenesis: publikenemy: I feel sorry for anyone who thinks that humans are responsible for global climate warming derp.., there is proof of long standing deserts that were once oceans, and vice-versa throughout earths history. Jungles and rain forests that were once barren plains.

I feel sorry for anyone who thinks humans are responsible for forest fires. There's proof of lightning strikes and drought causing fires throughout Earth's history. There were certainly no cigarettes or sever camping output, so who was to blame for that?

Terrible analogy and comeback..meaningless. Usually if someone cannot come up with a sufficient answer, they ask a question as an answer.


It's an exact copy of your "logic", but do go on about insufficient answers.
 
Displayed 50 of 292 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | 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