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

(LA Times)   Chipotle admits, that much like the rest of GW hysteria, the claim they are pulling guacamole due to climate change is "way overblown"   (latimes.com) divider line 63
    More: Followup, chipotles, guacamole, climate change, global warming  
•       •       •

3966 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Mar 2014 at 4:39 PM (28 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

2014-03-05 03:22:34 PM
5 votes:
much like the rest of GW hysteria


Obvious troll is obvious.
2014-03-05 10:45:26 PM
3 votes:

DesertDemonWY: Repo Man: Damnhippyfreak calmly and rationally bring the smackdown on AGW deniers. "Fallacy queen"? That's rich. Sorry that your argument dissolves in the face of facts and evidence, but don't kill the messenger.

If the composite of every major global temperature data sets show the globe cooling since the beginning of the millennium, who do you shoot?

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]


Hmmm, the millennium began in 2000, not 2001.  I wonder why you started it at 2001 and not 2000?
woodfortrees.org
Ah, that would be why.
2014-03-06 01:02:31 PM
2 votes:

cubic_spleen: I want to thank subby for providing a thread where the climate change deniers can bleat their FOX News talking points while they wipe the latest Limbaugh felch from their chins. Keeps the rest of Fark clear for people with actual intelligence.


Not entirely. There are scores of them, and they are vocal... like the hissing cockroach of Madagascar.
2014-03-06 08:28:05 AM
2 votes:

omeganuepsilon: Hit f3, and type "average".


I gave a meaningful reply to that post which you ignored so you could nail yourself to a cross and throw out another rant about those meanies who disagree with you.  The science of AGW doesn't begin and end at global average temperature.  There are plenty of studies about regional impacts of warming as they relate to agriculture, water security and disease among other things.

omeganuepsilon: more so the whole discussion about me


fair enough

Baryogenesis: "For the sake of argument, how can we ameliorate the problems of man made climate change without draconian restrictions or placing undue burden on a fragile economy precariously dependent on fossil fuels"


Considering your concern for business and economic liberty, What are some pros and cons of pricing in the negative externalities of burning fossil fuels with a carbon tax or cap and trade system?  The Stern Review on the economics of climate change list the costs of adapting to climate change as significantly greater than the costs of mitigation.  We shouldn't shoot ourselves and our economy in the leg because we're unwilling to make changes in the short term.
2014-03-05 09:10:03 PM
2 votes:

Teufelaffe: Wow, and you think my analogy was bad?


Why else would I post such excellently bad examples?

First off:
A bullet is a projectile propelled by a firearm, sling, or air gun.
Half of a 9mm slug will still put a nice hole in you, possibly pass completely through, and that's pretty much what's dangerous about bullets, the holes and the bleeding.  How bad it is doesn't depend so much on projectile size, but where you're hit.

Second(face): I said half, not part. If you walked around town with half a dirty face you'd get just as many odd looks, fail job interviews.

But I digress, I was being ridiculous because you were being ridiculous.

Teufelaffe: If someone keeps ripping big ol' farts in your car while you're driving, are you just going to sit and stew in it because opening the window or kicking them out won't get rid of all of the smell?


But, it will get rid of all of the smell if you kick them out(all).  If they keep it up, no, it won't get rid of the smell(half measure)[ie you'll still be uncomfortable, maybe even worse off because you alternate fresh to acrid, so you never acclimate].  If you do nothing, the smell won't change(doing nothing).

Another bad analogy, but it's farts, I couldn't resist.

If we go part way with greenhouse gasses, we only slow the warming, we don't stop it, and certainly don't reverse it.

If every single effort is a betterment, why don't you get off the internet right now and live off the grid? Safely get rid of all technology and don't get any more, no modern fabrics, no metal-working, no fires, etc.  You're part of the problem.

So anxious to force everyone to give a little because you don't care enough to give up more.
2014-03-05 08:27:24 PM
2 votes:
Fark is kind of pathetic today...
2014-03-05 06:17:30 PM
2 votes:
Oh, great. Another opportunity to argue with people so clever they think that a species that can travel to the Moon should continue to make it's energy by digging shiat up and burning it, like f**king cavemen.
How droll.
2014-03-05 06:14:49 PM
2 votes:
Man, I'd love it if there were some sort of test you have to pass to utter word one of an opinion on climate change.  It wouldn't be a difficult test.  All you'd have to do is be able to define the greenhouse effect, and describe to a reasonable degree the factors that control it.  This should be the minimum required to discuss.

A guy can dream, right?
2014-03-05 06:10:44 PM
2 votes:

Lee451: cubic_spleen: I want to thank subby for providing a thread where the climate change deniers can bleat their FOX News talking points while they wipe the latest Limbaugh felch from their chins. Keeps the rest of Fark clear for people with actual intelligence.

You seriously mean the people who voted for Obama? Twice?


Let me guess, you don't know the difference between Congress and the President? Obama's done a lot of shiatty things, but the real damage has had the full support of and been driven by Congress.

That said... how may Republicans have ever hinted that they might disagree with their tribal leader? Almost none? Yeah... that's because y'all are a cult of authority worshiping ignoramuses.
2014-03-05 05:26:39 PM
2 votes:
You know what's misleading? This FARK headline. Chipotle never said they were pulling guacamole. And if you have the capability of reading past the LA Times's own misleading headline, you can read it for yourself.

"In the event of cost increases with respect to one or more of our raw ingredients, we may choose to temporarily suspend serving menu items, such as guacamole or one or more of our salsas, rather than paying the increased cost for the ingredients."

Jesus. Stop being stupid, people.
2014-03-05 05:25:39 PM
2 votes:

DoctorCal: Anyone who believes in global warming also tends to:

1. Own a TV but haven't turned it on in years
2. Ride a bike to work wearing spandex stretch trousers
3. Watch Japanese children's cartoons on a Mac
4. Appreciate the warmth of vinyl phonograph records
5. Read books at Starbucks
6. Claim to prefer girls with small breasts
7. Make snide remarks about Wal-Mart.
8. Walk past a smoker and force pretentious coughing noises
9. Take comfort in believing size doesn't matter
10. Feign disgust at the idea of eating a Big Mac


People who deny global warming aslo tend to believe the earth is 6000 years old.
2014-03-05 05:24:28 PM
2 votes:
I want to thank subby for providing a thread where the climate change deniers can bleat their FOX News talking points while they wipe the latest Limbaugh felch from their chins. Keeps the rest of Fark clear for people with actual intelligence.
2014-03-05 05:19:25 PM
2 votes:
I see no hysteria.
But keep building up that strawman, submitter, it got you the greenlight.

"Global warming is a real thing"
"OMG you think the sky is falling!!!!"
"No, it's just a real thing"
"STOP THE HYSTERIA"
2014-03-05 05:18:37 PM
2 votes:
Anyone who believes in global warming also tends to:

1. Own a TV but haven't turned it on in years
2. Ride a bike to work wearing spandex stretch trousers
3. Watch Japanese children's cartoons on a Mac
4. Appreciate the warmth of vinyl phonograph records
5. Read books at Starbucks
6. Claim to prefer girls with small breasts
7. Make snide remarks about Wal-Mart.
8. Walk past a smoker and force pretentious coughing noises
9. Take comfort in believing size doesn't matter
10. Feign disgust at the idea of eating a Big Mac
2014-03-05 04:59:16 PM
2 votes:
Holy crap, I don't think I've seen a thread go full potato so quickly.
2014-03-05 04:53:15 PM
2 votes:
vernonFL



Climate change is not overblown. Its an existential problem for the human race in the next 100 years.

A few hundred years is considered inconclusive data when dealing with a rock that is 4 Billion years old

One could argue the Earth was hot, now it is cool so a few degrees is insignificant.

or

Ice Age (2002)
Ice Age: The Meltdown (2006)
Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs (2009)
Ice Age: Continental Drift (2012)
2014
Ice Age 5: (2016)

We are between ice ages.
2014-03-05 04:43:50 PM
2 votes:

vernonFL: Climate change is not overblown. Its an existential problem for the human race in the next 100 years.


Our ability to do jack shiat about it is what is overblown.
2014-03-05 04:41:02 PM
2 votes:

wee: Please do not feed the trolls.


Drew has to pay his mortgage just like the rest of us.
2014-03-05 03:30:25 PM
2 votes:
Climate change is not overblown. Its an existential problem for the human race in the next 100 years.
2014-03-06 07:01:41 PM
1 votes:

omeganuepsilon: omeganuepsilon: you're the only one reading

Well, I was wrong there.  May as well be the same guy though.
But hey, good for you guys.  That's enough for a circle jerk.



Heh. It's only a circle jerk because you're vehemently refusing to provide rational argumentation.We're actively trying to get you to provide that alternative viewpoint - why you're refusing to do so is something only you can answer.
2014-03-06 06:18:49 PM
1 votes:

omeganuepsilon: Yeah, it's unrealistic of me to want to talk about what I'm posting about.  I should totally only talk about what you want to talk about.


You are of course welcome to talk about what you want. You can also ignore it when others respond to what you post, and instead complain about other posters.  However, it's not a particularly rational nor honest way of going about things.

I mean, you could fill every thread with delusional ramblings if that is what you want to do - it's just not a good idea.


omeganuepsilon: God, you'd think I was putting it in your ass for what you want me to do for you.  What the fark kind of drugs are you on?


Responding in a rational way isn't all that much of a burden, especially when you appear to be asking the same of others. It's not all that big of a stretch to ask that you practice what you preach.


omeganuepsilon: Seriously, I'm beyond caring about what anyone else thinks, this late in the thread and all, you're the only one reading.  I'm posting now for your benefit and yours alone.  You're a moron who's badly attempting, and hence failing, to be clever.  That's my favor to you, to let you know of your ass-hat like behavior.  I hold out hope yet that you're not such a simpleton.  I don't expect it mind you, but I have some hope.

If you are incapable of being a better person, well then, goodbye.  Have a shiatty life. : )


If you're examining behavior, then I suggest looking at your own. How would you describe the behavior of someone who ignores it when counter-argumentation is presented and instead complains about some sense of persecution?

Again, there's at least two rational counter-arguments to what you've presented, but have been ignored by you. Here's yet again a chance for you to be "a better person".   Will you walk the talk?
2014-03-06 06:17:41 PM
1 votes:
As predicted, no answers to the people that responded to his preposterous statements, more insults, and claiming to be persecuted when people expect him to actually respond when his various flat out wrong statements are corrected.

Gee, it's almost like he's still posting in the same blatantly obtuse manner he rails against.

Show of hands: who was shocked by this stunning turn of events?
2014-03-06 05:14:21 PM
1 votes:

DesertDemonWY: Repo Man: Damnhippyfreak calmly and rationally bring the smackdown on AGW deniers. "Fallacy queen"? That's rich. Sorry that your argument dissolves in the face of facts and evidence, but don't kill the messenger.

If the composite of every major global temperature data sets show the globe cooling since the beginning of the millennium, who do you shoot?


I have a better graph for you:
i.imgur.com
2014-03-06 04:56:14 PM
1 votes:

omeganuepsilon: Baryogenesis: I gave a meaningful reply to that post which you ignored so you could nailyourself to a cross.

And whatever drivel you figure you're being clever with.

I did not see that post because long ago I chose to ignore you, using the actual mechanic put into fark, because even if you do make a relevant post now and again, it's so seldom as to not be worth the bullshiat, even the effort to just scroll past it..  But when I'm bored, there's a handy feature at the top of each page which enables me temporarily see posts from such people.  I get curious where there's post after post in a thread and no actual new posts, so I tick that little box.

Sure enough, the same bullshiat most of the time.  I'm talking about something with someone else, and stalkers decide to faliciously call me out.

Most of the time, I choose to not talk to you because you're full of misinformation, dishonesty, false superiority, and spew fallacies that would make SteveB or IDW blush in shame.  Your goals may not be clear, but it's clear you're in it partly because you enjoy taunting and behaving in an aggrandizing manner and are too aware of fark's posting rules and how the tend to be enforced, all so you can creep around them and still be as insulting as possible.  Assurances of honesty, integrity and genuine behavior in 3...2...

Meaningful reply? That's rich.  "Or we can pretend it's important anyway." *goalshift* "Now what do we do about it?"

Whatever, I'm no longer bored enough to consider you entertaining.
Have a crappy day and a shiatty life! : )


That's rich coming from the guy who spent the whole thread calling every opponent a religious bigot and refused to actually discuss the topic.  But, damnhippyfreak already pointed out the large disparity between your supposed concern for arguing in good faith and your complete lack of the same.

But I think there's half a nugget of actual discussion in that last comment....

omeganuepsilon: "Or we can pretend it's important anyway." *goalshift* "Now what do we do about it?"


You may be aware that engaging in a debate on a topic doesn't mean you accept the topic to be true.  People often use the phrase "for the sake of argument" to let it be known the don't necessarily hold the view in their comment.

For example:

Baryogenesis: You know, something as simple as "For the sake of argument, how can we ameliorate the problems of man made climate change without draconian restrictions or placing undue burden on a fragile economy precariously dependent on fossil fuels" would go a long way.


 But I see that you consider this a goal post shift for some reason, maybe you should look up "moving the goal posts" because that ain't it.  Engaging in separate discussions within the same topic doesn't qualify.  Moving the goal posts is like asking you to cite a journal article supporting your position and after you do that asking for 10.

Although I suppose you could just be really eager to get back to your point about averages and you don't want to skip ahead, even for the sake of argument.  You could have just said that.

 

omeganuepsilon: The planet exists and supports life, within a range.  There is no summing up that range with a single digit derived from an average.  It's not that the means of averaging is flawed, that much is pretty straight forward.  But attempting to draw meaningful information from the result, is naive at best, dishonest or willfully ignorant at worst.


Here are my two responses from earlier in the thread

Baryogenesis: Or, the increase in global average temperature is a convenient way to summarize the issue and isn't the end of the discussion but rather the start.

From there we can talk about regional impacts of warming, like increased drought in the American SW or water insecurity in areas that rely on glacier.


Baryogenesis: The science of AGW doesn't begin and end at global average temperature.  There are plenty of studies about regional impacts of warming as they relate to agriculture, water security and disease among other things.


Again, the total heat content anomaly or the increase in global average temperature are just ways of summarizing the total effect we're having on the planet and, of course, aren't the sum total of the topic.


Damnhippyfreak: Here's a chance for you to practice what you preach. Let's see what you choose to do.


Yup.  I'm waiting as well.  Intelligent and on topic reply or more accusations of persecution and religious fervor?
2014-03-06 12:44:39 PM
1 votes:

omeganuepsilon: Baryogenesis: I gave a meaningful reply to that post which you ignored so you could nailyourself to a cross.

And whatever drivel you figure you're being clever with.

I did not see that post because long ago I chose to ignore you, using the actual mechanic put into fark, because even if you do make a relevant post now and again, it's so seldom as to not be worth the bullshiat, even the effort to just scroll past it..  But when I'm bored, there's a handy feature at the top of each page which enables me temporarily see posts from such people.  I get curious where there's post after post in a thread and no actual new posts, so I tick that little box.

Sure enough, the same bullshiat most of the time.  I'm talking about something with someone else, and stalkers decide to faliciously call me out.

Most of the time, I choose to not talk to you because you're full of misinformation, dishonesty, false superiority, and spew fallacies that would make SteveB or IDW blush in shame.  Your goals may not be clear, but it's clear you're in it partly because you enjoy taunting and behaving in an aggrandizing manner and are too aware of fark's posting rules and how the tend to be enforced, all so you can creep around them and still be as insulting as possible.  Assurances of honesty, integrity and genuine behavior in 3...2...

Meaningful reply? That's rich.  "Or we can pretend it's important anyway." *goalshift* "Now what do we do about it?"

Whatever, I'm no longer bored enough to consider you entertaining.
Have a crappy day and a shiatty life! : )



The problem is that Instead of responding to the arguments presented, by your own admission here you've ignored them and instead chosen to spend undue energy complaining about how persecuted you perceive yourself and your viewpoint to be.

In this way, what you're choosing to post is much more like those posters you yourself decry (SteveB or IDW). If you indeed dislike that style of argumentation, then I strongly suggest you stop engaging in it yourself.

As Baryogenesis pointed out, there's a response to the post you mentioned (about "averages")  that you didn't get around to. Or, of course, one of mine you also ignored. Here's a chance for you to practice what you preach. Let's see what you choose to do.
2014-03-06 08:11:30 AM
1 votes:
What a magnificent circle jerk of lies you guys have going on.  Same as it ever was.

Hit f3, and type "average".

But you're right, it's only substantial and possibly productive if it agrees with you.  If it does not agree with you, it's troll, denier, shill, political, etc.

And I'm the judgemental one..HA!
/that  you don't see the applicability of "fallacy queen" is a bonus
//more so the whole discussion about me, and quite literally, from people who've had a grudge with me for years now.  I was talking to someone I don't recognize at all, and BOOM, out of the woodwork, accusations about old talking points, etc.  That's kind of what you do with people you don't know.  If someone comes up and asks your name, do you scream, "OLD TALKING POINT" at them?

You guys are caricatures of the worst sorts of people, really.  I'd wager you break poe's law.  You not only Believe, you like to aggrandize and vehemently argue, thereby having your cake and eating it.  Very much the cousin to other rabid fark celebrities, (to avoid "calling out other farkers not present", people who are disgusted by 3d printing, who really favor and defend Intelligent Design, etc)  Only they tend to outwardly insult much less(except for the anti-3d printing guy), so you at least have that going for you, you're better than them at that.
2014-03-06 07:29:50 AM
1 votes:

omeganuepsilon: Baryogenesis: He seems to have branched out to some kind of libertarian, burning fossil fuels equals freedom vs. pricing in externalities/increasing energy efficiency/using renewable energy equals tyranny argument.


Only because you read poorly and like to fabricate an evil which to argue against.


Let's see if I was totally off base.

omeganuepsilon: I'd rather let that vague notion of future people suffer, and not lift a finger to restrict people who are alive right now, right next to me, including me.

Because that's what it comes down to.  What you are willing to do to the guy next to you.  Sacrifice can be noble if you do it, if you're forcing others to do it, not so much, even if you are as well.  It's just nutty.


Don't restrict people now, fark future generations, don't force others to sacrifice even though our actions will force others to sacrifice in our stead...looks like I hit the nail on the head.

You're freely admitting your "fark you, got mine" attitude, I don't have to fabricate anything.  Pricing in negative externalities, for example, isn't restricting anyone, it's paying for the actual cost of the thing you are consuming.

omeganuepsilon: That's what's entertainingly analog to fire and brimstone religious types.
Basing the argument on moral belief of what we "should" do. Taking up false the mantle of a good cause to force others to conform.
What's next?  Going to borrow from the WBC and picket with bigoted slogans?
Or just continue to sermonize about how if we don't live life as you see proper that we'll burn in hell?(or on earth, in this case)

You people get ignored for the most part, for the same reason I posted above:
So anxious to force everyone to give a little because you don't care enough to give up more.

That's why religion moderately succeeds, it's got it's martyrs.  They have genuine faith, crazy as it may be.

You people though, you sit with your armchair-degrees and try to show how superior you are...over the anonymous internet.
/unverifiable claims to actually be doing something more useful in 3...2...


It cracks me up watching you get crazier with every post.  Yes, anyone advocating sensible environmental policy, reasonable solutions to the serious problem of global warming, paying the *full* costs of our consumption and promoting renewable energy is the same thing as a religious zealot preaching fire and brimstone.

Shakin_Haitian: Now he's on the ACC = religion point. Has he brought up the volcanoes or ozone hole not growing crap yet? Next will probably be Antarctic sea ice extent.


Nah, as you may have noticed, he doesn't argue the scientific side of AGW or the cost/benefits of mitigation vs. adaption or public policy.  He's just here to demonize (the strawman versions of) his political enemies with meandering rants.  He steers clear of substantial and possibly productive discussion because that would highlight his astounding ignorance and misunderstanding of the relevant subjects.  You know, something as simple as "For the sake of argument, how can we ameliorate the problems of man made climate change without draconian restrictions or placing undue burden on a fragile economy precariously dependent on fossil fuels" would go a long way.
2014-03-06 05:33:00 AM
1 votes:

omeganuepsilon: Shakin_Haitian: Just as an FYI, you're responding to a denalist who's masquerading as someone who wants to learn about ACC so he can bring up talking points and areas of "concern."

Lol. "talking points".


That's kind of what the Comments section is for.  If you don't like discussion and comments, er, "talking points", you are on the wrong farking website.

[i257.photobucket.com image 581x721]



I think what he means by 'talking points' is something like canned points disseminated in a top-down fashion from a narrow range of sources and stated without any intention of being part of a rational discussion. This would be in contrast to presenting your own thoughts arising from your own understanding and with the aim of some sort of discussion.

I don't necessarily agree with that characterization, but there you go.
2014-03-06 12:52:46 AM
1 votes:

DesertDemonWY: Repo Man: Damnhippyfreak calmly and rationally bring the smackdown on AGW deniers. "Fallacy queen"? That's rich. Sorry that your argument dissolves in the face of facts and evidence, but don't kill the messenger.

If the composite of every major global temperature data sets show the globe cooling since the beginning of the millennium, who do you shoot?

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]


Yeesh.

www.skepticalscience.net

Over and over again you keep on running into the same mistake. Short-term variability does not necessarily accurately reflect longer-term trends.

This shouldn't be all that difficult of a concept, yet you run right into it time after time after time.

What about it do you not understand? We can help you out, but you gotta be intellectually honest and not hide from this argument.
2014-03-06 12:29:10 AM
1 votes:

umad: TofuTheAlmighty: umad: Our ability to do jack shiat about it is what is overblown.

Ability and willingness are not the same thing.

Not in this case. The US could go nuts doing the right thing. It won't stop anybody else from doing whatever the fark they want to do. Global consensus on anything is impossible.


Right!  Right!  So why should anybody do anything ever???

You.  Are sooooo.  Stupid.

/I'd give a better explanation but frankly this one about maxes out your level of understanding.
2014-03-06 12:28:18 AM
1 votes:

DesertDemonWY: HighZoolander: DesertDemonWY: Repo Man: Damnhippyfreak calmly and rationally bring the smackdown on AGW deniers. "Fallacy queen"? That's rich. Sorry that your argument dissolves in the face of facts and evidence, but don't kill the messenger.

If the composite of every major global temperature data sets show the globe cooling since the beginning of the millennium, who do you shoot?

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]

The dishonest farkwit who tells a bald faced lie like you just did?

Hey, I'm just the messenger. If you think the woodfortrees.org data index is a lie maybe you should bring that up with them

BTW, has anyone else noticed the colder it gets, the more name calling you hear from the AGW morons?


Right..... blame the data for your failures to understand how to present it honestly. Typical.
2014-03-06 12:09:23 AM
1 votes:

MyRandomName: Liberals don't understand modeling is not a hard science and is prone to errors associated with assumptions.


Said the scientist.  Oh wait, let's go ask real scientists!

/you can turn the lights out when you're done reading
//oh.  reading.  right.  well, it comes with a pretty graph.
2014-03-05 10:57:15 PM
1 votes:

DesertDemonWY: I created this alt just for this thread: Hmmm, the millennium began in 2000, not 2001. I wonder why you started it at 2001 and not 2000?

when you count to ten, do you start at zero?


When you count to 4,696 do you start at 366?  Because that's exactly what you did.  I'm sure it was a simple error on your part and had nothing to do with the fact that showing the data starting from 2000 doesn't match your narrative.
2014-03-05 10:17:29 PM
1 votes:

DesertDemonWY: Repo Man: Damnhippyfreak calmly and rationally bring the smackdown on AGW deniers. "Fallacy queen"? That's rich. Sorry that your argument dissolves in the face of facts and evidence, but don't kill the messenger.

If the composite of every major global temperature data sets show the globe cooling since the beginning of the millennium, who do you shoot?

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]


The dishonest farkwit who tells a bald faced lie like you just did?
2014-03-05 09:49:47 PM
1 votes:
Damnhippyfreak calmly and rationally bring the smackdown on AGW deniers. "Fallacy queen"? That's rich. Sorry that your argument dissolves in the face of facts and evidence, but don't kill the messenger.
2014-03-05 09:45:20 PM
1 votes:

omeganuepsilon: Damnhippyfreak     

(ignored: GW alarmist, fallacy queen, dishonest)



Well, you can claim such, but without backing it up in any way it holds little weight.

An alternative explanation is that you're irrationally hiding from arguments that effectively challenge your assumptions and are disengaging in order to preserve said assumptions.

Hopefully you'll come around and realize that rational discussion involves honestly looking at the positions you yourself hold, not hiding from things that challenge them. You're more than welcome to respond rationally if and when you're able. I'm not hostile and I don't bite :)
2014-03-05 09:38:47 PM
1 votes:

alcoholwasinvolved: Teufelaffe: alcoholwasinvolved: My question:  Once you outlaw coal, then what?  What about the other 60% of GHGs?  Are you going to outlaw ungulates that ruminate?  Will you drop buckets of horse semen in the volcanoes to make them stop exploding?  What about the fat lady in Apt. 12C who can't stop woofing down the corndogs and crapping herself?

My question: Do you honestly think that the only two options are to do nothing or to find a solution that fixes absolutely everything?  "Sun screen doesn't absolutely guarantee that I won't get skin cancer, so I just never go outside during the day."

I'm actually a fan of renewables, they're great (except when they're not).  I'm not sure why killing eagles, bats and song birds is any better than spewing CO2.  I gotta admit that coal is a dying fuel, but the world is a market economy and coal is abundant.  Those brown people in India aren't going to forgo their electric toaster because you think it's a good idea.  When coal is dead here in the U.S., we'll keep shipping our mine's coal to Korea and Japan and to the little old dude down the street using it to heat his garage.

I'm actually in favor of a price on carbon because it will drive technology to keep coal around longer here in the U.S.  After that happens, you need to think about the other 60% of GHGs and their sources and bash them.   Making Reducing our dependency on and use of coal the scapegoat is short-sighted and ignorant just the beginning.


FTFY

People who refuse to take any steps to address a problem because the first step doesn't fix everything are short-sighted and ignorant.
2014-03-05 09:29:25 PM
1 votes:

omeganuepsilon: Teufelaffe: Wow, and you think my analogy was bad?


Why else would I post such excellently bad examples?

First off:
A bullet is a projectile propelled by a firearm, sling, or air gun.
Half of a 9mm slug will still put a nice hole in you, possibly pass completely through, and that's pretty much what's dangerous about bullets, the holes and the bleeding.  How bad it is doesn't depend so much on projectile size, but where you're hit.

Second(face): I said half, not part. If you walked around town with half a dirty face you'd get just as many odd looks, fail job interviews.

But I digress, I was being ridiculous because you were being ridiculous.


Unfortunately, you go on to explain yourself why what  Teufelaffe said is not ridiculous at all:

omeganuepsilon: If we go part way with greenhouse gasses, we only slow the warming, we don't stop it, and certainly don't reverse it.


As you correctly state, climate change isn't an all-or-nothing thing, unlike the misguided bullet analogy you put forward.


omeganuepsilon: Teufelaffe: If someone keeps ripping big ol' farts in your car while you're driving, are you just going to sit and stew in it because opening the window or kicking them out won't get rid of all of the smell?


But, it will get rid of all of the smell if you kick them out(all).  If they keep it up, no, it won't get rid of the smell(half measure)[ie you'll still be uncomfortable, maybe even worse off because you alternate fresh to acrid, so you never acclimate].  If you do nothing, the smell won't change(doing nothing).

Another bad analogy, but it's farts, I couldn't resist.

If we go part way with greenhouse gasses, we only slow the warming, we don't stop it, and certainly don't reverse it.


To keep up the analogy, some farts are worse than others, and opening the window a bit, even though it won't completely get rid of the smell, is better than nothing.  Again, solutions need not be all-or-nothing. It's not somehow a choice between a perfect world and exactly the status quo.


omeganuepsilon: If every single effort is a betterment, why don't you get off the internet right now and live off the grid? Safely get rid of all technology and don't get any more, no modern fabrics, no metal-working, no fires, etc.  You're part of the problem.

So anxious to force everyone to give a little because you don't care enough to give up more.


You really need to get away from this simplistic black-or-white kind of thinking. That one does not agree with or would like to change something does not mean that one has to take the most extreme action.

If you're going to argue along these lines, you could also state that since you don't like our current political system, you should be be in armed revolt or you're part of the problem, or if you don't like poverty you should give away all your things or you're part of the problem, or that if you believe in 'freedom' you should be using all your money to free slaves or you're part of the problem.

Again, black-or-white thinking, like what you're engaged in leads to some strange places. Accepting a bit more nuance or more possibilities may be in order.
2014-03-05 09:13:23 PM
1 votes:

omeganuepsilon: Pitabred: I have a vested interest in it not being farking miserable for all of us, though.

Good for you.

I don't.  I live in a place where it's easy to survive, except in the winters, and if we're warming, I say good!.

Sure, save the trees, we need the oxygen.  Sure, don't dump toxic waste, keep the water clean, etc.  Green- stuff? Cool, I like technology....but I do however, only, like it affordable.

I suppose I do have a vested interest in having mankind not being miserable, in the way of legislation based on belief.  Be it Christianity or the IPCC or PETA or some other zealot/fundamentalist group.

As gets passed around a lot( and this is a paraphrase mind you):

The urge to save is most often a veiled urge to control.

I'm a fan of liberty.  If that costs mankind in the end, I'm fine with that.

Think of it another way.  How many people should die trying to save a little girl who's being held hostage by armed and dangerous men.(or a POW, or whatever motivates you as just that wrong that people should die trying to rescue them).  Because sometimes, nothing is worth being in that state.  People would rather die than be enslaved.  It's that sentiment that motivates me on the subject at large.

If the cost of people being free is a future depreciation in numbers and a lot of suffering, so be it.

You see, I'm the opposite of some of the extreme liberals who almost hint at decreasing the population/technology as a means to save some vague notion of people in the future.

I'd rather let that vague notion of future people suffer, and not lift a finger to restrict people who are alive right now, right next to me, including me.

Because that's what it comes down to.  What you are willing to do to the guy next to you.  Sacrifice can be noble if you do it, if you're forcing others to do it, not so much, even if you are as well.  It's just nutty.

That little girl, or that POW.  I'd probably try and save them if the opportunity were present(If I thought I might, succee ...



Come on now. Don't you have children (or may want some someday)? Anybody that you care about other than yourself?

Something you might want to consider is to give some thought as to exactly why one should consider the freedom of others to be important. At some point in your thoughts, you will most likely come across something kind of like universal human rights - "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" sort of thing. You may even realize that the same foundation for valuing 'freedom' also values the lives of others.

Let's hope you get that far or towards something similar. Maybe a more productive discussion could occur after that.
2014-03-05 08:46:51 PM
1 votes:

omeganuepsilon: Teufelaffe: alcoholwasinvolved: My question:  Once you outlaw coal, then what?  What about the other 60% of GHGs?  Are you going to outlaw ungulates that ruminate?  Will you drop buckets of horse semen in the volcanoes to make them stop exploding?  What about the fat lady in Apt. 12C who can't stop woofing down the corndogs and crapping herself?

My question: Do you honestly think that the only two options are to do nothing or to find a solution that fixes absolutely everything?  "Sun screen doesn't absolutely guarantee that I won't get skin cancer, so I just never go outside during the day."

Bad analogy is bad.

Bullets are dangerous, they kill people.  If we decrease the size of them by half, they'll only be half as dangerous and half as many will die!

If you're short on time, do you only wash half your face?

Sometimes all or nothing is the only way to go about it.  Why do anything if there won't be a significant impact?



Unfortunately, your analogy is even worse.  Climate change isn't an all-or-nothing sort of thing. You can't shoot half a bullet, while temperature does not increase in discrete amounts. Temperature is a continuous variable, not a discrete one.
2014-03-05 08:44:22 PM
1 votes:

omeganuepsilon: Teufelaffe: alcoholwasinvolved: My question:  Once you outlaw coal, then what?  What about the other 60% of GHGs?  Are you going to outlaw ungulates that ruminate?  Will you drop buckets of horse semen in the volcanoes to make them stop exploding?  What about the fat lady in Apt. 12C who can't stop woofing down the corndogs and crapping herself?

My question: Do you honestly think that the only two options are to do nothing or to find a solution that fixes absolutely everything?  "Sun screen doesn't absolutely guarantee that I won't get skin cancer, so I just never go outside during the day."

Bad analogy is bad.

Bullets are dangerous, they kill people.  If we decrease the size of them by half, they'll only be half as dangerous and half as many will die!

If you're short on time, do you only wash half your face?

Sometimes all or nothing is the only way to go about it.  Why do anything if there won't be a significant impact?


Wow, and you think my analogy was bad?  First off, lower caliber bullets are less likely to kill so smaller rounds would in fact result in fewer shooting deaths.  As for the face washing, if my face was very dirty and I didn't have time to wash the whole thing, yes I would only wash part of it rather than not wash at all.

Regardless, our effect on the climate is not a an all or nothing thing.  This idea that because reducing or eliminating Anthropogenic CO2 won't completely eliminate all greenhouse gases in our atmosphere then we shouldn't bother doing anything at all is just idiotic.  If someone keeps ripping big ol' farts in your car while you're driving, are you just going to sit and stew in it because opening the window or kicking them out won't get rid of all of the smell?
2014-03-05 08:31:18 PM
1 votes:

alcoholwasinvolved: MartinD-35: Gentoolive: umad: vernonFL: Climate change is not overblown. Its an existential problem for the human race in the next 100 years.

Our ability to do jack shiat about it is what is overblown.

But the libtards must make every effort to force new regulations upon everyone..

Climate change... Did the whole "global warming" thing not pan out for you dopes?

I'm guessing here, but you appear to have a room temperature IQ.  But in any event, CO2 is acidifying the oceans and the phytoplankton are in real serious trouble.  But you sound like you probably are related to a coal miner.  Burning coal is killing the planet.

As a coal miner, I'm getting a kick out these replies, etc. etc.  By the way, my company supplied one hour of your power today (and yesterday, and the day before blah blah blah). I love liberal garbage like this.  We'd stop mining it if THERE WASN'T SUCH A HUGE FARKING DEMAND FOR IT.  My question:  Once you outlaw coal, then what?  What about the other 60% of GHGs?  Are you going to outlaw ungulates that ruminate?  Will you drop buckets of horse semen in the volcanoes to make them stop exploding?  What about the fat lady in Apt. 12C who can't stop woofing down the corndogs and crapping herself?



You're highlighting one of the problems yourself here. Anthropogenic CO2 is the largest driver of anthropogenic climate change, and the factor that we can most realistically do something about. It's therefore the logical place to start.

That aside, you should be made aware that current efforts to reduce greenhouse gases includes methane, the CO2 emissions from volcanoes are tiny compared to anthropogenic ones, and emissions from metabolic processes are generally carbon neutral (unless you also consider additional energy requirements).
2014-03-05 08:23:37 PM
1 votes:

alcoholwasinvolved: My question:  Once you outlaw coal, then what?  What about the other 60% of GHGs?  Are you going to outlaw ungulates that ruminate?  Will you drop buckets of horse semen in the volcanoes to make them stop exploding?  What about the fat lady in Apt. 12C who can't stop woofing down the corndogs and crapping herself?


My question: Do you honestly think that the only two options are to do nothing or to find a solution that fixes absolutely everything?  "Sun screen doesn't absolutely guarantee that I won't get skin cancer, so I just never go outside during the day."
2014-03-05 08:20:31 PM
1 votes:

alcoholwasinvolved: MartinD-35: Gentoolive: umad: vernonFL: Climate change is not overblown. Its an existential problem for the human race in the next 100 years.

Our ability to do jack shiat about it is what is overblown.

But the libtards must make every effort to force new regulations upon everyone..

Climate change... Did the whole "global warming" thing not pan out for you dopes?

I'm guessing here, but you appear to have a room temperature IQ.  But in any event, CO2 is acidifying the oceans and the phytoplankton are in real serious trouble.  But you sound like you probably are related to a coal miner.  Burning coal is killing the planet.

As a coal miner, I'm getting a kick out these replies, etc. etc.  By the way, my company supplied one hour of your power today (and yesterday, and the day before blah blah blah). I love liberal garbage like this.  We'd stop mining it if THERE WASN'T SUCH A HUGE FARKING DEMAND FOR IT.  My question:  Once you outlaw coal, then what?  What about the other 60% of GHGs?  Are you going to outlaw ungulates that ruminate?  Will you drop buckets of horse semen in the volcanoes to make them stop exploding?  What about the fat lady in Apt. 12C who can't stop woofing down the corndogs and crapping herself?


Damn, if only there were some way to investigate other forms of generating energy.  Maybe I'm just being long winded with this, but if we want a bright and shining future for the nuclear family, a future full of the Earth's warmth, we really should think about other ways, even if they're corny.
2014-03-05 07:20:01 PM
1 votes:
SnakeLee


Stop engaging in name callers with global warming deniers. The conversation should be about facts and observable evidence, not culture wars.


Agreed, like the fact that every time that church comes out with some sky-is-falling prediction, it fails to come true.

* no more snow (ironically enough claimed the year before a record snowstorm)
"Britain's winter ends tomorrow with further indications of a striking environmental change: snow is starting to disappear from our lives."
"Sledges, snowmen, snowballs and ... are all a rapidly diminishing part of Britain's culture, as warmer winters-which scientists are attributing to global climate change-produce not only fewer white Christmases, but fewer white Januaries and Februaries."
"London's last substantial snowfall was in February 1991." "Global warming, the heating of the atmosphere by increased amounts of industrial gases, is now accepted as a reality by the international community."
According to Dr. David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, within a few years "children just aren't going to know what snow is" and winter snowfall will be "a very rare and exciting event." Interviewed by the UK Independent, March 20, 2000.

* Food riots due to the USA unable to grow crops

* GW preachers ordering the cover up of scientific research that shows NO warming for 15 years

* nofrakkingconsensus.files.wordpress.com
--Paul Beckwith (PhD student / Sierra Club Canada)

* "By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people ... If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000." Paul Ehrlich, Speech at British Institute For Biology, September 1971

* Claim Jan. 1970: "By 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half." Life Magazine, January 1970

* April 1970: "If present trends continue, the world will be ... eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age." Kenneth E.F. Watt, in Earth Day, 1970.

* 1970: "In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish." Paul Ehrlich, speech during Earth Day, 1970.

* 1974: "... when metereologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age. Telltale signs are everywhere-from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice int eh waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest. When Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite weather data fro the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadia Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round."
Later in the article, "Whatever the cause of the cooling trend, its effects could be extremely serious, if not catastrophic.

* 1989: "Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide two degrees by 2010." Associated Press, May 15, 1989.
FACT: According to NASA, global temperature has increased by about 0.7 degrees Fahrenheit since 1989. And U.S. temperature has increased even less over the same period.


*1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots ... [By 1996] The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers."
FACT: Data from NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center show that precipitation - rain and snow - has increased slightly over the century.

and confessions from the godfather of "global warming" admitting he was bullshiatting.
2014-03-05 07:12:16 PM
1 votes:

Brostorm: helpdeskguy: Anyone who denies global warming exists also tends to:

1.   Own a brain but haven't used it in years
2.   Drive everywhere
3.   Watch Fox News
4.   Steal all their music from the internet
5.   Not read books
6.   Claim to date girls with big breasts
7.   Shop at Wal-Mart
8.   Walk past a homosexual and make rude noises/gestures
9.   Overstate the size of their genitalia
10. Love Big Macs

Does anyone actually deny the earths temperature changes?  The issue is the rate of change and man's impact and potential for change.


The rate of temperature change itself isn't as important as matching the observed changes with any similar changes in the underlying environmental factors. For as long as humans have been taking measurements, both solar output and atmospheric composition have shown changes which correlate well with changes in global temperature. In the past few decades, however, the correlation between temperature and solar activity has weakened while the correlation with CO2 has increased. The sun, of course, ultimately has a far greater effect on Earth's temperature than does CO2, but the fraction-of-a-percent change in solar output has less of an effect than the nearly 40% change in CO2.

We're still discovering what drives heat transfer throughout the biosphere, and until we know everything about the systems we're trying to model, the models will be less than accurate. For now, the generally accepted (and most obvious) explanation for the observed climate change is the observed anthropogenic CO2 change. If deniers of humans' ability to affect climate really wanted to make a scientific name for themselves, they'd be looking for other environmental factors and attempt to show a stronger correlation between changes in these factors and the observed changes in climate.
Instead, they're trying to make a political or corporate name for themselves by attempting to discredit the existing science without having any alternatives to offer.
2014-03-05 06:42:29 PM
1 votes:

CheapEngineer: organizmx: Another useful idiot shilling for obama. Will do and say anything for immunity from the new world order's persecution of opponents.

Doesn't this fall under the new rulings where a public company has to serve everyone?
Let's see this 1%r get his butt dragged thru the mud for selecting who he wants to serve.

What in the F*CK are you blathering on about?

Jesus Hernadez, get a grip on yer ass.


First, consider the earth exists in an endless cycle of heating and cooling. It cools then heats up and cools again. Pick one and you will never be wrong. Humans tend to be egocentricc and still can't accept the earth does not revolve around them. We are not listed as an item on the earth's agenda. We have adapted to fit into a niche in an eddy on the river of change and we exist for a moment in time. If we cannot adapt to meet changing requirements we simply go away.

The problem is the claim that humans are causing the earth to heat up and the only solution is radical and destructive economic legislation mandated in a false effort to save the planet. The real intent is to make trillions in profit for a select few. Penis. It is the charlatans which muddy the waters and creative interpretation of science to support their agenda.

Rejecting the premise of human caused gloabal warming does not mean a lack of respect for the planet. Only a person with nefarious intent or blindly gullible would foster that black and white distinction to distract honest discussion and discover points of common interest.

When people point out science foretold of global cooling in the 60s they claim that was based on old technology and irrelevant. Penis. Guess what will be said of the scientific claims made today, 50 years later?

there are evironmental proponents and there are extreme radical environmental proponents so be sure to make the distinction when you mention the gains made over the years. Already HCGW laws have been enacted by the feds and are in effect in all the states. Penis. Those laws generate cash and huge amounts of it and do little else to protect the environment.

It seems the HCGW folks have become the earths advocate against the pexistence of human life on earth as ecomomies, quality of life and mere existence are threatened.

We send our batteries to China for recycling and for years had banned chemical and insecticides here and sold them worlwide.... the feds treat the environment as they did tobbacco, condem it and at the same time raise funding to support it.
2014-03-05 06:31:58 PM
1 votes:

trappedspirit: Serious Post on Serious Thread: What is the downside? Less toxic shiat in the air & water? More and better 'clean' energy? How is that bad????

Those things come at a cost.  I'm not saying we shouldn't go ahead and pay that cost, there is just this one particular cartoon that makes me sad for humanity in which it is suggesting that the worst that could possibly happen with us going ahead and preparing for what could potentially end up not being a threat is that we end up with a better world.  And that's the kind of talk that comes from people who skip on rainbows and swing from moonbeams.


K. So much wrong here. Your main, and apparent only, argument against clean energy investment is that a cartoon you once saw apparently oversimplified the cost-benefit analysis, and therefore in your mind everybody who thinks investing in clean energy is also a delusional simpleton that can't grasp the intense socio-economic trade offs that your keen insight so exceptionally grasps.

And to top it off, you admit that the simpletons you deride may actually be correct, or at least not wrong in believing clean energy is a quite possibly very wise and good investment. You just don't like the investment because of your perception of those advocating it. As depicted in a cartoon you once saw.

Really?
2014-03-05 06:19:58 PM
1 votes:

umad: vernonFL: Climate change is not overblown. Its an existential problem for the human race in the next 100 years.

Our ability to do jack shiat about it is what is overblown.


Do Jack shiat = negative, Ability Overblown = negative


Double negatives, so you're saying we can do something about it.

Which is 100% true.  We are the cause, and the solution.
2014-03-05 06:08:58 PM
1 votes:

Serious Post on Serious Thread: What is the downside? Less toxic shiat in the air & water? More and better 'clean' energy? How is that bad????


Those things come at a cost.  I'm not saying we shouldn't go ahead and pay that cost, there is just this one particular cartoon that makes me sad for humanity in which it is suggesting that the worst that could possibly happen with us going ahead and preparing for what could potentially end up not being a threat is that we end up with a better world.  And that's the kind of talk that comes from people who skip on rainbows and swing from moonbeams.
2014-03-05 06:08:49 PM
1 votes:

Serious Post on Serious Thread: Ow! That was my feelings!: //actually don't mind Chipotle.
///Live just down the street from the original
////yeah, that makes me cool.

Bah! I scoff. We've got the double super secret chipotle R&D restaurant here in manhattan on 8th Ave. Where all there newer, saltier foods are developed fresh by world class chefs. For reals!

And margaritas. I guess NYC chipotle has more margarita serving stores. So SCOFF!


Guess I'll just have to wander over to the legal weed store and get me something to deal with your vicious scoffery.
2014-03-05 06:08:45 PM
1 votes:

dstrick44: DoctorCal: Anyone who believes in global warming also tends to:

1. Own a TV but haven't turned it on in years
2. Ride a bike to work wearing spandex stretch trousers
3. Watch Japanese children's cartoons on a Mac
4. Appreciate the warmth of vinyl phonograph records
5. Read books at Starbucks
6. Claim to prefer girls with small breasts
7. Make snide remarks about Wal-Mart.
8. Walk past a smoker and force pretentious coughing noises
9. Take comfort in believing size doesn't matter
10. Feign disgust at the idea of eating a Big Mac

What orifice was that list pulled from?


The same one that every asshole uses to see their enemy as different and therefore wrong.

/"He likes girls with small breasts obviously his entire argument is invalid!"
//This is the level of discourse on Fark
2014-03-05 05:54:38 PM
1 votes:

BigNumber12: "Increasing weather volatility or other long-term changes in global weather patterns, including any changes associated with global climate change, could have a significant impact on the price or availability of some of our ingredients."

[img.fark.net image 235x214]


At least they aren't blaming the price increase on ObamaCare.
2014-03-05 05:48:13 PM
1 votes:
Anyone who denies global warming exists also tends to:

1.   Own a brain but haven't used it in years
2.   Drive everywhere
3.   Watch Fox News
4.   Steal all their music from the internet
5.   Not read books
6.   Claim to date girls with big breasts
7.   Shop at Wal-Mart
8.   Walk past a homosexual and make rude noises/gestures
9.   Overstate the size of their genitalia
10. Love Big Macs
2014-03-05 05:30:46 PM
1 votes:
Boy, the Belligerently Ignorant Brigade is out in full force today.

/Bellignorant?
//Band of Bignorants?
2014-03-05 05:30:10 PM
1 votes:

DoctorCal: Anyone who believes in global warming also tends to:

1. Own a TV but haven't turned it on in years
2. Ride a bike to work wearing spandex stretch trousers
3. Watch Japanese children's cartoons on a Mac
4. Appreciate the warmth of vinyl phonograph records
5. Read books at Starbucks
6. Claim to prefer girls with small breasts
7. Make snide remarks about Wal-Mart.
8. Walk past a smoker and force pretentious coughing noises
9. Take comfort in believing size doesn't matter
10. Feign disgust at the idea of eating a Big Mac


1) Too much shiat on cable that make to ROI not worth it
2) Don't own a bike, I drive a gas guzzling V-8 truck
3) No. Just no.
4) Nothing wrong with vinyl - we have a dude who spins his old vinyl at the bar every two weeks. Everyone likes it.
5) fark Starbucks
6) I like almost all sizes of breasts
7) Yes, I'll admit, you got me here.
8) No, I don't ever do this. I was an on and off cig smoker for 30 years
9) Size does matter.
10) I love a Big Mac, sans bun - I eat a low carb diet

So, let us review: I believe in global warming, but I only fit in 3 of your 10 stereotypes. I believe your broad strokes with the paintbrush of derp you're wielding aren't doing a good job of painting your inaccurate picture.
2014-03-05 05:24:28 PM
1 votes:
We are going to have to charge you more....due to Global Warming.

Thanks in advance... signed,  the Climate Conmen.
2014-03-05 05:21:16 PM
1 votes:

DoctorCal: Anyone who believes in global warming also tends to:

1. Own a TV but haven't turned it on in years
2. Ride a bike to work wearing spandex stretch trousers
3. Watch Japanese children's cartoons on a Mac
4. Appreciate the warmth of vinyl phonograph records
5. Read books at Starbucks
6. Claim to prefer girls with small breasts
7. Make snide remarks about Wal-Mart.
8. Walk past a smoker and force pretentious coughing noises
9. Take comfort in believing size doesn't matter
10. Feign disgust at the idea of eating a Big Mac


Stealing another troll's work is a line you just don't cross.
2014-03-05 05:17:47 PM
1 votes:

vernonFL: Climate change is not overblown. Its an existential problem for the human race in the next 100 years.


No
2014-03-05 04:52:35 PM
1 votes:
Ssssooooo the takeaway here is that submitter can't read.

Ok, good thread, everyone. Someone get the lights on the way out.
2014-03-05 04:48:54 PM
1 votes:

gwowen: gingerjet: wee: Please do not feed the trolls.

Drew has to pay his mortgage just like the rest of us.I assumed that was what all the Daily Mail links were for.


And Buzzfeed, and Jose Cuervo before that. And superdeluxe, and...
2014-03-05 04:45:03 PM
1 votes:
Sigh.  Global warming is just a big lie.
2014-03-05 04:43:36 PM
1 votes:
Eating at Chipotle does result in the release of noxious gasses into the atmosphere...
 
Displayed 63 of 63 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report