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.

(Boing Boing)   CNN on Bill Nye's views about climate change: "just a kooky guy that doesn't know what he's talking about"   (boingboing.net) divider line 120
    More: Asinine, CNN  
•       •       •

6812 clicks; posted to Geek » on 13 Jul 2012 at 7:31 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-13 08:59:52 PM
Are other planets exhibiting signs of warming to? Not just our Earth?
 
2012-07-13 09:01:23 PM

Dinki: Context is everything subby. She was giving him the opening to respond to the idiots out there calling him that.


Yeah.

But for once I would like to hear the not-dumbed-down version of what "the scientists" are on about. For instance maybe "the greenhouse effect has added this many excess Joules of energy to the oceans and atmosphere, which will result in this much increased probability of hurricanes, or this much temperature with this much standard deviation on any given day, and ice cap melting at this rate with commensurate rise of sea level by this much on this schedule which will inundate this far inland." There seems to be very little of that. When these guys talk about "record temperatures the last decade", the next thing that happens is a record blizzard somewhere, and the public can't figure out what that means and the environmental exploiters use the opening to deny global warming. The public is less plain dumb and more susceptible to phony authority than a trained professional of any kind realizes.

///Today is world run-on sentence day.
 
2012-07-13 09:05:19 PM

douchebag/hater: Get back to me when Bill Nye, the 'science' guy has a degree in meteorology, paleo-meteorology, statistics, etc.


Would it really matter to you considering that the majority of those who do have expertise in this area agree with him?
 
2012-07-13 09:05:30 PM
Only a Nazi would disrespect Bill Nye.

You Nazis.
 
2012-07-13 09:05:56 PM

SkinnyHead: Bill Nye is proof that you don't need an advanced degree in science to have an opinion about science. He can "read a graph" and form opinions just like everyone else.


He can also, I expect, vet the source of the graph. The education industry does not have a monopoly on intelligence or learning. It just has a monopoly on paperwork.

//Is a troll still a troll if it is the simple truth?
 
2012-07-13 09:07:12 PM

Greenbeanx: Are other planets exhibiting signs of warming to? Not just our Earth?


Yeah, about that...
 
2012-07-13 09:09:27 PM

FloydA: I'm really glad he raised the point that both "sides" are not equal. When one side of a debate is completely full of s**t, there is really no need to treat them equally, and journalists do us a disservice when they try to balance opposing viewpoints.

Climate change denialists are as bad as creationists and flat earthers in that respect. Their claims are simply false, and trying to find a middle ground between true and false leaves us too close to false.


if bill nye represents the "other side" because he "can read... graphs," then I am that spider you haven't noticed in your shower yet. when was the last time they interviewed somebody who would actually be reputable and prepared in this regard?
 
2012-07-13 09:13:34 PM
img20.imageshack.us

Vodka Zombie: CNN's viewers, on average, are just a little too smart for that.

 
2012-07-13 09:13:45 PM

SkinnyHead: Bill Nye is proof that you don't need an advanced degree in science to have an opinion about science. He can "read a graph" and form opinions just like everyone else.


Much easier just to skim Genesis in grade school and stop thinking thereafter.
 
2012-07-13 09:14:03 PM

douchebag/hater: Get back to me when Bill Nye, the 'science' guy has a degree in meteorology, paleo-meteorology, statistics, etc.

Until then, he's just a comedian who found a better paying gig.

Yeah, you didn't know that?
He started out as a comedian and now he's an 'authority' on global 'warming'.


well, according to the "liberal media" anyway. Makes you wonder how much the media in general actually want the science to be respected... doesn't it?
 
2012-07-13 09:16:56 PM
what I'm saying is, why paint such an easy target
 
2012-07-13 09:18:24 PM

davidphogan: LouDobbsAwaaaay: davidphogan: One question I never see raised in these threads is how much might climate change be attributed to all the nukes we set off from 1945 on? I mean, dozens of nuclear tests a year for a few decades seems like it could add up to something...

While the energy released from a nuke is exciting, it's small in the grand scheme of things:

"A fully developed hurricane can release heat energy at a rate of 5 to 20x1013 watts and converts less than 10% of the heat into the mechanical energy of the wind. The heat release is equivalent to a 10-megaton nuclear bomb exploding every 20 minutes."

Heat isn't the only byproduct of a nuclear detonation.


You have an interesting definition for "dozens"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9U8CZAKSsNA

But still - no this has nothing to do with climate change.
What else do you think is given off by a nuclear detonation?
Are you implying that ionization or the EMP are contributing to a global change?

There's a reason you don't see it brought up in these threads. Out of the "dozens" of semi-valid to crackpot ideas of where man made contribution lies this doesn't even fall into the whackjob parlance.
 
2012-07-13 09:26:45 PM
This About That:

Dinki: Context is everything subby. She was giving him the opening to respond to the idiots out there calling him that.

Yeah.

But for once I would like to hear the not-dumbed-down version of what "the scientists" are on about. For instance maybe "the greenhouse effect has added this many excess Joules of energy to the oceans and atmosphere, which will result in this much increased probability of hurricanes, or this much temperature with this much standard deviation on any given day, and ice cap melting at this rate with commensurate rise of sea level by this much on this schedule which will inundate this far inland." There seems to be very little of that. When these guys talk about "record temperatures the last decade", the next thing that happens is a record blizzard somewhere, and the public can't figure out what that means and the environmental exploiters use the opening to deny global warming. The public is less plain dumb and more susceptible to phony authority than a trained professional of any kind realizes.

///Today is world run-on sentence day.


Yeah, you may have to do that yourself.

I once did the math to figure out that it would take over a year to warm Lake Powell by one degree centigrade with the entire theoretical output from the Glen Canyon Dam in front of it, or to say how many times more tons just of water vapor is in the atmosphere and just how much energy 1c involves..

Lake Powell being a relatively small body of water and all in the grander scheme of things.

It doesn't mean much. Innumerate people will be proudly innumerate, and people with axes to grind will quite happily grind said axes until such time as the storm tears the roof off and they can blame someone else.
 
2012-07-13 09:30:47 PM

douchebag/hater: Get back to me when Bill Nye, the 'science' guy has a degree in meteorology, paleo-meteorology, statistics, etc.

Until then, he's just a comedian who found a better paying gig.

Yeah, you didn't know that?
He started out as a comedian and now he's an 'authority' on global 'warming'.


Well, when people with those degrees say humans can, and do, affect the climate on a significant level, you dipshiats just call them liars, shills, etc. Then proudly hold up 'scientists' who work for energy companies, just because they disagree with the vast majority of their peers, and thus confirm your preconceptions.
 
2012-07-13 09:31:28 PM

utsagrad123: Everybody knows, that's not really him. He died in a massive vinegar/baking-soda explosion in 2000.


So, what is he, some terror made by science?
 
2012-07-13 09:42:00 PM
LordJiro:

douchebag/hater: Get back to me when Bill Nye, the 'science' guy has a degree in meteorology, paleo-meteorology, statistics, etc.

Until then, he's just a comedian who found a better paying gig.

Yeah, you didn't know that?
He started out as a comedian and now he's an 'authority' on global 'warming'.

Well, when people with those degrees say humans can, and do, affect the climate on a significant level, you dipshiats just call them liars, shills, etc. Then proudly hold up 'scientists' who work for energy companies, just because they disagree with the vast majority of their peers, and thus confirm your preconceptions.


Hey now... Don't dis him. He read these things and understands these things. He's sure of it! He'll tell you all about it.
 
2012-07-13 09:42:55 PM

LordJiro: douchebag/hater: Get back to me when Bill Nye, the 'science' guy has a degree in meteorology, paleo-meteorology, statistics, etc.

Until then, he's just a comedian who found a better paying gig.

Yeah, you didn't know that?
He started out as a comedian and now he's an 'authority' on global 'warming'.

Well, when people with those degrees say humans can, and do, affect the climate on a significant level, you dipshiats just call them liars, shills, etc. Then proudly hold up 'scientists' who work for energy companies, just because they disagree with the vast majority of their peers, and thus confirm your preconceptions.


don't you think it's just a little too easy?
 
2012-07-13 09:43:13 PM

IncessantHooting: You have an interesting definition for "dozens"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9U8CZAKSsNA


About 38 per year (2053/53) isn't dozens? I dunno, that seems like dozens to me.

IncessantHooting: But still - no this has nothing to do with climate change.
What else do you think is given off by a nuclear detonation?
Are you implying that ionization or the EMP are contributing to a global change?


I have no idea. Has it been eliminated as a possibility?

I don't doubt that humans caused global warming, it just seems a strange correlation that as nuclear detonations increased the rate of warming did, and it slowed about the time we significantly slowed down test.

IncessantHooting: There's a reason you don't see it brought up in these threads. Out of the "dozens" of semi-valid to crackpot ideas of where man made contribution lies this doesn't even fall into the whackjob parlance.


Maybe it's a crackpot theory, I've just never seen anyone do any research to eliminate that there was something we missed. I'm not a scientist, and I'm not saying it's the cause, I just was wondering if it had been something that had been researched at all in case there was some way the influenced the atmosphere.
 
2012-07-13 09:45:23 PM

Sherman Potter: He does not believe that the climate change that is currently taking place (which he acknowledges in the video) is anthropogenic.



wat?

"As you may know, I strongly believe humans are making our world warm."
 
2012-07-13 09:51:04 PM

SkinnyHead: Bill Nye is proof that you don't need an advanced degree in science to have an opinion about science. He can "read a graph" and form opinions just like everyone else.


He holds a mechanical engineering degree from Cornell.

That's from the Ivy League. Look it up.
 
2012-07-13 09:51:05 PM

davidphogan: I have no idea. Has it been eliminated as a possibility?


You kinda need to have an actual hypothesis before it can be eliminated (or considered, for that matter). What's the hypothesis for why nuke tests would affect the global climate? You already said it wasn't the energy release. The noise, maybe?
 
2012-07-13 09:53:13 PM

maxheck: chuckufarlie:

That's some real great journalism there, Carol. I imagine your professors back at Kent State are proud of you. And what a service you are providing to your viewers by completely missing the point and muddying the waters. Superb.

I disagree. There are all sorts of pseudo-scientists here on FARK that could explain the entire situation and they have as much expertise as Bill Nye.

So... Hey, Nicky... What else do you do in your less-educated free time?


I respond to morons on the internet.
 
2012-07-13 09:55:27 PM

chuckufarlie: maxheck: chuckufarlie:

That's some real great journalism there, Carol. I imagine your professors back at Kent State are proud of you. And what a service you are providing to your viewers by completely missing the point and muddying the waters. Superb.

I disagree. There are all sorts of pseudo-scientists here on FARK that could explain the entire situation and they have as much expertise as Bill Nye.

So... Hey, Nicky... What else do you do in your less-educated free time?

I respond to morons on the internet.


Hey look, I'm engaging in your pastime!
 
2012-07-13 10:01:15 PM

cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: Bill Nye is proof that you don't need an advanced degree in science to have an opinion about science. He can "read a graph" and form opinions just like everyone else.

He holds a mechanical engineering degree from Cornell.

That's from the Ivy League. Look it up.


And he graduated there one year before Bill Mahr did.

Think they were roomies?
 
2012-07-13 10:07:39 PM

Vodka Zombie: Poor CNN. That network is a freakin' embarrassment and a colossal disaster these days.


These days? If you mean since the mid 90s, sure. I remember when there was some sort of leak on the international space station, and they were breathlessly covering it for hours, completely unable to figure out what "torr" was to convert it into something they understood, much less relatable. Now I may grant them some slack being HQ'd in Atlanta and all, but are you telling me that there wasn't one god damn elementary physics textbook in the whole farking city?

CNN is all the information one might tease from gosspip or opinions, without the benefit of a meaningful opinion, and repeated every 10 minutes 24/7. CNN is useless AND vacillating. It's no wonder FOX is killing them, at least they can make a choice. If it wasn't for the rest of civilization, they'd be eaten by wolves.
 
2012-07-13 10:11:30 PM

Tickle Mittens: completely unable to figure out what "torr" was


Are you implying CNN knows nothing about suck?
 
2012-07-13 10:14:01 PM

utsagrad123: Everybody knows, that's not really him. He died in a massive vinegar/baking-soda explosion in 2000.


I heard John Keister was spotted leaving the scene.

/what's weak this week?
 
2012-07-13 10:17:03 PM
CNN will counter with a new show on their network:

Derp Nye the anti-science guy!

i.imgur.com

Derp! Derp! Derp! Derp!
 
2012-07-13 10:19:12 PM

Vlad_the_Inaner: Tickle Mittens: completely unable to figure out what "torr" was

Are you implying CNN knows nothing about suck?


they're idiot savants of sucking. they can do it like few can, but they can't communicate any idea without coming off like retards.
 
2012-07-13 10:21:25 PM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: davidphogan: I have no idea. Has it been eliminated as a possibility?

You kinda need to have an actual hypothesis before it can be eliminated (or considered, for that matter). What's the hypothesis for why nuke tests would affect the global climate? You already said it wasn't the energy release. The noise, maybe?


I guess the hypothesis would be that maybe detonating 2000 nukes over 50 years might have had some unmeasured effect on the atmosphere as a whole, and in some way accelerated/modified the patters of climate change that have unfolded. Were there long term effects of high level tests (like Starfish Prime, where we were totally caught with our pants down as to what the results would be) or underwater tests that influenced climate change in ways we weren't looking for or measuring when we were blowing them up?

Mainly, I'm just wondering has anyone actually looked at the data available to see if nuclear testing influenced climate change. From some of the things I've read about the timeline it happened along, 1950-2000 was the big uptick in global temperatures, which just happens to coincide with when nuclear detonations were frequent.



Oddly since 2000 the average temps have started to plateau as well. I'm not doubting climate change is real, I'm just curious if we're missing out on other activities that may have played a part. As I mentioned, Starfish Prime was just one case where we totally didn't realize the effects of what we were doing. Did we maybe miss anything else?
 
2012-07-13 10:23:41 PM
Am I the only one who's noticed that Bill Nye seems to be turning into a Vulcan?

/Bill Nye the Vulcan Guy...
 
2012-07-13 10:29:39 PM

davidphogan: I guess the hypothesis would be that maybe detonating 2000 nukes over 50 years might have had some unmeasured effect on the atmosphere as a whole, and in some way accelerated/modified the patters of climate change that have unfolded.

...

Mainly, I'm just wondering has anyone actually looked at the data available to see if nuclear testing influenced climate change.


Again, this isn't a hypothesis. "Check if it did anything" isn't a hypothesis. There is no physical mechanism to look into here. What would you look at in the available data in order to find a signal from nuclear tests?
 
2012-07-13 10:33:12 PM

Fart_Machine: Yeah, about that...


It could be part of a vast coverup...lol anyway no matter what is causing it shouldn't be an issue..just start preparing for it..
 
2012-07-13 10:33:54 PM

violentsalvation: Jesus f*cking Christ, did any of you even watch the video? She is asking him to respond to what people on the internet call him.

And he actually is a "kooky guy who doesn't know what he's talking about" when he downplays the mismanagement of forests as a partial cause for the fires. Also he say "just two years ago it was wet in Colorado .... and then two years later when forest floor is especially dry". Ok so we are comparing weather and climate between two years as evidence of climate change? Sciency folks on fark would shoot my post full of holes if I did that here. And unfortunately the mismanagement of forests goes back more than 2 years, Bill. The heat and drought conditions just allow the ticking-time-bomb forests to finally explode.


You obviously watched the video so at what point did you stop thinking to keep your confirmation bias? Bill Nye mentioned the wet weather 2 years ago to agree with the point that there is more brush to create fires now. Somehow you heard the opposite? But your not biased, no not at all
 
2012-07-13 10:45:58 PM

Dinki: Context is everything subby. She was giving him the opening to respond to the idiots out there calling him that.


Who cares about context, this is Fark.
 
2012-07-13 10:50:40 PM

cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: Bill Nye is proof that you don't need an advanced degree in science to have an opinion about science. He can "read a graph" and form opinions just like everyone else.

He holds a mechanical engineering degree from Cornell.

That's from the Ivy League. Look it up.


why should we have to defend his credentials or ask anyone to look it up, isn't it possible to find a more reputable spokesman?
 
2012-07-13 11:07:26 PM
May i suggest that anthropomorphic climate change is a divisive and problem causing term?


Why do we need a "climate change" boogeyman when its almost impossible to argue that polluting the environment is detrimental to us all?

Why cant we strive towards continually lowering our impact with the environment without some sort of doomsday scenario people can argue against?

Polluting is bad m'kay? Do we really need a catastrophe to avoid for us to want to not poison the earth?
 
2012-07-13 11:12:06 PM

davidphogan: IncessantHooting: You have an interesting definition for "dozens"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9U8CZAKSsNA

About 38 per year (2053/53) isn't dozens? I dunno, that seems like dozens to me.

IncessantHooting: But still - no this has nothing to do with climate change.
What else do you think is given off by a nuclear detonation?
Are you implying that ionization or the EMP are contributing to a global change?

I have no idea. Has it been eliminated as a possibility?

I don't doubt that humans caused global warming, it just seems a strange correlation that as nuclear detonations increased the rate of warming did, and it slowed about the time we significantly slowed down test.

IncessantHooting: There's a reason you don't see it brought up in these threads. Out of the "dozens" of semi-valid to crackpot ideas of where man made contribution lies this doesn't even fall into the whackjob parlance.

Maybe it's a crackpot theory, I've just never seen anyone do any research to eliminate that there was something we missed. I'm not a scientist, and I'm not saying it's the cause, I just was wondering if it had been something that had been researched at all in case there was some way the influenced the atmosphere.


There might be some corelation between the Sun's radiation and Earth's magnetosphere, but I can't see a lasting effect caused by nuclear detonations.
 
2012-07-13 11:18:21 PM

Dinki: Context is everything subby. She was giving him the opening to respond to the idiots out there calling him that.


(Roughly): "Let's talk about the political aspect of this because, if you Google your name -- "Bill Nye" -- you're the kooky guy who doesn't know what he's talking about. I mean, you're not a climatologist.... You wanna defend yourself?"

Uhm, yeah, no. She wasn't accusing him or calling him anything. She was saying "The Internet says 'derp'. You wanna refute that?"

Stupid article is stupid.
 
2012-07-13 11:43:39 PM
mikefinch:

May i suggest that anthropomorphic climate change is a divisive and problem causing term?

It's a specific term. In fact, you may hear some people wharrgarble about "OMG! IT'S NOW CLIMATE CHANGE" from people who aren't familiar with the IPCC or the fact that a certain president sent out the word to stop using the term "global warming" in favor of "climate change" per Frank Luntz.

i46.tinypic.com
 
2012-07-13 11:46:13 PM

SkinnyHead: Bill Nye is proof that you don't need an advanced degree in science to have an opinion about science. He can "read a graph" and form opinions just like everyone else.


Ahem...

As a student at Cornell, Nye took the astronomy course taught by Carl Sagan, and after graduation he worked as a mechanical engineer, designing flight control systems for the aerospace giant Boeing.

Also, he's a noted sundial enthusiast. He's a fellow ME, and we're generally pretty good at picking away at sciency things. Just ask the question "If this carbon has been out of the environment for the past 200 million years, what the hell is is going to do to the environment."

It's my experience that muggles can't get their mind around ideas that involve large numbers of people doing little things to the environment. Most people with business degrees can't imagine what happens when you have massive movements of people doing things, which is why they crash economies.

And I have no idea why artistic types have latched on, unless they're opposing modernity. They certainly don't understand the problem.

/Is lumber carbon neutral?
//I think I'll go pick at it a while.
 
2012-07-13 11:56:16 PM
You know, we wouldn't have a warming problem if that jerk hadn't shut down the matter bridge. Jerk.
 
2012-07-14 12:14:02 AM

Jim_Callahan: Creationists argue that the process of natural selection doesn't occur, something that's empirically not true.


Hmm, straw man argument, try harder.
 
2012-07-14 12:17:56 AM

Sherman Potter: He does not believe that the climate change that is currently taking place (which he acknowledges in the video) is anthropogenic.

Those pushing hardest for this to be accepted as fact have only one goal: control.


You honestly believe this, don't you?

What color is the sky in a world where corporate interest in debunking climate change is less likely than some liberal wanting "control"?

What does a politician or private scientist personally gain as opposed to what a corporation stands to lose? Are you really this farking naive? Turn off that radio, son, it's rotting your brain.

Climate change is another astroturfed "issue" that should really be left up to science, and science alone. We stopped going to Delphi for answers long ago.

And screw you for besmirching the name of one of TV's most beloved characters.
 
2012-07-14 12:38:08 AM

Dinki: Context is everything subby. She was giving him the opening to respond to the idiots out there calling him that.


Rubbish. She was using that description to introduce him to the audience, to define him as kooky and ignorant. This isn't accidental. It's how media works.

Had she legitimately intended to have him on as an actual, informed guest then she would have mentioned what I found in five seconds on Wikipedia, that he "studied mechanical engineering at Cornell University, where one of his professors was Carl Sagan, and graduated with a Bachelor of Science in 1977." and reserved any mention of kookiness to his onscreen television persona.
 
2012-07-14 12:42:44 AM

LeftOfLiberal: violentsalvation: Jesus f*cking Christ, did any of you even watch the video? She is asking him to respond to what people on the internet call him.

And he actually is a "kooky guy who doesn't know what he's talking about" when he downplays the mismanagement of forests as a partial cause for the fires. Also he say "just two years ago it was wet in Colorado .... and then two years later when forest floor is especially dry". Ok so we are comparing weather and climate between two years as evidence of climate change? Sciency folks on fark would shoot my post full of holes if I did that here. And unfortunately the mismanagement of forests goes back more than 2 years, Bill. The heat and drought conditions just allow the ticking-time-bomb forests to finally explode.

You obviously watched the video so at what point did you stop thinking to keep your confirmation bias? Bill Nye mentioned the wet weather 2 years ago to agree with the point that there is more brush to create fires now. Somehow you heard the opposite? But your not biased, no not at all


I don't disagree with him on global warming, but yeah, for what I mentioned him saying, he does not know what the hell he is talking about regarding forests and forest fires, and he is stupid to use it in his statements about climate change. He is focused on a catalyst and ignoring decades of fuel build up. Of course someone going by the handle LeftOfLiberal is truly thinking objectively and without bias, I'm sure.
 
2012-07-14 01:32:46 AM
If only Speedwalker were here. He'd know what to do.
 
2012-07-14 01:33:41 AM

dickfreckle: Sherman Potter: He does not believe that the climate change that is currently taking place (which he acknowledges in the video) is anthropogenic.

Those pushing hardest for this to be accepted as fact have only one goal: control.

You honestly believe this, don't you?.


I do. And I respect Bill Nye.

Don't call me son, Alex. I'm older than your Dad, I suspect, and a damned shot smarter--I would have worn a condom.
 
2012-07-14 01:42:03 AM

violentsalvation: LeftOfLiberal: violentsalvation: Jesus f*cking Christ, did any of you even watch the video? She is asking him to respond to what people on the internet call him.

And he actually is a "kooky guy who doesn't know what he's talking about" when he downplays the mismanagement of forests as a partial cause for the fires. Also he say "just two years ago it was wet in Colorado .... and then two years later when forest floor is especially dry". Ok so we are comparing weather and climate between two years as evidence of climate change? Sciency folks on fark would shoot my post full of holes if I did that here. And unfortunately the mismanagement of forests goes back more than 2 years, Bill. The heat and drought conditions just allow the ticking-time-bomb forests to finally explode.

You obviously watched the video so at what point did you stop thinking to keep your confirmation bias? Bill Nye mentioned the wet weather 2 years ago to agree with the point that there is more brush to create fires now. Somehow you heard the opposite? But your not biased, no not at all

I don't disagree with him on global warming, but yeah, for what I mentioned him saying, he does not know what the hell he is talking about regarding forests and forest fires, and he is stupid to use it in his statements about climate change. He is focused on a catalyst and ignoring decades of fuel build up. Of course someone going by the handle LeftOfLiberal is truly thinking objectively and without bias, I'm sure.


Okay, maybe I didn't spell it out plain enough. What Bill Nye was saying is that 2 years ago it was very wet. This wetness led to a large amount of growth in the form of brush. This brush, from 2 years ago is an important part of why this particular dry spell is causing so many fires. His reasoning seems very sound. The fact that you fail to see what he is getting at makes me think you are approaching the problem from another perspective.

Such as...people who want to log use old growth as an excuse to log. When there are fires they say the fires are caused by old growth instead of the more obvious reason of brush. They want to clear cut sections of forest and claim it will prevent forest fires. They are right of course, if you cut down the forest, it won't burn. But I was taught to not cut off my nose to spite my face.
 
2012-07-14 01:58:41 AM
What climate change?
 
Displayed 50 of 120 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report