Adrian gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

We might be 6th/7th in the world for GDP, but our GDP is "only" around
3% of the world's GDP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...es_by_GDP_(PPP)

Oops. Sorry. That's the "frigged figures" tables.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...y_GDP_(nominal)
6th, with 4.5%.

'course, you also seem to be assuming that every $ of GDP is responsible
for an equal emission of CO2...

Adrian wrote:
The Natural Philosopher gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

When will people realise just how insignificant and impotent we are
in a global context?

Actually, we are not.

I think we rank about tenth in therms of GDP.

We still produce just 1.7% of the world's CO2.

We may PRIDUCE only 1/7%, BUT the fact of our GDP shows that we are
indirectly RESPONIBLE for about 10%.

You seem to be getting "tenth" (place) and "10%" confused.

We might be 6th/7th in the world for GDP, but our GDP is "only" around 3%
of the world's GDP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...es_by_GDP_(PPP)

'course, you also seem to be assuming that every $ of GDP is responsible
for an equal emission of CO2...

Its a reasonably valid assumption.. and is slightly kind to developed
societies whose GDP depends MORE on energy than the underdeveloped.

Adrian wrote:
Adrian gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

We might be 6th/7th in the world for GDP, but our GDP is "only" around
3% of the world's GDP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...es_by_GDP_(PPP)

Oops. Sorry. That's the "frigged figures" tables.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...y_GDP_(nominal)
6th, with 4.5%.


Indeed. I could not remember the exact figure, but that feels about right.

We are disproportionately important in terms of some science, most
literature and a lot of music though.

I BELIEVE we actually generate MORE written English than the rest of the
world put together, and English is the de facto international language.

One thinmg taht did come over clearly from Mackays book, is just how
MUCH energy it takes to sustain a western lifestyle, and how little of
that is actually direct domestic consumption. Its far more about the
travelling you do, the goods you buy, especially food, and the
infrastructure you take for granted, than about the light bulbs you
leave on..

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Energy is neither created nor destroyed
Only according to classical physics.
Except in nuclear power stations and in stars.
And springs and batteries and everything else that stores energy.
(Not that
you can measure the differences in mass.)

Surely if you're storing energy you're not creating or destroying
it? Maybe, but it violates the conservation of mass.

You can store energy without converting it to mass.
Chemical (batteries), and mechanical (springs) methods store energy
without converting it to mass.

Oh, but they DO.

Did you go to school?

Got a degree from Cambridge University as it happens, in engineering,
and a physics A level from when it actually meant something..taught
by a Cambridge PhD in physics....

If you really believe what you've written, both your degree and your
precious A-level are worthless. You clearly have no understanding whatever
about the conditions required for matter and energy to be interconverted,
and no appreciation at all of the fact that nuclear reactions are invariably
necessary.

If they're really admitting people with your level of ignorance to your
paper qualifications, frankly it's a disgrace.

Its a very very very small change though. We calculated the
difference in weight between a discharged and charged lithium
batery. Much less than a microgram IIRC.

You calculated it _assuming_ that energy was converted into mass,
which in fact it isn't. Had you _measured_ it and found that the
mass increased on charging and decreased on discharging, then you'd
be on to something, probably a Nobel prize.


No, Id be simply confirming Einstein's relativity theory, which
wouldn't note more than two lines in the new scientist.

No, you'd be confirming 'cold fusion' which created quite a stir a few years
back. It's Nobel prize time if you can, ignominy if you can't.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Adrian wrote:
Adrian gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

We might be 6th/7th in the world for GDP, but our GDP is "only"
around 3% of the world's GDP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...es_by_GDP_(PPP)

Oops. Sorry. That's the "frigged figures" tables.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...y_GDP_(nominal)
6th, with 4.5%.


Indeed. I could not remember the exact figure, but that feels about
right.
We are disproportionately important in terms of some science, most
literature and a lot of music though.

And how important is that in a discussion on CO2 emissions?


I BELIEVE we actually generate MORE written English than the rest of
the world put together, and English is the de facto international
language.

Well, we can't be having that. We should be capturing it and pumping it
securely underground surely.

Man-wai Chang to The Door (+MS=32B) wrote:
This energy isn't wasted. Its given off as heat, which is quite useful
in a domestic house.

... if and only if you are living in cold regions....


You are posting to four newsgroups tagged "UK" (United Kingdom). It
_is_ cold for all of us. Not like HK...

Andy

Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Energy is neither created nor destroyed
Only according to classical physics.
Except in nuclear power stations and in stars.
And springs and batteries and everything else that stores energy.
(Not that
you can measure the differences in mass.)

Surely if you're storing energy you're not creating or destroying
it? Maybe, but it violates the conservation of mass.

You can store energy without converting it to mass.
Chemical (batteries), and mechanical (springs) methods store energy
without converting it to mass.

Oh, but they DO.

Did you go to school?

Got a degree from Cambridge University as it happens, in engineering,
and a physics A level from when it actually meant something..taught
by a Cambridge PhD in physics....

If you really believe what you've written, both your degree and your
precious A-level are worthless. You clearly have no understanding
whatever about the conditions required for matter and energy to be
interconverted, and no appreciation at all of the fact that nuclear
reactions are invariably necessary.

If they're really admitting people with your level of ignorance to your
paper qualifications, frankly it's a disgrace.

Its a very very very small change though. We calculated the
difference in weight between a discharged and charged lithium
batery. Much less than a microgram IIRC.

You calculated it _assuming_ that energy was converted into mass,
which in fact it isn't. Had you _measured_ it and found that the
mass increased on charging and decreased on discharging, then you'd
be on to something, probably a Nobel prize.


No, Id be simply confirming Einstein's relativity theory, which
wouldn't note more than two lines in the new scientist.

No, you'd be confirming 'cold fusion' which created quite a stir a few
years back. It's Nobel prize time if you can, ignominy if you can't.

well at least 5 posters agree with me, none with you. So who looks a
dickhead?

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 10:52:07 +0100, Java Jive wrote:

After all, it was primarily built as a source of weapons-grade plutonium,
not to supply electricity, which was just a public cover story,
and the programme stated that it was sometimes drawing power from the
grid rather than supplying power to it!

Excellent points to keep in mind, and presumably the government thought
that it was in the best interests of the citizens of the UKofGB&NI to
produce plutonium rather than electric power.

It would seem that the French do thing differently though, as France
produces 77% of its electricity by nuclear power, and thus they are
not held hostage to coal, gas, and oil supplies in the same way as
UKofGB&NI electric power generators.

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 15:47:12 +0100, Jerry wrote:

if you were put in a position were you had to kill a *White* Anglo-Saxon
person to stop your family starving you would do so

Is that because they taste better than persons of other ethnicities?

Better get a baby roaster BBQ from your nearest Sears before they sell out.

http://www.theregister.co.UK/2009/08/21/sears_baby_roaster/

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 13:51:31 +0100, Mark wrote:

We still in the G7, G8, G10, G15 etc... Someone must think our views
are not insignificant.

Or that the UKofGB&NI is a sufficiently affluent and large mass market
for the multinational corporations to target with their goods and services.

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 17:13:58 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

The end of growth as we know it, and it nearly crashed the worlds
financial systenm.

No, what crashed the world's financial systems was the selling on of
domestic mortgage debt which had been generated from banks loaning out
money to people who did not and would never have the means to repay
the loan.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
snip

[ in reply to someone else ]
: well at least 5 posters agree with me, none with you. So who
looks a
: dickhead?
:

The you and the other five, were is the proof that you (and they)
are correct?

Claiming that you're correct just because others agree doesn't
mean that you are correct, many pages on Wikipedia are wrong but
because the consensus between those who shout the loudest on the
talk pages think that they are correct the page holds incorrect
information...
--
Wikipedia: the Internet equivalent of
Hyde Park and 'speakers corner'...
Sorry, mail to this address goes unread.
Please reply via group.

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 15:31:10 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Energy is defined to be constant throughout the universe.
*Usable* energy is not.

Good point to make.

And when all of the usable energy is used up, what will the final
temperature of The Universe be?

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 13:52:43 +0100, Charles asked:

why not just throw the main breaker on the consumer unit?

Because then the food in the refrigerator and freezer would go green,
as previously discussed, with dire consequences for the digestive
tract of those who proceed to ingest the food.

In article , J G Miller wrote:
The end of growth as we know it, and it nearly crashed the worlds
financial systenm.

No, what crashed the world's financial systems was the selling on of
domestic mortgage debt which had been generated from banks loaning out
money to people who did not and would never have the means to repay
the loan.

In other words, selling bits of paper they knew to be worthless.

If you or I did this, it would be called fraud, but somehow the big
financial institutions can dress it up in fancy language and get away
with it.

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 18:22:20 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:

You clearly have no understanding whatever about the conditions required
for matter and energy to be interconverted, and no appreciation at all
of the fact that *nuclear reactions are invariably necessary*.

They must be teaching lies in physics class in schools these days.

https://www.sei.IE/Schools/Secondary_Schools/Subjects/Physics/Unit_2_-_Energy/Mass_as_Energy/

QUOTE

Conversely, even quite a large amount of energy is equivalent to a very small
amount of mass. This is why we do not notice the *increase in the mass* of a
car, for example, when it *gains speed*. The following example illustrates
just how small this increase in mass is:

UNQUOTE

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:


You calculated it _assuming_ that energy was converted into mass,
which in fact it isn't. Had you _measured_ it and found that the
mass increased on charging and decreased on discharging, then you'd
be on to something, probably a Nobel prize.

No, Id be simply confirming Einstein's relativity theory, which
wouldn't note more than two lines in the new scientist.

No, you'd be confirming 'cold fusion' which created quite a stir a
few years back. It's Nobel prize time if you can, ignominy if you
can't.
well at least 5 posters agree with me, none with you. So who looks a
dickhead?

That's strange. I've never thought of truth as just a matter of a show of
hands.

The degree of ignorance of even the simplest science never fails to astonish
me, even among those who think their educational attainments mean something.

Jerry wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
snip

[ in reply to someone else ]
: well at least 5 posters agree with me, none with you. So who
looks a
: dickhead?
:

The you and the other five, were is the proof that you (and they)
are correct?

Claiming that you're correct just because others agree doesn't
mean that you are correct, many pages on Wikipedia are wrong but
because the consensus between those who shout the loudest on the
talk pages think that they are correct the page holds incorrect
information...

Because relativity says its so. ANY release of energy is accompanied by
a loss of mass.

Its vanishingly small for typical mechanical and chemical energy, but
its there just the same.

If it isn't, relativity is falsified, and there is a huge hue and cry
out for an alternative.

Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:


You calculated it _assuming_ that energy was converted into mass,
which in fact it isn't. Had you _measured_ it and found that the
mass increased on charging and decreased on discharging, then you'd
be on to something, probably a Nobel prize.

No, Id be simply confirming Einstein's relativity theory, which
wouldn't note more than two lines in the new scientist.

No, you'd be confirming 'cold fusion' which created quite a stir a
few years back. It's Nobel prize time if you can, ignominy if you
can't.
well at least 5 posters agree with me, none with you. So who looks a
dickhead?

That's strange. I've never thought of truth as just a matter of a show
of hands.

The degree of ignorance of even the simplest science never fails to
astonish me, even among those who think their educational attainments
mean something.


The degres of ignorance of those who think that simple science actually
represents teh world accurately, never fails to astound me either.

E=mC^2. its there., If its wrong, you are right, if its right, you are
wrong.

Period.

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 18:58:25 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 17:13:58 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

The end of growth as we know it, and it nearly crashed the worlds
financial systenm.

No, what crashed the world's financial systems was the selling on of
domestic mortgage debt which had been generated from banks loaning out
money to people who did not and would never have the means to repay
the loan.

It still doesn't make sense AFAICS week after week (as last night) on
Location^3 young couples in their early 20's search for houses in the
£ 400 - 500k bracket which they intend to buy on a mortgage serviced
out of earned income (after tax naturally). 8-|

Derek

J G Miller wrote:
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 17:13:58 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

The end of growth as we know it, and it nearly crashed the worlds
financial systenm.

No, what crashed the world's financial systems was the selling on of
domestic mortgage debt which had been generated from banks loaning out
money to people who did not and would never have the means to repay
the loan.

Of course they could have repaid the loans if only someone had lent them
more money, or their governments, so they could have created yet more
stupid jobs, and raised the demand for housing even higher, so their
loans became trivial in terms of the house values.

Perpetual growth is an open ended Ponzi scheme, which worked as long a s
populations expanded along with tax takes and GDP. As soon as the growth
faltered - and it was high energy prices that caused that - the
inherent feedback put it into reverse.

Norman Wells coughed up some electrons that declared:


No, you'd be confirming 'cold fusion' which created quite a stir a few
years
back. It's Nobel prize time if you can, ignominy if you can't.

My degree's in Physics and you are clearly missing the subtle beauty of
mass/energy unification.

Fusion, and fission are both mechanisms for the transformation of some
constituent atoms into other atoms or isotopes which happen to have less
*mass at rest* (which is an important concept).

The different in mass, or mass "lost" manifests itself as energy produced.

However, you do not need to go to the extremes of nuclear reactions for
E=mc2 to become relevant.

Light is a very good example to consider.

The photon is considered to have zero mass *at rest* and yet photons possess
momentum related to their wavelength - a very "pure" manifestation of
mass/energy equivalence.

J G Miller wrote:
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 15:31:10 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Energy is defined to be constant throughout the universe.
*Usable* energy is not.

Good point to make.

And when all of the usable energy is used up, what will the final
temperature of The Universe be?

isn't it 2.7 absolute or summat?

Roderick Stewart wrote:
In article , J G Miller wrote:
The end of growth as we know it, and it nearly crashed the worlds
financial systenm.
No, what crashed the world's financial systems was the selling on of
domestic mortgage debt which had been generated from banks loaning out
money to people who did not and would never have the means to repay
the loan.

In other words, selling bits of paper they knew to be worthless.

If you or I did this, it would be called fraud, but somehow the big
financial institutions can dress it up in fancy language and get away
with it.

The governments has always sold worthless bits of paper ever since paper
currency became the norm, and the government has always been able to act
like a legalised Mafia, which is, after all, what a governemnet actually
is. The top Mafia that self legalises itself, as the price you pay for
making all the others illegal. and 'Protecting' you from the ones
outside its jurisdiction..

Rod.

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 20:44:23 +0100, Roderick Stewart wrote:

In other words, selling bits of paper they knew to be worthless.

Yes, of course -- why do you think banks and other financial institutions
are so keen to sell on debt? It is called hedging the risk, or
as some might say, distributing or even sharing (as in passing on)
the future losses to others.

If you or I did this, it would be called fraud, but somehow the big
financial institutions can dress it up in fancy language and get away
with it.

See, for example,

http://www.amazon.co.UK/Hedging-Instruments-Risk-Management-Derivatives/dp/0071443126

But remember that the whole financial system is built on perception and
trust -- how much is that GBP 10 note in your pocket actually worth, or
that stock certificate for 100 shares in Northern Rock plc?

One day the piece of paper is very valuable because others are prepared
to exchange it for lots of other pieces of paper or digits in a computer
database, and sometimes the item has even less value than the paper on
which it is printed.

Talking of digits in a computer database, do many banks have the active
account balances stored in nothing more than magnetic or optical media
or the last printed statement?

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 18:51:49 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 13:51:31 +0100, Mark wrote:

We still in the G7, G8, G10, G15 etc... Someone must think our views
are not insignificant.

Or that the UKofGB&NI is a sufficiently affluent and large mass market
for the multinational corporations to target with their goods and services.

Well, in my industry (medical x-ray) the multinationals have long ago
ceased to give any credibility to the idea that the sun shines out of
the Ar*ehole of the British Empire.

The value of the UK market to them is strictly just (however many)
units sold here per year. All the international trade shows have moved
out of the country and our status is lower than all the ex-soviet
eastern bloc countries which are now re-equipping with EU money which
largely has come from the UK.

Derek

In article , Jerry
writes

Because it will not happen the way you suggest, your so called
indigenous British population will fight each other for the
scraps of food should severe famine hit the UK, race is
irrelevant but closet resists like you Bill just can't understand
that simple fact

Its a well known fact that Bill is a closet resist. He resists going
into the closet and resists coming out of the closet. ;-)

--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

In article , Norman Wells
writes

Atmospheric extraction is totally unfeasible. Have you _any_ idea how
big the atmosphere is, and how small in comparison any man-made
extractor would be?

Yes, at surface density, it is equivalent to a uniform layer a little
less than 5 miles thick over the surface of the globe, some 200million
square miles, making the atmosphere approximately 1billion cubic miles
at surface density.

How many would we need do you think?

That depends on how fast you think we need to do it. The argument,
whether you believe it or not, is that we have managed to cause the
problem simply by a few hundred large CO2 producers over a couple of
hundred years. So a similar number of capture units should be capable
of sweeping it all up in a similar time, probably faster.

At a few hundred feet per minute a single atmospheric extraction unit
with a scrubber area of only 1 square mile, would take around 20,000 to
remove all CO2 from the atmosphere, so a distributed system of 50 such
systems around the planet would clear the problem in less time that it
took to create it in the first place - and we don't WANT to get rid of
all of the CO2 or we'd be in for a very cold future.

And wouldn't it be better to use trees as we always have?

No, because trees rely on natural air movement to access the atmosphere,
not forced air movement. And they tend to decay or be burned, releasing
their captured CO2 in the timescale.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

Owain wrote:
but in Britain
we'd just create a few New Towns in Glencoe or the Brecon Beacons.


Ah, well.

Perhaps we'd get some decent competition to the lazy unwelcoming
hostelries at the Clachaig and Kingshouse.

Bring em on.

--
Ron

Jerry coughed up some electrons that declared:

if you were put in a position were you had to
kill a *White* Anglo-Saxon person to stop your family starving
you would do so

I'd considered it until I realised you don't get much meat on a ratboy. And
the chavettes are way too fatty even by my standards.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
J G Miller wrote:
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 15:31:10 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Energy is defined to be constant throughout the universe.
*Usable* energy is not.

Good point to make.

And when all of the usable energy is used up, what will the final
temperature of The Universe be?

isn't it 2.7 absolute or summat?


Better pack a fleece, then.

And a head-torch, it might be dark.

--
Ron

Jerry coughed up some electrons that declared:


Claiming that you're correct just because others agree doesn't
mean that you are correct, many pages on Wikipedia are wrong but
because the consensus between those who shout the loudest on the
talk pages think that they are correct the page holds incorrect
information...

Please feel free to refute the Wikipedia article I cited with a sound
reasoned argument, because it fits with everything I was taught by doctors
and professors in the subject field.

Norman Wells coughed up some electrons that declared:


The degree of ignorance of even the simplest science never fails to
astonish me, even among those who think their educational attainments mean
something.

All you have done is claim that a particular statement is wrong. You haven't
AFAICS provided a scientific argument *why* is it wrong or cited any
material that backs up your assertion. What makes your claim better than
the other sources here and externally?

Ron Lowe coughed up some electrons that declared:

Owain wrote:
but in Britain
we'd just create a few New Towns in Glencoe or the Brecon Beacons.


Ah, well.

Perhaps we'd get some decent competition to the lazy unwelcoming
hostelries at the Clachaig and Kingshouse.

Bring em on.



And the welsh burning the english owned houses wouldn't do the CO2 budget
much good either...

ducks

"Tim S" wrote in message
...
: Jerry coughed up some electrons that declared:
:
: if you were put in a position were you had to
: kill a *White* Anglo-Saxon person to stop your family
starving
: you would do so
:
: I'd considered it until I realised you don't get much meat on a
ratboy. And
: the chavettes are way too fatty even by my standards.

Not quite what I meant!...

"Jerry" wrote in message
...

: The bit you snipped was where I said there's be race riots.
What's racist
: about saying that?

Because it will not happen the way you suggest, your so called
indigenous British population will fight each other for the
scraps of food should severe famine hit the UK, race is
irrelevant

Humans are instinctively tribal. For 30,000 years it was essential for
survival. So we have racism and football. That's why dividing a school into
four houses motivates the kids. It's irrational but it's deeply ingrained.
It's so much a part of human behaviour that we often don't even notice it.
So when there's a shortage of essentials the anti-immigration lobby and the
racists will be able to mobilise sufficient people to start big trouble.
This is what always happens historically. It's almost irrelevant that in
fact that the overpopulation of the UK really is largely caused by
immigration. What matters is the fact of overpopulation. If the
overpopulation had been caused by water soluble rubber johnnies it wouldn't
make any difference -- the rabble rousers would still set the baying mob on
the Asians, the Jews, or in Chester, the Welsh.

but closet resists like you Bill
Come again love?

Bill

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 21:11:53 +0100, Tim S wrote:

The photon is considered to have zero mass *at rest*

This is something that has always bewildered me.

If something has zero mass, does it exist?

*If* that is the case, then presumably photons can never be at rest,
otherwise they would cease to be.

I suppose the other point of view is that outer space exists yet it
has effectively no mass.

But does it really have zero mass since even outer space
is not a pure vacuum and there are still one or two atoms
per large volume?

However, outer space must be composed of something in certain theories
since in those theories it is argued that it is bent by gravity, and
one cannot bend something which is not there.

(Corrections or further explanation of my misapprehension gratefully awaited.)

"Kennedy McEwen" wrote in message
...
In article , Jerry
writes

Because it will not happen the way you suggest, your so called
indigenous British population will fight each other for the
scraps of food should severe famine hit the UK, race is
irrelevant but closet resists like you Bill just can't understand
that simple fact

Its a well known fact that Bill is a closet resist. He resists going into
the closet and resists coming out of the closet. ;-)

Round here, a closet is a fool. "Yer daft closet!"

Of course my grandparents' generation used the word for the room (or shed)
with the lavatory in it.

Bill

Bill Wright wrote:
"Jerry" wrote in message
...
: The bit you snipped was where I said there's be race riots.
What's racist
: about saying that?

Because it will not happen the way you suggest, your so called
indigenous British population will fight each other for the
scraps of food should severe famine hit the UK, race is
irrelevant

Humans are instinctively tribal. For 30,000 years it was essential for
survival. So we have racism and football. That's why dividing a school into
four houses motivates the kids. It's irrational but it's deeply ingrained.
It's so much a part of human behaviour that we often don't even notice it.
So when there's a shortage of essentials the anti-immigration lobby and the
racists will be able to mobilise sufficient people to start big trouble.
This is what always happens historically. It's almost irrelevant that in
fact that the overpopulation of the UK really is largely caused by
immigration. What matters is the fact of overpopulation. If the
overpopulation had been caused by water soluble rubber johnnies it wouldn't
make any difference -- the rabble rousers would still set the baying mob on
the Asians, the Jews, or in Chester, the Welsh.


Or in Bangor, the English..

I personally think all fat stupid people should be shot., and used to
make heating oil. Is there a name for that?


but closet resists like you Bill
Come again love?


He couldn't manage the first time..

Bill

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Kennedy McEwen wrote:
In article , Java Jive
writes

Unless it's fed by gravity, like the Chatsworth one that was
mentioned, and does not use mains water that is thereby wasted, which
instead you could have drunk or used to shower, it is, as you say, not
strictly necessary, and is consuming CO2.


Isn't consuming CO2 meant to be a GOOD THING? ;-)

We need more consumption of CO2!

Carbon Capture is the way to go and it is the ONLY way that Britain will
make a significant difference.

The energy to capture all that CO2 will need a dozen nuclear power plants
to drive it.

Or 86 million windmills.

Bill