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.

(Slate)   Here it is, the only pie graph you'll ever need to deal with the next climate-change-denying idiot   (slate.com) divider line 954
    More: Spiffy, pie charts, climate change  
•       •       •

37670 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Dec 2012 at 3:50 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-11 05:10:41 PM  

prjindigo: its almost as if carbon dioxide does NOTHING to increase the atmospheric heat.


You do realize that the greenhouse effect is called so because that's legitimately how greenhouses work, right? Like, there is a real-world application to this theory that proves it correct?
 
2012-12-11 05:11:21 PM  

Ambitwistor: turnerdude69: And there is pretty clear evidence that the Earth has went through many Ice ages and tropical periods..all without the help of man...

This is both true and utterly irrelevant to the question of what is causing the current warming. See here.

I find it completely bizarre how many people there are in this thread who wander in and announce "But the climate has changed before!" Yes, scientists know this. Reflect on why they still believe that humans are causing the current warming.


So, it's humans, instead of another cause. So what?
 
2012-12-11 05:11:50 PM  

tuckeg: Pocket Ninja: Journey with me, subby, back to the early 1600s.

This may set the Fark record for most factual errors in one post. Reminds me of Bluto's Pearl Harbor speech.


That post may set a record for the deepest hook set ever.

Pocket Ninja is gonna need to upgrade to 100lb test.
 
2012-12-11 05:11:59 PM  

SevenizGud: cameroncrazy1984: There are several ten-year troughs in that graph

Yeah, just imagine how much it would have warmed in the last 10 years if it had, you know, actually warmed.

 


www.skepticalscience.com
 
2012-12-11 05:12:23 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: cameroncrazy1984: SevenizGud: cameroncrazy1984: So, 8,000+ stations for 10 years proves that the globe hasn't been warming for the past 100-150?

Another tard who can't distinguish between "never warmed" and "currently warming".

Have you seen a graph of the past 100 years? There are several ten-year troughs in that graph

Look:

[berkeleyearth.org image 525x408] 

That's a graph of four different global temperature measurements since 1800.

What was your argument again? Not currently warming? Care to adjust your conclusion now?

I have no dog in this fight, but isn't that a land temperature graph? And don't we have a lot of paved land nowadays that we didn't in 1800? Paved land that's a lot hotter than it would be if it were shaded grass?


So your theory is that scientists are placing instruments on land and then having it paved over and measured?

Good luck with that.
 
2012-12-11 05:12:30 PM  
I would humbly like to point you fellow farkfaces in the direction of this documentary - a thing of beauty and horror:


Chasing Ice 

In which you get to see a block of ice the size of lower manhattan (and three times as high) calve from a glacier and set about large boat-seeking, among other things.
 
2012-12-11 05:12:30 PM  

jigger: whizbangthedirtfarmer: My neocon friend, who, at times, I barely resist slapping in the back of the head, is convinced that scientists are making up global warming so they can get their sweet, sweet hands on some of that grant money. He apparently believes that grant money comes in massive blocks and that a scientist uses it not for research, but to buy himself nice things. He told me once that he wanted to be a scientist so he could use the grant money to buy himself a bigger house.

If academic scientists don't get outside funding, they eventually lose their jobs. No, they're not swimming in money (well, some are through patents) but they get nothing, good day sir, if their funding dries up. Oh, and science funding and publishing can be quite political. Just sayin'.


So the entire climate science community is in on the scam then? From every relevant research institution? In governmental research groups that don't have to compete for funding, too? In countries around the world? At some point "it's all a scam to keep grant money flowing" collapses under the size of the supposed conspiracy. Not to mention that fabricating data with public monies is career suicide when it's discovered and probably actionable fraud...

As a young scientist, I can make my bones proving the graybeards wrong about something. Why wouldn't I?
 
2012-12-11 05:12:35 PM  
The earth is warming, but we were on our way to another ice age anyway, so it's all good. That is, we're doing it a bit fast, but then - there's plenty of land in the northern hemisphere that can be used to live on with all of us. I really don't see the problem. All the carbon we're digging up used to be in the top layer anyway. And the earth was full of life then, too.
 
2012-12-11 05:12:58 PM  

Oznog: SlothB77: [thefrugalwinesnob.com image 496x423]

[thefrugalwinesnob.com image 496x423]

LOL THIS. Because I'm over 40. I remember in elementary school they taught that science showed we were going to freeze in an ice age caused by pollution. It was scientific fact, at the time.


It's so freakin' weird how science takes new information and evidence into account when making predictions.
 
2012-12-11 05:13:09 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Ambitwistor: turnerdude69: And there is pretty clear evidence that the Earth has went through many Ice ages and tropical periods..all without the help of man...

This is both true and utterly irrelevant to the question of what is causing the current warming. See here.

I find it completely bizarre how many people there are in this thread who wander in and announce "But the climate has changed before!" Yes, scientists know this. Reflect on why they still believe that humans are causing the current warming.

So, it's humans, instead of another cause. So what?


If we caused it, we can fix it.

But no, that would be too hard, wouldn't it!
 
2012-12-11 05:13:09 PM  
SevenizGud: cameroncrazy1984: There are several ten-year troughs in that graph

Yeah, just imagine how much it would have warmed in the last 10 years if it had, you know, actually warmed.



----------------------

It's like derp inside of herp, wrapped in herpaderpa.

/ignored
 
2012-12-11 05:14:12 PM  

BigBurrito: "Actually, if your science is sound and you have a pertinent test, you would most likely receive funding.

Most basic science research is funded by the NSF. The NSF uses peer reviews to determine allocation of funding. You send a grant request in, then that request is submitted with other grant requests to anonymous scientists in your discipline. Those anonymous scientists determine which grants are more deserving of the money."



The problem with this system is that monopolies are not limited to commerce. It may surprise you, but people (even scientists!) whose reputations depend on broad acceptance and trust of their research are much more motivated to approve funding for studies that support their conclusions than for research that is in any way likely to discredit their work.

The more of a "consensus" you have, the more of these anonymous scientists belong to it -- and the more likely that the sample of those scientists that sees a grant request for a project that threatens this "consensus" will have a personal interest in rejecting funding for such a grant. The result is a vicious circle with no regulation mechanism.

Whether you personally believe the consensus is valid or not, you have to acknowledge that the peer review framework that governs scientific publication today does NOT adequately protect against the suppression of countervailing but valid research.


BigBurrito: "Recommendations are made and eventually the funds are rewarded. Usually to the most deserving project."


Wow. That's not at all naive.
 
2012-12-11 05:15:22 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: I have no dog in this fight, but isn't that a land temperature graph?


Yes; the ocean and global temperature graphs look similar (though the trend values are different).

And don't we have a lot of paved land nowadays that we didn't in 1800? Paved land that's a lot hotter than it would be if it were shaded grass?

The fraction of the Earth's surface that is paved is pretty negligible, and a simple energy balance calculation on the albedo change due to paving indicates that its climatic effects are pretty negligible. People have done this for general land use changes (buildings, farm land, etc.), and it just doesn't add up to enough to cause warming of the observed magnitude.

A separate issue is whether paving could locally bias some of the temperature readings (i.e., make it look hotter than the planet really is due to over-sampling urban areas). This is called the urban heat island effect, and is measured and corrected for in these records. But even if you toss out the urban stations altogether, you get fairly similar results.
 
2012-12-11 05:15:36 PM  

spmkk: The more of a "consensus" you have, the more of these anonymous scientists belong to it -


You realize that's a consensus of studies, not scientists, right?
 
2012-12-11 05:15:48 PM  

cameroncrazy1984:

I have no dog in this fight, but isn't that a land temperature graph? And don't we have a lot of paved land nowadays that we didn't in 1800? Paved land that's a lot hotter than it would be if it were shaded grass?

So your theory is that scientists are placing instruments on land and then having it paved over and measured?

Good luck with that.


I... don't have a theory? I was just asking if the increase in land temperatures could be attributed to more land being covered in materials that are more susceptible to storing heat, such as pavement, concrete, etc...

I have no idea how land temperature data is collecting, which is why I was asking. You're the one posting charts, so I figured you'd be able to provide a bit of context into what the charts represent.
 
2012-12-11 05:15:54 PM  
I guess it is safe to say that the thread has proven the headline wrong.
 
2012-12-11 05:16:26 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Ambitwistor: turnerdude69: And there is pretty clear evidence that the Earth has went through many Ice ages and tropical periods..all without the help of man...

This is both true and utterly irrelevant to the question of what is causing the current warming. See here.

I find it completely bizarre how many people there are in this thread who wander in and announce "But the climate has changed before!" Yes, scientists know this. Reflect on why they still believe that humans are causing the current warming.

So, it's humans, instead of another cause. So what?


So, the observation that ice ages have occurred in the past is kind of irrelevant to this thread, which is about the current climate change.
 
2012-12-11 05:16:27 PM  

Ambitwistor: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: I have no dog in this fight, but isn't that a land temperature graph?

Yes; the ocean and global temperature graphs look similar (though the trend values are different).

And don't we have a lot of paved land nowadays that we didn't in 1800? Paved land that's a lot hotter than it would be if it were shaded grass?

The fraction of the Earth's surface that is paved is pretty negligible, and a simple energy balance calculation on the albedo change due to paving indicates that its climatic effects are pretty negligible. People have done this for general land use changes (buildings, farm land, etc.), and it just doesn't add up to enough to cause warming of the observed magnitude.

A separate issue is whether paving could locally bias some of the temperature readings (i.e., make it look hotter than the planet really is due to over-sampling urban areas). This is called the urban heat island effect, and is measured and corrected for in these records. But even if you toss out the urban stations altogether, you get fairly similar results.


Ah, thanks for the explanation, that's helpful.
 
2012-12-11 05:16:51 PM  

maxheck: buck1138:

maxheck: SevenizGud:

buck1138: One more time cause you clearly have a case of the stupids.

Another tard who can't distinguish the following from each other:

A. The earth NEVER warmed.

B. The earth is not PRESENTLY warming.

Ok. Is the Earth warming? We'll wait for your answer before asking the next question.

Are you asking about this exact moment? Is this like Zeno's paradox?

No, goodness no. Was asking more about trends. There's been one going on for some 150+ years by every metric. "warming" wouldn't make any sense at an exact moment.


I'll bite I guess... Yes the earth is warming given a long enough time line?

/The death rate goes to 0
 
2012-12-11 05:17:06 PM  
Most don't deny that the climate is getting warmer. The issue is what the cause is. The debate is whether CO2 causes global warming, or whether CO2 increase in the atmosphere FOLLOWS global warming. Water stores CO2. The solubility of CO2 in water increases as temperature decreases. So as the oceans warm, they release CO2.

Natural cycles in the earth's orbit around the sun, and natural cycles in sun radiation output are much more plausible to many than a man-made greenhouse effect.

Regardless, the Earth is in a much, much cooler state than it has been in the past. And a much, much warmer state as well. I'd rather a temperature increase across the globe than a decrease. Subtropical regions are much nicer to live in than say, arctic ice age conditions...

Charles.
 
2012-12-11 05:17:55 PM  
For all the Deniers who are now saying "We do not deny that GW is happening we only deny that it is man-made" ... please look at all the posts by Sevenizgud.

He is one of yours ... he is an idiot (redundant??) ... and he is denying that we are warming!!!!

So please stop accusing us of posting strawman arguments ... even if it does not apply to you it does apply to some of your anti-science brethren.

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."
― Isaac Asimov
 
2012-12-11 05:18:43 PM  
spmkk:

The more of a "consensus" you have, the more of these anonymous scientists belong to it -- and the more likely that the sample of those scientists that sees a grant request for a project that threatens this "consensus" will have a personal interest in rejecting funding for such a grant. The result is a vicious circle with no regulation mechanism.

----------

The first time I heard this ridiculous argument (that scientists make stuff up to get money) I heard it from a morbidly obese drug addict on the radio.
 
2012-12-11 05:19:51 PM  

Ambitwistor:
So, the observation that ice ages have occurred in the past is kind of irrelevant to this thread, which is about the current climate change.



Fair enough. Is the goal just to convince people that humans are the cause of the current climate change? And then once every one is convinced, we can go back to arguing about other stuff? Or do people think that the warming trend is going to continue until the Earth is an uninhabitable wasteland or something?
 
2012-12-11 05:20:31 PM  
"Now I know some people will just say that this is due to mainstream scientists suppressing controversy and all that, but let me be succinct: That's bull."

Well, glad they used the same level of scientific rigor in disputing that as they did in "proving" global warming.
 
2012-12-11 05:20:48 PM  

Pocket Ninja: The best of times and the worst of times, if you want to cite a book that's about to be a very, very big Christmas movie.


Not sure if troll or just...oh, hi, Pocket Ninja.
 
2012-12-11 05:21:05 PM  

Chigau: Damnhippyfreak: Chigau: I don't doubt that the climate is changing, i simply doubt that we fully........ if anything they are good ideas for their own sake. It just means, in my mind, that we aren't able to truly say there is a direct correlation between some things.

You're bringing up an important point, but be aware that the attribution of anthropogenic climate change isn't based on simple correlation, but instead understanding of the underlying mechanisms and processes.

Fair enough, and as I attempted to state before most environmental measures are a good idea for their own sake. From what i have observed, as i did spend some time working in the planetary science labs in college (it was just a job, not really my thing in life) much of the time the researchers were still making a guess, a reasonably logical guess, about what some of those mechanism might be or how they work.

I'm all for trying to make a better world, i just have trouble believing that anyone in current day science truly knows what is normal for a life bearing planet considering our limited frame of reference.


... or did i miss some major discovery of other life in space?



What you're saying is a legitimate concern. Let be broaden what I was trying to get across. The way that we make any inferences past our limited frame of reference, whether the subject is planetary science, climate, or even evolution is understanding of the underlying mechanisms and processes. Correlation, as you rightfully note, can only take you so far.
 
2012-12-11 05:21:24 PM  
Back the f*ck up a minute. I got this to show you:

i46.tinypic.com

In your faces, biatches.
 
2012-12-11 05:21:29 PM  
If "climate change" prompts car manufacturers to make more fuel efficient cars, and greater use of non-fossil fuel sources of power, then great. But if "climate change" is used as a reason why huge sums of money should be transferred from "rich countries" to "poor countries", then sorry but count me out of your global Robin Hood scheme.

An interesting question I've never seen answered: if every single human being on the planet stopped burning fossil fuels, wood, coal, etc. tomorrow, what impact would this have to climate change? In other words, should we even bother trying? The earth has been around a lot longer than humans, and will be around a lot longer after we're gone too.
 
2012-12-11 05:21:51 PM  

Bullseyed: "Now I know some people will just say that this is due to mainstream scientists suppressing controversy and all that, but let me be succinct: That's bull."

Well, glad they used the same level of scientific rigor in disputing that as they did in "proving" global warming.


Actually, the rigor is there. You just choose to believe it isn't.
 
2012-12-11 05:21:53 PM  

GAT_00: There's also this simple little fact: if you were born after February 1985, you have never experienced a month where the global temperature was below the 20th century average. One month proves nothing. One year proves nothing. 332 months in a row? Only an ignorant fool would claim temperatures are not rising when confronted with the near statistical impossibility of that fact.


I flipped a coin and it came up heads 332 times in a row. You're a fool for saying the next one might be tails!
 
2012-12-11 05:23:06 PM  

GoldDude: But if "climate change" is used as a reason why huge sums of money should be transferred from "rich countries" to "poor countries", then sorry but count me out of your global Robin Hood scheme


Why? You sound greedy.
 
2012-12-11 05:23:10 PM  

GoldDude: If "climate change" prompts car manufacturers to make more fuel efficient cars, and greater use of non-fossil fuel sources of power, then great. But if "climate change" is used as a reason why huge sums of money should be transferred from "rich countries" to "poor countries", then sorry but count me out of your global Robin Hood scheme.

An interesting question I've never seen answered: if every single human being on the planet stopped burning fossil fuels, wood, coal, etc. tomorrow, what impact would this have to climate change? In other words, should we even bother trying? The earth has been around a lot longer than humans, and will be around a lot longer after we're gone too.


As far as I can tell, "climate change" is used mainly as a reason to call other people names on the internet.
 
2012-12-11 05:23:19 PM  

spmkk: The more of a "consensus" you have, the more of these anonymous scientists belong to it -- and the more likely that the sample of those scientists that sees a grant request for a project that threatens this "consensus" will have a personal interest in rejecting funding for such a grant.


This has little to do with how grants are actually written. Nobody writes "I'm going to disprove global warming!" in their proposals. Likewise, nobody writes "I'm going to prove global warming!". In fact, anybody who wrote either of those things should get their proposals rejected, because it's unscientific to assume your conclusion.

Instead, people write "I intend to quantify the fractional contribution of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation to changes in global temperature, and here's my new and improved method for doing so". That is a perfectly legitimate thing to do, and well within the scope of an RFP (e.g., on climate variability). Regardless of whether you think the PDO is a major or minor contributor, it's an advance on science to better study the modes of climate variability (which is why there are always calls for this kind of work), and if you have a new method for doing it, that's exactly what the program officer is looking for.
 
2012-12-11 05:23:40 PM  

Diogenes: doyner: Interesting how the vast majority of people that reject the overwhelming scientific evidence of climate change are willing to believe claims made in texts that are mellinia old without any skepticism....

Faith in God has sustained us much longer than science has.


God didn't exist until after all of the other gods and deities were created. Humans also did perfectly fine before they began creating gods to explain everything from why the sun moves across the sky to why the frogs croak at night.
 
2012-12-11 05:23:45 PM  

tobcc:
Dont get me wrong, I think we as humans have changed the climate, but.. we are looking at data from ~100 years, the world is 6 billion years old (or 4000 if that is your thing). It is still a really small sample size.

//dont worry, I think we need to get off fosell fuels, and have clean air too
/// am a hippy (not really a dirty one though)


The thing is, humans only evolved in the last 500,000 years or so. So that's as far back as we need to go to be relevant to our survival. I'm sure we could claim "It was hotter when the earth was a ball of molten magma, so we don't need to worry!", but that would be stupid.
 
2012-12-11 05:24:07 PM  

GoldDude: In other words, should we even bother trying? The earth has been around a lot longer than humans, and will be around a lot longer after we're gone too


Glad to see you have zero interest in the longevity of the human race. The earth is more important, amirite? God forbid we should try to elongate our stay on this planet.
 
2012-12-11 05:24:36 PM  

rotsky: I'll always have, in the back of my mind, the fact that some scientists faked their data a couple years ago.

I'm not an idiot, it just made me skeptical.


No they didn't. That whole accusation was false. Not one bit of truth. Please stop believing that crap.
 
2012-12-11 05:24:42 PM  

Insatiable Jesus: spmkk:

The more of a "consensus" you have, the more of these anonymous scientists belong to it -- and the more likely that the sample of those scientists that sees a grant request for a project that threatens this "consensus" will have a personal interest in rejecting funding for such a grant. The result is a vicious circle with no regulation mechanism.

----------

The first time I heard this ridiculous argument (that scientists make stuff up to get money) I heard it from a morbidly obese drug addict on the radio.


You have no idea how good that sweat, sweat, higgs boson is. Once you get some you just can't help yourself. You'll say anything. You'll build acres of magnets and do god knows how much math just for one more hit. Of course after a few hits you realize this wasn't what you thought it was. You haven't showered for days and you have sores on your arms from the nervous scratching. You've had god knows who;s dick in your mouth just for acces to some new data. Pretty soon you hit rock bottom, just like the rest and you go to rehab. But from then on they never really let you back in the lab. Your just an adict that couldn't handle your junk. A joke, a punchline. After that you go into teaching.
 
2012-12-11 05:24:43 PM  

SevenizGud: Yeah, just imagine how much it would have warmed in the last 10 years if it had, you know, actually warmed.


So, aside from demonstrating that you don't understand that trends are rarely expressed by straight lines on a graph, do you have an actual point? Other than "This data indicates no warming for this very short period", do you have any conclusion or hypothesis to draw from it? Or are you simply going to continue to repeat your painfully meaningless statement?
 
2012-12-11 05:24:53 PM  

give me doughnuts: You mean only 99.8% of the peer-reviewed articles on Global Warming support the lies?

And you Warmies claim to have a scientific concensus. HA!


99.8% of all peer reviewed articles on how flat the Earth was said the Earth was definitely flat.


Who writes an article on disproving a theory? If you have a theory you have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt it is true. Until then, no one has to disprove anything.

0 Articles were written about how the sky is not orange! Therefore it must be orange!
 
2012-12-11 05:25:47 PM  
Got it. When there is a consesus on an issue, the majority has to be right. Which is why the earth is a flat object, with a sun that revolves around it.
 
2012-12-11 05:26:10 PM  

doyner: tobcc: Dont get me wrong, I think we as humans have changed the climate, but.. we are looking at data from ~100 years, the world is 6 billion years old (or 4000 if that is your thing). It is still a really small sample size.

I have a clock that is 80 years old, but I don't need to observe it for a decade to determine its periodicity and any variations thereof.


Lots of theater, English and history majors in here.
 
2012-12-11 05:26:53 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: [whyfiles.org image 510x515]


Oh hey, look, the hockey stick graph is back. The one disproven a decade ago.
 
2012-12-11 05:27:31 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: jigger: cameroncrazy1984: Except for that study that was funded by the Koch brothers to try to disprove global warming

GAT_00: The Koch Brothers paid for a study to prove that global warming wasn't real.

citation needed on the bolded part

The guy who ran the study was a skeptic. Until he did the study


1. No we wasn't, at least not wrt to global warming. He had problems with the Hockey Stick Graph and the scientific malpractice behind "hide the decline" and still does, but he never doubted recent global warming.
2. Do you have a citation that shows that the Koch brothers funded this research in an effort to disprove global warming?
 
2012-12-11 05:27:54 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: GoldDude: In other words, should we even bother trying? The earth has been around a lot longer than humans, and will be around a lot longer after we're gone too

Glad to see you have zero interest in the longevity of the human race. The earth is more important, amirite? God forbid we should try to elongate our stay on this planet.


How long does the human race have if nothing is done to change climate change?
 
2012-12-11 05:28:08 PM  

zedster: tobcc: we are looking at data from ~100 years, the world is 6 billion years old (or 4000 if that is your thing). It is still a really small sample size.

WRONG!! Ice core samples, we have data going back 800,000 years


Ice core samples obviously only show the cold years. All the warm years melted.
 
2012-12-11 05:28:09 PM  

Vodka Zombie: I don't know how much humans are responsible for climate change, and I don't know if that really even matters anyway. The fact is, the climate is changing, and I suppose we can sit around and bicker about it, or, more productively, we can maybe try to prepare ourselves for it.


If you can get that published and on the Web of Science with the "global warming" keyword, then you too can join the majority of papers which do not disprove global warming.

This study counted everything with "global warming" as a keyword, whether it contained something relevant to the science or not. The disproven frogs-killed-by-global-warming articles probably got counted too. Even if those articles weren't disproven, they were biology articles which are not relevant to climate science.
 
2012-12-11 05:28:25 PM  

Kolg8: Got it. When there is a consesus on an issue, the majority has to be right. Which is why the earth is a flat object, with a sun that revolves around it.


You realize that the flat-earth concept was not scientific, right?
 
2012-12-11 05:28:31 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: God forbid we should try to elongate our stay on this planet.


You can't and you won't. So stfu already. Be sure to cash in your CO2 stock before it crashes. You need cabbage to buy kool-aid you know.
 
2012-12-11 05:29:15 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: [whyfiles.org image 510x515]


I beleive in climate change, but posting a chart that makes it seem like the rise in CO2 levels we are having now is unprecedented and entirely the result of human acitivity is deceptive. You do more harm than good, because anyone who does a tiny bit of research sees your chart is purposefully bogus, and then they feel like they have the right to dismiss whole reams of evidence, because they found a bad apple.
 
Displayed 50 of 954 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report