Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   California's EPA produced a 300-page report on the measurable, concrete ways that climate change is already negatively impacting the state. In reponse, a spokesman for climate change skeptics said "LA-LA-LA we can't hear you"   (news.yahoo.com ) divider line
    More: Obvious, California's EPA, Chinook Salmon, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, environmental hazards, hydroelectric plant, Monterey Bay, climate change skeptics, Central California  
•       •       •

1250 clicks; posted to Geek » on 08 Aug 2013 at 1:16 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-08 01:23:13 PM  
What about the trees!??? Won't somebody think of the trees!1
 
2013-08-08 01:24:21 PM  
INTERNET: GLOBAL WARMING!!

PEOPLE: But it's colder this year than-

INTERNET: That doesn't mean anything, it takes years to make a pattern!!!

PEOPLE: But we've only been keeping track of temperatures fo-

INTERNET: SHUT UP, CLIMATE CHANGE!!

PEOPLE: Oh so anything at all falls under this umbrella now?

INTERNET: (insert condescending rant about how retarded anyone who doesn't suckle at the teat of CLIMATE CHANGE is a moron)

/I still think pollution is bad and needs to change
 
2013-08-08 01:25:18 PM  
The latest 258-page report, which cost $282,000 to produce, was compiled from existing climate studies and released by an arm of the California Environmental Protection Agency.

Your tax dollars at work.  Over $1,000 per page when they could have just written the phrase "We believe correlation is causation!" and been done with it.
 
2013-08-08 01:29:01 PM  
Hmmm...  how many times have liberals put me on ignore because they didn't want to hear an opposing voice?  Sucks when it happens to your derp doesn't it?
 
2013-08-08 01:31:16 PM  
2013 version of the full report is here.

In before green threadshiatting, or the same tired troll repeating small sample size claims that are thoroughly refuted by:

www.skepticalscience.com
 
2013-08-08 01:31:31 PM  

sure haven't: INTERNET: GLOBAL WARMING!!

PEOPLE: But it's colder this year than-

INTERNET: That doesn't mean anything, it takes years to make a pattern!!!

PEOPLE: But we've only been keeping track of temperatures fo-

INTERNET: SHUT UP, CLIMATE CHANGE!!

PEOPLE: Oh so anything at all falls under this umbrella now?

INTERNET: (insert condescending rant about how retarded anyone who doesn't suckle at the teat of CLIMATE CHANGE is a moron)

/I still think pollution is bad and needs to change


Yup.  It's just the Internet.
 
2013-08-08 01:32:09 PM  
sure haven't:

Sounds like you're in need of a condescending comment about your retarded strawmen.
 
2013-08-08 01:34:42 PM  
Conifer forests on the lower slopes of the Sierra Nevada have moved to higher elevations over the past half century.

For some reason I am envisioning Poppa Conifer looking out the front window saying, "Martha come in here and see what the Jones just sold their place to?  I cannot believe they are letting that type in here."  We can call it green flight.
 
2013-08-08 01:36:11 PM  

Shaggy_C: Over $1,000 per page


Prepare your fainting couch, but hiring scientists to spend months crunching numbers and organizing it all into a report tends to cost a few bucks.
 
2013-08-08 01:37:22 PM  

gnosis301: PEOPLE: But it's colder this year than-


Record-breaking high temperatures every year make it colder?
 
2013-08-08 01:38:15 PM  

Obbi: gnosis301: PEOPLE: But it's colder this year than-

Record-breaking high temperatures every year make it colder?


HAHA!  Tricked you!  I was actually quoting an earlier post!  Nya ha ha ha!!
 
2013-08-08 01:38:16 PM  

Saiga410: We can call it green flight.


I thought that was when conspiracy theorists run away from a thread until no one is still around to rebut their lurid tales of a global cabal of thousands of evil scientists.
 
2013-08-08 01:39:04 PM  
Wait, crap, I replied to him. +1 to your score, my man!

But I skimmed TFA and didn't see it writing about anybody refuting the report. Seems just like it was thrown out there as a FYI
 
2013-08-08 01:39:19 PM  

Shaggy_C: Over $1,000 per page when they could have just written the phrase "We believe correlation is causation!" and been done with it.


Gee, if only there were known physical relationships between atmospheric carbon dioxide and ocean chemistry, or between surface temperature and treeline elevation, or ...
 
2013-08-08 01:40:23 PM  

gnosis301: Obbi: gnosis301: PEOPLE: But it's colder this year than-

Record-breaking high temperatures every year make it colder?

HAHA!  Tricked you!  I was actually quoting an earlier post!  Nya ha ha ha!!


Haha, and the wrong guy! I was mostly just curious about that one line more than anything else.
 
2013-08-08 01:40:29 PM  
FTA: The report "vastly overstates the impacts of greenhouse gases," said University of Alabama at Huntsville atmospheric sciences professor John Christy, who holds a minority view among climate scientists.

Clearly this fellow is well positioned to make statements on the impact of global warming on California.
 
2013-08-08 01:46:08 PM  

dj_spanmaster: FTA: The report "vastly overstates the impacts of greenhouse gases," said University of Alabama at Huntsville atmospheric sciences professor John Christy, who holds a minority view among climate scientists.

Clearly this fellow is well positioned to make statements on the impact of global warming on California.


What's his Fark handle?
 
2013-08-08 01:51:09 PM  

studs up: dj_spanmaster: FTA: The report "vastly overstates the impacts of greenhouse gases," said University of Alabama at Huntsville atmospheric sciences professor John Christy, who holds a minority view among climate scientists.

Clearly this fellow is well positioned to make statements on the impact of global warming on California.

What's his Fark handle?


ch*ckuf*rlie

Naw, but seriously - I was hearing recently that 27-year-olds have never experienced a colder-than-average month in their lifetimes (source). Why is this still a debate?
 
2013-08-08 02:07:12 PM  

dj_spanmaster: FTA: The report "vastly overstates the impacts of greenhouse gases," said University of Alabama at Huntsville atmospheric sciences professor John Christy, who holds a minority view among climate scientists.

Clearly this fellow is well positioned to make statements on the impact of global warming on California.


Oof. Not only did I miss that, but I actually know that guy.

He's...cool enough, but has that "I won't budge from my position unless there's absolute, direct proof to the contrary" sorta attitude.
 
2013-08-08 02:09:37 PM  
Not sure why this is debated at all... Hell, you'd think the video NASA released would be enough...
 
2013-08-08 02:18:08 PM  

sure haven't: INTERNET: GLOBAL WARMING!!

PEOPLE: But it's colder this year than-

INTERNET: That doesn't mean anything, it takes years to make a pattern!!!

PEOPLE: But we've only been keeping track of temperatures fo-

INTERNET: SHUT UP, CLIMATE CHANGE!!

PEOPLE: Oh so anything at all falls under this umbrella now?

INTERNET: (insert condescending rant about how retarded anyone who doesn't suckle at the teat of CLIMATE CHANGE is a moron)

/I still think pollution is bad and needs to change


Except its not the Internet.

On one hand you have scientists trained in numerous fields of study in agreement that climate change is occurring.

On the other you have corporations with very deep pockets who have no qualms about using the media, paid forum shills, and less-than-ethical scientists to spread lies and dissent.
 
2013-08-08 02:24:21 PM  

Dr Dreidel: studs up: dj_spanmaster: FTA: The report "vastly overstates the impacts of greenhouse gases," said University of Alabama at Huntsville atmospheric sciences professor John Christy, who holds a minority view among climate scientists.

Clearly this fellow is well positioned to make statements on the impact of global warming on California.

What's his Fark handle?

ch*ckuf*rlie

Naw, but seriously - I was hearing recently that 27-year-olds have never experienced a colder-than-average month in their lifetimes (source). Why is this still a debate?


Not for nothing but the life of the average PBR drinking, waxed-moustache, fedora wearer V. geologic time is not much of a scale. Sure his stories about being backstage with the Flaming Lips seem to take that long but it's not the same.
 
2013-08-08 02:33:38 PM  
What a warming Yosemite may look like:

cdiac.ornl.gov

Dramatic sea level rise in San Fransisco Bay:

www.psmsl.org
 
2013-08-08 02:38:05 PM  

studs up: Not for nothing but the life of the average PBR drinking, waxed-moustache, fedora wearer V. geologic time is not much of a scale.


Sure, but when the recent 40 years worth of readings are out of line with most/all other 40-year increments, and there's an explanation that isn't "Um...solar activity?", it becomes ever harder to wave anomalous readings away.

That the last 332 months have all been hotter than average is but one indicator.
 
2013-08-08 02:42:39 PM  
sure haven't

INTERNET: GLOBAL WARMING!!

PEOPLE: But it's colder this year than-

INTERNET: That doesn't mean anything, it takes years to make a pattern!!!

PEOPLE: But we've only been keeping track of temperatures fo-

INTERNET: SHUT UP, CLIMATE CHANGE!!

PEOPLE: Oh so anything at all falls under this umbrella now?

INTERNET: (insert condescending rant about how retarded anyone who doesn't suckle at the teat of CLIMATE CHANGE is a moron)

/I still think pollution is bad and needs to change


Pretty much nailed it, forgot to post a graph tho.
 
2013-08-08 02:42:42 PM  

KellyX: Not sure why this is debated at all...


It's not. Even absent the demand for a formal context the word "debate" implies that there are two sides discussing the merit and validity of an issue over which there is disagreement. That does not apply to climate change. There is one side composed of experts with significant training in the relevant fields making a series of statements based on observed, verifiable data and there is one side composed of random people with no verifiable credentials at all doing this:

sure haven't: INTERNET: GLOBAL WARMING!!

PEOPLE: But it's colder this year than-

INTERNET: That doesn't mean anything, it takes years to make a pattern!!!

PEOPLE: But we've only been keeping track of temperatures fo-

INTERNET: SHUT UP, CLIMATE CHANGE!!

PEOPLE: Oh so anything at all falls under this umbrella now?

INTERNET: (insert condescending rant about how retarded anyone who doesn't suckle at the teat of CLIMATE CHANGE is a moron)

/I still think pollution is bad and needs to change


That's not a debate. That's just a group of intelligent people presenting facts that are being ignored through increasingly desperate and absurd commentary from the peanut gallery. At this point if the reality hasn't convinced you it never will and you can just be ignored.
 
2013-08-08 02:48:55 PM  
FTA: Levels of carbon dioxide, methane and other heat-trapping gases in the state increased between 1990 and 2011. In recent years, there has been a slight drop - the result of industries and vehicles becoming more energy efficient, the report said.

Wait, i thought we just reached the highest amount of carbon in the atmosphere in billions of years or something? Do you guys check to see if your BS contradicts eachother, or does that even matter with the type of people you're trying to fool?
 
2013-08-08 02:52:18 PM  
"Climate change" is too vague of a term that can rub people the wrong way.  Honestly, I would appreciate "Rising ocean temperatures are causing X" as that's easier to measure and confirm or refute.
 
2013-08-08 02:55:50 PM  

sure haven't: INTERNET: (insert condescending rant about how retarded anyone who doesn't suckle at the teat of CLIMATE CHANGE is a moron)


Gee, it's almost like there's a reason people think you're a moron.
 
2013-08-08 02:57:47 PM  

KellyX: Not sure why this is debated at all... Hell, you'd think the video NASA released would be enough...



That will be dismissed with irrelevant comments about NASA concentrating on Muslim outreach programs rather than science.
 
2013-08-08 03:13:02 PM  

DesertDemonWY: What a warming Yosemite may look like:

[cdiac.ornl.gov image 850x425]

Dramatic sea level rise in San Fransisco Bay:

[www.psmsl.org image 850x340]


All well and good, but is there some part of the term global that you have trouble with? I could be wrong, but I'd think it's possible for our planet's climate to be changing without that being true for every particular location. Sort of like how the population as a whole can be getting fatter but you, personally, may not be.
 
2013-08-08 03:14:22 PM  

J. Frank Parnell: FTA: Levels of carbon dioxide, methane and other heat-trapping gases in the state increased between 1990 and 2011. In recent years, there has been a slight drop - the result of industries and vehicles becoming more energy efficient, the report said.

Wait, i thought we just reached the highest amount of carbon in the atmosphere in billions of years or something? Do you guys check to see if your BS contradicts eachother, or does that even matter with the type of people you're trying to fool?


Did you know the entire world is not contained within California? Strange but true.
 
2013-08-08 03:16:02 PM  

SomeoneDumb: DesertDemonWY: What a warming Yosemite may look like:

[cdiac.ornl.gov image 850x425]

Dramatic sea level rise in San Fransisco Bay:

[www.psmsl.org image 850x340]

All well and good, but is there some part of the term global that you have trouble with? I could be wrong, but I'd think it's possible for our planet's climate to be changing without that being true for every particular location. Sort of like how the population as a whole can be getting fatter but you, personally, may not be.


Did you not read the headline or the article? Hint: they are talking about California and "measurable effects"
 
Ant
2013-08-08 03:16:52 PM  
I don't want it to be true, therefore it's not. BOOM! Argumentum ad consequentiam, motherfarkers!
 
2013-08-08 03:25:24 PM  

SomeoneDumb: DesertDemonWY: What a warming Yosemite may look like:

[cdiac.ornl.gov image 850x425]

Dramatic sea level rise in San Fransisco Bay:

[www.psmsl.org image 850x340]

All well and good, but is there some part of the term global that you have trouble with? I could be wrong, but I'd think it's possible for our planet's climate to be changing without that being true for every particular location. Sort of like how the population as a whole can be getting fatter but you, personally, may not be.


So you are arguing that the sea level may not be rising in California but it is rising other places? The sea can act like individual humans in different locations?
wow.
 
2013-08-08 03:26:44 PM  

DesertDemonWY: What a warming Yosemite may look like:

[cdiac.ornl.gov image 850x425]

Dramatic sea level rise in San Fransisco Bay:

[www.psmsl.org image 850x340]



people.virginia.edu

You can cherry-pick spatially just as easily as temporally.
 
2013-08-08 03:32:54 PM  

studs up: SomeoneDumb: DesertDemonWY: What a warming Yosemite may look like:

[cdiac.ornl.gov image 850x425]

Dramatic sea level rise in San Fransisco Bay:

[www.psmsl.org image 850x340]

All well and good, but is there some part of the term global that you have trouble with? I could be wrong, but I'd think it's possible for our planet's climate to be changing without that being true for every particular location. Sort of like how the population as a whole can be getting fatter but you, personally, may not be.

So you are arguing that the sea level may not be rising in California but it is rising other places? The sea can act like individual humans in different locations?
wow.



You have to remember that the ocean is so large that conditions are not homogeneous throughout. It's the same reason why the air temperature can be warm in one place and yet cold at another even though the air is 'connected'.
 
2013-08-08 03:35:48 PM  

DesertDemonWY: SomeoneDumb: DesertDemonWY: What a warming Yosemite may look like:

[cdiac.ornl.gov image 850x425]

Dramatic sea level rise in San Fransisco Bay:

[www.psmsl.org image 850x340]

All well and good, but is there some part of the term global that you have trouble with? I could be wrong, but I'd think it's possible for our planet's climate to be changing without that being true for every particular location. Sort of like how the population as a whole can be getting fatter but you, personally, may not be.

Did you not read the headline or the article? Hint: they are talking about California and "measurable effects"



Heed your own warning. California is more than simply San Francisco bay and Yosemite.
 
2013-08-08 03:46:59 PM  

DesertDemonWY: SomeoneDumb: DesertDemonWY: What a warming Yosemite may look like:

[cdiac.ornl.gov image 850x425]

Dramatic sea level rise in San Fransisco Bay:

[www.psmsl.org image 850x340]

All well and good, but is there some part of the term global that you have trouble with? I could be wrong, but I'd think it's possible for our planet's climate to be changing without that being true for every particular location. Sort of like how the population as a whole can be getting fatter but you, personally, may not be.

Did you not read the headline or the article? Hint: they are talking about California and "measurable effects"


And all of Calif is SF Bay or Yosemite? News to me (hint: I live in Landers)
 
2013-08-08 03:54:29 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: studs up: SomeoneDumb: DesertDemonWY: What a warming Yosemite may look like:

[cdiac.ornl.gov image 850x425]

Dramatic sea level rise in San Fransisco Bay:

[www.psmsl.org image 850x340]

All well and good, but is there some part of the term global that you have trouble with? I could be wrong, but I'd think it's possible for our planet's climate to be changing without that being true for every particular location. Sort of like how the population as a whole can be getting fatter but you, personally, may not be.

So you are arguing that the sea level may not be rising in California but it is rising other places? The sea can act like individual humans in different locations?
wow.


You have to remember that the ocean is so large that conditions are not homogeneous throughout. It's the same reason why the air temperature can be warm in one place and yet cold at another even though the air is 'connected'.


cdn.niketalk.com
 
2013-08-08 04:07:27 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: DesertDemonWY: SomeoneDumb: DesertDemonWY: What a warming Yosemite may look like:

[cdiac.ornl.gov image 850x425]

Dramatic sea level rise in San Fransisco Bay:

[www.psmsl.org image 850x340]

All well and good, but is there some part of the term global that you have trouble with? I could be wrong, but I'd think it's possible for our planet's climate to be changing without that being true for every particular location. Sort of like how the population as a whole can be getting fatter but you, personally, may not be.

Did you not read the headline or the article? Hint: they are talking about California and "measurable effects"


Heed your own warning. California is more than simply San Francisco bay and Yosemite.



Forgot to add that if we wish to discuss something in the report, it can be found right here.
 
2013-08-08 04:12:39 PM  

J. Frank Parnell: FTA: Levels of carbon dioxide, methane and other heat-trapping gases in the state increased between 1990 and 2011. In recent years, there has been a slight drop - the result of industries and vehicles becoming more energy efficient, the report said.

Wait, i thought we just reached the highest amount of carbon in the atmosphere in billions of years or something? Do you guys check to see if your BS contradicts eachother, or does that even matter with the type of people you're trying to fool?


No, they don't. They'll trumpet whatever points make global warming look worse. High temps in california? Publish that study. Colder than average spring in North America? Umm, let's see what's going on in Antarctica.

Despite such bias amongst global warming alarmists, the fact is trends clearly indicate that the globe is warming, and that humans are at least partially, if not primarily, the cause.

What can or should be done about it is the question. For instance, how much should we raise gas and heating oil taxes by? $3 per gallon? $5? Does it matter what the US does, with the expansion of fossil fuel usage in the developing world?
 
2013-08-08 04:14:05 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: J. Frank Parnell: FTA: Levels of carbon dioxide, methane and other heat-trapping gases in the state increased between 1990 and 2011. In recent years, there has been a slight drop - the result of industries and vehicles becoming more energy efficient, the report said.

Wait, i thought we just reached the highest amount of carbon in the atmosphere in billions of years or something? Do you guys check to see if your BS contradicts eachother, or does that even matter with the type of people you're trying to fool?

No, they don't. They'll trumpet whatever points make global warming look worse. High temps in california? Publish that study. Colder than average spring in North America? Umm, let's see what's going on in Antarctica.

Despite such bias amongst global warming alarmists, the fact is trends clearly indicate that the globe is warming, and that humans are at least partially, if not primarily, the cause.

What can or should be done about it is the question. For instance, how much should we raise gas and heating oil taxes by? $3 per gallon? $5? Does it matter what the US does, with the expansion of fossil fuel usage in the developing world?


Well that's defeatist
 
2013-08-08 04:15:03 PM  

studs up: Damnhippyfreak: studs up: SomeoneDumb: DesertDemonWY: What a warming Yosemite may look like:

[cdiac.ornl.gov image 850x425]

Dramatic sea level rise in San Fransisco Bay:

[www.psmsl.org image 850x340]

All well and good, but is there some part of the term global that you have trouble with? I could be wrong, but I'd think it's possible for our planet's climate to be changing without that being true for every particular location. Sort of like how the population as a whole can be getting fatter but you, personally, may not be.

So you are arguing that the sea level may not be rising in California but it is rising other places? The sea can act like individual humans in different locations?
wow.


You have to remember that the ocean is so large that conditions are not homogeneous throughout. It's the same reason why the air temperature can be warm in one place and yet cold at another even though the air is 'connected'.

[cdn.niketalk.com image 470x268]



It's counter-intuitive, but true. What might help would be to think of sea level as a dynamic process, with sea level a result of many different processes (currents, wind, topography, tides, temperature, etc.) at that point in space and time instead of a universal property. Think 'equilibrium' rather than 'steady-state'.
 
2013-08-08 04:17:54 PM  

CPennypacker: Debeo Summa Credo: J. Frank Parnell: FTA: Levels of carbon dioxide, methane and other heat-trapping gases in the state increased between 1990 and 2011. In recent years, there has been a slight drop - the result of industries and vehicles becoming more energy efficient, the report said.

Wait, i thought we just reached the highest amount of carbon in the atmosphere in billions of years or something? Do you guys check to see if your BS contradicts eachother, or does that even matter with the type of people you're trying to fool?

No, they don't. They'll trumpet whatever points make global warming look worse. High temps in california? Publish that study. Colder than average spring in North America? Umm, let's see what's going on in Antarctica.

Despite such bias amongst global warming alarmists, the fact is trends clearly indicate that the globe is warming, and that humans are at least partially, if not primarily, the cause.

What can or should be done about it is the question. For instance, how much should we raise gas and heating oil taxes by? $3 per gallon? $5? Does it matter what the US does, with the expansion of fossil fuel usage in the developing world?

Well that's defeatist


Yes, but realistic. A unilateral carbon tax in the US would reduce greenhouse gas emissions modestly while handicapping our economy further. It would create an additional, artificial incentive to relocate jobs and production to other countries who don't have such taxes. Just saying of we go ahead unilaterally it will have adverse implications for the economy.
 
2013-08-08 04:43:47 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: CPennypacker: Debeo Summa Credo: J. Frank Parnell: FTA: Levels of carbon dioxide, methane and other heat-trapping gases in the state increased between 1990 and 2011. In recent years, there has been a slight drop - the result of industries and vehicles becoming more energy efficient, the report said.

Wait, i thought we just reached the highest amount of carbon in the atmosphere in billions of years or something? Do you guys check to see if your BS contradicts eachother, or does that even matter with the type of people you're trying to fool?

No, they don't. They'll trumpet whatever points make global warming look worse. High temps in california? Publish that study. Colder than average spring in North America? Umm, let's see what's going on in Antarctica.

Despite such bias amongst global warming alarmists, the fact is trends clearly indicate that the globe is warming, and that humans are at least partially, if not primarily, the cause.

What can or should be done about it is the question. For instance, how much should we raise gas and heating oil taxes by? $3 per gallon? $5? Does it matter what the US does, with the expansion of fossil fuel usage in the developing world?

Well that's defeatist

Yes, but realistic. A unilateral carbon tax in the US would reduce greenhouse gas emissions modestly while handicapping our economy further. It would create an additional, artificial incentive to relocate jobs and production to other countries who don't have such taxes. Just saying of we go ahead unilaterally it will have adverse implications for the economy.



Keep in mind that the same form of argument applies to any sort of interference in a free market - any sort of tax or regulation also creates the sort of disincentive you're talking about. What needs to be a part of your assessment is some consideration of the benefits as well as the cost.

That, and of course that a direct carbon tax is only one potential solution. If you're framing this in terms of market forces, remember that cap-and-trade is what is being bandied about in this arena.
 
2013-08-08 05:17:33 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: That, and of course that a direct carbon tax is only one potential solution. If you're framing this in terms of market forces, remember that cap-and-trade is what is also being bandied about in this arena.


A small point, but I should be clearer.
 
2013-08-08 05:38:57 PM  
Wait.

Did they say
     "LA-LA-LA we can't hear you"

or
     "LA-LA-LA we can't hear you"

?
 
2013-08-08 05:44:19 PM  
Speaking of "negatively impacting the State", what is the California EPA's annual budget?
 
2013-08-08 05:57:08 PM  
Denialism is part of the Republican religion.

And being a Republican is the true religion for most Republicans. Otherwise they would not have voted for a Mormon.
 
Displayed 50 of 62 comments

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

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