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.

(Think Progress)   Congressman: Well, if humans are the cause of global warming, then how did dinosaurs go extinct? Checkmate   (thinkprogress.org) divider line 49
    More: Obvious, global warming, extinction of the dinosaurs, NCA, climate change denial  
•       •       •

2871 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Jun 2014 at 6:54 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Archived thread
2014-06-09 06:41:45 PM  
11 votes:
I know you're being snarky, subby, but the sad truth is that when snark begins to obscure an important truth, it ceases to be funny and begins to be sad. You see, the truth is that global warming  did kill the dinosaurs, but it was a different kind of global warming than what is killing us. You see,  ourglobal warming is caused by burning fossil fuels, which are called fossil fuels because -- and if you didn't know this before, it may stun you, but I really want to help you understand this cycle --  the fuel actually comes from dinosaur fossils. That's right. The dinosaurs died millions of years ago, and their bones turned into carbon, and some of that carbon turned into diamonds and the rest turned into oil.

But dinosaurs were cold-blooded, you might say.  Why would burning their fossils make it hot?

That's a good question, and the answer is because of geological pressure. See, the dinosaurs' fossils went underground after they died. Sometimes they were buried in landslides and things, and sometimes they drowned and the lake dried up and filled with dirt. Irregardless, once their bones got buried, all that dirt on top of them compressed them and made them warmer (this was also caused by the fossils being closer to the magma, which I'll explain in the next paragraph). This is why it gets hot when you burn them.

Now, obviously, the dinosaurs didn't cause their global warming by burning fossil fuels. It would be stupid to even suggest that, because back when dinosaurs roamed the earth, there weren't any fossils yet. They hadn't died off! No, what happened to the dinosaurs had more to do with  geology than anything else. You see, what you have to understand is that the earth was younger back then, only a few thousand years old. And, like all young things (children, puppies, etc.), it wasn't completely stable. Its crust hadn't hardened all the way. Did you know the earth has a crust? It does -- it has a very thin surface of rocks and dirt and grass that we walk on, but underneath that is a boiling mass of magma, which is like rocks except on fire. So back in the days of the dinosaurs, the earth's crust was very brittle, sort of like a pie that's been baking for a while, where the crust looks crispy, but is really very thin and prone to cracking.

So, imagine it...you've got a young, brittle, fragile earth with a very thin crust, and lots of dinosaurs that keep getting bigger and bigger. Huge, in fact -- I mean, they went from little amphibians  that weren't much bigger than chickens to brontosauruses and t-rexes. So what do you think happened when all those huge beasts started stomping around on the earth's brittle crust?

That's right --  geological events. You've heard of them -- earthquakes, landslides, volcanic eruptions. And whenever one of these would happen, the dinosaurs would get scared, which ironically would make them run even faster, which in turn caused even  moregeological disruptions -- what scientists call a "feedback loop." So basically the dinosaurs stomped and stampeded around enough that the whole world started erupting, which put lots of smoke and lava into the air, which caused it to get very hot. In other words, global warming. ]

As an example of proof supporting this, here's an artist's rendition of the earliest stages of that massive disaster:  http://www.zmescience.com/science/geology/volcanic-eruption-triassic- e xtinction-22032013/#!WMNdK .

So here we are, then, with the irony of the repetitive nature of history staring us in the face. The dinosaurs caused their own extinction by getting too big, and then failing to recognize that it was their own panicked reaction to the effects that was pushing them into oblivion. And now there's us, all these years later, and we're bringing about our own extinction by becoming too big (as a society) and failing to act in time.  And we're doing it all by burning the very species that went extinct originally. That's irony, subby. That's deep, dirty irony. You don't need snark to make it any more poignant than it is.
2014-06-10 12:08:22 AM  
4 votes:

Damnhippyfreak: Noam Chimpsky: Heliovdrake: notto: Heliovdrake:
ProTip: Noam is trolling you, and the thread... and you bit.

Or

Noam is an Idiot and your playing chess with a Pigeon.

Agreed.  Won't happen again. Unless of course he actually presents evidence to support the claim instead of just repeating it. Is that basically his game?  Just repeat his unsupported claim in a different way?

Pretty much, or pull up some already debunked talking point, or logical fallacy.

Every thread.

The documented 200 years timeline of Glacier Bay, AK is a "logical fallacy"? I don't think you know what logical fallacy means.


The fallacy is that you're trying to generalize from an exception. A single place cannot be used as representative of conditions worldwide, which is what we're interested in.


In addition, what you're arguing only works if you somehow believe that only one factor can affect temperatures. That climate has changed before, does not somehow mean it isn't changing now nor does it mean we are somehow not responsible.

This is notable because this is the exact same mistake the congressman in TFA is making.
2014-06-09 07:21:45 PM  
3 votes:
img2.wikia.nocookie.net
2014-06-09 07:07:27 PM  
3 votes:

The GOP, ladies and gentlemen. The GOP.

2014-06-10 12:20:55 PM  
2 votes:

spongeboob: SkinnyHead: Derp

Do you really believe the crap you post or you some kind of troll performance art?


Does it matter? If you spend all your time pretending to be a moron on the internet just to rile people up, eventually it's no longer pretending
2014-06-10 01:01:25 AM  
2 votes:

Gyrfalcon: yakmans_dad: spongeboob: And for us to say that it is a settled argument right now I think, again, is a foolish argument to make, because there are scientists on both sides of the issue that say that's it's not settled.

1) You might learn to fly as you leap off a building. It's possible. So, you're going to jump off a building, right? You obviously don't abandon prudence based upon fragments of a possibility in 99.99999999% of your life. Why do you do so regarding AGW?

2) The words "settled argument" are misleading. Science proceeds by evidence. Not argument.  For what issues do you think the evidence is lacking? What evidence do you pose against it? After all scientific skepticism isn't the philosophical skepticism of David Hume or Bishop Berkeley. Science depends upon evidence not the terrier like persistence of a lawyer shaking the last nickel from a sucker.

How did we get to the point in society...I mean society in general...that all it takes is ONE person on the "other side" of an issue for an issue not to be "settled?" I mean, that is acceptable in a court of law in a criminal case, where Beyond a Reasonable Doubt requires that everyone be on the same side of the issue to get a conviction...but science isn't a consensus issue where it only takes two people to hang a jury. Hell, even in a civil case, you only need Preponderance of Evidence, or 51% to win your case--and by that standard, AGW is a clear winner.

Who came up with this asinine idea that as long as someone else is willing to take a contrary opinion, the issue was still up for grabs? Because they need to be found and shot, immediately,


img.fark.net
2014-06-10 12:05:56 AM  
2 votes:

Noam Chimpsky: Heliovdrake: notto: Heliovdrake:
ProTip: Noam is trolling you, and the thread... and you bit.

Or

Noam is an Idiot and your playing chess with a Pigeon.

Agreed.  Won't happen again. Unless of course he actually presents evidence to support the claim instead of just repeating it. Is that basically his game?  Just repeat his unsupported claim in a different way?

Pretty much, or pull up some already debunked talking point, or logical fallacy.

Every thread.

The documented 200 years timeline of Glacier Bay, AK is a "logical fallacy"? I don't think you know what logical fallacy means.



The fallacy is that you're trying to generalize from an exception. A single place cannot be used as representative of conditions worldwide, which is what we're interested in.
2014-06-09 10:43:02 PM  
2 votes:

SkinnyHead:  Most paleontologists side with gradualism.


No, they don't.  Name a recent, well published, working paleontologists who sides with gradualism.
2014-06-09 08:59:03 PM  
2 votes:

SkinnyHead: spongeboob: SkinnyHead: A liberal at Think Progress doesn't understand how science works. News at 11

Do you really believe the crap you post or you some kind of troll performance art?

The liberal who wrote this article said: "While the implication that natural changes in the earth's climate caused dinosaur extinction is a new one to most people...."  How does she know that it's new to most people?  Just because this comes as news to her does not mean that most people don't know it.  That's what I'm getting at.


img.fark.net

Getting a lot of use out of this picture today..

Are you having a stroke? Do you need someone to call your nurse or 911?
2014-06-09 08:02:26 PM  
2 votes:

RedVentrue: FTA
"The United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change is a massive global effort to compile and analyze climate research by scientists and experts around the world. It found that there is a 95 percent likelihood that human activities drove 74 percent of the observed global warming since 1950."

Bullshiat.


This number comes from Huber & Knutti 2012. The directly relevant bits from the paper are as follows:

Our results show that it is extremely likely that at least 74% (±12%, 1σ) of the observed warming since 1950 was caused by radiative forcings, and less than 26% (±12%) by unforced internal variability. Of the forced signal during that particular period, 102% (90-116%) is due to anthropogenic and 1% (−10 to 13%) due to natural forcing.

img.fark.net
a, Time series of anthropogenic and natural forcings contributions to total simulated and observed global temperature change. The coloured shadings denote the 5-95% uncertainty range.  b-d, Contributions of individual forcing agents to the total decadal temperature change for three time periods. Error bars denote the 5-95%uncertainty range. The grey shading shows the estimated 5-95% range for internal variability based on the CMIP3 climate models. Observations are shown as dashed lines.



Give me a shout if you want to read the paper but can't get it yourself. I'll gladly put it up for you and even work through it with you if you want.
2014-06-09 07:50:31 PM  
2 votes:
thelastofthemillenniums.files.wordpress.com
Sorry Governor, not yet.
2014-06-09 07:00:12 PM  
2 votes:
Well, at least he admits dinosaurs existed. That's progress, I guess.
2014-06-09 06:50:37 PM  
2 votes:
People die naturally, I guess that means murder is impossible.
2014-06-09 05:43:47 PM  
2 votes:
A Republican from Florida doesn't understand how science works. News at 11.
2014-06-10 07:24:01 PM  
1 votes:
2014-06-10 10:27:09 AM  
1 votes:

SeesWhatYouDidThere: Does no one remember the big hole in the ozone layer?  The whole CFC, big hair, too much hair spray is going to kill us thing?  That was man-made...


Same with acid rain.
2014-06-10 10:24:12 AM  
1 votes:

SeesWhatYouDidThere: Does no one remember the big hole in the ozone layer?  The whole CFC, big hair, too much hair spray is going to kill us thing?  That was man-made...


And, surprisingly, quite a few folks still consider that whole thing to be a big hoax. We still have a hole in the ozone layer. In fact, the largest it's ever been was just eight years ago. None of that matters, though, because big business figured out how to make money off it, so no more delaying tactics, misinformation, and denial are required.

That's the whole point of climate change denial, you realize - to buy enough time for corporations to figure out how to adjust their long-term strategies and minimize impact. If they can get enough folks to believe that it's a hoax, well, you'll keep on consuming enough to float their income while they slowly, quietly, work with government to mitigate the financial impact on them. Too much mitigation, too fast, and governments get more power at the expense of corporations. Too little mitigation, and governments destabilize as populations & economies suffer too much. So, if you can convince, say, a quarter of the population, well, that's enough to ensure reasonable profits even as you develop new services & products for embracing reality in the near future - hardier crops, better energy storage and delivery, better transportation, cheaper desalinization. You're well-situated to exploit the coming changes, the population's been exploited enough to prepare for the new reality, and most governments weather the change with little or no social upheaval.

Mass social manipulation is fun, isn't it?
2014-06-10 09:27:41 AM  
1 votes:
Does no one remember the big hole in the ozone layer?  The whole CFC, big hair, too much hair spray is going to kill us thing?  That was man-made...
2014-06-10 08:02:26 AM  
1 votes:

stoli n coke: If global warming is real, then why come it snow in January?


Ladies and Gentlemen, THIS is the epitome of the Republican argument against climate change.  12 words and the discussion, as far as they're concerned, is over.
2014-06-10 06:44:24 AM  
1 votes:

Gyrfalcon: yakmans_dad: spongeboob: And for us to say that it is a settled argument right now I think, again, is a foolish argument to make, because there are scientists on both sides of the issue that say that's it's not settled.

1) You might learn to fly as you leap off a building. It's possible. So, you're going to jump off a building, right? You obviously don't abandon prudence based upon fragments of a possibility in 99.99999999% of your life. Why do you do so regarding AGW?

2) The words "settled argument" are misleading. Science proceeds by evidence. Not argument.  For what issues do you think the evidence is lacking? What evidence do you pose against it? After all scientific skepticism isn't the philosophical skepticism of David Hume or Bishop Berkeley. Science depends upon evidence not the terrier like persistence of a lawyer shaking the last nickel from a sucker.

How did we get to the point in society...I mean society in general...that all it takes is ONE person on the "other side" of an issue for an issue not to be "settled?" I mean, that is acceptable in a court of law in a criminal case, where Beyond a Reasonable Doubt requires that everyone be on the same side of the issue to get a conviction...but science isn't a consensus issue where it only takes two people to hang a jury. Hell, even in a civil case, you only need Preponderance of Evidence, or 51% to win your case--and by that standard, AGW is a clear winner.

Who came up with this asinine idea that as long as someone else is willing to take a contrary opinion, the issue was still up for grabs? Because they need to be found and shot, immediately,


The problem is willful ignorance. Scientists have been waving the evidence in everyone's faces. The deniers have been closing their eyes, plugging their ears, chanting "Na na na na na na! We can't hear you!"
2014-06-10 12:44:49 AM  
1 votes:

yakmans_dad: spongeboob: And for us to say that it is a settled argument right now I think, again, is a foolish argument to make, because there are scientists on both sides of the issue that say that's it's not settled.

1) You might learn to fly as you leap off a building. It's possible. So, you're going to jump off a building, right? You obviously don't abandon prudence based upon fragments of a possibility in 99.99999999% of your life. Why do you do so regarding AGW?

2) The words "settled argument" are misleading. Science proceeds by evidence. Not argument.  For what issues do you think the evidence is lacking? What evidence do you pose against it? After all scientific skepticism isn't the philosophical skepticism of David Hume or Bishop Berkeley. Science depends upon evidence not the terrier like persistence of a lawyer shaking the last nickel from a sucker.


How did we get to the point in society...I mean society in general...that all it takes is ONE person on the "other side" of an issue for an issue not to be "settled?" I mean, that is acceptable in a court of law in a criminal case, where Beyond a Reasonable Doubt requires that everyone be on the same side of the issue to get a conviction...but science isn't a consensus issue where it only takes two people to hang a jury. Hell, even in a civil case, you only need Preponderance of Evidence, or 51% to win your case--and by that standard, AGW is a clear winner.

Who came up with this asinine idea that as long as someone else is willing to take a contrary opinion, the issue was still up for grabs? Because they need to be found and shot, immediately,
2014-06-10 12:43:40 AM  
1 votes:

Noam Chimpsky: Damnhippyfreak: Noam Chimpsky: Heliovdrake: notto: Heliovdrake:
ProTip: Noam is trolling you, and the thread... and you bit.

Or

Noam is an Idiot and your playing chess with a Pigeon.

Agreed.  Won't happen again. Unless of course he actually presents evidence to support the claim instead of just repeating it. Is that basically his game?  Just repeat his unsupported claim in a different way?

Pretty much, or pull up some already debunked talking point, or logical fallacy.

Every thread.

The documented 200 years timeline of Glacier Bay, AK is a "logical fallacy"? I don't think you know what logical fallacy means.


The fallacy is that you're trying to generalize from an exception. A single place cannot be used as representative of conditions worldwide, which is what we're interested in.


A two hundred year exception?


An exception more spatially than temporally. Again, you cannot make meaningful inferences about global conditions from a single place.

In addition, you're still running into the problem thatwhat you're arguing only works if you somehow believe that only one factor can affect temperatures. This is of course not the case. The analogy that gets bandied about here is that the fact that natural forest fires have existed in the past does not mean that someone cannot burn down a forest intentionally.


Noam Chimpsky: "The exception", according to the climate culty, is the empirical smoking gun evidence whereas "the rule" is evidence gleaned through proxies ( and even those results need to hide the decline during the 1900s ), predictions, unproven-but-peer-reviewed models, etc.


Note that ice melting (as what you yourself are invoking) is itself a proxy for temperature.
2014-06-09 11:59:24 PM  
1 votes:

Noam Chimpsky: notto: Noam Chimpsky:

The data is the reality of what happened.

How does this data demonstrate and relate the state of worldwide warming?  That just doesn't make any sense and does not demonstrate your claim.  You just keep repeating your claim.  Wouldn't it just be easier to demonstrate or describe specifically how glacier bay glacier position shows "Global warming has slowed during the last hundred years compared to the previous hundred years "

How do you know the temperatures of the world based on glacial activity in a single spot?  I'm just not seeing it.  Treat me like I'm a moron and explain it in excruciating detail that leaves no doubt that this is indeed the checkmate you claim it is as it relates to overall global warming over the last 200 years.

I'm patient.  I'll wait.

Courtesy of the National Park Service Glacier Bay Web Site

Enter Glacier Bay, and you cruise along shorelines that were completely covered by ice just 200 years ago. Explorer Captain George Vancouver found Icy Strait choked with ice in 1794, and Glacier Bay was a barely indented glacier. That glacier was more than 4,000 feet thick, up to 20 miles or more wide, and extended more than 100 miles to the St. Elias Mountain Range. But by 1879, naturalist John Muir found that the glacier had retreated 48 miles. By 1916, the Grand Pacific Glacier headed Tarr Inlet 65 miles from Glacier Bay's mouth. Such rapid retreat is known nowhere else. Scientists have documented it, hoping to learn how glacial activity relates to climate change.

http://www.pbs.org/edens/glacierbay/ice.html

That's all. I don't need anything more. It is smoking gun proof.


notto: Heliovdrake:
ProTip: Noam is trolling you, and the thread... and you bit.

Or

Noam is an Idiot and your playing chess with a Pigeon.

Agreed.  Won't happen again. Unless of course he actually presents evidence to support the claim instead of just repeating it. Is that basically his game?  Just repeat his unsupported claim in a different way?


Heliovdrake: notto: Heliovdrake:
ProTip: Noam is trolling you, and the thread... and you bit.

Or

Noam is an Idiot and your playing chess with a Pigeon.

Agreed.  Won't happen again. Unless of course he actually presents evidence to support the claim instead of just repeating it. Is that basically his game?  Just repeat his unsupported claim in a different way?

Pretty much, or pull up some already debunked talking point, or logical fallacy.

Every thread.


Called it.
2014-06-09 11:57:49 PM  
1 votes:

spongeboob: RedVentrue: FTA
"The United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change is a massive global effort to compile and analyze climate research by scientists and experts around the world. It found that there is a 95 percent likelihood that human activities drove 74 percent of the observed global warming since 1950."

Bullshiat.

What a great and concise proof that there is no such thing as Climate Change, you have changed my mind.


I'd interpreted his laconic, yet insightful, reply as "methane production by cattle has a significant impact, and would affect such a study." However, he's still quite wrong - and, worse still, even if he were correct, the production of cattle is a direct result of human activities and, as such, would actually reinforce the above statement.

In short, even giving him the benefit of the doubt, he's a chucklehead.
2014-06-09 11:56:10 PM  
1 votes:

notto: Heliovdrake:
ProTip: Noam is trolling you, and the thread... and you bit.

Or

Noam is an Idiot and your playing chess with a Pigeon.

Agreed.  Won't happen again. Unless of course he actually presents evidence to support the claim instead of just repeating it. Is that basically his game?  Just repeat his unsupported claim in a different way?


Pretty much, or pull up some already debunked talking point, or logical fallacy.

Every thread.
2014-06-09 11:39:43 PM  
1 votes:
Noam Chimpsky:

The data is the reality of what happened.

How does this data demonstrate and relate the state of worldwide warming?  That just doesn't make any sense and does not demonstrate your claim.  You just keep repeating your claim.  Wouldn't it just be easier to demonstrate or describe specifically how glacier bay glacier position shows "Global warming has slowed during the last hundred years compared to the previous hundred years "

How do you know the temperatures of the world based on glacial activity in a single spot?  I'm just not seeing it.  Treat me like I'm a moron and explain it in excruciating detail that leaves no doubt that this is indeed the checkmate you claim it is as it relates to overall global warming over the last 200 years.

I'm patient.  I'll wait.
2014-06-09 11:28:34 PM  
1 votes:

Noam Chimpsky: It's the one "data point" that actually happened

...


All moving pictures, little reading, no math.

img.fark.net
2014-06-09 11:10:18 PM  
1 votes:
Satanic_Hamster: Real reason dinosaurs went extinct:

It was because Adric never learned to type.

31.media.tumblr.com
2014-06-09 10:50:03 PM  
1 votes:

SkinnyHead: There are two schools of thought on this.  There are gradualists & catastrophists.  Gradualists believe that gradual climate change over a long period of time caused dinosaur extinction.  Most paleontologists side with gradualism


You've said this several times without evidence, which leads me to believe you're full of sh*t.
2014-06-09 10:31:47 PM  
1 votes:
TheOther:

/unless you thing those graphics perhaps over-dramatize the prevailing conditions in each case
//naw!


If you consider constructing a graph that can easily be used to identify data differences in a specific set of data as 'dramatization' then you may not understand the actual purpose of putting data in graphs.
2014-06-09 10:21:28 PM  
1 votes:

notto: mrshowrules:

I was going to post something similar but I realized it would be pointless.  May I suggest the point and laugh approach.

How about point, laugh, and debunk.

http://www.nps.gov/glba/naturescience/climate-change.htm
[www.nps.gov image 844x384]
Warming is more pronounced at higher latitudes. Over the past 50 years Alaska's annual average temperature has increased at more than twice the rate of the rest of the United States' average, and here in Southeast Alaska winters are 5 degrees warmer. Glacier Bay is expected to become warmer and drier over the next century. Widespread effects in Alaska include earlier spring snowmelt, reduced sea ice, shrinking glaciers, melting permafrost, bark beetle infestations, shoreline erosion, and more forest fires.


There is no "debunking".  The truth is not the goal.  The goal is to keep the political debate away from what can be done about it.  As long as you can even pretend that global warming is not real or not manmade, the longer you can prevent doing something about it.  Too that extent, they won around two decades ago until today.
2014-06-09 10:21:02 PM  
1 votes:
SkinnyHead:

No, it means that the congressman was stating a point of view that has strong scientific support.  Think Progress, as usual, don't know what they're talking about.

Impact from an extra-terrestrial body is not earths natural climate.    The congressman was not referring to an extra-terrestrial body impact by anybodys reading and specifically mentions 'global warming' and suggests that it caused the demise of the dinosaurs.  He is an idiot.
2014-06-09 10:10:53 PM  
1 votes:
Real reason dinosaurs went extinct:
www.blastr.com
2014-06-09 10:07:02 PM  
1 votes:
mrshowrules:

I was going to post something similar but I realized it would be pointless.  May I suggest the point and laugh approach.

How about point, laugh, and debunk.

http://www.nps.gov/glba/naturescience/climate-change.htm
www.nps.gov
Warming is more pronounced at higher latitudes. Over the past 50 years Alaska's annual average temperature has increased at more than twice the rate of the rest of the United States' average, and here in Southeast Alaska winters are 5 degrees warmer. Glacier Bay is expected to become warmer and drier over the next century. Widespread effects in Alaska include earlier spring snowmelt, reduced sea ice, shrinking glaciers, melting permafrost, bark beetle infestations, shoreline erosion, and more forest fires.
2014-06-09 09:59:03 PM  
1 votes:
The dinosaurs were doing fine until one of them decided vaccinations cause autism. Then they were wiped out in a measles epidemic.
2014-06-09 09:48:59 PM  
1 votes:

spongeboob: And for us to say that it is a settled argument right now I think, again, is a foolish argument to make, because there are scientists on both sides of the issue that say that's it's not settled.


1) You might learn to fly as you leap off a building. It's possible. So, you're going to jump off a building, right? You obviously don't abandon prudence based upon fragments of a possibility in 99.99999999% of your life. Why do you do so regarding AGW?

2) The words "settled argument" are misleading. Science proceeds by evidence. Not argument.  For what issues do you think the evidence is lacking? What evidence do you pose against it? After all scientific skepticism isn't the philosophical skepticism of David Hume or Bishop Berkeley. Science depends upon evidence not the terrier like persistence of a lawyer shaking the last nickel from a sucker.
2014-06-09 09:04:38 PM  
1 votes:

SkinnyHead: spongeboob: SkinnyHead: A liberal at Think Progress doesn't understand how science works. News at 11

Do you really believe the crap you post or you some kind of troll performance art?

The liberal who wrote this article said: "While the implication that natural changes in the earth's climate caused dinosaur extinction is a new one to most people...."  How does she know that it's new to most people?  Just because this comes as news to her does not mean that most people don't know it.  That's what I'm getting at.



What the climate change that killed the dinosaurs might look like:

abcnews.go.com
2014-06-09 08:11:19 PM  
1 votes:
thinkprogress.org

Who pissed him off?
2014-06-09 07:21:54 PM  
1 votes:
I knew before I clicked the link that this would be from a state that borders the Gulf of Mexico.  Un-farking-believable.
2014-06-09 07:21:35 PM  
1 votes:
"While no scientist disputes that the climate has changed in the past, the issue is that heat-trapping greenhouse gases are forcing it to change faster and differently than it would without them.

The argument is, essentially, a non-sequitur."

Only if you're a dipshiat who doesn't know what a non sequitur is.

Now, before the Fark Butthurt Brigade decides that I'm a fundie climate change denier, and before certain trolls/morons on here rally to my cause, allow me to state that I believe that we are affecting our climate. I just don't like it when people lob words or phrases they know nothing about and consider themselves smart.

Of course, the author may have learned literary devices from Alanis Morissette.
2014-06-09 07:21:28 PM  
1 votes:
At least he admitted dinosaurs were real. That's a step forward from thinking fossils were planted there by the devil.
2014-06-09 07:09:19 PM  
1 votes:

SkinnyHead: A liberal at Think Progress doesn't understand how science works. News at 11


Do you really believe the crap you post or you some kind of troll performance art?
2014-06-09 06:54:49 PM  
1 votes:

Dusk-You-n-Me: His state will be one of the first to drown.


Along with Mexico City.
2014-06-09 06:47:01 PM  
1 votes:

jokideo.com

2014-06-09 06:40:32 PM  
1 votes:
This is how Poe's law came to be. When someone says this sort of thing you just assume they're joking.
2014-06-09 06:36:10 PM  
1 votes:
I have a feeling that he not only doesn't know the answer to that question, but doesn't care. And that is the problem right there.
2014-06-09 06:33:41 PM  
1 votes:
His state will be one of the first to drown.
2014-06-09 06:01:46 PM  
1 votes:
I was bored and playing on GIS. Found this and it gave me a giggle, so I thought I'd share.

thenakedlistener.files.wordpress.com
2014-06-09 05:57:49 PM  
1 votes:
Or was it Foxtrot? I can't remember
 
Displayed 49 of 49 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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