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.

(The New York Times)   Bill Nye, the "please stop being science denying idiot" guy   (nytimes.com) divider line 103
    More: Hero, Big Man on Campus, age of the earth, Bill Nye, the Science Guy, Inhofe  
•       •       •

25755 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Jun 2013 at 8:17 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
2013-06-18 08:26:32 AM  
14 votes:

vpb: Yes, telling idiots to stop being idiots will totally work.



It's really about the viewers and listeners. You can make a lot of people believe just about anything if it's repeated loudly and frequently enough with no voice to gainsay it. His fight isn't aimed at the hardcore fundamentalists who take the bible literally and use it to armor themselves against any evidence or at the the distressingly small percentage of Americans who are highly scientifically literate. He's aiming for that big, mushy bit in the middle where a calm voice with facts behind it can actually make a difference.
2013-06-18 08:23:04 AM  
14 votes:
i.imgur.com
2013-06-18 08:16:53 AM  
11 votes:
The planet needs another ten thousand Bill Nyes. Maybe more.
2013-06-18 09:32:45 AM  
7 votes:
When y'all are ready for a real science broadcaster, let me know.  I'll make the Connections.

1.bp.blogspot.com
2013-06-18 09:01:35 AM  
7 votes:

joeshill: In science, it's generally considered a good thing to continually come up with ways one might disprove a theory, until one can no longer come up with a way to disprove (falsify) a theory or model. In which case, it might be somewhat possible to accept a theory or model as an adequate description of how a process works.


In practice, this is done by examining the accumulated evidence from professional studies.  Guess what they say about climate change?

www.jamespowell.org
But hey, don't believe me.  Use this guy's handy page to examine recent publications for yourself.

At some point, you need to move off of endless "what ifs", and move on to policy recommendations.  At what level of certainty would it be worth considering a new energy policy?  75% confidence?  90% confidence?

We make policy decisions on those kinds of margins all the time.  When we adjust a tax rate or take military action or move a budget, we're a lot less than 90% certain of the economic and national security outcomes.  But we look at the problem, realize that doing nothing has its own price, and say "I'm 90% certain this is the way to go.  Let's take action and monitor as we go."

And yet, the level of scientific certainty is much higher than 90%.  The is backed by meta-analysis of the published evidence, by surveys of publishing professionals, by the public positions of worldwide scientific organizations, etc.  The only reason we don't do more is because there is a lot of lobbying power holding us to the status quo.  It's literally the same pay-for-opinion whores that told us that the link between cigarette smoke and cancer was nothing to worry about.
2013-06-18 08:34:29 AM  
7 votes:
imageshack.us
2013-06-18 08:30:53 AM  
7 votes:

Wise_Guy: [i.imgur.com image 480x640]


Meh.  Science never answers why... only how.
2013-06-18 08:29:45 AM  
7 votes:

vpb: Yes, telling idiots to stop being idiots will totally work.


Well, it works better for him than most people.  Imagine if Snookie was involved in a science debate and called somebody an idiot.  Nobody would care or give it much weight.  But when Bill Nye the guy who personally taught me science as a child guy says somebody doesnt know what they're talking about... you're going to stop and listen to what he has to say.  Especially if he's in a white lab coat.
2013-06-18 08:39:34 AM  
6 votes:

Goodluckfox: I would like to point out that Bill Nye is not a Phd. Just sayin'. I like him as much as anybody for what he does... but isn't he an edutainer, in the same way that Fox News (or really all modern television "journalists" are infotainers?


He has a Bachelor's in Mechanical Engineering from Cornell and worked for Boeing as an engineer so I think we can safely say he knows more about science than the vast majority of Americans.
2013-06-18 08:39:40 AM  
5 votes:

olddinosaur: So let's see if I get this right:  Bill Nye, the science denying guy, accuses those who not deny science of being science deniers?
He makes about as much sense as the Hapgood Theory of Pole Shift.


A perfect example of how really smart people will look like idiots to an idiot.
2013-06-18 08:29:00 AM  
5 votes:
Because facts are immutable, and tbh Bill, Neil and even Phil (SPONSER ME YOU BAD ASTRONOMER!) are my new favoirte brain-team.

Stupidity and Ignorance should be challenged often, and challenged in the same unrelenting manner as one would fight an enemy. For they are our great enemy, the enemy of humanity.

/where would we be if we didn't have the Dark Ages?
//cue familyguy.jpg
2013-06-18 09:02:52 AM  
4 votes:

Goodluckfox: I would like to point out that Bill Nye is not a Phd. Just sayin'. I like him as much as anybody for what he does... but isn't he an edutainer, in the same way that Fox News (or really all modern television "journalists" are infotainers?


I don't see how comparing him to Fox News is going to create a productive discussion on Fark.

That said, no he doesn't have a PhD.  No one says he does.  His highest level of education is a BS in Mechanical Engineering from Cornell.  He still knows a thing or two about science but, most importantly, he's really good at explaining scientific ideas in layman's language.
2013-06-18 08:42:53 AM  
4 votes:

Goodluckfox: I would like to point out that Bill Nye is not a Phd. Just sayin'. I like him as much as anybody for what he does... but isn't he an edutainer, in the same way that Fox News (or really all modern television "journalists" are infotainers?


24.media.tumblr.com
Who the fark cares?
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-06-18 08:17:16 AM  
4 votes:
Yes, telling idiots to stop being idiots will totally work.
2013-06-18 08:58:44 AM  
3 votes:
If you want to create a world that makes decisions based on science then reason must be at the forefront of the political/legislative process. Simply allowing members of congress and the supreme court to make decisions based largely on their own discretion has to end. When we allow semantics and logical fallacies to be sold to the public as a truth it promotes ignorance, and an idea that any logic can be true if it's framed in an aesthetically pleasing format.
2013-06-18 08:53:53 AM  
3 votes:

steamingpile: Nice point, like the fact man is most likely not the sole cause for warming and its arrogant to think a flea speck on this planet is causing all of it. Especially when other earth core samples show higher prolonged co2 levels millions of years ago.


Hmmm... I wonder what happened to all that CO2 that was in the atmosphere all those many millions of years ago. Maybe it was fixed into organic molecules in plants, some of which eventually died and fossilized, carrying their carbon into the ground with them, to be buried for all time never reintroduced to the atmosphere unless some species was dumb enough to dig it up and burn it.

And humans definitely don't dig up and burn fossilized carbon, therefore modern atmospheric CO2 increases are not man-made. Right?
2013-06-18 08:52:42 AM  
3 votes:

Goodluckfox: I would like to point out that Bill Nye is not a Phd. Just sayin'. I like him as much as anybody for what he does... but isn't he an edutainer, in the same way that Fox News (or really all modern television "journalists" are infotainers?


Because you need a PhD to be right? Someone without a PhD isn't qualified to talk about evolution? Or geology? Or astronomy? And what if the PhD is in psychology, does that qualify someone to talk about astronomy? Or does he need 30 different PhDs so we know to listen to him? And what about high school teachers? Should we disregard everything they have to say if they aren't PhDs? Does light stop moving at 299792458 m/s if the person making the statement doesn't have a PhD in physics?

If what someone says turns out to be right most of the time, why does it matter that (s)he hasn't got a signed scrap of paper?
2013-06-18 08:47:53 AM  
3 votes:

Copper Spork: It's an important part of the scientific process that newly established conclusions must no longer be treated with skepticism once they are published.


In the scientific process, plugging your ears and shouting "LALALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" doesn't actually qualify as skepticism.  Just FYI.
2013-06-18 08:47:38 AM  
3 votes:

Alonjar: Meh. Science never answers why... only how.


If science answers "how?" questions, then by definition, that includes "how come?" questions. Which is the same as "why?". Therefor science does indeed answer why. :p
2013-06-18 08:44:42 AM  
3 votes:
I like Bill Nye, but he's no Beakman.

3.bp.blogspot.com
2013-06-18 08:36:45 AM  
3 votes:

Alonjar: Wise_Guy: [i.imgur.com image 480x640]

Meh.  Science never answers why... only how.


Does there really need to be a why? Our little monkey brains can't seem to forget the ego and throw aside a meaning to things that really do not need to have a meaning. Maybe life just exists for no reason other than the fact that it got lucky - both figuratively and literally.
2013-06-18 08:36:18 AM  
3 votes:
science is just another religion.
2013-06-18 07:35:16 AM  
3 votes:
Nice to see Phil quoted in the article.
2013-06-18 11:27:46 AM  
2 votes:

Ant: What is the sound of the color blue?


oneworkingmusician.com
2013-06-18 09:59:22 AM  
2 votes:
Oh, btw, catastrophic AGW denial is the latest fallback position for global warming deniers (I won't call them skeptics, because skepticism requires a mind open to new information).

Step 1 was: There's no such thing as global warming.
Step 2: Global warming is real, but not human-caused.
Step 3: Global warming is real, and includes human causes, but it won't hurt us. We'll be growing strawberries in Alaska!

Step 4 comes when we have to build 20-foot sea walls around all major coastal cities, and wars are breaking out over scarcity of food and fresh water: Global warming is real, and human-caused, and catastrophic, but it's too late now.
2013-06-18 09:43:34 AM  
2 votes:

THE GREAT NAME: MaliFinn: If you seriously dislike Bill Nye then you have a problem in your head.  The guy's goal in life is to change the world by encouraging kids to use science.  People who have a problem with this:
- Religious zealots who are offended that their faith isn't logical
- Political enemies of anything that exposes the negative consequences of greed
- Assholes who mock intelligence and education because they are insecure

I like this comment because of how cleverly you've disuised your "if you disagree with me you're a bad person" opinion as something reasonable.


The truth doesn't need people to agree with it.
2013-06-18 09:26:15 AM  
2 votes:
If you seriously dislike Bill Nye then you have a problem in your head.  The guy's goal in life is to change the world by encouraging kids to use science.  People who have a problem with this:
- Religious zealots who are offended that their faith isn't logical
- Political enemies of anything that exposes the negative consequences of greed
- Assholes who mock intelligence and education because they are insecure
2013-06-18 09:17:17 AM  
2 votes:
i3.ytimg.com
PROFESSOR JULIUS SUMNER MILLER (The Hilarious House of Frightenstein)

/was into science BEFORE there was science!
2013-06-18 09:06:01 AM  
2 votes:

tenpoundsofcheese: Some TV guy with a mechanical engineering degree is lecturing people about climate change and how tornadoes are caused by global warming?


So, if an overwhelming consensus of peer-reviewed evidence was published in the world's leading scientific journal, making the same point, you'd believe it right?

Because you're a "skeptic", right?  Not a troll, certainly.  And skeptics are persuaded by evidence.  So it would be compelling to see a small mountain of papers presenting evidence that the recently observed climate change is real, significant, and primarily driven by human activities?  Right?
2013-06-18 09:03:51 AM  
2 votes:

Dadbart: "we are still at the point where idiot people are trying to make schools teach fantasy (intelligent design) "

Always wondered why many people think some aspects of religion and science are mutually exclusive. Genesis actually describes, in simplistic terms, the correct sequence of events as discovered by science. From Big Bang on. That was written long before science spelled it out. How did they know? Unless, of course, you subscribe to Ancient Aliens theories.


What book of Genesis are you reading? Genesis I and Genesis II have conflicting timelines (animals before man in one, vice versa in the other). You have to really twist the description of creation to square it with the science. There's no "And behold, the Lord did cause the tiny to grow great, and the realms of the heavens did hurtle one from the other, and the earth did cool and shrink away from the firmament." Genesis is pretty clearly based on a flat Earth scenario (the waters above divided from the waters below, when in fact the earth coalesced before there was any liquid water).

Twisting scripture, of course, is what religious people do, because the obvious conclusion, "Hey, they made this shiat up based on the story-telling methods of mythology," conflicts with their belief system.
2013-06-18 08:54:49 AM  
2 votes:
"we are still at the point where idiot people are trying to make schools teach fantasy (intelligent design) "

Always wondered why many people think some aspects of religion and science are mutually exclusive. Genesis actually describes, in simplistic terms, the correct sequence of events as discovered by science. From Big Bang on. That was written long before science spelled it out. How did they know? Unless, of course, you subscribe to Ancient Aliens theories.
2013-06-18 08:52:20 AM  
2 votes:
Love the Bill-o Faux Tag: "Bill Nye: Believes in man made global warming."

I suppose he also "believes" in atoms, molecules, and other sciencey stuff that's up for debate at the Fox.
2013-06-18 08:49:14 AM  
2 votes:

dittybopper: As an example, 100 years ago, it was considered as a scientific fact that radio waves with wavelengths shorter than 200 meters weren't useful for long-distance communication. This was before the effects of the ionosphere in bending radio waves was known. Today, I regularly contact people hundreds and thousands of miles away on frequencies that were once considered only capable of supporting communications of a few miles to a few tens of miles at best.


That's an engineering problem, not a scientific fact.
2013-06-18 08:44:17 AM  
2 votes:

steamingpile: Especially when other earth core samples show higher prolonged co2 levels millions of years ago.


Because as we all know, if something can happen naturally, it is impossible for man to make it happen. Even  when six thousand million of them are working together.
2013-06-18 08:38:24 AM  
2 votes:

Goodluckfox: I would like to point out that Bill Nye is not a Phd. Just sayin'. I like him as much as anybody for what he does... but isn't he an edutainer, in the same way that Fox News (or really all modern television "journalists" are infotainers?


How many PhD's are actually educators? Most are researchers dragged reluctantly into the classroom, where they suck. Teachers don't have to have advanced degrees to teach, especially when they're teaching secondary-school-level science the way he is.

He's a "science guy," not a scientist.
2013-06-18 08:37:03 AM  
2 votes:

Goodluckfox: I would like to point out that Bill Nye is not a Phd. Just sayin'. I like him as much as anybody for what he does... but isn't he an edutainer, in the same way that Fox News (or really all modern television "journalists" are infotainers?


Aerospace engineer, actually.
2013-06-18 08:19:41 AM  
2 votes:
I wonder what would happen if Bill turned out to be this reality's incarnation of the Doctor...

*ponder!*
2013-06-18 04:37:51 PM  
1 votes:

Thai_Mai_Xhu: Still waiting to see one trans species.
Difficulty; No platypussies allowed.


You mean like these:  http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/12/evolutionexampl/
Or these:  http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/2011/12/18/evolutio n -watching-speciation-occur-observations/

Maybe if you weren't so farking lazy you could Google this stuff yourself.
2013-06-18 04:25:30 PM  
1 votes:

Thai_Mai_Xhu: Still waiting to see one trans species.
Difficulty; No platypussies allowed.


you remind me of this lady



Dawkins vs. Wright
2013-06-18 02:26:27 PM  
1 votes:

ReverendJynxed: Mr. Wizard was the best. Nye is a bit of a douche bag in person.


I just think he is not a people person. He appears so uncomfortable around other people.
2013-06-18 01:39:17 PM  
1 votes:

megarian: I'm still having a hard time coming to terms with the fact that there is someone in this thread that doesn't think math is science.


I never went to school, but it seems to me that science is a method or process, and math is an expression of reason and logic, and while a key component of the scientific method, not the same thing.
2013-06-18 01:25:07 PM  
1 votes:

megarian: Carn: megarian: udhq: Carn: megarian: I'm still having a hard time coming to terms with the fact that there is someone in this thread that doesn't think math is science.

math is hard.

Let's go to the mall.

omg shoes!

I'm going to Mars to escape climate ravaged earth and I'm taking with me:

shoes
beer

I'm going to Mars to escape climate ravaged earth and I'm taking with me:

COMFORTABLE shoes
GOOD beer
Super Nintendo w/Star Fox and Legend of Zelda: Link To The Past
Hot sauce

a few items for "adult stimulation"

FTFY&M
2013-06-18 01:05:54 PM  
1 votes:

occamswrist: Holy fark the point was that Bill Nye's experiment sucked and he had to Photoshop the results


And that point is wrong.
2013-06-18 12:36:10 PM  
1 votes:
God screwed up. Letting humans live on this planet was a huge mistake. Maybe next time he'll give the slime mold entities or the lizard people a chance at living on this planet responsibly.
2013-06-18 12:12:17 PM  
1 votes:

Carn: Ant: Alonjar: Meh.  Science never answers why... only how.

Sometimes asking "Why?" is nonsensical. Just because you can place a question mark at the end of a sentence doesn't mean it's a valid question.

What is the sound of the color blue?

Well, you could convert the colors to wavelengths, then map those to frequencies, and then that question does make sense.  But you make a good point.


Or if you have synethesia.
2013-06-18 12:09:25 PM  
1 votes:

Ant: Alonjar: Meh.  Science never answers why... only how.

Sometimes asking "Why?" is nonsensical. Just because you can place a question mark at the end of a sentence doesn't mean it's a valid question.

What is the sound of the color blue?


Well, you could convert the colors to wavelengths, then map those to frequencies, and then that question does make sense.  But you make a good point.
2013-06-18 11:45:31 AM  
1 votes:

What_do_you_want_now: wjllope: Ant: What is the sound of the color blue?

[oneworkingmusician.com image 600x600]

+10 Internets for you

/"Birth of the Cool" is still better, though


Meh. biatches Brew.
2013-06-18 11:39:09 AM  
1 votes:

THE GREAT NAME: Appeal to authority, redirecting the burden of proof, and some non-sequiter stuff.


You understand that appealing to authority is not actually a fallacy when the "authority" you appeal to is the publishing scientific community on the subject.

It is a fallacy when you appeal to a random blog poster or your preferred politician.
2013-06-18 11:34:45 AM  
1 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: Joe Blowme: et no warming in last 15 years even though co2 continued to increased.

wat


Heh, there is a rule in climate change debates - take the current year (or whatever year you have data up to). Take away 1998 from that year. What result does that give you? 15. Okay then, 15 is the number of years we currently should be looking at when deciding if the climate is changing. Not 14, not 16, and 20 is right out. I wonder why this rule exists, if there is some underlying scientific reason for why (currently) 15 years is all the proof you need of what is happening to climate and no other time period will do?
2013-06-18 11:07:45 AM  
1 votes:
These threads are always great for identifying the victims of Dunning-Kruger Disease.
2013-06-18 11:01:58 AM  
1 votes:

oryx: Bill, stop wearing the bow-tie guy.


i44.tinypic.com
2013-06-18 10:53:35 AM  
1 votes:

DON.MAC: mbillips: How then do you rationalize the Bible getting everything about the inception of the universe and life in the wrong order, and having two different timelines in Genesis I and II? Other than it's a story made up by people who didn't know enough to come up with a better explanation, like all mythology, and that it's an anthology of often conflicting myths, prayers and oral history? It's fairly well documented that people believed the earth was flat prior to the theorizing of Greek astronomers in the 2nd century BC, so it's counterintuitive to conclude that the ancient Hebrews were any exception.

Different translations fix the parts of Genesis.  The areas of the origins of the different stories are well documented.
One odd thing is sex led to original sin which lead to death but biologically it is somewhat true in that cell aging only seemed to occur after sexual reproduction.  Asexual cells are often immortal if they don't get eaten.

The Egyptians had accounted for a round earth when they were surveying out to the current borders near Sudan and Libya about 2000 BC.



The above is possibly the 3rd biggest turd post in the thread.
2013-06-18 10:52:33 AM  
1 votes:
Stop worshiping TV personality, Bill Nye. First he was mad that no one believed in "global warming." Now that it snows in summer, he calls it "climate change." News flash! Climates change! It's not that people don't believe in natural fluctuations of climate, it's that many people don't think it's such a big deal that they need to stop living (or in some cases flying on private jets).
2013-06-18 10:51:54 AM  
1 votes:

THE GREAT NAME: cameroncrazy1984: THE GREAT NAME: There are no papers that provide evidence of large positive feedbacks or a sort necessary to justfy alarm. That is my claim (stop changing it). You cannot provide a paper that references such evidence because there is no such thing.

Okay. Name one of them. Have you read them? Surely you've read all of them if you can claim without equivocation (i'm awake now!) that non papers provide this evidence.

So name one of them.

You want me to name a paper that doesn't exist? You really are crazy.

WARMING TO USERS: user cameroncrazy1984 modifies others' arguments to ones he can win against. Always check his followups for misrepresentations.


What have I misrepresented? Did you not claim that zero papers provide evidence of positive feedback loops? How is it modifying your claim to ask for one of these paper that does not provide evidence of positive feedback loops? Is it possible that you just can't name one of these papers that don't have evidence?
2013-06-18 10:47:57 AM  
1 votes:

Abuse Liability: Now I know you'll say something to the effect of "but it's happening now and we're all gonna die if we don't do something immediately" or "Its too late anyway", but science paces along at an incredibly slow rate.  If that leads to our demise... well, we should have been smarter, faster, or both.


No, I won't say that, and I won't answer your silly questions because quite obviously you've already made up your mind and if 13,000 papers proving climate change is anthropogenic don't change your mind, why would I think you would believe me?
2013-06-18 10:45:08 AM  
1 votes:

THE GREAT NAME: There are no papers that provide evidence of large positive feedbacks or a sort necessary to justfy alarm. That is my claim (stop changing it). You cannot provide a paper that references such evidence because there is no such thing.


Okay. Name one of them. Have you read them? Surely you've read all of them if you can claim without equivocation (i'm awake now!) that non papers provide this evidence.

So name one of them.
2013-06-18 10:41:43 AM  
1 votes:

ph0rk: No, you haven't. You've provided more data points supporting the claim, but you haven't proven anything about the mechanisms involved.


That's because I didn't include how magnetism actually works.  That's now how scientific papers are written. Ideas are built off of other ideas. If I were to write a white paper on how magnets stuck to my refrigerator, does that mean that I have to include, in detail, how magnetism works every time?

That's why you see citations everywhere.

ph0rk: mainstreet62: ph0rk: Proof is for mathematics and logic, not science.

Math IS science, dude.

No, it isn't.


THE HELL IT'S NOT, IT ABSOLUTELY IS.
2013-06-18 10:39:46 AM  
1 votes:

Skywolf the Scribbler: BetterMetalSnake: Bill Nye played a big role in developing my love of science. Because of his show I became curious about science, began to read more and ended up stumbling into Carl Sagan. I never turned back. Thanks, Science Guy.

Skywolf the Scribbler:

I  am not and no one is intelligent. Intelligence is simply a passion for knowledge and striving for the logical truth regardless of what society at large perceives. After evaluating the evidence which I am cognizant of and exhausting every resource available to me, my conclusion is that the occurrence of macroevolution and abiogenesis is exceedingly slim, and that science is not willing to attribute the necessary amount of power to the entity which generated this reality.

And I just need to point out that you might not know what intelligence is. While the definitive definition is still under debate (cognitive psychology is a hoot), none of the viable options look anything like what you typed out. It's fine to have a lay-definition of a concept, but you should probably know a lay definition won't get much traction on Fark.

I have an eidetic memory and a grasp of logic which may indicate that I have more complex than average neural interconnections. Regardless, I have to make the decision to open a new tab and review how electricity works, and to read back through books on quantum physics, to maintain a working knowledge of those and other subjects.


Grasp of logic? Let's not go that far, but you do have a talent for being verbose and saying very little. There is a place for you in congress.
2013-06-18 10:34:48 AM  
1 votes:
Science is *not* "just another religion.

It is the antithesis of religion.

Religion requires blind faith in and acceptance of the impossible, a fair amount of naivete, and rejection of common sense.

Science requires research to determine what's possible, rejection of naivete and vigorous exercise of common sense.
2013-06-18 10:34:22 AM  
1 votes:

THE GREAT NAME: ph0rk: THE GREAT NAME: cameroncrazy1984: THE GREAT NAME: But what makes you think climatology is a science, when it obviously has more in common with astrology, homeopathy and even scientology?

lolwut

What does an actual science (climatology) have to do with those things?

Wait - you think because it's got graphs and formulas, it's science? LOL WUT.

You have consistently demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of science, both experimental and historical. You have no credibility, so please - by all means - cite some peer reviewed work that supports your position.

Difficulty: Throwing up your hands and shouting that climatology isn't a scientific discipline is equivalent to you admitting you can't back up your claims.

Please explain...


Well, for one, consistently claiming that zero climatology papers out of about 19,000 have evidence of anthropogenic global warming, despite all evidence to the contrary.
2013-06-18 10:32:04 AM  
1 votes:
It's sad that in this day and age, with six American flags on the Moon, we still have a sizable population in this country that actually believes that Jesus rode a dinosaur.

2.media.collegehumor.cvcdn.com
2013-06-18 10:29:03 AM  
1 votes:

BetterMetalSnake: Bill Nye played a big role in developing my love of science. Because of his show I became curious about science, began to read more and ended up stumbling into Carl Sagan. I never turned back. Thanks, Science Guy.

Skywolf the Scribbler:

I  am not and no one is intelligent. Intelligence is simply a passion for knowledge and striving for the logical truth regardless of what society at large perceives. After evaluating the evidence which I am cognizant of and exhausting every resource available to me, my conclusion is that the occurrence of macroevolution and abiogenesis is exceedingly slim, and that science is not willing to attribute the necessary amount of power to the entity which generated this reality.

And I just need to point out that you might not know what intelligence is. While the definitive definition is still under debate (cognitive psychology is a hoot), none of the viable options look anything like what you typed out. It's fine to have a lay-definition of a concept, but you should probably know a lay definition won't get much traction on Fark.


I have an eidetic memory and a grasp of logic which may indicate that I have more complex than average neural interconnections. Regardless, I have to make the decision to open a new tab and review how electricity works, and to read back through books on quantum physics, to maintain a working knowledge of those and other subjects.
2013-06-18 10:27:49 AM  
1 votes:

THE GREAT NAME: cameroncrazy1984: THE GREAT NAME: But what makes you think climatology is a science, when it obviously has more in common with astrology, homeopathy and even scientology?

lolwut

What does an actual science (climatology) have to do with those things?

Wait - you think because it's got graphs and formulas, it's science? LOL WUT.


I never said it's science because "it's got graphs and formulas." I said it's science because it provides hypotheses and experiments based on proving or disproving said hypotheses. So far you have done nothing to disprove that assertion.
2013-06-18 10:27:05 AM  
1 votes:

Jorn the Younger: mbillips: I like Bill Nye, but he's no Beakman.

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 324x400]


I preferred Mr Wizard

[boingboing.net image 410x287]


I have nothing but respect for Nye and anyone else trying to bring science to kids.  But when I was a kid, Mr. Wizard might as well have invented science.
2013-06-18 10:25:41 AM  
1 votes:

mbillips: OK, I'll concede the point. How then do you rationalize the Bible getting everything about the inception of the universe and life in the wrong order, and having two different timelines in Genesis I and II? Other than it's a story made up by people who didn't know enough to come up with a better explanation, like all mythology, and that it's an anthology of often conflicting myths, prayers and oral history? It's fairly well documented that people believed the earth was flat prior to the theorizing of Greek astronomers in the 2nd century BC, so it's counterintuitive to conclude that the ancient Hebrews were any exception.


I read back through the chapters to check, and I don't see a contradiction. I agree, it does not correlate to the theory of evolution.

Genesis 1:

1 The universe, including the earth
2 The entities of light and darkness
3 Sky, earth, and cloud cover
4 Continents or one continent and ocean
5 Flora
6 Celestial bodies to actually account for producing light so that people may have a choice whether or not to believe in God
7 Fauna
8 Humanity

Genesis 2:

1 Universe and the earth (vs 4)
2 Humans created after flora (vs 5-7)
3 Humans created after animals (vs 19)

Apropos the Israelite and early culture's misconceptions of physical laws, it has to do with the immutability of facts. They may have believed one thing to be true, but it does not mean that the Bible upholds it; simply, it is a series of documents originally written for the Israelite culture, and not for ours, and as such the syntax reflects the way that the cultures viewed things. The New Covenant specifically notes that the end times will be a trial for Christians, and one part of that may well be the simple fact that historical events lose credibility over time until they are known only from historical majority evidence, and therefore some people choose to consider them fables. If people inhabit the earth until the year 3 million A.D., then perhaps the Golden Gate Bridge will be known only from old legends and books and will be perceived by some as a myth despite the majority of historical evidence in favor.
2013-06-18 10:10:01 AM  
1 votes:

ThrobblefootSpectre: Meh. He's boring, stiff and vaugely creepy. He's definitely no Carl Sagan by a long shot.


Or to be redunant, an engineer.

/engineer
2013-06-18 10:05:14 AM  
1 votes:

steamingpile: My point remains we are a speck on the planet


You think that 7 billion humans with access to modern technology are "a speck"? And that modern science has "no idea" how the earth is affected by various climate factors?

Jesus, do you underestimate humanity.
2013-06-18 09:59:23 AM  
1 votes:

THE GREAT NAME: But what makes you think climatology is a science


You know how weathermen predict hurricane tracks, professor?

Wait for it.......they use theories that became proven fact, and apply those facts to the real world.

They use.......SCIENCE!
2013-06-18 09:57:27 AM  
1 votes:

mbillips: Skywolf the Scribbler: mbillips: Skywolf the Scribbler: mbillips: Genesis is pretty clearly based on a flat Earth scenario

Que?

Genesis 1:7: And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
1:8: And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
1:9: And God said, let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear, and it was so.

Genesis 11 has land plants emerging before the sun and moon are created in Genesis 14. Not exactly paralleling scientific theory. Not to mention, water-living animals (sponges) predate land plants (in contradiction of Genesis) by 100 million to 250 million years.

The "firmament" is a solid barrier between the heavens and the earth, upon which the sun, moon and stars are set. They are "above" and the land and seas are "below." That's pretty much a flat earth. There are other scriptural references to flat earth in the Bible (the four corners of the Earth in Revelation, etc.). That's why early 20th century, fundamentalist science deniers often believed the earth was flat. Unlike today, nobody much listened to them.

The "firmament" was added in English translations to make logical sense to the reader:

http://interlinearbible.org/genesis/1.htm

It refers to the earth's crust, under which is water tables and pockets of deep water from whence geothermal activity originates. Above the earth was the cloud cover, which again is water based.

Isaiah 40:22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

Then why does Genesis 1:16-17 say that the sky, moon and stars are set in "the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth?"


Again, added to the English translation. This is the terminology of the KJV for the Hebrew word for 'expanse', which word is now translated simply as heavens or space.
2013-06-18 09:54:22 AM  
1 votes:

tenpoundsofcheese: Sounds like you are really smart and serious.


In other words, the exact opposite of you.

You've showcased your stupidity on the Politics forum time and time again.

It would be colossal folly for you to even dip a toe into scientific issues. It would be like a mosquito facing off against an incoming 5 mile wide meteor.

So, why don't you let the grown ups handle science matters, OK?
2013-06-18 09:50:28 AM  
1 votes:

THE GREAT NAME: the claim that has no evidence is the one for massive positive feedbacks that lead to catastrophic AGW. There will be papers out there about that subject, and some will have got through peer reveiw (a rubber stamp job in climatology). But none of them refer to any real scientic evidence. Certainly, their mere existance is not scientific evidence.


Okay. Name one, and explain why a scientific paper which gives evidence for positive feedbacks is not scientific, nor evidence.

Come on. You made the claim. Now you get to back it up. Just name one, and explain how it got through peer-review without simply stating that it was a "rubber-stamp" without any evidence to back up your claim.
2013-06-18 09:50:13 AM  
1 votes:

THE GREAT NAME: (a rubber stamp job in climatology).


How many of your papers have sailed through the rubber stamp job of peer review in Climatology?

Clearly, if it is so easy, you've already secured a tenured post in the discipline and are swimming in a vast pool filled with grant money by now.
2013-06-18 09:49:14 AM  
1 votes:

THE GREAT NAME: chimp_ninja: tenpoundsofcheese: Some TV guy with a mechanical engineering degree is lecturing people about climate change and how tornadoes are caused by global warming?

So if someone reviewed over three thousand surveys filled out by Earth scientists, and noted that 97% of publishing climatologists answered 'Yes' to the statement "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?", and had his findings reviewed and published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, that would be compelling, right?


Are you still pulling this old con, chimp ninja? For anybody not already aware, these "meta-studies", which are made by environmentalist activist groups, not proper scientists, count virtually all opinions as being in the "pro" AGW group. That includes most rational climate sceptics, suck as myself, who accept that human emissions probably are causing some warming (just not very much).

Because you're a "skeptic", right? Not a troll, certainly. And skeptics are persuaded by evidence. So it would be compelling to see an overwhelming consensus of experts agreeing that the recently observed climate change is real, significant, and primarily driven by human activities? Right?

Putting your sarcastic and ranty tone to one side for a moment, scientists are compelled by compelling scientific evidence. Not by some consensus (real or invented). Remember, the consensus once was that the earth was flat. By your logic we would still believe that. We changed our minds because some good scientists concentrated on the scientific evidence, and saw that there was none for the flat earth theory, so they abandoned the theory.

Catastrophic AGW theory (the one with the large positive feedbacks leading to high CO2 sensitivity) should be abandoned too, because it also has no scientific evidence to support it.


Other than a number of unrefuted recent studies that tend to confirm it, no, "catastrophic" AGW has no scientific evidence to support it.

/You don't have to have a runaway greenhouse effect a la Venus in order to have catastrophic impacts on currently existing species and human civilization. A few degrees C will do it.
//All it takes is a little drought in the main food-growing areas, a few meters of sea-level rise and boom.
///On the other hand, it seems that AGW may well have staved off the scheduled Ice Age, so there's that. But having staved it off, turning the world back into a Paleozoic swamp by putting ever-increasing amounts of fossil CO2 in the atmosphere seems ill-advised.
2013-06-18 09:45:33 AM  
1 votes:

THE GREAT NAME: But what makes you think climatology is a science, when it obviously has more in common with astrology, homeopathy and even scientology?


lolwut

What does an actual science (climatology) have to do with those things?
2013-06-18 09:43:56 AM  
1 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: Carn: Skywolf the Scribbler: my conclusion is that the occurrence of macroevolution and abiogenesis is exceedingly slim

There's your problem right there.  Evolution does not explain the origin of life.  Evolution explains genetic diversity and how we get (got) from there to here.  You can believe that your god created life and evolution is the mechanism he put in place that led to human beings if that's what makes you happy.  Denying evolution makes you look stupid, and it is obvious you are trying very hard at the opposite.

Actually, evolution equivocally does explain the origin of life. Someone in one of these threads summed it up. Started with elements attaching to one another, into proteins, etc.


I do not deny it. On the contrary, I say that it may have occurred as one theory to explain life. While we do not have presently tangible examples of abiogenesis, however, it remains theoretical.
2013-06-18 09:42:22 AM  
1 votes:

THE GREAT NAME: I like this comment because of how cleverly you've disuised your "if you disagree with me you're a bad person" opinion as something reasonable.


If you disagree with scientific evidence, especially on this issue, you want to continue to ruin the planet which definitely makes you a bad person.
2013-06-18 09:39:44 AM  
1 votes:

Alonjar: Wise_Guy: [i.imgur.com image 480x640]

Meh.  Science never answers why... only how.


"Why does it burn when I pee?"
"Because you have a urinary tract infection."

"Why don't we all float away?"
"Because gravity prevents it."
2013-06-18 09:38:40 AM  
1 votes:

Mad Scientist: When y'all are ready for a real science broadcaster, let me know.  I'll make the Connections.

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 400x355]


loved that show.
2013-06-18 09:35:54 AM  
1 votes:

utah dude: science is just another religion.


But you don't have to believe in it for it to work.
2013-06-18 09:30:50 AM  
1 votes:

frepnog: A bunch of big words to say "Bill Nye should throw science away and look for Jesus".


Invalid argument. I assert that Bill Nye should not discard a theory which has not had direct evidence to the contrary, and should instead evaluate the evidence for multiple theories and reach the conclusion which he believes is most accurate.

frepnog: Because that is what I think you actually meant to say.


It does not matter what you think about me. While I give it consideration, it does not impinge upon who I am and how I actually think.

frepnog: You are part of the problem.


If you consider opposing arguments to be a problem, then I would like to know why that is so.

frepnog: You try to sound intelligent and knowledgeable by using big words and flashy sentences while what you are really doing is trying to look smart while claiming "JESUS".


I  am not and no one is intelligent. Intelligence is simply a passion for knowledge and striving for the logical truth regardless of what society at large perceives. After evaluating the evidence which I am cognizant of and exhausting every resource available to me, my conclusion is that the occurrence of macroevolution and abiogenesis is exceedingly slim, and that science is not willing to attribute the necessary amount of power to the entity which generated this reality.

You are what Bill is fighting against.  I hope he wins because your side, the "oh but it could have been JESUS" side are gaddammed morans.

I operate in academic and moral debates with as entirely a purely logical mindset as is humanly possible, and therefore I do not comprehend the injection of emotion into this academic debate.
2013-06-18 09:28:28 AM  
1 votes:
So who else followed the link and  joined the Planetary Society?

/I love all who advocate science and critical thinking.
//Bill Nye is my hero, no secret about that.
2013-06-18 09:18:54 AM  
1 votes:

Bullseyed: It is funny when they feel the need to say things like:

"They have gone from watching him explain magnetism and electricity to defending the scientific evidence forclimate change, the age of the earth and other issues they have seen polemicized for religious, political and even economic reasons. "

If they really believed in climate change, they wouldn't need to specify "defend the scientific evidence" and could just say "defend climate change". Like a criminal being interrogated, they feel the need to restate minor details thinking they are making their story more believable, but when in reality they're flagging themselves as liars to anyone trained in behavioral psychology.


And of course if they said that, the same troll would be here saying "It's funny that they defend a THEORY but don't mention the evidence!"  Except they would write THEORY 72 times bigger, because they don't understand the word in its context and think it makes them look smart.
2013-06-18 09:17:46 AM  
1 votes:

Skywolf the Scribbler: However, I cannot cite him as an example of critical thinking and his statement that individuals should search for the truth for themselves is fallacious. A scientist and a scholar does not flat deny a theory without evidence which directly contradicts it, as so doing may preclude multiple logical possibilities from being examined academically.


A bunch of big words to say "Bill Nye should throw science away and look for Jesus".  Because that is what I think you actually meant to say.  You are part of the problem.  You try to sound intelligent and knowledgeable by using big words and flashy sentences while what you are really doing is trying to look smart while claiming "JESUS".

You are what Bill is fighting against.  I hope he wins because your side, the "oh but it could have been JESUS" side are gaddammed morans.
2013-06-18 09:16:43 AM  
1 votes:

Graffito: Yea, but my gut believes the little red sliver.  Besides, there was that one time when the minority were right and everybody else was wrong so I've got that going for me.  Most of all - AL GORE!!!


My understanding of the denier argument is that Al Gore is fat, and therefore climate scientists are rolling around in their gold-plated Ferraris and Sarah Palin is automatically the Channel 5 weathergirl, and such.
2013-06-18 09:14:48 AM  
1 votes:

Kinek: The same thing has essentially happened in GMO space. 99% of all studies have returned safe, with the 1% being subsidized as very specific lecturers who profit from tipping the boat. And we're still in the 'WHAT IF' space.


Absolutely.  I'm all for GMO food to be sold, although I agree that accurate labeling is a good safeguard that would allow consumers to make their own decisions.  I'd buy it.

Of course, we all buy genetically modified food every week.  The public accepts one form of genetic modification (phenotypic screening and selective breeding in a field) but not another (directed transfer of genes in a laboratory).
2013-06-18 09:10:03 AM  
1 votes:

meanmutton: utah dude: science is just another religion.

I totally agree, except the exact opposite of that.

Faith requires belief absent, or even in the face of, evidence.

Science is a method of looking at the world and making determinations based on evidence.


Both of these statements are absolute. Examples to the contrary exist. Historical and literary evidence is evaluated by individuals with academic credentials in religious fields. Forces of physics which are not understood, such as the Bermuda Triangle, remain hypothetical.
2013-06-18 09:08:59 AM  
1 votes:

dittybopper: What_do_you_want_now: Because facts are immutable

Actually, they aren't immutable.  Our understanding of everything evolves and gets refined as we learn more.  Something that was considered a 'fact' 100 years ago may not be considered one today, or there may be some caveats, or it may be so at the macro level but not at smaller scales or vice-versa.

As an example, 100 years ago, it was considered as a scientific fact that radio waves with wavelengths shorter than 200 meters weren't useful for long-distance communication.  This was before the effects of the ionosphere in bending radio waves was known.  Today, I regularly contact people hundreds and thousands of miles away on frequencies that were once considered only capable of supporting communications of a few miles to a few tens of miles at best.


Thank you for your wise advice, but allow me to clarify my statement.

A fact is immutable regardless of how much we know about it, while our understanding of the fact may grow and change to accept it for what it really is.

I'm not stating this to stagnate our scientific progress because we have all the facts, but rather we should continue to develop ourselves so that we can understand the facts more fully.

Hope this clarifies.
2013-06-18 09:07:52 AM  
1 votes:

Persnickety: Goodluckfox: I would like to point out that Bill Nye is not a Phd. Just sayin'. I like him as much as anybody for what he does... but isn't he an edutainer, in the same way that Fox News (or really all modern television "journalists" are infotainers?

He has a Bachelor's in Mechanical Engineering from Cornell and worked for Boeing as an engineer so I think we can safely say he knows more about science than the vast majority of Americans.


Keep in mind that an Engineer is not the same as a Scientist.  There is some overlap. You can see it in the three types of engineering degrees.  At the Bachelor's level, you can get a Bachelor of Engineering, A Bachelor of Science in Engineering, and a Bachelor of Engineering Science.  As you proceed on this continuum, you get more theory and less practice.  And some scientists (chemists, physicists, etc.) focus far more on practice than on theory.

In general a Scientist is a seeker of truth.  An  Engineer wants an answer that works, on time, and within budget.

/Yes, I respect Bill Nye.  He is an excellent educator.
2013-06-18 09:05:42 AM  
1 votes:

tenpoundsofcheese: Some TV guy with a mechanical engineering degree is lecturing people about climate change and how tornadoes are caused by global warming?

This is why we can't have nice things.

I'll wait until Natalie Portman writes a paper.



I'll take what Bill Nye says more seriously then anything you have ever said, or are ever to likely say.

Bill Nye is just a better human being then you.

He's also waaaaaay more Academically credible then you.
2013-06-18 09:02:32 AM  
1 votes:

mbillips: I like Bill Nye, but he's no Beakman.

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 324x400]



I preferred Mr Wizard

boingboing.net
2013-06-18 08:55:12 AM  
1 votes:

Alonjar: 0Icky0: olddinosaur: So let's see if I get this right:  Bill Nye, the science denying guy, accuses those who not deny science of being science deniers?
He makes about as much sense as the Hapgood Theory of Pole Shift.

A perfect example of how really smart people will look like idiots to an idiot.

Well, to be fair, the article highlights where Bill is over stepping himself and making claims that arent really based on science.  Claiming global warming caused the severity of the Oklahoma tornado's is a bit much.  Any "science guy" worth his salt should recognize that you cant even claim "its the worstest tornado evar!11!! when we've only been recording Tornados for like 50 out of the last 4,540,000,000 years.  In that context, trying to plot some kind of accurate historical pattern is just farking retarded.


FTA:

'On the night the tornado hit Moore, Mr. Nye to Mr. Morgan that "you can't say from any one storm that 'this is a result of, let's say, climate change.' " But he noted that "if there's more heat driving the storm, then there's going to be more tornadoes," and added that the question "is worth investigating."'
2013-06-18 08:53:32 AM  
1 votes:
My headline was better.

That said, I respect Mr. Nye as a man of science. His erudition in multiple fields renders him close to being a modern polymath. However, I cannot cite him as an example of critical thinking and his statement that individuals should search for the truth for themselves is fallacious. A scientist and a scholar does not flat deny a theory without evidence which directly contradicts it, as so doing may preclude multiple logical possibilities from being examined academically. On examining Mr. Nye's rhetoric, it is incomplete, as is only logical; no one human being can know with absolute certainty what the truth is apropos the origin of reality as we know it, insofar as we (human beings in this time period) were not present to study it. This is a field where the scientific evidence merges with past and future estimations founded on present data, which may have been dissimilar at some other time period, and which therefore may render data at best uncertain and at worst unreliable. Present data which is projected onto past and future estimations is not tangible empirical evidence but rather scientific philosophy. It may be correct, though it is not possible to know without a time machine, if that could be done without violating relativity. Abiogenisis, orogenesis, and macroevolution may have occurred in an infinite universe which was and is somehow not subject to entropic regression. It may have been possible for a singularity to generate forces of physics which forces of physics the same singularity needed to function, though the Big Bang theory is currently controversial. It is also possible that an entity beyond all of reality--all physical and abstract concepts--generated the universe as we know it. Such an entity would match the description of the Christian, Judaic, and Islamic God. If the universe is finite and the being which generated it is beyond the same physical laws, then the being is infinite; if the being which generated the universe is beyond all physical and abstract entities within this universe, then that being is beyond physical laws, relative motion, and the universe itself. Creationism may have occurred, with intelligent design, and intense hydrological processes which were responsible for the confusing rock strata which multiple theories currently exist for. A scholar does not take either of these theories for granted, but rather examines the evidence and develops a perspective based as much as possible on empirical, historical, archeological, mathematical, logical, and literary evidence. This perspective, as with all perspectives, is subject to change if further evidence arises to challenge elements of the perspective.
2013-06-18 08:48:16 AM  
1 votes:

What_do_you_want_now: Because facts are immutable


Actually, they aren't immutable.  Our understanding of everything evolves and gets refined as we learn more.  Something that was considered a 'fact' 100 years ago may not be considered one today, or there may be some caveats, or it may be so at the macro level but not at smaller scales or vice-versa.

As an example, 100 years ago, it was considered as a scientific fact that radio waves with wavelengths shorter than 200 meters weren't useful for long-distance communication.  This was before the effects of the ionosphere in bending radio waves was known.  Today, I regularly contact people hundreds and thousands of miles away on frequencies that were once considered only capable of supporting communications of a few miles to a few tens of miles at best.
2013-06-18 08:43:30 AM  
1 votes:

utah dude: science is just another religion.


"Well, science is not religion and it doesn't just come down to faith. Although it has many of religion's virtues, it has none of its vices. Science is based upon verifiable evidence. Religious faith not only lacks evidence, its independence from evidence is its pride and joy, shouted from the rooftops. Why else would Christians wax critical of doubting Thomas? The other apostles are held up to us as exemplars of virtue because faith was enough for them. Doubting Thomas, on the other hand, required evidence. Perhaps he should be the patron saint of scientists."
2013-06-18 08:42:08 AM  
1 votes:

steamingpile: Nice point, like the fact man is most likely not the sole cause for warming and its arrogant to think a flea speck on this planet is causing all of it. Especially when other earth core samples show higher prolonged co2 levels millions of years ago.


Yes because not causing all of it is obviously reason to deny all evidence that some contribution from green house gases due to industrialization are having a marked and measurable effect.
2013-06-18 08:39:08 AM  
1 votes:

utah dude: science is just another religion.


0/10
2013-06-18 08:38:48 AM  
1 votes:

frepnog: Infobahn: vpb: Yes, telling idiots to stop being idiots will totally work.

I appreciate the effort, as hopeless as the cause is.

there will come a point when it is just ridiculous to try and dispute the science because most everyone agrees that the science is correct.  we are not there yet, we are still at the point where idiot people are trying to make schools teach fantasy (intelligent design) but we will get there.

/here comes the science.


This is generally not how science works.  Unless your name is Lysenko.

In science, it's generally considered a good thing to continually come up with ways one might disprove a theory, until one can no longer come up with a way to disprove (falsify) a theory or model.  In which case, it might be somewhat possible to accept a theory or model as an adequate description of how a process works.
2013-06-18 08:32:38 AM  
1 votes:
I imagine a few hours later he's at a frat house living a Girls Gone Wild episode on his face.
2013-06-18 08:32:06 AM  
1 votes:

Infobahn: vpb: Yes, telling idiots to stop being idiots will totally work.

I appreciate the effort, as hopeless as the cause is.


there will come a point when it is just ridiculous to try and dispute the science because most everyone agrees that the science is correct.  we are not there yet, we are still at the point where idiot people are trying to make schools teach fantasy (intelligent design) but we will get there.

/here comes the science.
2013-06-18 08:31:25 AM  
1 votes:

oryx: Bill, stop wearing the bow-tie guy.


Bowties are cool.

The Doctor deems it so, it must be true.
2013-06-18 08:29:35 AM  
1 votes:
Sounds like this guy is up to his neck in college-age 'tang. . . .
2013-06-18 08:23:29 AM  
1 votes:

vpb: Yes, telling idiots to stop being idiots will totally work.


I appreciate the effort, as hopeless as the cause is.
2013-06-18 08:22:22 AM  
1 votes:
BILL! BILL! BILL! BILL! BILL! ...

(Somebody had to...)
 
Displayed 103 of 103 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report