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.

(LA Times)   NOAA: 2012 was the hottest year on record in the lower 48 United States. But global warming is totally not happening 'cuz there's snow in your backyard right now   (latimes.com) divider line 41
    More: Interesting, global warming, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, average surface temperature, United States, State of the Climate, Public Works Committee, National Climatic Data Center, Upper Midwest  
•       •       •

2635 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Jan 2013 at 4:19 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Archived thread
2013-01-09 12:25:22 AM  
11 votes:
Your headline reeks of ignorance, subby. And it pains me to explain this to you, because I'm sure you won't understand, but I'm a glutton for punishment so I guess I'll try anyway.

See, let's just say that 2012 *was* the hottest year on record. And there's no guarantee that it actually was, of course, because there's endless proof that climate scientists are constantly emailing lies to each other. But let's say it was, just for argument's sake. So what does that mean?

Well, let's consider the first possibility, which is that 2013 ends up being cooler than 2012. So, YAY. You got it right, 2012 WAS the hottest year on record. But if it's getting cooler, then how is the earth getting WARMER, dumbass?

It's not. It's getting cooler. So, done. You, 0. Me, 1.

On the other hand, let's say that 2013 ends up being hotter than 2012. That means that 2012 was *not* the hottest year on record, right? I mean, can you deny that? So it turns out that 2012 wasn't the hottest year, and 2013 was. And climate activists or whatever they want to call themselves this year will be all like, "Oh, see, this proves that the earth IS getting hotter."

But you know what that's really called? Of course you do, because you probably spend a lot of time debating dumb points in internet forums. It's called "moving the goal posts." It's like, "oh, 2012 is the hottest year EVAR. Everybody panic!" And then 2013 rolls around and you're like, "oh, 2013 is the hottest year EVAR. Everybody panic and forget what we said about 2012!" You mess up calling the hottest year on record, and so instead of saying, "wow, I was wrong, 2012 WASN'T the hottest year on record," you try to just pretend that you never said that at all. It's astounding chutzpah, really. But in the end, for all intensive purposes, it's completely dishonest. And dishonesty will never win you anything. You, 0, Me, 2.

Please. I implore you. Study what you're talking about before you post your next headline. There's enough misunderstanding and stupidity on here as it is, and it would behoof you to not be a part of it.
2013-01-09 04:41:28 AM  
6 votes:

TheManofPA: I wonder how many people aren't going to read PN's full thing.

Always think of this for these threads:


farm5.static.flickr.com

"What if it's a big hoax and we create a better bankrupt the world for nothing?"

FTFTC*

* - fixed that for the cartoonist.
2013-01-09 01:08:29 AM  
5 votes:

DesertDemonWY: Sgygus: Here's the thing with the Global Warming... it not merely going to get warmer, the pace of getting warmer is accelerating.

Accelerating so fast that the GLOBE hasn't warmed at all in 16 years.


i575.photobucket.com
2013-01-08 11:16:28 PM  
5 votes:
Here's the thing with the Global Warming... it not merely going to get warmer, the pace of getting warmer is accelerating.
2013-01-09 12:21:55 AM  
4 votes:
I like Friedman's term better: "Global Weirding".
2013-01-09 08:33:12 AM  
3 votes:

natas6.0: If it's warming it's a natural trend.
Stop being so vain as to say
'we made this happen'
or
'we can stop it from happening'
insignificant little things that we are


Just like there's no way that insignificant little things like bacteria could ever have caused massive shifts in climate by changing the atmosphere, right?
2013-01-09 07:38:28 AM  
3 votes:
Given that I work with climatologists, their data, and the impact of sea level rise on coastal economics for a very meager living, I'd like to say this:

It's happening. The seas have been getting warmer, have been rising because of water expansion and the melting of ice sheets (on land). The IPCC 2007 report modeled a conservative range of sea-level rise for the next century. Using satellite data to plot the actual data of sea level rise, the IPCC report has the trajectory correct but underestimated the actual amount. The majority of the human population lives in coastal areas, so let's stop pretending that just because it happened in the earth's history means that it is inconsequential that it is happening now. It will cost lives and will cost a LOT of money. Maybe mitigation isn't realistic, but we have to farking stop pretending it's NOT happening so we can at least prepare for the changes that are on track with the models to be accelerating over the next century.
2013-01-09 05:24:31 AM  
3 votes:

GandalfTheWhite: /btw: your opinions on this are worthless. the only thing that would cause you to type a response to this would be your inexplicable desire to hear yourself talk.


Wow, folks, this is a textbook example of a self-refuting post...
2013-01-09 11:04:50 AM  
2 votes:

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: It's a damn good thing we've been keeping records since the end of the last ice age, otherwise this would be completely out of context.


You do realize that climatologists can look at historical climate data from before written records by using things like tree rings and ice core samples?
imgs.xkcd.com
2013-01-09 07:59:44 AM  
2 votes:
members.iinet.net.au
2013-01-09 05:17:51 AM  
2 votes:
Wow,.. hottest year on record... given that the records go back a whopping 100-120 years, and what's commonly referred to as geologic timeline is at least three orders of magnitude greater than that, and, if you go back forty years to when the theory of global cooling was king, suffice it to say, yet again, nothing to see here.

Thanks for playing.

/btw: your opinions on this are worthless. the only thing that would cause you to type a response to this would be your inexplicable desire to hear yourself talk.
2013-01-09 04:53:16 AM  
2 votes:

DesertDemonWY: GAT_00: DesertDemonWY: Sgygus: Here's the thing with the Global Warming... it not merely going to get warmer, the pace of getting warmer is accelerating.

Accelerating so fast that the GLOBE hasn't warmed at all in 16 years.

[i575.photobucket.com image 500x341]

and by "realists" you mean liars and data manipulators?

let's have a look at the actual data:

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]

No
Warming
For
16
years
.


Why did you choose 16 years exactly?
Is it because it's a perfect square?
I also like perfect squares. I think I'm going to look at the last 25 years of data.
My god...
2013-01-09 04:36:14 AM  
2 votes:
Climate changes. Warmer, then colder, then warmer again. More CO2, less CO2, then more again. Been doing it for billions of years. The best conditions for life are warmer and CO2-rich. We're coming out of an ice age... what do you expect?
2013-01-09 04:33:47 AM  
2 votes:
When I was a kid, you could expect it to reach -20 F in the Twin Cities maybe 10-15 days per winter. Heck, it even reached -30 F in Saint Paul back in the mid-Eighties. Nowadays, it maybe goes below zero a handful of times each winter and early last March, it hit an astonishing 80 degrees, smashing the previous high temperature. I know beyond all doubt that the climate in Minnesota has changed in the last 30 years. I certainly don't mind the warm weather, but it's really starting to freak me out.

Let's hope this is just a random, transient climate change. If it's global warming, we're in for a shiatstorm of freaky climate change in the near future. I don't have any kids, so it doesn't matter much to me if the world goes to hell ten minutes after I'm buried, but you parents out there might want to take this seriously...
2013-01-09 02:59:47 AM  
2 votes:

DesertDemonWY: No
Warming
For
16
years


Psst.... here's something from the very same folks who provided many of the numbers misused in your chart (they generated all the ones that start with "had").

But... since you won't read it and likely couldn't understand it even if you bothered, I can summarize it.

The TLDR; says that you, David Rose, and the Daily Fail are full of hot air, so to speak. Personally I think you're all full of something else that's warm and steaming.
2013-01-09 02:38:44 AM  
2 votes:
I wonder how many people aren't going to read PN's full thing.

Always think of this for these threads:
farm5.static.flickr.com
2013-01-09 01:55:37 AM  
2 votes:

GAT_00: DesertDemonWY: Sgygus: Here's the thing with the Global Warming... it not merely going to get warmer, the pace of getting warmer is accelerating.

Accelerating so fast that the GLOBE hasn't warmed at all in 16 years.

[i575.photobucket.com image 500x341]


and by "realists" you mean liars and data manipulators?

let's have a look at the actual data:

www.woodfortrees.org

No
Warming
For
16
years
.
2013-01-09 12:56:21 AM  
2 votes:

Sgygus: Here's the thing with the Global Warming... it not merely going to get warmer, the pace of getting warmer is accelerating.


Accelerating so fast that the GLOBE hasn't warmed at all in 16 years.
2013-01-09 03:10:51 PM  
1 votes:

Quantumbunny: MyRandomName: GAT_00: DesertDemonWY: Sgygus: Here's the thing with the Global Warming... it not merely going to get warmer, the pace of getting warmer is accelerating.

Accelerating so fast that the GLOBE hasn't warmed at all in 16 years.

Why did you choose 73 to start? That was a local minimum cool period.

I have a very hard time accepting 199X as a start date... I have a hard time with 73, 1880... No one has ever really explained to me (or provided a link) to why they chose the exact dates and why they are the most valid. Because they do seem so finely chosen, I assume every single one of those dates on both sides is cherry picking dates for the exaggerated effect.

The only date that isn't totally sketchy to me... is using the 2 billion year. However that one is very hard to judge since it's mostly extrapolation, and seeing non climate scale is impossible. They were quite specific in elementary school climate wasn't a year... or a decade... it was a very long time.

Anything prior to when we started keeping accurate temperature records, and any data using points where data haven't been kept in the exact same spot since the chosen dates seem highly suspect to me. Of course due to cities retaining heat, all the sensors within cities that got bigger and bigger are also suspect... so... maybe we're warming slightly, maybe we're not... but raising a degree or two on average over the world... doesn't really seems very problematic.


If you're tying to figure out the impact of human activity then you need to choose a time scale where that effect can be seen. We also don't need billions of years of prior data because the drivers of Earth's climate operate on those very long time scales (ex. plate tectonics) don't have an effect on short (decade long) time scales. If we want to know the average temperature in 10, 25, 50 or 100 years we don't need to consider those long term drivers because they work too slowly. We only need to concern ourselves with climate forcings that operate on those shorter timescales.

Warmth from cities has negligible impact and is already taken into account: Link

The impact from " a degree or two" increase in global average temperature isn't too bad. In fact, it's long been the goal to keep warming under +2C. However, we're nearing the point of no return (many scientists think we've already past it) for limiting the temperature increase to +2C. The impacts of warming beyond that level will be largely negative and quite costly. Link
2013-01-09 12:22:57 PM  
1 votes:

Farking Canuck: occamswrist: Climatologists are carefully selecting and reporting news that confirms their views.

Or maybe it isn't a conspiracy and this news agency just found a story they wanted to run.

I know that this is a wild idea that doesn't fit at all in your tinfoil hat world. That Occam and his razor ... crazy I tell ya!!!


Met office just reported temperature rise due to global warming through 2017 will be ~20% below earlier estimates.

Those sensitivity parameters in the models are still being tweaked. In every new IPCC report they have lower estimates for global warming.

But I'm sure *now* they're accurate...
2013-01-09 11:36:36 AM  
1 votes:

SnarfVader: Fish on...


Aye. :)

When it comes to deniers you never know if they are that stupid or if you're about to get a hook in the mouth.
2013-01-09 10:58:31 AM  
1 votes:
img.photobucket.com
2013-01-09 10:44:45 AM  
1 votes:

EVERYBODY PANIC: If we do heat up the planet a few degrees in a few hunderd years, so be it. If it were to happen soon enough, I'll emigrate from Florida to Canada. No biggie.  Cananian babes in bikinis do not disturb my happiness very much.


Given your skepticism, I expect that you will be behind the curve in trying to sell your property and immigrate to Canada. You will find the market for property in Florida is greatly reduced, since too many people are selling to move north, so you won't get much for your property. And you'll be disappointed to discover that the Canadian government has tightened immigration restrictions because of the influx of climate refugees. And if you do find a way to get in, you'll discover that Canadian bikini babes don't really want much to do with Americans whose stubborn refusal to moderate their behavior caused so many problems for everyone and made them the most unpopular set of immigrants ever.
2013-01-09 09:52:29 AM  
1 votes:

prjindigo: lol... this shiat again.

The US was hotter in 1934 in all fifty states.

These beautiful quotes are batshiat insane context amputations.

I don't deny anything, we're farking up the globe. It is just not physically possible for the 0.05% of the total atmospheric carbon dioxide WE ACTUALLY PRODUCE to make a difference in the environment.

The real hazard comes from the pollution that comes from destruction of the environment, the disturbance of settled heavy toxic metals and the way people dispose of what they consider garbage.

I'm doing much much more to save the planet than any of you. I use my old car engine oil in my lawn mower's engine after it settles.


TheGogmagog... the problem with the word "denier" is a "denier" has to refuse to believe a fact. ZERO facts have been presented.
They can't even measure the atmosphere at the level they CLAIM these things are going on at because their definition is a mathematical equation that ends up varying the altitude by up to thirty thousand feet on any given millisecond.

So... I deny the claim that the IPCC and global warmists are making claims based on science. They just simply aren't basing anything on science.

Science is not "putting data into your equation that proves your theory"... science is "producing an equation from your theory that verifies the data".
This ^^^ has NOT happened. It hasn't happened in several thousand models, five theories, five major international publications and more than four hundred thousand different "peer reviewed" "studies" that claim to support "global warming"...

I have a series of books that discuss the adventures of some guy named John Carter as he explores another planet. It has been published more often, gone through more volumes and been peer reviewed so heavily that its credibility FAR outweighs anything produced about "global warming" yet people call it a "work of fiction" even though it has more facts in it.

Peer review is the process by which you and your friends ...


So... you're saying your smarter than scientists at NASA? Do they know this?
2013-01-09 09:49:37 AM  
1 votes:

EVERYBODY PANIC: I recognize that the data is correct. I agree that the human causation is partially correct. Those who argue otherwise are fighting a losing battle.

Here is what eats at me in all of this. ONE: I don't see a global increase in temps to be a bad thing. It will be different, but not just bad. I do not FEAR a warmer planet. TWO: It is the GW wackos screaming total doom scenarios that makes me wish to disassociate with the whole movement. Mankind will probably destroy a lot of good stuff, but temps will not accelerate and turn th globe into a cinder. Nonsense. THREE: GW people believe that all 'solutions' are government solutions, requiring massive coercive interventions which will disrupt everybody's lives and cost trillions and then more trillions. FIVE: Barring a population collapse, mankind will at some point completely overwhelm the planet, driving most species into extinction and using up most readily available resources - no matter what GW solutions are forced upon us by the state. But in my own perspective, this problem will probably self-correct, and is a problem for another generation, not ours.

If we do heat up the planet a few degrees in a few hunderd years, so be it. If it were to happen soon enough, I'll emigrate from Florida to Canada. No biggie.  Cananian babes in bikinis do not disturb my happiness very much.


I'll see if i can respond sensibly without stirring up too much crap:

one: The problem with the warmer planet are sea levels... the models are saying that by 2050 coastal cities like NYC will be a couple of feet underwater... I'm sure some of the yokels out in BFE, AK would be ok with scenario, it would be as bad for the economy to have to deal with it as much as it would be bad for the people who live and work there.

two: i can see how you would feel that way, but there is a sort of "doomsday" scenario involved here, and that's what happens to ocean life... If the PH levels of the oceans become as unbalanced as they are predicting, and the salinity levels are affected like they predict, then both plant and wildlife in the oceans could be tremendously impacted, and without going into the complexities, let's just say that too would be bad for people...

three: they don't believe this can only be fixed with gov't. there are plenty of campaigns directed at individuals and companies begging to change things for the better... but as indicated by the fact that it appears your don't even know they exist is all the evidence i need to present how effective those campaigns are. GW changes in companies means less profit, so they not only ignore the warnings, they have gone out of their way to produce a counter science to disprove it. Companies in turn have also turned to the gov't for the sole purpose of turning the issue into a political wedge. They know that if both sides of any gov't see the issue as something that needs to be addressed, then steps will be taken to secure the future, which in turn means less profit for themselves. By making it a political wedge issue though, they have successfully crippled the movement because the two sides are too busy squabbling over it ensuring nothing will ever be done.
     In short they HAVE to appeal directly to the gov't and ask for gov't assistance on the issue because there are powerful and influential entities fighting against them who have ALREADY involved the gov't, all in the name of Profit and Money...

"Five" though really four: putting the problem onto future generations is by far the poorest attitude i've ever encountered... What you are effectively saying is that you don't care that your grandchildren will suffer because it doesn't benefit you right now... I don't have grandkids yet, but i can tell you that i hope one day i have them, and that the things i do today will benefit them 30 years from now... My parents set up trust funds for grandchildren they weren't even sure they were going to get, and now that i have kids, it's comforting to me and my parents that my kids, their grandchildren, will have money for higher education withough worrying about loans or money for it... they secured a better future for their grandchildren, the same i am going to do for mine...
2013-01-09 09:46:46 AM  
1 votes:
lol... this shiat again.

The US was hotter in 1934 in all fifty states.

These beautiful quotes are batshiat insane context amputations.

I don't deny anything, we're farking up the globe. It is just not physically possible for the 0.05% of the total atmospheric carbon dioxide WE ACTUALLY PRODUCE to make a difference in the environment.

The real hazard comes from the pollution that comes from destruction of the environment, the disturbance of settled heavy toxic metals and the way people dispose of what they consider garbage.

I'm doing much much more to save the planet than any of you. I use my old car engine oil in my lawn mower's engine after it settles.


TheGogmagog... the problem with the word "denier" is a "denier" has to refuse to believe a fact. ZERO facts have been presented.
They can't even measure the atmosphere at the level they CLAIM these things are going on at because their definition is a mathematical equation that ends up varying the altitude by up to thirty thousand feet on any given millisecond.

So... I deny the claim that the IPCC and global warmists are making claims based on science. They just simply aren't basing anything on science.

Science is not "putting data into your equation that proves your theory"... science is "producing an equation from your theory that verifies the data".
This ^^^ has NOT happened. It hasn't happened in several thousand models, five theories, five major international publications and more than four hundred thousand different "peer reviewed" "studies" that claim to support "global warming"...

I have a series of books that discuss the adventures of some guy named John Carter as he explores another planet. It has been published more often, gone through more volumes and been peer reviewed so heavily that its credibility FAR outweighs anything produced about "global warming" yet people call it a "work of fiction" even though it has more facts in it.

Peer review is the process by which you and your friends all agree to go out for beer and biatches. It is NOT a scientific analysis of the results nor is it a replication of the work. It is a means by which a group of people can BLOCK the publication of things they do not agree with.

Kinda like a school board deciding Catcher in the Rye is way way too harsh for children who've seen house fires, crushed cars at the railroad crossing and neighbors lose fingers to machinery. It is ALSO not a scientific process.

The premise that "peer review" is some sort of credibility creator is a joke. Peer review is simply there to catch people who plagerize the works of others. It exists as a means by which to have other more experienced authors review your presentation, writing style and coordination in the production of documentation. No verification of the science occurs in a peer review.

I think, by far the funniest thing I see in this thread is the flashing diagram of "this is how warmists see the / this is how deniers see the"... that chart was actually produced by people who KNOW how the atmosphere and weather work... and it was produced to support the refutation of "global warming". None of you knew that, eh? Now you do.

What the whole argument comes down to is the old witch hunt. McCarthy et all.

So what you do with your life is your problem, what I do with my life is mine. How stupid you are in public and whether you peep away with all the propaganda produced by people who REFUSE TO PUBLICLY PROVE THEIR THEORIES is your problem.

The fact that I cite actual hard science that proves them wrong is mine. .... not really. It just proves how dumb the "believers" are.

There is no global warming. If we burnt everything on the face of the planet right now the average temperature wouldn't go up.
Law of Thermodynamics. Temperature, volume, pressure.

ZERO of the models take into account that the atmosphere is not a closed system.
ZERO of the models take into account that CO2 is heavier than N2.
ZERO of the models take into account the affects of gravity on pressure.
ZERO of the models take into account the curvature of the earth.
ZERO of the models can predict the past based on exceptionally accurate readings.
ZERO of the models accept that that bright thing that makes daylight can vary its heat output.
ZERO of the models obey the way infrared radiation actually works.

All these things listed above have immediate and direct affect on the atmosphere's temperature. None are included in the models these people claim to have made.
2013-01-09 08:56:09 AM  
1 votes:

EVERYBODY PANIC: I recognize that the data is correct. I agree that the human causation is partially correct. Those who argue otherwise are fighting a losing battle.

Here is what eats at me in all of this. ONE: I don't see a global increase in temps to be a bad thing. It will be different, but not just bad. I do not FEAR a warmer planet. TWO: It is the GW wackos screaming total doom scenarios that makes me wish to disassociate with the whole movement. Mankind will probably destroy a lot of good stuff, but temps will not accelerate and turn th globe into a cinder. Nonsense. THREE: GW people believe that all 'solutions' are government solutions, requiring massive coercive interventions which will disrupt everybody's lives and cost trillions and then more trillions. FIVE: Barring a population collapse, mankind will at some point completely overwhelm the planet, driving most species into extinction and using up most readily available resources - no matter what GW solutions are forced upon us by the state. But in my own perspective, this problem will probably self-correct, and is a problem for another generation, not ours.

If we do heat up the planet a few degrees in a few hunderd years, so be it. If it were to happen soon enough, I'll emigrate from Florida to Canada. No biggie.  Cananian babes in bikinis do not disturb my happiness very much.


How..myopic. Your perspective alone, of course, is all that matters. Not the coastal communities.
2013-01-09 08:04:32 AM  
1 votes:

DesertDemonWY: GAT_00: DesertDemonWY: Sgygus: Here's the thing with the Global Warming... it not merely going to get warmer, the pace of getting warmer is accelerating.

Accelerating so fast that the GLOBE hasn't warmed at all in 16 years.

[i575.photobucket.com image 500x341]

and by "realists" you mean liars and data manipulators?

let's have a look at the actual data:

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]

No
Warming
For
16
years
.


That's funny. When I look at the global mean using that same web site over the same period, here's what I get:

woodfortrees.org

0.2 degrees over 16 years
2013-01-09 07:45:00 AM  
1 votes:

Kuroshin: On the plus side, Global Warming threads are great for sprucing up the ignore list.


Yep FARK is much more fun as an echo chamber, you never learn anything new, but you're never wrong either.
2013-01-09 07:39:03 AM  
1 votes:

Psycat: I know beyond all doubt that the climate in Minnesota has changed in the last 30 years.


It's certainly gotten a lot dumber over the last 30 years...
www.grayflannelsuit.net
2013-01-09 07:21:33 AM  
1 votes:
According to Al Bore, global warming causes snow, rain, hurricane and drought!! Can't lose!!!
2013-01-09 06:55:44 AM  
1 votes:

david_gaithersburg: Not this derp again.


Where's your peer-reviewed, widely-accepted contrary data?
2013-01-09 06:48:29 AM  
1 votes:

DesertDemonWY: GAT_00: DesertDemonWY: Sgygus: Here's the thing with the Global Warming... it not merely going to get warmer, the pace of getting warmer is accelerating.

Accelerating so fast that the GLOBE hasn't warmed at all in 16 years.

[i575.photobucket.com image 500x341]

and by "realists" you mean liars and data manipulators?

let's have a look at the actual data:



No
Warming
For
16
years
.


Step 1: criticize charts that show a warming trend as inadequate because they aren't capturing enough data points to sufficiently show a warming trend.
Step 2: reference a chart that covers an even less data points and use that to debunk climate change theories.
2013-01-09 06:38:22 AM  
1 votes:
This thread looks YouTube comments stupid already.
2013-01-09 05:22:39 AM  
1 votes:
You know what, let's just go ahead and hand the reins of the economy over to the likes of Al Gore, who will surely save us. I mean, if we give him all the money and power he asks for to re-write modern economies back into the stone age, that'll save us, right?

Oh, wait, Al Gore is filthy rich right now with Saudi Oil money?

Now who will we turn to for salvation from our carbon sins?
Where can I buy a carbon indulgence?!?!

(Hey, have you ever tried to get parking for your private jet at one of those Global Warming conferences? It's damn near impossible, every airport for two hundred miles is full!)
2013-01-09 04:55:35 AM  
1 votes:

log_jammin: Psycat: to Einstein's relativity,

that's the one that gets me the most. They are so crazy that they think physics theories can be liberal.


This is how their reasoning works. One of the bigger bugs up their butts is "moral relativity"; that is, the idea that morality might depend on the particular situation rather than having some sort of absolute, Bible-based moral system. Apparently, that's the ultimate moral failure of liberals. Never mind that conservatives themselves practice moral relativity--for example, the Biblical commandment against murder doesn't apply in military combat, execution of criminals, etc. And, in the very cramped minds of the idiots who write for the Conservapedia, relativity in the physics sense somehow translates into relativity in the moral sense. Teach E=MC^2 and suddenly cats are marrying dogs and kids are mainlining reefer while sodomizing each other. Yes, this is how these mental eunuchs really think...
2013-01-09 04:43:40 AM  
1 votes:

HotWingAgenda: Psycat: I know beyond all doubt that the climate in Minnesota has changed in the last 30 years. I certainly don't mind the warm weather, but it's really starting to freak me out.

You get that weather and climate are two completely different things, right?


Yes. I'm talking about 30 years, not 30 days.
2013-01-09 02:18:22 AM  
1 votes:
We need a story that guns cause global warming...

so we can marry two awesome Fark pastimes in one thread.
2013-01-09 01:57:47 AM  
1 votes:

Darth_Lukecash: Triumph: All I want to know is how soon until I can plant grapefruit trees in my backyard?

Any time you want,  just not sure thy would survive.


Methinks thou art overstating his investment in this grapefruit endeavour.
2013-01-09 01:28:31 AM  
1 votes:

Triumph: All I want to know is how soon until I can plant grapefruit trees in my backyard?


Any time you want,  just not sure thy would survive.
2013-01-09 01:12:57 AM  
1 votes:
It's a damn good thing we've been keeping records since the end of the last ice age, otherwise this would be completely out of context.
 
Displayed 41 of 41 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report