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 45
    More: Scary, Western Pennsylvania, Heavy rains, wind gust, weather services, East Coast, eastern United States, National Weather Service, Camp Springs  
•       •       •

13488 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Apr 2012 at 5:43 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-04-22 06:05:26 PM  
7 votes:
onfinite.com


/It may not be snow, but the mechanics are the same
2012-04-22 03:58:47 PM  
6 votes:

p the boiler: Here is my response to people like subby... Only works if they are religious (which is just about every anti GW person)

You have no proof god exists, but you believe just in case that slight change exists. Well, what about the slight chance GW exists? Wouldn't you do what is right to help the situation?


uh, i know god exsists, but we won't get into that now, because you apparently dont. Global warming is all about money, and God doesnt have to be about money. you can worship him by yourself, for free. but you cannot agree with the global warming theory unless you're willing to part with an assload of money.
2012-04-22 05:53:08 PM  
5 votes:
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.
2012-04-22 05:55:33 PM  
4 votes:
www.mamieyoung.com
2012-04-22 12:09:06 PM  
4 votes:
Um...Smitty, as someone whose place of employment got damn near wiped out by Irene: screw you.

That storm was a wild deviation from normal patterns.

There are more odd storms, and while some areas will only see some light damage, you don't take a Nor'easter lightly.
2012-04-22 05:55:49 PM  
3 votes:

namatad: p the boiler: Here is my response to people like subby... Only works if they are religious (which is just about every anti GW person)

You have no proof god exists, but you believe just in case that slight change exists. Well, what about the slight chance GW exists? Wouldn't you do what is right to help the situation?

but the majority of people who believe in GW, believe in it like it is a religion.
(the reality of the science is irrelevant, they act like true believers which are just as scary as deniers.)


The believers have science for the most part to back them up. The deniers just have whatever they read on a blog.
2012-04-22 05:54:18 PM  
3 votes:

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.


0/10

Too obvious.
2012-04-22 11:33:57 PM  
2 votes:

meow76: The science is far from being settled.


The science is far from being completely settled in a multitude of fields, but that does not halt the implementation of the knowledge we do have from those fields. You'd be called a troll if you popped into a thread discussing gravity and declared that because we don't have a complete understanding of relativity that we should forgo implementation of the knowledge that we do have; why would you pop into a thread about climate and expect different? The use of the "the science isn't settled yet!" argument against a response to climate change or any other well established field that we don't understand literally everything about yet is typically (but not always) a signal flair from a person commenting from an uninformed or willfully ignorant position in search of a response from others; i.e. a troll. In other words, if you bring a troll's argument to the table, don't be surprised when people respond like you're trolling.
2012-04-22 09:10:03 PM  
2 votes:
Mother nature bats last. Try one or two volcanic events, nuke or a caldera collapse and watch everyone PRAY for global warming. I do not deny burning of oil, with eons of trapped solar energy, is a good thing. There is no way to get an unbiased appraisal of the effects these days. If I wrote and received a grant proposal on global warming with funding for my lab, I wonder what the findings would be. Try supporting your lab other a global cooling grant proposal.
And what would the findings be?.....sad
2012-04-22 07:23:21 PM  
2 votes:

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 06:14:17 PM  
2 votes:
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 06:13:46 PM  
2 votes:

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
2012-04-22 05:50:50 PM  
2 votes:
This is Fark, always assume a headline (and most comments) are a troll.
2012-04-22 05:49:32 PM  
2 votes:
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.
2012-04-22 05:11:00 PM  
2 votes:

p the boiler: Here is my response to people like subby... Only works if they are religious (which is just about every anti GW person)

You have no proof god exists, but you believe just in case that slight change exists. Well, what about the slight chance GW exists? Wouldn't you do what is right to help the situation?


but the majority of people who believe in GW, believe in it like it is a religion.
(the reality of the science is irrelevant, they act like true believers which are just as scary as deniers.)
2012-04-22 12:00:13 PM  
2 votes:
Here is my response to people like subby... Only works if they are religious (which is just about every anti GW person)

You have no proof god exists, but you believe just in case that slight change exists. Well, what about the slight chance GW exists? Wouldn't you do what is right to help the situation?
2012-04-23 06:17:19 PM  
1 votes:

hypnoticus ceratophrys: GeneralJim: They [the UN/IPCC] have the ability to end up destroying civilization out of this, and sending us back to a new sort of hunter-gatherer society.


That's still my all-time favorite. One day, we put up some solar panels and windmills, the next, it's Lord of the Flies.

The most recent IPCC budget I could find is for 2007, and they expended 8.2 million Swiss Francs ($9.0M USD, using today's exchange rate). If the IPCC could direct the destruction of civilization on that budget, you'd have to sit back and admire their efficiency.

Even Bond villains have better-funded plans for world domination, and they get routinely foiled by one drunk, horny dude in a tuxedo.
2012-04-23 01:38:54 AM  
1 votes:

indarwinsshadow: 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


www.woodfortrees.org


But hey, it's only the entire surface of the planet over the last 15 years. Probably just weather, amirite?
2012-04-23 12:55:58 AM  
1 votes:

ParaHandy: Denying anthropomorphic climate change is a luxury only afforded to oil company CEO's and the terminally stupid.

/ if we don't do something about it, we're going to learn the answer to Fermi's Paradox the hard way


You see, that's the sort of sensationalistic chicken-little-eske "the sky is falling" nonsense that gives climate change science a bad name.
Yes, human induced climate change is real. We know this will make life in the Maldives nearly impossible due to the predictable change in sea level. Most of Bangladesh is likewise going to become uninhabitable, at least according to current practices. But to suggest that we are all going to die is ill-informed.

There are things to fear, rapid acidification of the oceans can produce significant unknowable changes. Interrupting the Gulf Stream Current from lower density melt of the Greenland Ice cap will most likely drive severe changes to the European climate, decreasing the growing season significantly. Many changes are of the sort that are too rapid to expect ecosystems to adapt to and this suggests that the global biosphere will run at a reduced yield for some time, likely crashing ocean stocks and therefore fish harvests. However, we can predict if it will be a 5% reduction in food or a 50% reduction in food. That is major cause for concern but it isn't going to wipe us out unless some nuts turn it into World War III.

It would be nice if we could usefully reverse the coming trend but it's unrealistic to expect that to happen. The best move is probably to prepare to be flexible so you can adapt to the changes to come, be they wetter or drier, hotter where you are or colder with potentially much less infrastructural support. You don't need to go survivalist kooky but find a nice place for a garden is a very very good idea.
2012-04-22 10:06:52 PM  
1 votes:

p the boiler: Here is my response to people like subby... Only works if they are religious (which is just about every anti GW person)

You have no proof god exists, but you believe just in case that slight change exists. Well, what about the slight chance GW exists? Wouldn't you do what is right to help the situation?



I thought you were going to say this:

Every tiny little suggestion of God's existence (Jesus on toast, every cancer remission in history, someone wins the lottery, Tebow completes a pass) gets magnified into a miracle and is touted as proof.

But the same doesn't apply for suggestions of global warming's existence. In fact, every snowfall that ever occurs is anti-proof.

So anyone who believes in God and not in global warming is using a very unlevel playing field. At least be consistent. Go ahead, believe in God because your team won a sports event, but if so you've got to at least consider global warming every time it gets above 90 degrees. Conversely, if you think a snowfall disproves global warming, then your aunt dying of cancer should also disprove God's existence.
2012-04-22 09:44:16 PM  
1 votes:
I thought this was the weekly Fark global warming thread(tm)?

i.imgur.com
2012-04-22 09:24:55 PM  
1 votes:

the_immoral_minority: Mother nature bats last. Try one or two volcanic events, nuke or a caldera collapse and watch everyone PRAY for global warming. I do not deny burning of oil, with eons of trapped solar energy, is a good thing. There is no way to get an unbiased appraisal of the effects these days. If I wrote and received a grant proposal on global warming with funding for my lab, I wonder what the findings would be. Try supporting your lab other a global cooling grant proposal.
And what would the findings be?.....sad


Its too bad you dont understand how science works.

/There is a lot more money in proven that GW isnt the case
And whats the one thing a scientist loves more than anything else? Thats right- proving another wrong.
2012-04-22 08:49:21 PM  
1 votes:

publikenemy: Baryogenesis: publikenemy: Especially when there is NO proof it is man made?

Direct observations find that CO2 is rising sharply due to human activity. Satellite and surface measurements find less energy is escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths. Ocean and surface temperature measurements find the planet continues to accumulate heat. This gives a line of empirical evidence that human CO2 emissions are causing global warming.

What's your excuse for ignoring evidence going to be this time? Perhaps, "It's a conspiracy!"?

Ninety seven percent of the heat in the atmosphere gets there either through convection or evaporation, and not greenhouse gasses. The climate now days have made minimal changes compared to the dinosaur ages. Water evaporation is a bigger cause of global warming than carbon dioxide by at least 100 times.

People think Carbon dioxide sent in to the atmosphere today will affect people hundreds of years later. But the truth is Carbon Dioxide has a life span of 20 years. After 20 years, it disappears from the atmosphere all together.

According to scientific researcher Tim Ball, who has received a PhD from Cambridge University, the earth goes through a natural Climate cycle. In 1940-1980, the earth was actually facing global cooling. In 1980-2020, the earth's temperature should be reversing, and gradually start warming naturally.
This is my opinion, the earth used to have frozen rivers, and frozen mountains, but since humans came to live, more and more carbon dioxide has been inserted in to the atmosphere. It is not because of Burning fossil fuels, but because humans breathe. It's not our fault we breathe, it's completely natural. Humans must breathe to survive. For example, more and more babies are born everyday; they all breathe and release Carbon Dioxide in to the atmosphere.
Human input to the greenhouse gasses are as much as 1% more per year more than last year's average. If 1% is that great of a difference, then all like on earth would h ...


You dont even know that breathing is carbon nuetral and you are here trying to discuss global warming???

The rest of what you said is even WORSE, and this whole topic is right over your head obviously.

Go spend a few weeks reading and check back with us.

/For your own sake...
//Please??
2012-04-22 08:44:27 PM  
1 votes:

p the boiler: Well, what about the slight chance GW exists? Wouldn't you do what is right to help the situation?


I'm unsure if giving the UN a new tax on every citizen and company will help the situation. Unless the situation is the UN wanting more money to play with, then it's an excellent idea.
2012-04-22 08:39:31 PM  
1 votes:
So that whole winter of NO SNOWFALL that most of the country saw means nothing to idiots like the submitter?

FARKING uneducated asshole.
2012-04-22 08:13:22 PM  
1 votes:
msnbcmedia.msn.com

Bring me the head of Punxatawney Phil!
2012-04-22 08:09:46 PM  
1 votes:

GeneralJim: Mrtraveler01: The believers have science for the most part to back them up. The deniers just have whatever they read on a blog.

(GeneralPeanut's copypasta from Anthony Watts' derp-tastic denialist blog snipped for brevity)


So... you defend yourself from a remark that references being ignorant by getting all your info from sumdumgai's blog by referencing sumdumgai's blog.

You're a convincing one, you are. You're gonna be a real hero someday.

/Nick Steel, is that you?
2012-04-22 08:04:04 PM  
1 votes:

Baryogenesis:

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


They are not remotely the same, but since I asked first, what was the reason for climate change in the distant past? We know it's happened before, without the human factor, so why all of a sudden do we wish to attribute it (if it's even happening) now to humans?

I know why, I said it before..why let a great opportunity go to waste..you bet your ass china and India will not give a red cent to "help", even though they are the biggest polluters...because they know it's BS and will have none of it.
2012-04-22 07:45:10 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:38:31 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:33:20 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:24:38 PM  
1 votes:
The whole, "Nor'easter" thing is retarded. Spell it out normally, for Christs sake.
2012-04-22 06:53:29 PM  
1 votes:
some days it's hot, some day it's cold. you can't make this stuff up.
2012-04-22 06:42:27 PM  
1 votes:
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 06:25:02 PM  
1 votes:
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 06:12:18 PM  
1 votes:
Who to believe, the majority of the scientific community or people whoes finances would be personally and negatively affected by the acceptance of GW?
2012-04-22 06:08:23 PM  
1 votes:

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.
2012-04-22 06:05:09 PM  
1 votes:

GeneralJim: And the difference between Anthropogenic Global Warming and either God or Air Fairies is that AGW has been scientifically falsified.


You're funny.
2012-04-22 06:02:40 PM  
1 votes:
p the boiler:
Here is my response to people like subby... Only works if they are religious (which is just about every anti GW person)

So, you're pro-GW? Pfft. Subby is clearly a supporter of the AGW hypothesis. It is ONLY AGW supporters who are that stupid. Warmers NEED their opponents to be that dull, even if THEY have to supply the stupid. Because, you know, there is no place for skepticism in science.

You have no proof god exists, but you believe just in case that slight change exists. Well, what about the slight chance GW exists? Wouldn't you do what is right to help the situation?

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.

And the difference between Anthropogenic Global Warming and either God or Air Fairies is that AGW has been scientifically falsified.

/ TMYK...
2012-04-22 06:02:35 PM  
1 votes:
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
2012-04-22 05:56:30 PM  
1 votes:
Here in Fairfield County, CT, it's raining.

Although not very heavily.

In fact, our gardens need the rain.

Film at eleven, but I wouldn't stay up, if I were you.
2012-04-22 05:51:09 PM  
1 votes:

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

Why is Worcester pronounced "Wuss-ter"?


Inbreeding?
2012-04-22 05:49:05 PM  
1 votes:

Livingroom: p the boiler: Here is my response to people like subby... Only works if they are religious (which is just about every anti GW person)

You have no proof god exists, but you believe just in case that slight change exists. Well, what about the slight chance GW exists? Wouldn't you do what is right to help the situation?

uh, i know god exsists, but we won't get into that now, because you apparently dont. Global warming is all about money, and God doesnt have to be about money. you can worship him by yourself, for free. but you cannot agree with the global warming theory unless you're willing to part with an assload of money.


You, sir, are a giant among ants. I cannot offer sufficient praise to your intellect.
2012-04-22 05:45:30 PM  
1 votes:
Why do they spell it "Nor'easter" instead of "Northeaster"?
2012-04-22 04:10:34 PM  
1 votes:

NewportBarGuy: ecmoRandomNumbers: NewportBarGuy: Subby must've majored in humor at Glenn Beck University.

The best and brightest go on to do graduate studies at Bovine University.

Gosh, I really hope so. Ma and Pa would be so proud! *fingers crossed*

/submitter
//*hangs head in shame*


I am disappoint. You really picked the low-hanging fruit...

/call it climate change, lest you want to sound like the morans who actually believe what you wrote in the headline...
 
Displayed 45 of 45 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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