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.

(Gizmodo)   Old MacDonald had a farm, E-I-E-I-O. And on this farm he had some methane-producing animals contributing a lot more to global warming than we initially estimated, E-I-E-I-OMG   ( gizmodo.com) divider line
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

4237 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Sep 2017 at 5:20 PM (3 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

2017-09-29 05:25:36 PM  
9 votes:
We can get rid of this problem by killing and eating them.
2017-09-29 05:23:44 PM  
9 votes:
You can have my delicious steak when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.
2017-09-29 04:48:31 PM  
8 votes:
It certainly isn't helping. But our human populations are out of control and need to eat.

This should be worrying, too. Probably isn't for most people, but methane is bad for you, mkay? And a lot of it has been trapped in the Frozen Tundra of Lambeau Field Siberia.

img.fark.net

And as the tundra thaws, due to climate change, these bubbles are forming. And collapsing.

img.fark.net
Yeesh.
2017-09-29 06:02:09 PM  
6 votes:
This is a red herring.

Methane from livestock has zero impact on climate change. Methane in the atmosphere only last a few years before breaking down into CO2. Carbon moving back and forth between atmospheric CO2 -> carbohydrates in plants -> methane -> atmospheric CO2 has no impact.

Digging up more entombed carbon and adding it to the cycle DOES have an impact.
2017-09-29 05:33:55 PM  
5 votes:
I wonder how the cow population in the USA compares to the former bison population. I'm guessing that they are much the same.

Yet another case of hyper-alarmist rants, journalistic fear mongering. But of course, I didn't click the link. I'll come back and correct myself if I am wrong about this.
2017-09-29 05:30:33 PM  
5 votes:
Imagine how much dinosaurs farted.   Explains earlier warming.  I knew it wasn't man made.
2017-09-29 06:35:34 PM  
4 votes:

stirfrybry: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo3031.html


I don't think that article says what you're trying to claim.

" Assuming emissions peak and decline to below current levels by 2030, and continue thereafter on a much steeper decline, which would be historically unprecedented but consistent with a standard ambitious mitigation scenario (RCP2.6), results in a likely range of peak warming of 1.2-2.0°C above the mid-nineteenth century. If CO2 emissions are continuously adjusted over time to limit 2100 warming to 1.5°C, with ambitious non-CO2 mitigation, net future cumulative CO2 emissions are unlikely to prove less than 250GtC and unlikely greater than 540GtC. Hence, limiting warming to 1.5°C is not yet a geophysical impossibility, but is likely to require delivery on strengthened pledges for 2030 followed by challengingly deep and rapid mitigation. "
2017-09-29 06:18:11 PM  
4 votes:

gregscott: I wonder how the cow population in the USA compares to the former bison population. I'm guessing that they are much the same.

Yet another case of hyper-alarmist rants, journalistic fear mongering. But of course, I didn't click the link. I'll come back and correct myself if I am wrong about this.


First, there were an estimated 20 million bison, compared to about 40 million cows today.

Second, it wouldn't matter if the cow population was equal, as the diets may be different enough to make such equivocation meaningless.

Third, it STILL doesn't matter even if bison produced more methane than cattle, as we are discussing the cumulative effects in global warming and how we can change them today.

X+y+z+q=T, where T is higher than we want it, is not a formula that gives a crap whether the X or the y is the newcomer to the party.

"I'm getting fat, I should consume fewer calories"
"Well, don't stop drinking soda. You've always drank that and you weren't fat before" said nobody ever.

Livestock are worth looking into for a host of reasons, as they are particularly easy to adjust in terms of human behavior relative to telling people not to have kids, not to drive to work, not to use AC, etc. There are also multiple methods of addressing methane from livestock without dramatically reducing production. Diet, potential capturing systems, who knows?

Hell, identifying a thing as a contributor is useful whether or not we even change it as a variable, because we still want to fully complete the overall picture.
2017-09-29 06:09:35 PM  
4 votes:
Gee, it's almost like there is more than one cause of climate change, and they are all interrelated in a very complex and synergistic way that will require a very complex and careful plan to fix it.

Who would have thought it was not as easy as just ignoring it?
2017-09-29 04:55:02 PM  
4 votes:
Yet somehow the models have the right numbers.
2017-09-29 10:22:21 PM  
3 votes:

69gnarkill69: Smackledorfer: 69gnarkill69: Gyrfalcon:

Yes.

And you were still wrong.

Also, there were a maximum total of 30 million bison. There were not 30 million bison at one time.

LOL!  A simple Google search says you lack reading comprehension at best.  Google rocks.

And yet it doesn't matter, per my earlier post. If we plugged all volcanoes and the did something stupid that matched them (not that volcanoes are a big contributor mind you, that's right wing nonsense) we would still want to stop doing that something stupid.

My point wasn't with your post but since you made it that way, my concern is the big hot ball of gas in the sky.  There is your climate change driver. But I'm not here to argue, I just couldn't let Gyrfalcon get away with a comment that is blatantly wrong.  I leave you to your previously interrupted discussion.  Peace out.


Oh, you're a moron who thinks the sun is the primary accelerant of climate change.

Well, farkied as such. Goodbye.
2017-09-29 06:30:20 PM  
3 votes:
Peer reviewed article in Nature by the team that does the carbon budgets for the IPCC assessment reports concluded that models overestimate anthropogenic forcing/feedbacks and they adjusted the carbon budget accordingly. Basically they say with more realistic numbers for the anthropogenic component of the models they calculate that the conventional wisdom that we will add 2 degrees C to the temperature should be adjusted down to 1.5 degrees C.
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo3031.html

Of course the alarmist went into a tizzy immediately questioning the science... Deniers are they? The irony was delicious.

And of course Fark wouldn't greenlight a link to real science or articles about it. Hell, their filter won't even let the link above work. LOL
2017-09-29 05:42:20 PM  
3 votes:
We've known for a while that a meat based diet contributes to greenhouse gasses more than transportation or industry.  And it's dumb that we keep ignoring the real problems.  Go meatless 3 days a week before your next spittle flying rant about someone else who should be solving the problem for you.
2017-09-29 05:38:05 PM  
3 votes:
Subby...

media.tenor.com

In addition to livestock contributing to the release of methane, let's not forget that fake climate change resulting in the melting of glaciers, permafrost* and icecaps is also releasing ancient methane (and God knows what else) into the atmosphere.

*there's some scary ancient viruses that are seeing the light of day with the melting of the permafrost, some hat haven't been seen in thousands of years.
2017-09-29 05:31:30 PM  
3 votes:

WelldeadLink: Yet somehow the models have the right numbers.


it means the models are wrong and it's worth than we thought
2017-09-29 05:27:39 PM  
3 votes:
I have a bridge for sale, etc. etc.
These people have inhaled way too much barium from the chemtrails.
2017-09-30 01:02:40 PM  
2 votes:

maxheck: You're quite right.... except for the whole being factually wrong part. But hey, it sounds truthy if you repeat it enough.


THIS.  I guess all those satellite photos taken over the last few decades showing that the northern ice caps have been steadily shrinking are just a hoax, like the moon landing.
2017-09-30 12:46:26 PM  
2 votes:

Deez Piles: docpeteyJ: Deez Piles: WTFDYW: docpeteyJ: Subby...

[media.tenor.com image 490x280]

In addition to livestock contributing to the release of methane, let's not forget that fake climate change resulting in the melting of glaciers, permafrost* and icecaps is also releasing ancient methane (and God knows what else) into the atmosphere.

*there's some scary ancient viruses that are seeing the light of day with the melting of the permafrost, some hat haven't been seen in thousands of years.

They have hats?

But since the ice caps are growing now, they're swallowing up all that methane now, right? Along with the cow farts?

Not to worry, I've invented a device that captures carbon dioxide in the air and fixes it in usable, biodegradable form. I call it "plants."

LOLWUT?

The A,B and C Larsen Ice Shelves have been there for over 100,000 years have all FALLEN THE fark OFF the polar ice cap. That ain't normal by any stretch of the imagination. Hell, the C shelf is the size of goddamned Delaware, FFS (I don't have time to explain the impact of how the meltwater from it affects ocean temperature and salinity. Look it up).

And in case you missed it, there's a whole lotta ancient viruses*  and god knows what else being exposed by the melting of the goddamned permafrost, which has also been around a very long time. That scares the shiat out of me, because that's how you get a goddamned Zombie Apocalypse...or at the very least, a naive viral pandemic.

*and GODDAMNIT the plural of virus isn't viri (or virii), which is Latin for "men" (vir is the root of our word "virile"). The plural of virus (which, BTW, is the plural form anyway) is VIRUSES. Anyone who uses viri as the plural of virus is a pretentious douchebag guilty of Latin Abuse.

Not unusual at all. Ice shelves collapse all the time. They also grow back. Cracks form in one place and ice grows somewhere else.

The world has been growing warmer since the Little Ice Age and should get cooler again in a few years, as a new s ...


You're quite right.... except for the whole being factually wrong part. But hey, it sounds truthy if you repeat it enough.
2017-09-30 01:25:16 AM  
2 votes:

WelldeadLink: Horizon: Part of the issue is diet. The big cattle operations feed the cows a fark ton of corn which if I remember correctly makes them fart more.

Beef cattle are sent to the feedlot when they're less than a year old to 2 years old. They spend 3-4 months being "finished", often with grain in their feed. It is unlikely that they're on an all-corn diet before then, unless corn happens to be exceptionally cheap at the time. Have you not heard that alcohol production has increased the price of corn?


Not all are. Some are raised entirely on grass, like mine.
2017-09-29 10:50:51 PM  
2 votes:

Horizon: Part of the issue is diet. The big cattle operations feed the cows a fark ton of corn which if I remember correctly makes them fart more.


Beef cattle are sent to the feedlot when they're less than a year old to 2 years old. They spend 3-4 months being "finished", often with grain in their feed. It is unlikely that they're on an all-corn diet before then, unless corn happens to be exceptionally cheap at the time. Have you not heard that alcohol production has increased the price of corn?
2017-09-29 07:01:38 PM  
2 votes:

Ker_Thwap: The 40ish million cows currently in the US, more or less replace the 30 to 60 million bison that were hunted to near extinction.


Bison population at peak = 20-30 million.

Current US cattle population per the USDA = 92 million. (PDF)

Worldwide cattle population = 1.4 billion.

Bison were a mere fart in a whirlwind compared to current cattle production. They also lived off of prairie grass and weren't fed intensively-grown corn and soy.
2017-09-29 06:31:30 PM  
2 votes:

madgonad: This is a red herring.

Methane from livestock has zero impact on climate change. Methane in the atmosphere only last a few years before breaking down into CO2. Carbon moving back and forth between atmospheric CO2 -> carbohydrates in plants -> methane -> atmospheric CO2 has no impact.

Digging up more entombed carbon and adding it to the cycle DOES have an impact.


Except CO2 in the atmosphere has a dwell time of decades to centuries. We're pumping it out several orders of magnitude faster than it can be taken back up, so it builds up.

Sure, over the course of centuries it's neutral, but we're overloading the cycle.
2017-09-29 06:17:34 PM  
2 votes:

gregscott: I wonder how the cow population in the USA compares to the former bison population. I'm guessing that they are much the same.

Yet another case of hyper-alarmist rants, journalistic fear mongering. But of course, I didn't click the link. I'll come back and correct myself if I am wrong about this.


Not by a long shot. Peak bison = 20-30 million. There's 92 million or so cattle just in the US currently, with an estimated 1.4 billion worldwide.

Add the fact that the cattle are fed high-test grain grown by intensive agriculture, and...
2017-09-29 06:16:05 PM  
2 votes:
I hate myself a little bit every day for not being a vegetarian because I know for a fact that it's one of the single greatest things I could do to reduce my impact on the environment.  I'm still going to eat salmon or chicken for dinner

/cull the herd (of humans)
2017-09-29 06:12:30 PM  
2 votes:
Dearest headline submitter person,

+1 LOL aside...
(can't believe I'm the first)
img.fark.net
2017-09-29 06:02:41 PM  
2 votes:

germ78: If most Americans went meatless once or twice a week and ate more beans* and vegetables, our impact on GW would likely decrease.

/* even accounting for the increase in farting caused by eating more beans and lentils


I would sooner murder every soul in some faraway country that I will never go to than give up eating red meat. I love beans, but they are not steak.

Also, our climate models were grossly inaccurate, but they're good now so you should believe them.
2017-09-29 05:45:03 PM  
2 votes:
EAT MOR VEAL
2017-09-30 01:14:42 PM  
1 vote:
7 week account, guys.
2017-09-30 12:21:03 PM  
1 vote:

docpeteyJ: Deez Piles: WTFDYW: docpeteyJ: Subby...

[media.tenor.com image 490x280]

In addition to livestock contributing to the release of methane, let's not forget that fake climate change resulting in the melting of glaciers, permafrost* and icecaps is also releasing ancient methane (and God knows what else) into the atmosphere.

*there's some scary ancient viruses that are seeing the light of day with the melting of the permafrost, some hat haven't been seen in thousands of years.

They have hats?

But since the ice caps are growing now, they're swallowing up all that methane now, right? Along with the cow farts?

Not to worry, I've invented a device that captures carbon dioxide in the air and fixes it in usable, biodegradable form. I call it "plants."

LOLWUT?

The A,B and C Larsen Ice Shelves have been there for over 100,000 years have all FALLEN THE fark OFF the polar ice cap. That ain't normal by any stretch of the imagination. Hell, the C shelf is the size of goddamned Delaware, FFS (I don't have time to explain the impact of how the meltwater from it affects ocean temperature and salinity. Look it up).

And in case you missed it, there's a whole lotta ancient viruses*  and god knows what else being exposed by the melting of the goddamned permafrost, which has also been around a very long time. That scares the shiat out of me, because that's how you get a goddamned Zombie Apocalypse...or at the very least, a naive viral pandemic.

*and GODDAMNIT the plural of virus isn't viri (or virii), which is Latin for "men" (vir is the root of our word "virile"). The plural of virus (which, BTW, is the plural form anyway) is VIRUSES. Anyone who uses viri as the plural of virus is a pretentious douchebag guilty of Latin Abuse.


Not unusual at all. Ice shelves collapse all the time. They also grow back. Cracks form in one place and ice grows somewhere else.

The world has been growing warmer since the Little Ice Age and should get cooler again in a few years, as a new sunspot minimum is set to begin around 2030. There should be plenty of ice-shelf regrowth then.

In Antarctica specifically, there's been no warming in the past 30 years, and more recently the winter ice pack has reached record-setting levels (trapping in ice one boatload of climate-botherers, aboard the USS No Sense of Irony). The Larsen B glacial area is close to six active volcanoes, a far more likely explanation for this localized breakup than magical pixie dust.

Don't take my word for it -- ask the climate alarmists themselves. Even the IPCC is admitting (though it suppressed the information until after the climate conference) that the models are "running too hot" -- i.e. flat wrong.

At another time I may explain the purpose of this hoax but I think the above is enough truthification for now.

Finally, I take your point about the plural of virus. I've always wondered why the plurals of hippopotamus and rhinoceros aren't hippopotamoi and rhinocerontes.
2017-09-30 11:42:18 AM  
1 vote:

Deez Piles: WTFDYW: docpeteyJ: Subby...

[media.tenor.com image 490x280]

In addition to livestock contributing to the release of methane, let's not forget that fake climate change resulting in the melting of glaciers, permafrost* and icecaps is also releasing ancient methane (and God knows what else) into the atmosphere.

*there's some scary ancient viruses that are seeing the light of day with the melting of the permafrost, some hat haven't been seen in thousands of years.

They have hats?

But since the ice caps are growing now, they're swallowing up all that methane now, right? Along with the cow farts?

Not to worry, I've invented a device that captures carbon dioxide in the air and fixes it in usable, biodegradable form. I call it "plants."


LOLWUT?

The A,B and C Larsen Ice Shelves have been there for over 100,000 years have all FALLEN THE fark OFF the polar ice cap. That ain't normal by any stretch of the imagination. Hell, the C shelf is the size of goddamned Delaware, FFS (I don't have time to explain the impact of how the meltwater from it affects ocean temperature and salinity. Look it up).

And in case you missed it, there's a whole lotta ancient viruses*  and god knows what else being exposed by the melting of the goddamned permafrost, which has also been around a very long time. That scares the shiat out of me, because that's how you get a goddamned Zombie Apocalypse...or at the very least, a naive viral pandemic.

*and GODDAMNIT the plural of virus isn't viri (or virii), which is Latin for "men" (vir is the root of our word "virile"). The plural of virus (which, BTW, is the plural form anyway) is VIRUSES. Anyone who uses viri as the plural of virus is a pretentious douchebag guilty of Latin Abuse.
2017-09-30 11:26:05 AM  
1 vote:

lordjupiter: This is clearly a hoax because cows are a myth propagated by Big Farma.


This deserves more funnys.
2017-09-29 11:06:03 PM  
1 vote:
First, they came for the plastic six pack rings and I did not speak because I drank from bottles. Then they came for the gasoline and I did not speak because I did not have an SUV. Then they came for the coal and I did not speak because I was not a miner. Then they came for my medium-rare T-bone and there was no one left to speak for me.
2017-09-29 09:39:55 PM  
1 vote:
 IPCC AR5 WG1 chapter 9, this is also discussed in chapter 11:
"This provides evidence that some CMIP5 models have a higher transient response to GHGs and a larger response to other anthropogenic forcings (dominated by the effects of aerosols) than the real world (medium confidence).' The ASK results and the initialised predictions both suggest that those CMIP5 models that warm most rapidly over the period (1986-2005) to (2016-2035) may be inconsistent with the observations."
2017-09-29 09:32:03 PM  
1 vote:

maxheck: stirfrybry: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo3031.html

I don't think that article says what you're trying to claim.

" Assuming emissions peak and decline to below current levels by 2030, and continue thereafter on a much steeper decline, which would be historically unprecedented but consistent with a standard ambitious mitigation scenario (RCP2.6), results in a likely range of peak warming of 1.2-2.0°C above the mid-nineteenth century. If CO2 emissions are continuously adjusted over time to limit 2100 warming to 1.5°C, with ambitious non-CO2 mitigation, net future cumulative CO2 emissions are unlikely to prove less than 250GtC and unlikely greater than 540GtC. Hence, limiting warming to 1.5°C is not yet a geophysical impossibility, but is likely to require delivery on strengthened pledges for 2030 followed by challengingly deep and rapid mitigation. "


Millar was quoted that the models were "running hot". Why are you guys so averse to correcting models? Wouldn't you rather have accurate science? Admit that you wouldn't than.
https://judithcurry.com/2017/09/26/are-climate-models-overstating-war​m​ing/
2017-09-29 09:26:34 PM  
1 vote:

AquaTatanka: .. and instead even attempting the bailing of water we are drilling more holes in the hull here in the United States.


A great deal more needs to be done.  But lies on either side don't help.  U.S. emissions heave been decreasing for years as we transition away from coal, and are now at a 25 year low.  In fact some sources report we are leading in emissions reduction.  Yes, Trump is an eco-idiot, and wants to increase coal use.  But he hasn't done anything successful other than talk about it.  And anyway that doesn't mean the whole United States is actively making things worse.  We aren't.  We are improving.  (And yes, I know that makes some people very angry.)

Note:  All of this progress was in the energy (power) industry, and making some headway in the agricultural sector would help a lot too.
2017-09-29 08:45:40 PM  
1 vote:
Screw that. Global climate change is happening. There are lots and lots of contributing factors. There is no way all the countries around the world are all going to band together and agree to implement anything other than the most trivial of changes in an attempt to mitigate it. May as well accept it.

So we should eat our steak and enjoy it, the Titanic is already sinking.

Of course you can go without meat however many days a week you like if it makes you feel better, just don't expect me to.
2017-09-29 08:21:50 PM  
1 vote:

Ker_Thwap: maxheck: Ker_Thwap: The 40ish million cows currently in the US, more or less replace the 30 to 60 million bison that were hunted to near extinction.

Bison population at peak = 20-30 million.

Current US cattle population per the USDA = 92 million. (PDF)

Worldwide cattle population = 1.4 billion.

Bison were a mere fart in a whirlwind compared to current cattle production. They also lived off of prairie grass and weren't fed intensively-grown corn and soy.

I said ish.  I just googled how many cows, I wasn't preparing for a thesis.  I'm also fairly sure that most cattle are fed mostly on pasturage, crop residues and fallows.  I limited my statement to the US, so we could compare apples to apples.    The numbers are worth considering, even if it's one factor among many.


Yes.

And you were still wrong.

Also, there were a maximum total of 30 million bison. There were not 30 million bison at one time. There are at least that many cows, steers, bulls, and calves in the US at any given time. Also, you are wrong about cows being fed on pasturage. Beef cattle are kept on pasture for no more than 12-18 months; after that, they go to finishing feed lots for another 9-12 months to be fed on corn. Dairy cattle, of course, are kept in lots and almost exclusively fed hay and corn.

This is, of course, only the gas emitted by the farting cattle. The methane given off by piles of manure has to be factored in, and anyone who thinks that is negligible ought to go out to Coalinga, CA, and stand downwind of the huge feedlot out on the 5. You'll want to take an SCBA and some supplemental 02.
2017-09-29 08:21:40 PM  
1 vote:
Talk to this guy, he knows how to deal with this shiat.
img.fark.net
2017-09-29 08:11:12 PM  
1 vote:

kbronsito: So republicans were right... it's not humans causing global warming, it's animals. Chessmate, libtardos.


Yeah, 99% of the scientific community is wrong. I guess that means the earth is flat too.
2017-09-29 07:51:05 PM  
1 vote:

maxheck: Ker_Thwap: The 40ish million cows currently in the US, more or less replace the 30 to 60 million bison that were hunted to near extinction.

Bison population at peak = 20-30 million.

Current US cattle population per the USDA = 92 million. (PDF)

Worldwide cattle population = 1.4 billion.

Bison were a mere fart in a whirlwind compared to current cattle production. They also lived off of prairie grass and weren't fed intensively-grown corn and soy.


I said ish.  I just googled how many cows, I wasn't preparing for a thesis.  I'm also fairly sure that most cattle are fed mostly on pasturage, crop residues and fallows.  I limited my statement to the US, so we could compare apples to apples.    The numbers are worth considering, even if it's one factor among many.
2017-09-29 07:06:27 PM  
1 vote:

SwiftFox: But  but - organic farming's supposed to be good for the environment! Where will we get the fertilizer without octupling the livestock population???


Actually, a lot of dairy farms are setting up methane digesters to make natural gas to heat their barns. It's a win-win, they don't have to truck in natural gas to heat the barns in the winter, and the resulting sludge makes great fertilizer.

I saw a number of setups like that in India and Nepal as well.
2017-09-29 06:47:43 PM  
1 vote:
The 40ish million cows currently in the US, more or less replace the 30 to 60 million bison that were hunted to near extinction.
2017-09-29 06:00:10 PM  
1 vote:
So hang bells from their necks and pilot lights from their asses.  Problem solved.
2017-09-29 05:56:14 PM  
1 vote:

ThrobblefootSpectre: We've known for a while that a meat based diet contributes to greenhouse gasses more than transportation or industry.  And it's dumb that we keep ignoring the real problems.

Go meatless 3 7 days a week before your next spittle flying rant about someone else who should be solving the problem for you.
2017-09-29 05:49:11 PM  
1 vote:
The world would be a better place there were no animals
2017-09-29 05:40:27 PM  
1 vote:
Wait, isn't SpaceX going to be using methane and liquid oxygen as rocket fuel? Just insert a collection pipe into the source of the methane and...to the moon, Alice!

img.fark.net
2017-09-29 05:40:10 PM  
1 vote:
I'd the earth's environment that sparse pockets of cows are able to turn the tide of global climate change, we're in a lot bigger trouble than we realize.

We might as well use up all the oil and trash the place because fighting the climate is futile.
2017-09-29 05:24:35 PM  
1 vote:
"WHATEVAH, AS LONG AS I GET MY MEGATALLBOY BURGER, DEEP-FRIED AND SERVED WITH A GALLON OF DONKEY SAUCE! 'MURICA!"
2017-09-29 05:23:43 PM  
1 vote:
I'm more worried about flying cows...

vignette.wikia.nocookie.net
 
Displayed 49 of 49 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  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