Oh, and Bubbles in beer. So, fourth and 5th.
According to a docudrama, I watched, in which the Genius actor Yahoo Serious portrayed Einstein. He was instrumental in inventing bubbles in beer.
Cheers!

third and fourth most important, right after the bottle opener and beer.

It must smell like an air-freshener factory when the temperature drops....

I suspect some other motive. I mean, really, who could give a shit what Greenpeace thinks? They're a fucking joke!
I think something went sour between Legos and Shell, so Legos is just blaming Peengrease for benefit of the press.
Greenpeace never did anything of any real consequence except add comedy to news programs.

Nah, just tow them out in a rowboat. The Russians will pick them up when G.P. starts flingin poo at them.

That's what we get for accepting this democrazy horseshit last century.
Now we're up to our ass in a one party system of Repubmocrats and they're trying to gas us out as population control.
The best we can do is vote for ANYONE except a Republican or Democrat and hope enough get in to slow their evil plans down a bit.

Sorry man, it's my diet.
Thai food, burritos, sriracha sauce and cabbage.
It like-ta tore my asshole off when it came out.

Polished off a bottle of raspberry mead this summer. Yummmm
Wonder if they ever put mushrooms in it.....

Sounds like they would bleed them instead of emptying them. Their are limits to the amount you can withdraw at once. A couple machines a couple times a week would have a single guy living pretty well in a work free existence.

I'd settle for something more credible than all this. I agree with you, being good custodians IS the responsible thing to do, anyway. Meanwhile, keeping a population fed and working with a modern standard of living in industrial nations, while doing the legwork necessary to implement change that doesn't endanger the former, should be done in a trustworthy non-fanatical way. If not, lessons not learned ,they will "continue to bang their heads", "doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results" until it feels better or comes to consequence.
Do it right, and don't come running in here every 10 minutes, waving your arms and shouting, "The Sky is Falling, The Sky is Falling!" everytime one of your expensive new toys coughs up some theoretical sampling of what it could be like if only we lived in cartoonland and tell me it's credible or YOU'RE FIRED FLINTSTONE! I suppose that about sums it up.

Yes, but what is the OCEANS effect on this. Up until last week, that data was not even considered because we didn't have that data. Now we have the data within grasp and need only the time to compile it. Water covers more than 2/3 of the planet. It is silly, misleading and ignorant to produce results based on less than 1/3 of the necessary data. Further, there may be even more criteria missing, if they were stupid enough to exclude this and try to produce an end product.
It's not that I don't "think" (which is different than "know" or "believe") something may be wrong, but, it cannot be shown in these dark ages of science where money , politics and ambition ARE included in "findings".

I'm saying, instead of working their asses off to produce results, which has landed them in the question of political and monetary bias, they should work their asses off first, to include ALL the criteria necessary to produce a REAL guess.
I view this as missing over 2/3 of the data. So naturally their endeavors seem like a snake oil cure or a carnie blathering crap into a bullhorn in front of the freakshow tent.

The models are missing more than 2/3 of the data necessary to begin to believe they have a rudimentary grasp of ANYTHING.
It's a fact that results up to now are a myth propagated by career scientists and college departments striving for relevance and funding,
Nice of you to drop by and wave a flag for your favorite team; we'll call and let you know if you're needed any further.

These aren't weather models, as others will doubtless tell you.
Besides, how many weathermen are very accurate beyond 3 days?
Not good enough, even if it were a factor.

Since Oceans cover more than 2/3 of the earth, and that data is not factored due to ignorance, I'm going to call that so far from accurate, it almost appears to be blatantly manipulation by biased parties. DUH!