Science of global climate modeling confirmed by discoveries on Mars

Oct 16, 2012
Orbital photos from NASA Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter shows lobate-shaped glacier flowing down the north inner wall of crater Greg, on the planet Mars. The wall slopes downhill to the south (bottom) part of the frame. Note how flow lines drape around a small hill, on left side of the glacier.

(Phys.org)—Scientific modeling methods that predicted climate change on Earth have been found to be accurate on Mars as well, according to a paper presented at an international planetary sciences conference Tuesday.

An international team of researchers from the Planetary Science Institute in Tucson, working with French colleagues, found that an unusual concentration of glacial features on Mars matches predictions made by global climate computerized models, in terms of both age and location.

PSI Senior Scientist William K. Hartmann led the team, which included François Forget (Université Paris), who did the Martian climate modeling, and Veronique Ansan and Nicolas Mangold (Université de Nantes) and Daniel Berman (PSI), all of who analyzed spacecraft measurements regarding the glaciers.

"Some public figures imply that modeling of on Earth is 'junk science,' but if climate models can explain features observed on other planets, then the models must have at least some validity," said team leader Hartmann.

Orbital photos from NASA Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, showing ice flow features in ancient riverbeds on the south wall of crater Greg. (a). Regional view shows how hills in lower part of the frame are highly eroded by dry river channels sloping downhill to north (top). Textured, lighter toned material flows down riverbed and spreads onto the crater floor (top).

(b). Closeup view shows chevron texture on riverbed floor, indicating how the ice-rich material flowed fastest in the middle and was retarded along the channel walls.

Hartmann presented the report, "Science of Global Climate Modeling: Confirmation from Discoveries On Mars," at the annual meeting of the Division of Planetary Sciences of the in Reno, Nev.

The scientific team reached their conclusions by combining four different aspects of Martian geological mapping and Martian in recent years. They noted that the climate models, the presence of glaciers, the ages of the glacial surface layers, and radar confirmation of ice in same general area, all gave consistent results – that the glaciers formed in a specific region of Mars, due to unusual climate circumstances, just as indicated by the climate model.

The work has a long background. As early 1993, astronomers analyzed the changing tilt of Mars's and found that during high-tilt Martian episodes, the axis tilt can exceed 45 degrees. Under this extreme condition, the summer hemisphere is strongly tilted toward the sun, and Mars's polar ice cap in that hemisphere evaporates, increasing water vapor in the Martian air, thus increasing the chances for snowfall in the dark, cold, winter hemisphere. The last such episodes happened on Mars 5 million to 20 million years ago.

Sketch map of mid-latitudes on Mars, shows colored spots marking climate model predictions of maximum ice deposition on Mars during periods of extreme axial tilt. Reddest colors indicate peak ice deposits. Crater “Greg,” with unusual concentration of strong glacial features, is light-toned circle near center of ice deposition region in the lower right.

By 2001-2006, various French and American researchers applied the global climate computer models to study this effect. The computer programs were originally developed for planet Earth to estimate climate effects, from hurricane paths to CO2 greenhouse warming. Planetary scientists simply applied the Martian topography, atmosphere, and gravity, in order to run the computer calculations for Mars. The calculations indicated a strong concentration of winter snow and ice in a mid-latitude southern region of Mars, just east of a huge Martian impact basin named Hellas.

At the same time, the PSI scientists independently discovered an unusual concentration of glacial features in a 40-mile-wide crater named "Greg" centered in the same region. Their analysis showed that the surface layers of the glaciers formed at the same time as the predicted climate extremes, about 5 million to 20 million years ago.

"The bottom line is that the models indicate that the last few intense deposits of ice occurred about 5 million to 15 million years ago, virtually centered on Greg crater, and that's just where the spacecraft data reveal glaciers whose surface layers date from that time," Hartmann said. "If global indicate specific concentration of ice-rich features where and when we actually see them on a distant planet, then climate modeling should not be sarcastically dismissed. Our results provide an important, teachable refutation of the attacks on science on our home planet."

Explore further: Observing the onset of a magnetic substorm

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Radar Map of Buried Mars Layers Matches Climate Cycles

Sep 22, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- New, three-dimensional imaging of Martian north-polar ice layers by a radar instrument on NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter is consistent with theoretical models of Martian climate swings ...

Mars's dramatic climate variations are driven by the Sun

Sep 06, 2012

On Mars's poles there are ice caps of ice and dust with layers that reflect to past climate variations on Mars. Researchers from the Niels Bohr Institute have related the layers in the ice cap on Mars's north ...

Scientists ask: ‘What’s the weather like on Mars?’

Jul 28, 2005

The launch of NASA’s Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO) from Cape Canaveral in Florida on 10 August 2005 will be a tense time for scientists from Oxford, as they witness the third attempt to get their instrument to Mars ...

Mars Express mission extended

Sep 22, 2005

ESA’s Mars Express mission has been extended by one Martian year, or about 23 months, from the beginning of December 2005. The decision, taken on 19 September by ESA’s Science Programme Committee, allows ...

Martian Weather

Mar 16, 2010

The Mars Global Surveyor (MGS) is a NASA mission that arrived at Mars in September, 1997, and for nine years circled the planet every two hours in a polar orbit (that is, traveling from the north pole to the ...

Recommended for you

Observing the onset of a magnetic substorm

7 hours ago

Magnetic substorms, the disruptions in geomagnetic activity that cause brightening of aurora, may sometimes be driven by a different process than generally thought, a new study in the Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Ph ...

We are all made of stars

10 hours ago

Astronomers spend most of their time contemplating the universe, quite comfortable in the knowledge that we are just a speck among billions of planets, stars and galaxies. But last week, the Australian astronomical ...

ESA video: The ATV-5 Georges Lemaitre loading process

10 hours ago

This time-lapse video shows the ATV-5 Georges Lemaitre loading process and its integration on the Ariane 5 launcher before its transfer and launch to the International Space Station from Europe's Spaceport in Kourou, French ...

Titan's subsurface reservoirs modify methane rainfall

12 hours ago

(Phys.org) —The international Cassini mission has revealed hundreds of lakes and seas spread across the icy surface of Saturn's moon Titan, mostly in its polar regions. These lakes are filled not with water ...

User comments : 45

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

axemaster
3.6 / 5 (20) Oct 16, 2012
In before the deniers come up with yet another absurd set of accusations against climate scientists. Let's see if I can list some of them:

Global Warming isn't happening / is good because:
-Scientists say alarming things because they want research money.
-Scientists are part of a global conspiracy to use the UN to punish America.
-Scientists don't know what they're talking about.
-God creates the weather. He won't let anything bad happen.
-It's the Sun!!!
-It's cosmic rays.
-The Antarctic ice sheet is growing.
-The global temp has been flat for the past decade.
-CO2 helps the plants grow better, thus it is good for humanity.

Blah blah blah. I'm sure I could list even more idiotic fallacies, but I'm too lazy. Let's see what they can come up with that isn't on my list.
thermodynamics
3.3 / 5 (14) Oct 16, 2012
Nice job axemaster. I can only add that VT will swarm aboard claiming it is the electric currents from the universe that is heating all of the planets. And, don't forget the claim that there are tens of thousands of volcanoes under the water heating the ocean. Lets see if they can surprise with some new ones. :-)
ScooterG
2 / 5 (19) Oct 16, 2012
"Scientific modeling methods that predicted climate change on Earth have been found to be accurate on Mars as well, according to a paper presented at an international planetary sciences conference Tuesday."

If the climate models accurately predicted Earth climate (as they claim), then why do the models need to be verified? Accurate is accurate. Why all the hubris and defensive rhetoric? Obviously, their climate model does not speak for itself.

I smell a rat.
asherdanner
2.6 / 5 (13) Oct 16, 2012
Let me get this right...

1. Water flows the same on Mars as on Earth.
2. When the tilt of a planet makes an area dark for a long time glaciers form.
3. ????
4. All Earth climate models are correct

Is that the correct logic for this article?
gregor1
2.1 / 5 (18) Oct 16, 2012
Climate models are simply wonderful! They can predict everything! They're sciences' unicorns. When they predicted the Antarctic sea ice to be shrinking and it was actually growing they were right both times! The unfalsifiable hypothesis is back! Religion trumps science and the world is once again a magical place!
ubavontuba
2 / 5 (12) Oct 16, 2012
gregor1:
Climate models are simply wonderful! They can predict everything! They're sciences' unicorns. When they predicted the Antarctic sea ice to be shrinking and it was actually growing they were right both times! The unfalsifiable hypothesis is back! Religion trumps science and the world is once again a magical place!
Those last few posts are collectively great, but yours busted me up. Good job.

And just so no one can say you're full of it:

Antarctic Temperatures Disagree with Climate Model Predictions

and:

Melting sea ice threatens emperor penguins, study finds (w/ Video)


gregor1
2.1 / 5 (15) Oct 17, 2012
It's time we all had a good laugh. Only clowns could write an article like this and personally I'm thankful for it. In years to come they will be prime examples of how not to do science. It's high time all so called 'climate scientists' put their vested interested interests on the table, weather it be investments in so called 'green' technology companies or membership of activist organizations. The same can be said of journalists too. Science can't exist without objectivity. Spreading false information helps nobody, particularly the 'cause' it's supposedly promoting.
gregor1
2.3 / 5 (16) Oct 17, 2012
"The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments."
― Friedrich Nietzsche
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (9) Oct 17, 2012
Climate models are simply wonderful!


No, climate models are useful in predicting a range of probabilities based on given parameters as suggested by past and current conditions.

Go stick your head back in your, erm, sand.
Maggnus
3.4 / 5 (10) Oct 17, 2012
If the climate models accurately predicted Earth climate (as they claim), then why do the models need to be verified? Accurate is accurate. Why all the hubris and defensive rhetoric? Obviously, their climate model does not speak for itself.

I smell a rat.


What you actually smell is the rot of your own ignorance. Apparently the term "scientific method" is lost on you.
Claudius
2.6 / 5 (10) Oct 17, 2012
It has been a mystery why Earth's warming trend was mirrored on Mars. Of course, anthropogenic effects must be the cause, what else could it be?
rubberman
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 17, 2012
"The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments."
― Friedrich Nietzsche


Ironically posted by a GW denier. Nietzsche's skeleton just vomited in it's grave. Why would you attach a cause to observed evidence, to science? Scientists don't have causes, they simply observe and calculate in order to prove or disprove a hypothesis. People who aren't scientists percieve the information provided
in their own way and apply it to their own cause.
As far as models go, they perform as designed when they have all of the variables correctly entered, they are painstaking to build and modify and are more complex than the denialist brain has the capacity to fathom, hence why they distrust them. I'm not saying they function perfectly, but that is the human component of information input that is lacking, not the model itself.
Claudius
2 / 5 (8) Oct 17, 2012
models... perform as designed when they have all of the variables correctly entered...
...that is the human component of information input that is lacking, not the model itself.


The human component, hubris, is believing that if you make a good enough model, you can model a highly chaotic system, and use it to make reliable predictions.
gregor1
1.8 / 5 (10) Oct 17, 2012
I am not a 'GW denier' and your apparent anger at my insult to the holy works of CACG (models ) merely serves to stress my point. Models are only useful when seen as a work in progress but become scientifically toxic when billed as 'settled science'. To be real science their creation needs to be transparent, reproducable, and the hypothesis ' that the world's climate system can be modelled such that future climate can be predicted' needs to be testable. Saying it works on Mars therefore it must work on Earth is sheer nonsense and whoever wrote this must be knowingly spreading false information.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (6) Oct 17, 2012
their creation needs to be transparent, reproducable
Who says it's not? Many of these models are fully open-source:
http://www.realcl...GCM_code

For all of the models, there are detailed mathematical and algorithmic descriptions given in published literature.
the hypothesis ' that the world's climate system can be modelled such that future climate can be predicted' needs to be testable
It's routine during a model's development to "teach" the model using some subset of past climate, and then run it forward to see if it can correctly reproduce subsequent epochs of past climate that it did not encounter during its 'training'.
Saying it works on Mars therefore it must work on Earth is sheer nonsense and whoever wrote this must be knowingly spreading false information.
You're clueless. That the same model works on Mars with no algorithmic modifications, means it correctly models atmospheric circulation and heat transport processes.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (6) Oct 17, 2012
If anything, Mars is a far simpler system to model in detail: it is smaller (less surface area), has much thinner atmosphere with fewer constituents (mostly C02), has virtually no water in the atmosphere (almost no clouds and far simpler precipitation cycles with no hydrology to speak of), and has no oceans (so, no need to worry about dynamic oceanic currents, heat exchange between ocean and atmosphere, dynamic surface coupling effects, etc.)

Running global climate models developed for Earth successfully with respect to Mars, provides independent confirmation that the functional subset of GCMs that deals with atmospheric circulation and radiative and convective heat transfer through the atmosphere, is based on sound physical principles and is not missing anything major with respect to the actual processes that go on in nature. So to improve the current crop GCM's, one should rather look to codes dealing with clouds, oceans, aerosols, vegetation, land erosion/weathering, etc.
gregor1
2.1 / 5 (11) Oct 17, 2012
My point is that Climate Science has been poorly sold to the public by activist scientists who have removed the uncertainty to gild the Lilly. By treating the public as idiots they've sunk their own ship. With regard to the article and your post above what this study confirms is that part of the climate models are correct but we still have a long way to go before we understand the forcings here on Earth. The title of this article removes the uncertainty and, to my mind, is misleading propaganda
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (5) Oct 17, 2012
By treating the public as idiots they've sunk their own ship.
On one hand, the public routinely proves it's little more than an assemblage of idiots...

For instance, the great majority of the public in America is scientifically illiterate, e.g. see here:
http://eric.ed.go...4399.pdf
(start reading from the 'Status of Scientific Literacy' section on 'page 304')

Plus most non-scientists have no comprehension of the meaning of uncertainty, and tend to think that anything with uncertainty attached can be discarded wholesale as "unproven".

On the other hand, most of those doing the publicizing are not "activist scientists" but journalists and politicians, and among those two groups oversimplification and gimmickry are par for the course. Why should that be so? Because it is readily accepted and indeed demanded by the idiot public, and because it is so effective when applied to the idiot public.

Both in government and in the press, the public always gets what it asks for.
gregor1
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 17, 2012
There is much we agree on but I really don't think collectively the public are idiots. The failure of the Climate Community to sell alarm is evidenced by the lack of a mention of this issue in the Presidential debates and surely this failure needs to be acknowledged and a new tak conceived of. Otherwise it's the peddelers of nonsense who are the idiots. What I believe is we need honesty and objectivity now more than ever. For the sake of the planet we need a rational environment movement , not one that commits intellectual suicide with outrageous hyperbole and unbelievable fear mongering.
rubberman
5 / 5 (3) Oct 18, 2012
There is much we agree on but I really don't think collectively the public are idiots. The failure of the Climate Community to sell alarm is evidenced by the lack of a mention of this issue in the Presidential debates and surely this failure needs to be acknowledged and a new tak conceived of. Otherwise it's the peddelers of nonsense who are the idiots. What I believe is we need honesty and objectivity now more than ever. For the sake of the planet we need a rational environment movement , not one that commits intellectual suicide with outrageous hyperbole and unbelievable fear mongering.


It isn't in the debates because the American public has voiced it's opinion on where climate change stands on levels of personal importance. The alarm bells have been sounded by the scientific community for several years, most of the planet seems content to sleep through it, this is why PE is correct with the "idiots" evaluation. I agree with your call for honesty and rationality though.
rubberman
5 / 5 (2) Oct 18, 2012
models... perform as designed when they have all of the variables correctly entered...
...that is the human component of information input that is lacking, not the model itself.


The human component, hubris, is believing that if you make a good enough model, you can model a highly chaotic system, and use it to make reliable predictions.


I'm all for abolishing the word perfect from all languages on earth. A good model doesn't only make reliable predictions on future behaviour of it's subject, it exposes the variables that have been missed when things don't go as predicted. Considering what is at stake, every climate scientist on earth would abandon modelling in favor of a MORE reliable means of attempting to predict the future. PE's second paragraph of his second post is an excellent desription of the situation in the article. The fact we are human means there will always be missing variables.
VendicarD
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 20, 2012
Dumber than dirt.

'If the climate models accurately predicted Earth climate (as they claim), then why do the models need to be verified?' - ScooTard
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4 / 5 (4) Oct 20, 2012
And just so no one can say you're full of it: And just so no one can say you're full of it: Antarctic Temperatures Disagree with Climate Model Predictions and: Melting sea ice threatens emperor penguins, study finds


He, and you, are full of it. You link to an article describing how difficult it is to predict local, not global, AGW effects in the Antarctic especially. The present article shows how easy it is in some cases. Such as has been the case for the _Arctic_ ices. Oops, for you.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 20, 2012
With regard to the article and your post above what this study confirms is that part of the climate models are correct but we still have a long way to go before we understand the forcings here on Earth. The title of this article removes the uncertainty and, to my mind, is misleading propaganda


The title doesn't remove uncertainty but confirms it, it describes how a theory passes yet another test. A superficial survey of statistical hypothesis testing shows you how _it is based in uncertainty_. Hence it is you who "removes the uncertainty".

Moreover it is a precise title as titles goes. Remember that they aren't part of the article text that the author certifies. It is the paper that choose it so it can sell.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 20, 2012
[cont] Most importantly, articles is not the science. But they have proven a medium for misleading propaganda for climate denialists. It is ironic to blaim scientists for the same structural problem that once lead to the tobacco industry denial of cancer effects being a successful blocking strategyu, since no one changed the system.

As another article here notes, it is now too late to entirely mitigate the already observable effects of AGW by the cheap (actually positive ROI) methods of lowering AGW gas release. Instead scientists are gearing up to make societies adjust. In another irony denialists should be happily embracing that, even if ROI will be mostly negative. (Some gain will come from having more robust societies, say able to survive more and more energetic hurricanes.)

But the bet will be that they will continue to blame scientists for the ills of society.
VendicarD
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 21, 2012
Gregor makes me laugh.

He is like some kind of anti-science eliza program.

I will never understand his kind of willful ignorance.

"Climate models are simply wonderful! They can predict everything!" - Gregor
Sean_W
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 21, 2012
"If global climate models indicate specific concentration of ice-rich features where and when we actually see them on a distant planet, then climate modeling should not be sarcastically dismissed."

What about non-sarcastically dismissed, Touchy McTouchypants?

At best, this model predicted climate existence not climate change. Please use the model to show how changes in the Marsian environment (like the amount of CO2 in gas vs solid form) will affect changes in the Marsian climate. Then watch for evidence of correlation between atmospheric CO2 and temperature and collect evidence that the CO2 change happened first. See how that works? Prediction then confirmation or rejection.

Or you can just say that you predicted where it's cold on Mars and call that proof of AGW then pre-emptively call people names if they doubt you. That might work too.

AngelaMaddams
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 10, 2012
Amazing how in the face of so much evidence people still believe climate change is extremely unlikely.
gregor1
1.8 / 5 (10) Dec 11, 2012
The climate has always changed and often dramatically. The question is, is human activity catastrophically effecting this and we won't know until we manage to tease out the natural variation from the human signature. Anyone who thinks this has been done please post a link
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (4) Dec 11, 2012
gregor1: How about this one:

http://phys.org/n...ise.html

Of course you probably skipped that or it will not meet your requirements. However, that took me 20 seconds to find. Please use a search engine to show there is no separation of signal and noise.
FrankHerbert
3.4 / 5 (8) Dec 11, 2012
Hey! I found one of those hockey sticks AGW deniers are always claiming can't possibly exist!

http://danieljmit...urve.jpg

Oh wait, I guess that's a scythe, not a hockey stick. Totally valid guys, nevermind.
VendicarD
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 12, 2012
"If the climate models accurately predicted Earth climate (as they claim), then why do the models need to be verified?" - ScooTard

The answer is obvious.

You have bugs in your pants.

Is there anything else you need explained?
VendicarD
4 / 5 (4) Dec 12, 2012
It looks more like a boomerang to me, and it seems to have come back on them and hit them in the ass, right where they keep their brains.

"Hey! I found one of those hockey sticks AGW deniers are always claiming can't possibly exist!" - FrankHerbert

Have you noticed that the "peak" has been slowly shifting to the left over the last 30 years?

It's almost like they have been boiling a nation of ConservaTard Frogs.
VendicarD
4 / 5 (4) Dec 12, 2012
Google search - About 2,980,000 results (0.25 seconds)

http://www.grida....R-12.pdf

"Anyone who thinks this has been done please post a link" - GregorTard

Let us know if you need any more of those 3 million links.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (7) Dec 12, 2012
So, when do the executions of extraneous and superfluous humans, animals and plants begin, (for the purpose of averting the possibility of becoming like Mars...), starting with the executions of Scott Nudds aka VendicarD aka Vendicar_Decarian; Theghostofotto1923 (Blotto) aka FrankHerbutt and many other sock puppets; AlGore; rubberman; howhot; thermodynamics aka Blotto's sock puppet; axemaster; Maggnus aka antialias_physorg; Torbjorn; and all the rest of the AGW alarmists?

There's an old saying that goes, "Those who smelt, dealt it". This saying is quite appropriate regarding your AGW alarmists who freak out in each thread with warnings of dire consequences if fossil fuels usage aren't discontinued and are reduced to name-calling and ad hominem attacks on those who don't conform to their tired, and tiring BS.
A true believer in AGW who really wants to avert the dubious disasters would, if he was honest, stop using those fuels without exception.
obama_socks
1 / 5 (6) Dec 12, 2012
AlGore and his retinue continues to fly using up expensive and highly polluting jet fuel and heats his mansions with fossil fuels also since solar panels are useless (for the most part) at night. His attitude? Tough on you Americans. Eat it.

The phony renewable energy President in the White House still flies on Air Force One and Marine One and stimulates failing solar and battery companies with taxpayer money until they go bankrupt. He also holds extravagantly expensive dinners and soirees at the White House (at taxpayer expense) using more energy. His attitude? Tough on you Americans. Eat it.

Liberals/Socialists/Democrats expect everyone else to heed the AGW alarmists' warnings and stop using fossil fuels, but THEY still fly aboard planes using jet fuel, and drive cars or ride in cars using fossil fuels. THEIR attitude? Tough on you Americans. Eat it.

It's the old saw: "Do as I say, not as I do". This is why people are more apt to DISBELIEVE the AGW line of lines. so much hypocricy
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (4) Dec 12, 2012
Wow. Thanks OS. No one has linked me as a sock-puppet before. I am not, of course, but why do you think I am?
obama_socks
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 12, 2012
Could have you mistaken for someone else...if I did, then I apologize.
VendicarD
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 13, 2012
Well, Sox, in another thread you threatened to murder me, saying that I would die before I hit the ground.

"So, when do the executions of extraneous and superfluous humans, animals and plants begin," - Cowardly-Sox

If you would just give me your real name and address, I'll be over for a visit and you can start on your executions.

So your real name and address is?
VendicarD
4 / 5 (4) Dec 13, 2012
Of course we are all the same person, and so is everyone else on earth except you.

Do you think that those two parasite, welfare bums you have raised as children are one of me as well?

That is why we are all against you, and your life is so shitty.

"Scott Nudds aka VendicarD aka Vendicar_Decarian; Theghostofotto1923 (Blotto) aka FrankHerbutt and many other sock puppets; AlGore; rubberman; howhot; thermodynamics aka Blotto's sock puppet; axemaster; Maggnus aka antialias_physorg; Torbjorn; and all the rest of the AGW alarmists?" - Cowardly Sox
VendicarD
4 / 5 (4) Dec 13, 2012
I burn less than 50 gallons of fuel per year.

How about you?

"A true believer in AGW who really wants to avert the dubious disasters would, if he was honest, stop using those fuels without exception." - Cowardly Sox

VendicarD
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 13, 2012
"Do as I say, not as I do". - Cowardly Sox

Sounds like something Welfare Queen Ayn Rand said.

Did you know that she named herself after a typewriter?

If she had been born a few years later she would have called herself "Pong", and if born during the Bush Era, would probably have called herself "MetroTwit".

Shinobiwan Kenobi
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 14, 2012
Wow. Thanks OS. No one has linked me as a sock-puppet before. I am not, of course, but why do you think I am?


He's paranoid and delusional, I've lost count of how many articles there are with OS whining about puppets attacking him.
VendicarD
3.8 / 5 (4) Dec 14, 2012
Doesn't the words "paranoid" and "delusional" describe every Tea Bagger in America?

Consider RyggTard and ParkerTard (now long gone)
Shinobiwan Kenobi
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 14, 2012
Doesn't the words "paranoid" and "delusional" describe every Tea Bagger in America?


Absolutely. Fox News prepares them well with fearmongering and pieces spun so hard that gyroscopes are jealous.

Hide yer guns! Bama's gonna send in the feminists with coat-hangers to take em so 90% of the US population can be shipped off to the FEMA prison camps! I seen it on Beck TV!