Yep. We are definitely on the way to becoming a burning inferno.

[guardian]

Minnesota braces for 'snowiest Christmas in 30 years'...
http://www.startribune.com/local/79869182.html?page=1&c=y


Winter freeze kills 79 in Poland...
http://www.canada.com/news/Winter+freeze+kills+Poland/2370272/story.html


Plummeting temps, snowfall causing chaos from Moscow to Milan...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/22/cold-weather-europe-death-toll


Lowest temperature recorded anywhere in Australia...
http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/minus-13-degrees-the-coldest-its-been-in-april/11794


Adelaide's coldest start to December in seven years...
http://weather.ninemsn.com.au/news/adelaides-coldest-start-to-december-in-seven-years/13252


Delhi records season’s coldest day...
http://www.citybengaluru.com/delhi-records-seasons-coldest-day/

[tekisui]

1. Who said we were becoming a burning inferno?

[feslen]

12. twenty years?

the way the greedy politicians that "run" this country, we'd be lucky to last twenty years!

[CBGLuthier]

2. still not clear on the concept are you?

Every year it gets cold and some clown comes up with the same tired shit.

Hope you still find it funny in 20 years.

[BeatleBoot]

4. The Clowns you refer to

are Republicans.

Anyone hungry for Pizza?

[Divine Discontent]

3. much like how the antiwar people get chastised here by some, we get chastised too for seeing the

facts of global temp avg's being higher, and the GLOBAL CLIMATE CRISIS (not just 'warming') effecting our world in every way imaginable with the different types of horrible weather that can occur (floods, tornadoes, cyclones, drought, heat, freezing cold)

[azmouse]

5. July 2009 Was The Hottest Month On Record - Phoenix, AZ

http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/psr/pns/2009/July/Brief3.php


With July 2009 now over it will go down as not only the hottest July on record but the hottest month of all-time in both Phoenix and Yuma (as determined by average temperature...



Brrrr... yep, it's getting colder. :eyes:

[pscot]

29. High temps are local and anecdotal

so we can safely ignore those. A cold snap, on the other hand, is rock solid proof that GW is a hoax.

[Goldstein1984]

6. The Drudge Report makes this same mistake all the time...

Confusing weather with climate, and "global warming" with climate change.

What matters isn't local temperatures on a given day, but the average global temperature over time. Because of greenhouse gases, more energy is retained in the atmosphere. One consequence of this is that local climate and weather patterns may become less stable.

I'm an engineer and biologist, not a climatologist, but I trust that the process of science is the best way we have to understand the universe, and the science appears good to me in the case of climate change.

[joshcryer]

22. It's the headlines that matter, all other data must be discarded.

[Nederland]

28. I wonder if you see the irony in your post? nt

[kgrandia]

7. Good ol' truthiness

Arguing that climate change is a hoax b/c it's cold out is a great example of truthiness.

As defined by Colbert, truthiness: "It is the truth that is felt deep down, in the gut. It can't be found in books, which are all facts and no heart."

http://wikiality.wikia.com/Truthiness

[Mugweed]

8. Dumbass

Not too into the whole science thing, huh? Didn't do any homework researching the extreme temperature swings and shifting weather patterns that accompany the overall rise in average global temperature? What's up...nothing good to read on FR so you decided to drop by here to display your ignorance?

[OKIsItJustMe]

9. Hot Damn! Global Warming has ended

It also ended in 1940 and 1960 and 1970 and 1980 and 1990…
http://climate.dot.gov/about/overview/impacts.html

[guardian]

17. Lying with statistics

Interesting how the graph starts at 1880. Doesn't look so bad if you go back a little further in time.

[neverforget]

18. Where's the link to the graph?

[joshcryer]

19. That graph is from central England and is representing the little ice age.

But you knew that, since the only link for it on Google links to the page it is on.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol6no1/reiter.htm

[Javaman]

25. wong spot. nt

[Javaman]

26. So you are a member of the localized weather = global weather

group of moronic denialists.

Do you even know what the cause if the mini-ice age was? or do I need to educate you?

And you are a democrat?

moron.

[muriel_volestrangler]

44. Interesting how your graph ends about 1925

which means that it tells us nothing about the period in which significant global warming has occured. Here's the Central England temperatures up to this year:



You'll see that the smoothed temperature has gone up about 1 degree C since 1925. So put that on your graph, and you'll see the Central England temperature is now probably hotter than at any time going back to 900 AD.

Looks pretty bad if you go forward to the present day, doesn't it?

[joshcryer]

20. I like global data, it takes years to assemble, and is pretty great.

I don't like those cherry picked graphs that are so common out there.

[Speck Tater]

10. And of course a few weeks of cooling cancels out a century of warming.

Humans are so short-sighted. No wonder we are ruining the planet. We can even open our eyes far enough to see the damage we are doing. Even with the Arctic ice melting at an astounding pace. But, hey, none of that matters. The polar bears going extinct doesn't matter. It's all meaningless as long as there is a cold snap today.

[raynjulsks]

30. Might want to check the numbers

there are about 5 times as many polar bears today as there were in the 1950's... just sayin'

[guardian]

31. You forget the Doomer cult orthodoxy

which states that whenever the population of a species has increased 500%, that equates to MASS EXTINCTION!!!!!!!!!

[NickB79]

32. Using the number of polar bears alive in 1950 is a flawed argument

Here's why:

"What we do know, though, is that in the 1960s, polar bear populations dropped precipitously due to over-hunting. When restrictions on polar bear harvests were put in place in the early 1970s, populations rebounded. That situation was a conservation success story ... but the current threat to polar bears is entirely different, and more dire.

Today's polar bears are facing the rapid loss of the sea-ice habitat that they rely on to hunt, breed, and, in some cases, to den. Last summer alone, the melt-off in the Arctic was equal to the size of Alaska, Texas, and the state of Washington combined—a shrinkage that was not predicted to happen until 2040. The loss of Arctic sea ice has resulted in a shorter hunting season for the bears, which has led to a scientifically documented decline in the best-studied population, Western Hudson Bay, and predictions of decline in the second best-studied population, the Southern Beaufort Sea.

Both populations are considered representative of what will likely occur in other polar bear populations should these warming trends continue. The Western Hudson Bay population has dropped by 22% since 1987. The Southern Beaufort Sea bears are showing the same signs of stress the Western Hudson Bay bears did before they crashed, including smaller adults and fewer yearling bears."

http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/ask-the-experts/population/

[raynjulsks]

38. two populations are indeed decreasing, but...

there are twelve others that are either stable or increasing in population (approximately 49% of the known population is at least stable)... I'll just go out on a limb and say this is not indicative of an "extinction" as the original poster posits.

[hatrack]

11. Oh look! Guardian's here with the latest weather report!

Thanks, Guardian!

:hi:

[kestrel91316]

13. That fits the climatologists' predictions of worse extremes in weather

due to climate change to a T. Good find, even if that wasn't your thinking, lol.

:rofl:

[tinrobot]

14. When the ice caps melt, cold water rushes into the oceans.

But only until they're completely melted.

[Zoeisright]

15. Climate change and weather aren't the same thing.

Overall heating of the planet causes extreme weather. So the warming of the globe just might be the cause of all this. In fact, it probably is.

[4dsc]

16. Don't know the difference between weather and climate I see

[joshcryer]

21. Parts of AU are experiencing unprecedented heat waves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_2009_southeastern_Australia_heat_wave

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_2009_southeastern_Australia_heat_wave

You know how an air conditioner works? Cool air gets pumped in by moving hot air outside via the use of a compressor.

Well, when one part of the planet has an extreme variance, the other part will have an extreme likewise. Basic thermodynamics.

[beardown]

23. You left out some key stats

The water on my heated stove is boiling hotter than it was ten minutes ago before I turned on the stove.

The air from my wood stove is hotter now than it was 30 minutes ago before I started the fire.

The chicken coop is hotter now than it was two hours ago before the auto timer clicked on the lamp.

So it looks like global warming does indeed exist and it's man made.

Now it could be that I'm stupid and don't know the difference between my local observed events and climate or that I'm lying about it. You know, like guys that don't know the difference between weather and climate or that lie about it when they post random weather notes.


So what is it? Are you guys on a schedule that you take turns posting this drivel every few weeks or is it just random stupidity? What the heck are the you guardian of anyway? Willful ignorance?

[Javaman]

24. ahhh more jackassary. nt

[Dogmudgeon]

27. We DEFINITELY need a Facepalm emoticon

SKINNNNN-ERRR!

--d!

[NickB79]

33. You know why we in Minnesota braced for a snowy Christmas?

Because the air coming up into the Midwest was WARMER than normal and held a lot of moisture.

Here in the Twin Cities, we had 30F temps (well above average) on Christmas Day, and south of us in Iowa they received 2 inches of RAIN, enough to cause localized flooding. On Christmas Day.

[guardian]

34. Let's see

If I use typical Doomer rhetoric taken from other responses in this very thread, I believe the correct response to your reply is one of following:

* weather is "local and ancedotal" and therefore irrelevant
* You are "Confusing weather with climate, and "global warming" with climate change."
* this is a case of "confirmation bias"
* you are a "dumbass"
* you are part of a "group of moronic" Doomers
* "Oh look! NickB79 here with the latest weather report!"
* "Don't know the difference between weather and climate I see"
* "more jackassary"
* "We DEFINITELY need a Facepalm emoticon"

Or I guess I could just say "Holy Fuck! Snow in Minnesota?!?!?!?! in Winter? Unprecedented! Never happened before! Yep. Obvious proof of AGW here. DOOMSDAY is around the corner!" Boy I am convinced now. You really changed my mind.

I guess this is a recent phenomenon since a "snowy Christmas" in Minnesota was exceedingly rare prior to 1880. Right?

[hatrack]

35. Ooh, what a stinging rejoinder! After this, how can I EVER POST HERE AGAIN?!?!?!?!

But seriously, lots and lots of big wet sloppy kisses for you Guardian!

You're just so darn cute!!!

:loveya: :loveya: :loveya:

[amborin]

36. it's "global climate change? some areas will get colder, others much warmer

[happyslug]

37. I see you, like most people, do NOT understand the concept of Global Warming

The Theory behind global warming is that with more CO2 in the Air (And other substances added to the air such as methane) reflect more of the sun rays BACK to the earth, keeping the earth warmer then it has been. During the Spring, Fall and Summer this works to warm up the planet. During the deepest part of Winter (and only in those areas where it is clearly dark more then it is day i.e must include "False Dawn" and "Twilight" as day periods NOT divide them equally between day and night when we use sunset and sunrise as the cut offs, this is mostly the northern Temperature, Arctic and Antarctic areas) the reverse happens, the increase in CO2 and other green house gases keep temperatures DOWN.

Notice, the affect is for only a small part of the world and for that part that is clearly in the dark more then it is getting any Light from the sun (Indirect lighting does start the warming of the planet even before the sun raise over the horizon, thus why you do NOT see the harshest form of winter in the deep South or the tropics).

Thus one of the side affects of Global Warming is a shorter but harsher winter. i.e. More snow (Warmer air carries more moisture thus more snow, the East Antarctic Ice Sheet is predicted to EXPAND under most Global Warming theories do to increase snow fall do to warmer air flowing from the Pacific to the Antarctic for example, please note I am discussing the East Antarctic Ice Sheet not the West Antarctic Ice Sheet which is predicted to collapse sometime in next few years do to Global Warnings, The East Antarctic Ice Sheet (EAIS) is expected to survive unless we have a drastic increase in Global Temperatures, the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) is expected to collapse within the next 10 years, maybe sooner or later no one really knows but it is unstable do to the fact it is based BELOW sea level and as such the warmer waters of the Pacific can heat up the Southern Ocean and thus heart up the WAIS).

I have seen pictures showing the EAIS and how it has expanded by growing around poles installed on the EAIS (The Difference between the top of the poles and the "ground" is half of what it was when the poles were first installed, a reflection of the increase ice Accumulation of the EAIS then anything else. Such an increase is expected in Global Warming, but it does NOT off set the harm caused by Global warming elsewhere.

Other areas where Global warming may be beneficial is Siberia (It is slowly thawing do to Global Warming, opening up more of Siberia for farming and other pursuits and this may be way Russia is opposing Global Warming containment issues, but it is more an excuse for the Russian Ruling Elite to pump out more oil and gas then to help poor farmers in Siberia). Northern Canada is NOT expected to be helped for it has always been colder then the rest of the Arctic (Including the North Pole Itself). Russia has been using it portion of the Arctic Ocean as a short cut between Europe and the Pacific since before WWII (And has increase such use over the last 20 years has the ice has declined even more) but Canada has not do to the extreme cold of that part of the Arctic (But even this has broken up, enough for passage of ships through Canadian waters with minimal use of ice breakers for the first time ever in the last few years). This difference is probably do to the huge flow of fresh water from Siberia into the Arctic. Those Siberian Rivers provide a huge amount of water, starting in the Himalayan Mountains, through Siberia. The McKenzie and Yukon Rivers are minor Compared to those Siberian Rivers (And the Yukon flows into the Bering Straits NOT the Arctic). Furthermore the Greenland Ice Sheet helps keep the temperature down in that part of the Arctic. Siberia has no similar huge ice sheet on its side of the Arctic (Trough the Greenland Ice Sheet is expected to melt severally over the next several decades do to global warming).

A further factor is wind, at present the theory is that the wind is a product of the planet, as a whole, trying to equal out the extreme cold of the polar regions with the extreme warmth of the tropics. It is now believed that the reason the Sahara desert formed was that the temperatures of the Sahara DROPPED over the last 5-10,000 years causing the monsoons to stop flowing from the Antarctic (Via the Atlantic Ocean) leading to a drop in moisture in the Sahara causing the desert to form (Up to the time of the Roman Empire, Horse could still be used in the Sahara, Rome introduced Camels to replace the horse as the desert was drying up even at that time period). Now, notice this was do to a DROP in world wide Temperatures NOT the increase over the last 200 years (Through may be tied in with the "Mini Ice Age" of the 1400-1850 period).

My point is simple, snowier winters are signs of Global Warming NOT signs that it is NOT occurring. Colder (but Shorter) cold snaps during the months of December and January (In the Northern Hemisphere) is also expected. None of this is expected to complete offset the longer and hotter summer months that we have been experiencing since the 1990s. The best explanation for these events, given what we know at the present time, is global warming.

Now if you want to give yourself a scare, look up what happened about 120,000 years ago at the start of the last Ice age. In many ways it is similar to what is occuring now except it was a nature increase in CO2 levels NOT the man made increase we are doing at present. Some Societist call it the "Madhouse century" for global warming appears to have lead to the start of the Ice Age. For more see the following:

http://www.imaja.com/as/environment/can/journal/madhousecentury.html

One of the reason the Arctic is not as cold as the Antarctic is do to the currents that occur under the Ice:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2072018#2073462

More threads on this concept:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x41468#41745
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x131519
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4073980#4074385
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x19573#19611
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x106152
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x182408

World Wide movement of water in the ocean:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1675587#1676836

[guardian]

39. Answer this for me please

1. Given: AGW has been occurring for the last 150 years
2. Given: AGW has been accelerating during the last 150 years
3. Given: "Thus one of the side affects of Global Warming is a shorter but harsher winter. i.e. More snow"
4. Given: "snowier winters are signs of Global Warming NOT signs that it is NOT occurring."
5. Given: "Colder (but Shorter) cold snaps during the months of December and January (In the Northern Hemisphere) is also expected."


Do you contend that the winters over the last 30 years have been "harsher" with "more snow" and "colder" than winters prior to 30 years ago?

[Odin2005]

40. OMG, it's MINNESOTA? do you think GW is going to cancel winter here you moron?

[greenhelen]

41. Bingaman: Renewables here to stay

Bingaman: Renewables Here to Stay
News

From the Hobbs News-Sun by Levi Hill--Renewable energy is here to stay, but it will require government input as the nation moves forward with green energy. That was the message from U.S. Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., Tuesday at the second Energy Conference held by the New Mexico Center for Energy Policy at the Lea County Event Center. Bingaman was the keynote speaker for the event.

The daylong conference drew more than 400 attendees from across the nation to discuss issues surrounding the nation's continued push toward energy independence and green energy. More than a dozen panelists and four panels were part of the conference. In introducing Bingaman, New Mexico Tech President Daniel Lopez said the senator was a voice of reasonableness on renewable energy, greenhouse regulations and above all cost.

"Too much of what we are buying in new technology is imported," Bingaman said during his address, adding he supports tax credits for green energy technology manufacturing that occurs domestically.

"Renewables are here to stay and in my view will be an increasingly important part of our energy supply. They are not going to be a replacement, but they will be an add-on to what we have now." In panel discussion prior to Bingaman's address, Daniel Fine, research associate for the center for energy policy, said the senator exhibited strong leadership in 2008, predicting the downfall of the oil and credit industries.

"Sen. Bingaman exhibited leadership almost alone last summer, warning that this could happen in oil and gas without controllable regulation," Fine said.

Bingaman spoke mostly of that regulation Tuesday, citing a laundry list of actions the federal government has taken in the past four years toward energy independence, efficiency and development of renewable energy sources.

Among legislation the senator cited were bills that expanded the renewable fuel standard to promote the use of biofuels, increased fuel efficiency requirements for cars and trucks, 2009 stimulus package funds directed at green projects and legislation in the works to improve energy efficiency in building standards.

The senator said the nation should have two goals in developing renewable energy -- reducing greenhouse gases and lessening the nation's dependence on foreign energy sources.

"First, we need to increase the efficiency of how we generate and transmit energy," he said. "Second, we need to diversify our sources of energy. Third, how can we find ways to produce energy that does not result in further greenhouse gases?"

In a question and answer session following the senator's address, Bingaman was asked why he supported cap and trade and not a flat carbon tax. The advantages of cap and trade included less resistance from Congress and the potential for a global cap and trade system, he said.

"There are advantages for a carbon tax, but I am not sure it is passable," he said. "There is not a lot of enthusiasm in Congress for any kind of tax, and this would be any kind of tax."

The senator also spoke of New Mexico's role as a center for renewable technology development, citing wind energy manufacturers that have sprung up in the state, geothermal projects being explored and the state's new role in the nuclear industry.

"As the topic of today's conference ... there is a new green energy economy growing up in the Southwest and it promises to rival the other energy industries we have benefited from," he said.

Lt. Gov. Diane Denish, who spoke before Bingaman, also addressed the need for fair legislation for the nation's budding renewable energy industry and said there is a cost to both action and inaction when it comes to developing renewable energies.

"There is also cost of inaction by not creating renewable energy sources," she said. "It might mean as much as $1.3 billion loss of income to our state if we miss the opportunities to implement renewable or energy efficient programs, and that number is only going to get bigger. I know the industry is up to the challenge."

Denish also cited the state's mix of energy sources, such as solar, wind and geothermal that could make the state a leader in renewable development.

[JonQ]

42. That's why the mantra was changed from global warming

to global climate change.

Before only increases in temperature could be counted. Now any kind of weather that doesn't hit the exact average for that day for the last 100 years is proof of global climate change.

[muriel_volestrangler]

43. Let me help your understanding

of, relating to, or involving the entire world

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/global

Now that the word you've seen all this time, but have never known the definition of before, has been explained to you (perhaps you thought it referred to your personal snow globe?), we'll move on to the next part: the global temperature record.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

This shows you that the Dec 2008-Nov 2009 year was the 5th warmest on record; and warmer than the previous year, the average of the previous 2 years, the average of the previous 3 years, etc., ad infinitum (OK, that's an exaggeration - ad 1880).

[guardian]

45. Is this the same NASA data on which NASA issued a retraction?

NASA Revises Temperature Data - 1930's warmest on record!

In a stunning turn of events data (quietly) released by NASA shows that the 4 warmest years ever recorded occurred in the 1930's, with the warmest year on record being 1934 (not 1998). Lets see if Al Gore revises his road show. Update - Global Warming is actually a Y2K bug!

Data discovered on NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) website revises recorded temperatures for the United States. It is expected that similar revisions will also be made for global temperature recordings. This information was discovered by Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit on Wednesday (8/8/2007). No NASA press release, no James Hansen (head of GISS) announcement, nothing. Could it be because they don't want anyone to see it? The data is certainly devastating for the Al Gore camp which has based much of their Carbon Credits sales pitch on recent temperatures (e.g. claiming that 1998 was the warmest on record).

Other aspects of the data are just as stunning.

• Only 4 of the top 10 warmest years occurred in the past 10 years (1998, 1999, 2006)

• Out of the top 10 warmest years half occurred before 1940

• The years 2000, 2002, 2003 and 2004 were cooler than the year 1900

• 1996, just two years before what Al Gore called the hottest year in the history of the planet, was actually cooler than average.

• 1921 was the third warmest year in recorded history (behind 1934 and 1998).

We're almost back to the 1970's theory of global cooling! The data clearly changes things.

Had we been living in 1934 we would have heard the same claims of global warming, this is the evidence that we would have heard at the time:

• 8 of the past 10 years had been above average.

• 1934 was the warmest year ever recorded. The warmest in over 54 years!

Shift that to 1944 and you would have seen that 17 of the past 21 years had been warmer than average. It is obvious that in just the past 125 years there have been other periods just as warm, or warmer, than what we are now experiencing. If we could look at the past 1,000 years with the accuracy of the past 100 years we would most likely find that this is not unusual at all.

Update: Turns out this NASA data was revised because of a Y2K bug in the algorithm used to adjust measurement station raw data. Blogger Finds Y2K Bug in NASA Climate Data. NASA's James Hansen has refused to release his algorithms but they were reverse engineered by Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit and NASA has since updated their data (so you know he Steve got it right). What this author finds truly disturbing (and disgusting) is that NASA would keep these algorithms secret. This is public information. Steve really should file a Freedom of Information (FOIA) request to obtain this and what ever else he needs. NASA would be very hard pressed to justify withholding that information. These events seriously call in to question anything James Hansen has touched, supervised, or managed. Not just because he got the math wrong but because he also hides his methods. He is apparently attempting to establish a new religion by requiring people to have faith in his data.

References:

• Newsbusters.org
• NASA GISS Data
• Climate Audit - Steve McIntyre's site that started it all

[muriel_volestrangler]

46. No; you still don't understand the difference between 'global' and 'United States', do you?

I know there are still a few dinosaur Americans left who think that there is no world beyond the USA, but I really didn't eexpect to find them on DU. Please, just read your own fucking posts. If you're so lazy that you just cut and paste from some denier website, you end up posting shit here, and you plainly don't realise it.

From your own fucking post:

revises recorded temperatures for the United States

From NASA:

The flaw did have a noticeable effect on mean U.S. temperature anomalies, as much as 0.15°C, as shown in the right hand side of the figure above (for years 2001 and later, and 5 year mean for 1999 and later). That half of the figure can also be viewed in a larger GIF. (Complete figure also available as PDF.)

The effect on global temperature (the left side of the figure; see larger GIF) was of order one-thousandth of a degree, so the corrected and uncorrected curves are indistinguishable.

Contrary to some statements flying around the internet, there is no effect on the rankings of global temperature. Also our prior analysis had 1934 as the warmest year in the U.S. (see the 2001 paper above), and it continues to be the warmest year, both before and after the correction to post 2000 temperatures. However, as we note in that paper, the 1934 and 1998 temperature are practically the same, the difference being much smaller than the uncertainty.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates/200708.html

So, one-thousandth of a degree. Since the global temperature anomalies are only quoted to hundredths of a degree, no, it makes bugger all difference.

And 'newsbusters'? :WTF: What the fuck are you doing posting misinformation from a premier right wing propaganda site here? A site with the slogan "Exposing Liberal Media Bias"? Have you no concern whatsoever for your credibility?

[Dead_Parrot]

47. Dude, he doesn't understand the difference between "arse" and "elbow"

I'm amazed he can put his shoes on the correct feet. Actually, I'm making an assumption there...

[PVnRT]

48. So, when there's an abnormally hot summer day

does that mean global warming is real?

Oh, wait, no, to the right-wing denialists like you, logic doesn't exist, so you can hold conflicting opinions.