a) Don’t get it.
b) Get it but not funny.
c) Like it.
d) Old joke.
e) Learn to draw, dude.
(I know it’s silly, but I was strangely attracted to the idea.)
Oh, boo! (Isn’t there a one math pun per thread limit here?)
I vote E: it’s supposed to look more like a butterfly, than infinity.
a) Didn’t get it.
The only Lorenz I’m familiar with is Konrad Lorenz- he did extensive work on animal behaviour, and is arguably more famous than the math Lorenz.
The cartoon is, however, strangely attractive to me. 
b.)
Definitely
b)
That made me smile (and groan a bit).
Between a) and c). I think I get it but I’m not sure. It slightly amused me.
c)
Maybe a hint of e), but I got it and chuckled. Or chortled. Sometimes it’s hard to tell.
the “butterfly effect” guy?
a) Didn’t get it. But then I read the wikipedia article and I still didn’t get it.
My saving grace is that I know what a Rayleigh number is (or at least I remember it from University).
b and a half) Get it but minor chuckle.
If you have a Mac, the Grapher application that comes with it has a Lorentz attractor as one of its 3-D examples. It looks like this. I don’t really understand the pretty pictures, but it’s fun to rotate the cube and look at it from different directions.
<groan>
c) and e)
c) and e) for me, too. Now go and bake some Mandelbrot.
(If you laughed at that, own up. I can’t be alone. Not here.)
Why was Johnson a math genius? He proved schools are integrable.
Hmm, moderately tough crowd.
Lorenz died last month. I can actually draw slightly better than that effort, which was done with Microsoft Paint, a dodgy optical mouse and about 60 seconds of my work day. 
a.
Assume it has something to do with the ‘infinity’ sign? I’ll go and read through the other posts now…
b)
Groooooooooaaaaaan. (B).
c.
a. (English teacher – I can diagram your post, but haven’t a clue about the picture.)
Nevermind, already explained.