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)   Scientists at NOAA: 2013 was the fourth hottest year on record. Scientists on the internet: It's cold outside, global warming is bunk   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 101
    More: Asinine, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Sumter, weather disasters, average surface temperature  
•       •       •

1263 clicks; posted to Geek » on 21 Jan 2014 at 3:10 PM (31 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-21 01:38:02 PM
2013 was FOURTH hottest. And 1998 was the hottest, meaning it's getting cooler.
 
2014-01-21 01:39:11 PM

vygramul: 2013 was FOURTH hottest. And 1998 was the hottest, meaning it's getting cooler.


You must be one of them there internet scientists.
 
2014-01-21 01:52:18 PM

vygramul: And 1998 was the hottest


"The hottest year was 2010."

 
2014-01-21 01:56:30 PM

vygramul: And 1998 was the hottest


Yeah but most of that was due to Fiona Apple's "Criminal" music video.
 
2014-01-21 02:01:25 PM

kronicfeld: vygramul: And 1998 was the hottest

Yeah but most of that was due to Fiona Apple's "Criminal" music video.


The hottest of the 9/10 that happened in the 21st century. Everyone knows it's 1998, or the people who say there's no increase since 1998 would be liars, and that's just unpossible.
 
2014-01-21 02:34:13 PM
Those same so-called "scientists" probably don't think it's a good idea to tie a plastic bag around your head. I think Real American should show them they're wrong!
 
2014-01-21 02:35:20 PM
It was 90F yesterday... so it's looking good for 2014 already.

/my regional temperature is the most important indicator of global trends, right?
 
2014-01-21 02:53:17 PM
Well, when I came home from school my head started to get really hot. So I drank some cold water, but it didn't do nothing. So I laid in the bathtub for a while, but then I realized that it was my hair that was making my head hot. So I went into my kitchen and I shaved it all off.
snakkle.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com
I'm not saying it's aliens... but it's aliens.
 
2014-01-21 03:18:27 PM

timujin: It was 90F yesterday... so it's looking good for 2014 already.

/my regional temperature is the most important indicator of global trends, right?


Well my area is unseasonably cold to darn cold so when you avgerage it out it is probably getting cooler.
 
2014-01-21 03:18:36 PM
The comments in the article are gold. Filled with ignorance and conspiracy filled rants. My favorite

There once was 6000 data collection stations world wide, now cut back to 1500.
One must wonder which stations were deactivated and why.
My bet is they did not remove the warmer ones.
 
2014-01-21 03:23:35 PM
The last 15 years have had more fourth warmest years on record than the Taliban has Number Two bosses. And yet, you just know that if next year beats the hottest on record, the denialists will just reset their claim that the world is cooling from 1998 to 2015 and go down from there.
 
2014-01-21 03:24:34 PM
Internet scientist is an oxymoron
 
2014-01-21 03:25:33 PM

brantgoose: The last 15 years have had more fourth warmest years on record than the Taliban has Number Two bosses. And yet, you just know that if next year beats the hottest on record, the denialists will just reset their claim that the world is cooling from 1998 to 2015 and go down from there.


Cit

ongbok: The comments in the article are gold. Filled with ignorance and conspiracy filled rants. My favorite

There once was 6000 data collection stations world wide, now cut back to 1500.
One must wonder which stations were deactivated and why.
My bet is they did not remove the warmer ones.


Citation needed.
 
2014-01-21 03:26:04 PM

R.A.Danny: vygramul: 2013 was FOURTH hottest. And 1998 was the hottest, meaning it's getting cooler.

You must be one of them there internet scientists.


I could be wrong, but I think he's just getting that out of the way before one of the usual potatoheads comes in and tries to actually make that argument in seriousness.
 
2014-01-21 03:26:33 PM

brantgoose: brantgoose: The last 15 years have had more fourth warmest years on record than the Taliban has Number Two bosses. And yet, you just know that if next year beats the hottest on record, the denialists will just reset their claim that the world is cooling from 1998 to 2015 and go down from there.

Citongbok: The comments in the article are gold. Filled with ignorance and conspiracy filled rants. My favorite

There once was 6000 data collection stations world wide, now cut back to 1500.
One must wonder which stations were deactivated and why.
My bet is they did not remove the warmer ones.

Citation needed.


That was a comment from the article, not from me.
 
2014-01-21 03:29:07 PM
Good old hottest years on a tiny record. It is kind of like how only humans have won the Miss Universe contest over and over or how the World Series of baseball pretty much never has teams from any place other than the United States and Canada.

Remember all the record keeping back in like 10 million BC. And all the detailed record keeping from oh say like the 1500s.

I do too, good stuff, good stuff.
 
2014-01-21 03:30:25 PM
Denials are no different than creationists or truthers, and should be treated as such.
 
2014-01-21 03:30:59 PM
This is one of main problems - people don't reason rationally - they don't go out and collect data and then come to a decision based on the facts.

They make an emotional decision ("How do I feel about this") primarily based on anecdotes - personal experience.

And if the personal experience you remember is how damn cold it was last winter, that is going to trump facts supplied by people you don't personally know.

Plus, cold snaps gives opponents chance to trivialise the issue ("I wish this global warming would hurry up and happen, heh heh heh")

i42.tinypic.com
 
2014-01-21 03:32:47 PM
"Summer is coming."

(nedstark.jpg)
 
2014-01-21 03:34:24 PM
Never mind.

I have found my own citation, NOAA.

From NOAA Q&A on weather stations:

The physical number of weather stations has shrunk as modern technology improved and some of the older outposts were no longer accessible in real time.

However, over time, the data record for surface temperatures has actually grown, thanks to the digitization of historical books and logs, as well as international data contributions. The 1,500 real-time stations that we rely on today are in locations where NOAA scientists can access information on the 8th of each month. Scientists use that data, as well as ocean temperature data collected by a constantly expanding number of buoys and ships - 71 percent of the world is covered by oceans, after all - to determine the global temperature record.


http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html

That explains the shrinkage pretty well. Also, why it doesn't matter. There are no weather stations on the ocean. The weather is recorded by buoys and these have been increasing in number constantly due to the needs of modern shipping and climatology alike. So the data is even more complete with reduced land-based measurements that are more accurate and reliable.

Marine temperatures used to be measured by throwing a bucket over the side. They are now measured at the engine intake level and are thus far more reliable and accurate.

Of course, you don't need weather stations or buoys to prove that the USA and the world has warmed over the last half century or so. Weather and climate are pretty obvious.

Even if NOAA did not have weather observing stations across the United States, the impacts of the warming are clear and present. For example, lake and river ice is melting earlier in the spring and forming later in the fall. Plants are blooming earlier in the spring. Mountain glaciers are melting. Coastal temperatures are rising. A multitude of species of birds, fish, mammals and plants are extending their ranges northward and, in mountainous areas, uphill toward cooler areas.
 
2014-01-21 03:37:14 PM

Confabulat: nials are no different than creationists or truthers, and should be treated as such.


It isn't like there was a time where the scientific establishment was 99% sure of something and then realized they were full of crap and changed their predictions and models.


The issue is that for some climate changes has become as much gospel to them as creationsim and truther fiction. Rather than just using it as a chance to defend the science from people trying to understand it, they insult, belittle and demean those that don't agree with them, and then create apocalyptic predictions that never happen.

So that the average joe on the street now views science as this thing that makes fun of them, and shouts out about end of the world bullcrap all the time. It ceases to be something good for everyone but instead it is only for those 'smart enough to "get it"'
 
2014-01-21 03:41:16 PM

brantgoose: Never mind.

I have found my own citation, NOAA.

From NOAA Q&A on weather stations:

The physical number of weather stations has shrunk as modern technology improved and some of the older outposts were no longer accessible in real time.

However, over time, the data record for surface temperatures has actually grown, thanks to the digitization of historical books and logs, as well as international data contributions. The 1,500 real-time stations that we rely on today are in locations where NOAA scientists can access information on the 8th of each month. Scientists use that data, as well as ocean temperature data collected by a constantly expanding number of buoys and ships - 71 percent of the world is covered by oceans, after all - to determine the global temperature record.

http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html

That explains the shrinkage pretty well. Also, why it doesn't matter. There are no weather stations on the ocean. The weather is recorded by buoys and these have been increasing in number constantly due to the needs of modern shipping and climatology alike. So the data is even more complete with reduced land-based measurements that are more accurate and reliable.

Marine temperatures used to be measured by throwing a bucket over the side. They are now measured at the engine intake level and are thus far more reliable and accurate.

Of course, you don't need weather stations or buoys to prove that the USA and the world has warmed over the last half century or so. Weather and climate are pretty obvious.

Even if NOAA did not have weather observing stations across the United States, the impacts of the warming are clear and present. For example, lake and river ice is melting earlier in the spring and forming later in the fall. Plants are blooming earlier in the spring. Mountain glaciers are melting. Coastal temperatures are rising. A multitude of species of birds, fish, mammals and plants are extending their ranges northward and, in ...


So the historical data isn't as good as the current data. But we should trust the historical data as being complete and good even though it isn't as complete or as informative as the current data and used less than efficient data collection techniques....

Imagine if this level of data collection was applied to drug studies etc. The scrutiny would be farking insane, but climate science, well that is different and anyone questioning it, isn't smart enough to understand.
 
2014-01-21 03:44:47 PM

brantgoose: Never mind.

I have found my own citation, NOAA.

From NOAA Q&A on weather stations:

The physical number of weather stations has shrunk as modern technology improved and some of the older outposts were no longer accessible in real time.

However, over time, the data record for surface temperatures has actually grown, thanks to the digitization of historical books and logs, as well as international data contributions. The 1,500 real-time stations that we rely on today are in locations where NOAA scientists can access information on the 8th of each month. Scientists use that data, as well as ocean temperature data collected by a constantly expanding number of buoys and ships - 71 percent of the world is covered by oceans, after all - to determine the global temperature record.

http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html

That explains the shrinkage pretty well. Also, why it doesn't matter. There are no weather stations on the ocean. The weather is recorded by buoys and these have been increasing in number constantly due to the needs of modern shipping and climatology alike. So the data is even more complete with reduced land-based measurements that are more accurate and reliable.

Marine temperatures used to be measured by throwing a bucket over the side. They are now measured at the engine intake level and are thus far more reliable and accurate.

Of course, you don't need weather stations or buoys to prove that the USA and the world has warmed over the last half century or so. Weather and climate are pretty obvious.

Even if NOAA did not have weather observing stations across the United States, the impacts of the warming are clear and present. For example, lake and river ice is melting earlier in the spring and forming later in the fall. Plants are blooming earlier in the spring. Mountain glaciers are melting. Coastal temperatures are rising. A multitude of species of birds, fish, mammals and plants are extending their ranges northward and, in mountainous areas, uphill toward cooler areas.


Or, you could have just read his full comment in the first place.

Or the reply to your demand for a citation.

Or, you could just start tilting at windmills. That works too.
 
2014-01-21 03:46:55 PM
Why was last year the "fourth" hottest on record? Shouldn't it be the hottest on record since CO2 has been rising non-stop? Why hasn't the average temp been rising non-stop?
 
2014-01-21 03:48:32 PM

REOIV: So the historical data isn't as good as the current data. But we should trust the historical data as being complete and good even though it isn't as complete or as informative as the current data and used less than efficient data collection techniques....

Imagine if this level of data collection was applied to drug studies etc. The scrutiny would be farking insane, but climate science, well that is different and anyone questioning it, isn't smart enough to understand.



Historical data as good as data collected through recent methods, but in this context  good enough to make the kind of inferences about the questions we wish to address. Information doesn't need to be perfect in order to be useful.

That aside, questioning something isn't a bad thing, but there should also go hand in hand with some acknowledgment of the limits of the knowledge of the person asking the questions. Otherwise it just becomes an operational way to deny and ignore scientific evidence. One can only ask questions for so long without acknowledging the answers, if they exist.
 
2014-01-21 03:49:25 PM

Damnhippyfreak: Historical data may not be as good as data collected through recent methods, but in this context is good enough to make the kind of inferences about the questions we wish to address.


I apparently forgot some key words there.
 
2014-01-21 03:50:27 PM
It really is amazing that no matter what the news says, the exact opposite is happening locally.  I wonder if we are like 1-2 years behind, or ahead or something.
 
2014-01-21 03:52:07 PM

mark12A: Why was last year the "fourth" hottest on record? Shouldn't it be the hottest on record since CO2 has been rising non-stop? Why hasn't the average temp been rising non-stop?


static1.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2014-01-21 03:53:28 PM

mark12A: Why was last year the "fourth" hottest on record? Shouldn't it be the hottest on record since CO2 has been rising non-stop? Why hasn't the average temp been rising non-stop?


Because warming due to increased CO2 concentrations isn't the only thing that affects temperatures. You can think of it as a longer-term trend with noise, if you like. An analogy to would be to note that just as the temperature goes up between night and day does not mean that winter isn't coming.
 
2014-01-21 03:54:14 PM

mark12A: Why was last year the "fourth" hottest on record? Shouldn't it be the hottest on record since CO2 has been rising non-stop? Why hasn't the average temp been rising non-stop?


Because that's not how climate works?
 
2014-01-21 03:56:12 PM
25.media.tumblr.com
 
2014-01-21 03:59:11 PM
Am I the only one who distrusts any mention of climate change that appeals to the crowd, er, consensus? I mean either the data support the conclusion or it does not; saying "the consensus is such-and-such" is a meaningless comment. When's the last time you heard "gravity works this way because that's the consensus" instead of "...because that's what the data suggest"? Even with controversial things like string theory the argument isn't "this is what a majority of scientists agree on", it's "this seems to be what the data suggest".

And I'm saying this all as someone who agrees with the conclusion that climate change is happening and with the hypothesis that humanity is a leading driver of it. But I agree with those because the data support them, not because other people agree with me.
 
2014-01-21 04:00:57 PM
The whole global warming/climate change/ impending ice age thing is fun, but why bother worrying about it? Study after study suggests that the biggest effects would be felt most harshly in already impoverished portions of the world. We don't bother taking care of the people living there now, so why are we going to spend a tremendous amount to save their children? Even more importantly, how are we to convince China and India to care about the future of already marginalized people at the expense of their own people? Lost causes lost causes.

/move north
//or inland
/// or south
//// whatever works for you
 
2014-01-21 04:03:56 PM

Damnhippyfreak: Historical data as good as data collected through recent methods, but in this context good enough to make the kind of inferences about the questions we wish to address. Information doesn't need to be perfect in order to be useful.


The issue is how can we be sure that it is 'good enough?'

Let's assume that the records back to the 1890s are totally perfect and that we have global records going back to the 1890s. We're talking about a "Good" data set of 124 years on record.

Everything past that is based on localized records that are missing large swaths of data, like ocean temps, and other global temps.

Also a lot of the inferred historical data is screwy too because we use ice cores for data collection but then found out that melting glaciers can also have water accumulate at the bottom of the glacier adding layers to the bottom of the samples that confuse the data entirely.

Never mind that I doubt the weather records were very precise in South America, Africa, the Poles or really anywhere else that wasn't Europe or select tiny portions of North America.


All that aside we looking at historical trends of an extremely complex system and then trying to assign mathematical formulas to them. If this was as simple as climatology tells us, why aren't they making BILLIONS in the stock market based off historical data? Especially when we have loads very detailed historical data to base complex models off of.

In all the reporting I've seen these simple issues aren't ever discussed.
 
2014-01-21 04:04:45 PM

mark12A: Why was last year the "fourth" hottest on record? Shouldn't it be the hottest on record since CO2 has been rising non-stop? Why hasn't the average temp been rising non-stop?


You mean if the average temperature was:

2014: 57.3
2015: 57.4
2016: 57.6
2017: 57.5
2018: 57.6
2019: 57.5
2020: 57.4

And was tied for 5th overall and the same as 2015, there's no global warming?

Must be that "New Math" that was all the rage in the '90s where no answer was "wrong".
 
2014-01-21 04:07:09 PM

FarkingHateFark: Am I the only one who distrusts any mention of climate change that appeals to the crowd, er, consensus? I mean either the data support the conclusion or it does not; saying "the consensus is such-and-such" is a meaningless comment. When's the last time you heard "gravity works this way because that's the consensus" instead of "...because that's what the data suggest"? Even with controversial things like string theory the argument isn't "this is what a majority of scientists agree on", it's "this seems to be what the data suggest".

And I'm saying this all as someone who agrees with the conclusion that climate change is happening and with the hypothesis that humanity is a leading driver of it. But I agree with those because the data support them, not because other people agree with me.



I think a healthy distrust of such approaches is fine. However, at some point we have to rely on expert opinion as an imperfect heuristic - unless you're replicating every study yourself, at some point you're going to have to base your judgement on what others agree on. By all means keep that distrust, but also recognize it as a necessary evil.

Think about it like this - who exactly is saying "because that's what the data suggest"? Is it you, is it a particular expert, or is it perhaps an aggregate of experts?
 
2014-01-21 04:20:10 PM

REOIV: Damnhippyfreak: Historical data as good as data collected through recent methods, but in this context good enough to make the kind of inferences about the questions we wish to address. Information doesn't need to be perfect in order to be useful.

The issue is how can we be sure that it is 'good enough?'

Let's assume that the records back to the 1890s are totally perfect and that we have global records going back to the 1890s. We're talking about a "Good" data set of 124 years on record.

Everything past that is based on localized records that are missing large swaths of data, like ocean temps, and other global temps.

Also a lot of the inferred historical data is screwy too because we use ice cores for data collection but then found out that melting glaciers can also have water accumulate at the bottom of the glacier adding layers to the bottom of the samples that confuse the data entirely.

Never mind that I doubt the weather records were very precise in South America, Africa, the Poles or really anywhere else that wasn't Europe or select tiny portions of North America.


All that aside we looking at historical trends of an extremely complex system and then trying to assign mathematical formulas to them. If this was as simple as climatology tells us, why aren't they making BILLIONS in the stock market based off historical data? Especially when we have loads very detailed historical data to base complex models off of.

In all the reporting I've seen these simple issues aren't ever discussed.



Big question, but a good one. What I can do is point out to you where to start looking. The IPCC AR5 WGI report just came out a while ago, and such a review is useful to know where to start reading. Check out Box 2.1: Uncertainty in Observational Records. I'll be back later if you wish to discuss something.

That aside, I think you're right about these issues not being discussed in the popular media. However, it's not as simple as you may think. I think the best way to get more and better information about this sort of thing is get as close to the source as you can - in this context the scientific literature. If you're looking for specific details, you can't really rely on a second or third hand account that by necessity leaves out, simplifies, or synthesizes information.
 
2014-01-21 04:20:54 PM

mark12A: Why was last year the "fourth" hottest on record? Shouldn't it be the hottest on record since CO2 has been rising non-stop? Why hasn't the average temp been rising non-stop?


You know those "natural cycles" your idiot friends like to blather on about?  Yeah, us people who have actually looked into them discover they exist and affect temperatures.(just not the way your idiots friends say they do).  20 year solar cycles do happen.  And guess what?  They match pretty well to "local" peaks.
 
2014-01-21 04:24:30 PM

Damnhippyfreak: FarkingHateFark: Am I the only one who distrusts any mention of climate change that appeals to the crowd, er, consensus? I mean either the data support the conclusion or it does not; saying "the consensus is such-and-such" is a meaningless comment. When's the last time you heard "gravity works this way because that's the consensus" instead of "...because that's what the data suggest"? Even with controversial things like string theory the argument isn't "this is what a majority of scientists agree on", it's "this seems to be what the data suggest".

And I'm saying this all as someone who agrees with the conclusion that climate change is happening and with the hypothesis that humanity is a leading driver of it. But I agree with those because the data support them, not because other people agree with me.


I think a healthy distrust of such approaches is fine. However, at some point we have to rely on expert opinion as an imperfect heuristic - unless you're replicating every study yourself, at some point you're going to have to base your judgement on what others agree on. By all means keep that distrust, but also recognize it as a necessary evil.

Think about it like this - who exactly is saying "because that's what the data suggest"? Is it you, is it a particular expert, or is it perhaps an aggregate of experts?


Maybe it's just semantics but saying "this is what the data show" seems more open and honest, more along the lines of "you are free to examine the data for yourself, once you've put in the effort to understand what the numbers mean." Saying "this is what the consensus believes" just comes across as hand-waving and somewhat paternalistic. "Trust us, because you couldn't possibly ever understand such complicated equations."
 
2014-01-21 04:24:40 PM
The Yahoo comments are delicious. Everything from 'Obama' to 'It snowed today in Minnesota'.
Fifty years from now, these same 'geniuses' will still be posting, "What climate change?"
ak2.picdn.net
 
2014-01-21 04:28:51 PM

FarkingHateFark: When's the last time you heard "gravity works this way because that's the consensus" instead of "...because that's what the data suggest"?


For two reasons - the first is gravity isn't controversial and that most people don't understand how science works.

To specifically comment on consensus - well - Science only works by consensus.  At some point enough was observed about gravity and a consensus was met on the conclusion. And thus we come up with a Theory on Gravity.  We can't prove it (science doesn't do that).  But we can say we have enough data to say its the best conclusion of what is going on.
 
2014-01-21 04:29:08 PM
Everyone knows that if Global Warming is real, then each successive year will always be the hottest, dontchaknow.
 
2014-01-21 04:30:43 PM

Hollie Maea: Everyone knows that if Global Warming is real, then each successive year will always be the hottest, dontchaknow.


Common sense: everything that's wrong with this country.

//modern day republicans have at made me instantly dubious of anyone who suggests using common sense for anything
 
2014-01-21 04:32:30 PM
Consider this:  If 2014 ends up being in the top three, that will make 2013 slip from 4th to 5th hottest.  And of course if it ISN'T in the top three than things are getting colder.  So this just goes to prove that things are getting colder as time goes on.
 
2014-01-21 04:38:37 PM
www.slate.com
Yup.
 
2014-01-21 04:40:01 PM

mongbiohazard: R.A.Danny: vygramul: 2013 was FOURTH hottest. And 1998 was the hottest, meaning it's getting cooler.

You must be one of them there internet scientists.

I could be wrong, but I think he's just getting that out of the way before one of the usual potatoheads comes in and tries to actually make that argument in seriousness.


I was being a smartass potatohead
 
2014-01-21 04:48:36 PM

Dahnkster: The Yahoo comments are delicious. Everything from 'Obama' to 'It snowed today in Minnesota'.
Fifty years from now, these same 'geniuses' will still be posting, "What climate change?"


No, in fifty years they'll be going "Don't touch my Medicare paid for self cooling Depends!"
 
2014-01-21 04:49:30 PM

PhilGed: [www.slate.com image 590x590]
Yup.


Yeah, but that one was done with totally credible data, like assuming that arbitrarily pattern matching the last 20 years of temperatures to arbitrary solar data is a good way to determine the effect of the sun on climate(and don't ask him about 40 years ago).
 
2014-01-21 05:06:22 PM

ikanreed: Hollie Maea: Everyone knows that if Global Warming is real, then each successive year will always be the hottest, dontchaknow.

Common sense: everything that's wrong with this country.

//modern day republicans have at made me instantly dubious of anyone who suggests using common sense for anything


fc05.deviantart.net

So rare, it's a goddamn superpower.
 
2014-01-21 05:26:05 PM

gingerjet: FarkingHateFark: When's the last time you heard "gravity works this way because that's the consensus" instead of "...because that's what the data suggest"?

For two reasons - the first is gravity isn't controversial and that most people don't understand how science works.

To specifically comment on consensus - well - Science only works by consensus.  At some point enough was observed about gravity and a consensus was met on the conclusion. And thus we come up with a Theory on Gravity.  We can't prove it (science doesn't do that).  But we can say we have enough data to say its the best conclusion of what is going on.


I can't tell if your kidding.Consensus can be a result of a discovery, but it means nothing on its own. Your gravity example is perfect. One person discovered the inverse square law of universal gravitation on his own (Newton, 1687ish). There was no consensus as to what caused gravity or how it acted at the time. It was decades before his work caught on, and centuries before it was corrected with general relativity (another theory that didn't arise out of consensus). Consensus is a shortcut, not our best conclusion. If people want to treat a consensus as the best option we have, that's fine, but a better answer is almost certainly languishing in some remote corner.
 
Displayed 50 of 101 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report