The Back Room

Cheese sandwich is good, yes - but Bacon Butty is better! Real men don't use instructions. They are only the manufacturers opinion on how to put the thing together. Manfred R. Bihy: "Looks as if OP is learning resistant."

But surely a processing temperature >= 38C (critical for good curd formation), rather than the typical 30C to 35C used for ripening and setting of cheese milk will contribute to global warming? This paper should have been denounced, and the perpatrators' carbon sequestered. The 1-legged bar stool of understanding is supported by booze. Equipped with that, I know everything, and the rest of you are just a bunch of ignorant peasants with dung on your boots. A R G H

Dalek Dave wrote: Chocolate biscuits ate VATable. HM Revenue and Excise are certifiable. (Which is why Jaffa Cakes became a court case) The 1-legged bar stool of understanding is supported by booze. Equipped with that, I know everything, and the rest of you are just a bunch of ignorant peasants with dung on your boots. A R G H

WatchBlog (Democrats & Liberals) wrote: Solving global warming can not be accomplished through technology, taxes (regardless of the type), political action or by any other top-down means. These things are necessary, but not sufficient. Global warming can only be solved if we get individual citizens to participate. Calculating carbon footprints is a great way to start. Ils sont fous, ces romains americains. The 1-legged bar stool of understanding is supported by booze. Equipped with that, I know everything, and the rest of you are just a bunch of ignorant peasants with dung on your boots. A R G H

We are but phantoms come and gone within a night's repose. We are but phantoms come and gone - There is no news from Wincanton - We are but phantoms come and gone within a night's repose. The 1-legged bar stool of understanding is supported by booze. Equipped with that, I know everything, and the rest of you are just a bunch of ignorant peasants with dung on your boots. A R G H

Which has nothing to do with what I said. One isn't "rich" unless there is in fact something that one can acquire which others cannot. And most often it means many more options and substantially much more accumulation of those optionals items as well. A billionaire might not be able to build and run a super tanker fleet and a large oil processing plant but they wouldn't need to either to support whatever fancy they had. They can buy a small well, find ways to transport the crude and process it at a small plant can thus continue use it as they want. Your original statement suggested that there was some strategy that would preclude the "rich" from acquiring fossil fuels even if they wanted it. Which simply is not true. Again because that is the basis of the very definition of what "rich" means.

People still use hotmail?

You would be surprised, believe me! :omg: "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s." climate-models-go-cold

too bad I can't 5 your rant... :laugh:

It may be old over there, but I never heard of it. :laugh: :laugh: A hidden needle is way more effective than an unsheathed sword.

Oakman wrote: But that, in turn, I am afraid, begs the question as to why you think there is a solution. Well we'd never gone to the moon before either, and that made history. I would say that no solution is giving up and not learning from the history you're talking about. By the way I've read the last quote. You know the saying about history repeating itself. Well, who doesn't release stuff like that ? Microsoft software is just as bad. Christian Graus That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_

Classic! :) The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s. http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/04/07/climate-models-go-cold/

Not all Muslims. It was leaders from both sides and their ego which was responsible for the partition, not the common man. Regarding Afghanistan & Pakistan the root cause of problem is the division of people by Durand line (which was result of treaties between the Britain and Russia).

It is the father's house, but the kid is 20 and enlisted so he doesn't really have his own house either. Craigslist Troll: litaly@comcast.net "I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours. " — Hunter S. Thompson

Sahir Shah wrote: When I pointed out the discrepancy in the dates to Oakman, he realised his mistake, deleted his comment and went underground :thumbsup: What a hero he is.

Send me your address and bank account number and I'll get that you ASAP! ;)

Nothing of interest to you I assume. :) Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost

riced wrote: For the FACE results, demonstrate that they will not be carried over to the actual environment. Wrong. The FACE experiments got a 16% increase in yield. Farmers have ben using CO2 enrichment, recomended as 1000 PPM by at least one government, to increase crop yields for decades. riced wrote: Also demonstrate that a 1 degree rise in temperature will not remove an equal or greater offsetting amount of crops from production. Due only to temperature? Easy, farmers have been using greenhouses to grow plants for centuries. riced wrote: Now I don't think you can demonstrate these effects Just did. riced wrote: Just think of the number of drugs that have been tested, both in labs and clinical trials, that have either proved ineffective or produced unexpected side effects e.g. Thalidomide. If it had been tested for as long as Farmers have been using greenhouses and CO2 enrichment they would have come across its side effects. Like I said, Farmers have been using greenhouses and CO2 enrichment for a vey long time to increase crop yields. Those are the facts. Proved, empirical, known. :) Sure, you are going to say that in the 'real world', which is according to you is somehow different to the thousands of square kilometers of greenhouses used globally things will be different. But do you have any kind of evidence that that is so? Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost