Dawson 1st MRB

wtf, where do you guys find these threads?

Get in loser, we’re getting health insurance.

I think you can sign up for beta right now. While what you can do with this seems pretty amazing. Don't kid yourself, it's complicated. Not to mention doing a 5 minute scene will likely take several full days.

that's really helpful. Thanks

I've got my aluminium helmet on, do you?

It's totally real.

True. It depends on how you measure the economy. Here is one more based upon GDP. The economic impacts of carbon pricing http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-limits-economy.htm I also read the previous one a little bit more and found it a little lacking. It focuses on one study where looking at metadata would be more helpful.

Claim: Renewable energy investment kills jobs http://www.skepticalscience.com/renewable-...-kills-jobs.htm

this is a good point richards. I think that belief is at the heart of this matter. When so much evidence exists, why use deductive reasoning when you have inductive reasons?

True, they are different issues with different outcomes, but what caused the perception of such an important issue to change? stay on topic, no one needs convincing, yet. But we did cooperate with acid rain and the hole in the ozon layer. Actually there is a great deal of research in this area, it is, perhaps, more accurate to say that when given a choice, a typical person will choose that which benefits him/her-self as well as the group as a whole. Rarely are decisions 2 sided. I'm not so concerned with how they rationalize, but why. Your conclusion seems anecdotal rather than based on empirical evidence

It's natural... A natural cycle requires a forcing, and no known forcing exists that fits the fingerprints of observed warming - except anthropogenic greenhouse gases. More on that

That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 19 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science. More specifically, around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position. more on that

I'm looking for some answers. What I see is a complete disbelief with global warming and I don't understand why global warming has had such a difficult time being understood by the mainstream population as ideas were of such a similar nature were 15-20 years ago. I'm speaking of acid rain and the hole in the ozone layer. In 1995 America came together on this issue and added to the clean air act in such a way that both of these problems were significantly reduced, although I do need to mention that another hole has appeared in the ozone layer and acidity of rain was reduced by 50%, but I digress. The nation came together, republican and democrat, conservative and liberal, and placed business interests aside. The people said this is how this shit works from now on. I don't see that today. There is, perhaps, more empirical evidence of global warming than acid rain, and yet acid rain was accepted by all, GW is only accepted by some. Regardless of what you believe on the issue, what changed? What is so different between global warming and acid rain? TL; DR; Don't write a fucking paper guys.

We'd all TK each other after the photo.

Matt Cain Inadvertently Makes Houston Astros Part Of Baseball History http://www.theonion.com/articles/matt-cain...ros-part,28536/

4/10