Bio-fuel lunacy.
 

The idea of biofuel was to combat global warming which would cause
land loss due to rising sea levels.
Well f*ck me, it seems biofuel has destroyed land available
for food crops in a couple of months than global warming would have
done in the next century.

Seems like some overpaid moron w*anker scientist/enviromentlist
has got his sums wrong somewhere down the line.

Bio-fuel lunacy.
 

On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 23:06:44 +0000, Lord Turkey Cough wrote:

The idea of biofuel was to combat global warming which would cause
land loss due to rising sea levels.
Well f*ck me, it seems biofuel has destroyed land available
for food crops in a couple of months than global warming would have
done in the next century.

Seems like some overpaid moron w*anker scientist/enviromentlist
has got his sums wrong somewhere down the line.

What has this got to do with uk.tech.digital-tv?

Bio-fuel lunacy.
 

"Mike Thomas" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 23:06:44 +0000, Lord Turkey Cough wrote:

The idea of biofuel was to combat global warming which would cause
land loss due to rising sea levels.
Well f*ck me, it seems biofuel has destroyed land available
for food crops in a couple of months than global warming would have
done in the next century.

Seems like some overpaid moron w*anker scientist/enviromentlist
has got his sums wrong somewhere down the line.

What has this got to do with uk.tech.digital-tv?
Nothing, but it's always fun to point out how the current green madness is
causing wrong decisions to be made. Since we're all going to hell in a
handcart the details of the cart are probably more important than digital
TV.

Bill

Bio-fuel lunacy.
 

On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 23:06:44 GMT, "Lord Turkey Cough"
wrote:

Well f*ck me, it seems biofuel has destroyed land available
for food crops in a couple of months than global warming would have
done in the next century.

Some idiots will believe any old claptrap, even from a well-known
troll, as long as it leans in the "right" direction.
--
http://www.robinfaichney.org/

Bio-fuel lunacy.
 

"Mike Thomas" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 23:06:44 +0000, Lord Turkey Cough wrote:

The idea of biofuel was to combat global warming which would cause
land loss due to rising sea levels.
Well f*ck me, it seems biofuel has destroyed land available
for food crops in a couple of months than global warming would have
done in the next century.

Seems like some overpaid moron w*anker scientist/enviromentlist
has got his sums wrong somewhere down the line.

What has this got to do with uk.tech.digital-tv?


Half-wit likes trolling here

--
Alex

"I laugh in the face of danger , then I hide until it goes away"

Bio-fuel lunacy.
 

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 09:02:26 +0100, Bill Wright wrote:

"Mike Thomas" wrote in message
has got his sums wrong somewhere down the line.

What has this got to do with uk.tech.digital-tv?
Nothing, but it's always fun to point out how the current green madness is
causing wrong decisions to be made. Since we're all going to hell in a
handcart the details of the cart are probably more important than digital
TV.

OK. So long as you understand that this thread was started by a troll
as a crosspost with other groups and is therefore likely to become as
large as one of Angrymadman's **MORE**DOG********!!!! crossposted threads.

Bio-fuel lunacy.
 

"Mike Thomas" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 23:06:44 +0000, Lord Turkey Cough wrote:

The idea of biofuel was to combat global warming which would cause
land loss due to rising sea levels.
Well f*ck me, it seems biofuel has destroyed land available
for food crops in a couple of months than global warming would have
done in the next century.

Seems like some overpaid moron w*anker scientist/enviromentlist
has got his sums wrong somewhere down the line.

What has this got to do with uk.tech.digital-tv?

You eat food in uk.tech.digital-tv don't you?
Or do you live off transistors, aerials and old set top boxes?

Can I take it that uk.tech.digital-tv is in favour of world starvation?

Bio-fuel lunacy.
 

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 16:56:28 GMT, "Lord Turkey Cough"
wrote:

"Mike Thomas" wrote in message
...

What has this got to do with uk.tech.digital-tv?

You eat food in uk.tech.digital-tv don't you?
Or do you live off transistors, aerials and old set top boxes?

Can I take it that uk.tech.digital-tv is in favour of world starvation?

plonk
--
http://www.robinfaichney.org/

Bio-fuel lunacy.
 

"Lord Turkey Cough" wrote in message
...

"Mike Thomas" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 23:06:44 +0000, Lord Turkey Cough wrote:

The idea of biofuel was to combat global warming which would cause
land loss due to rising sea levels.
Well f*ck me, it seems biofuel has destroyed land available
for food crops in a couple of months than global warming would have
done in the next century.

Seems like some overpaid moron w*anker scientist/enviromentlist
has got his sums wrong somewhere down the line.

What has this got to do with uk.tech.digital-tv?

You eat food in uk.tech.digital-tv don't you?
Or do you live off transistors, aerials and old set top boxes?

Can I take it that uk.tech.digital-tv is in favour of world starvation?




OK, let's explore this. Petrol etc gets so expensive and rare that we turn
to bio fuels. Farmers (who - poor souls - have been suffering under the
hands of the Supermarkets) turn to growing bio fuels instead, because they
get paid more to grow this stuff. Staple food prices go up, because the
farmers give us a choice (pay more for it or we won't grow it). We have to
choose between personal transport and food. We make our choices and the
market levels out. Farmers are laughing all the way to the bank and
everyone else is a little worse off. Those that can't afford the new food
prices starve to death. World population goes down, resulting in less of
all the current problems in the world. None of this has anything whatsoever
to do with global warming or climate change. However, much of this possible
scenario could be avoided with a bit of thought. Perhaps bio fuel
harvesting will be the focus we all need to get our priorities right. Or
perhaps not........................


Chas

Bio-fuel lunacy.
 

"Robin Faichney" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 23:06:44 GMT, "Lord Turkey Cough"
wrote:

Well f*ck me, it seems biofuel has destroyed land available
for food crops in a couple of months than global warming would have
done in the next century.

Some idiots will believe any old claptrap, even from a well-known
troll, as long as it leans in the "right" direction.

I was going by the big item about this in yesterday's Times.

Bill

Bio-fuel lunacy.
 

"Robin Faichney" wrote in message
...
Can I take it that uk.tech.digital-tv is in favour of world starvation?

plonk

As I understand it, 'plonk' means "I can't answer the question."

Bill

Bio-fuel lunacy.
 

"Chas Gill" wrote in message
...

"Lord Turkey Cough" wrote in message
...

"Mike Thomas" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 23:06:44 +0000, Lord Turkey Cough wrote:

The idea of biofuel was to combat global warming which would cause
land loss due to rising sea levels.
Well f*ck me, it seems biofuel has destroyed land available
for food crops in a couple of months than global warming would have
done in the next century.

Seems like some overpaid moron w*anker scientist/enviromentlist
has got his sums wrong somewhere down the line.

What has this got to do with uk.tech.digital-tv?

You eat food in uk.tech.digital-tv don't you?
Or do you live off transistors, aerials and old set top boxes?

Can I take it that uk.tech.digital-tv is in favour of world starvation?




OK, let's explore this. Petrol etc gets so expensive and rare that we
turn to bio fuels. Farmers (who - poor souls - have been suffering under
the hands of the Supermarkets) turn to growing bio fuels instead, because
they get paid more to grow this stuff. Staple food prices go up, because
the farmers give us a choice (pay more for it or we won't grow it). We
have to choose between personal transport and food. We make our choices
and the market levels out. Farmers are laughing all the way to the bank
and everyone else is a little worse off. Those that can't afford the new
food prices starve to death.

They may well starve to death but I imagine most people faced with this
prospect would not be willing to go quietly. You will see riots and wars
before
that happens, you might not be able to afford to feed your self but
a gun is a going look very cheap in comparision food prices.
Torching fuel stations selling biofuel or torching cars which run on biofuel
would be a sensible starting point.



World population goes down, resulting in less of all the current problems
in the world. None of this has anything whatsoever to do with global
warming or climate change. However, much of this possible scenario could
be avoided with a bit of thought. Perhaps bio fuel harvesting will be the
focus we all need to get our priorities right. Or perhaps
not........................


Chas

Bio-fuel lunacy.
 

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 19:05:23 GMT, Maverick
wrote the following to uk.misc:

"Bill Wright" wrote:


"Robin Faichney" wrote in message
. ..
Can I take it that uk.tech.digital-tv is in favour of world starvation?

plonk

As I understand it, 'plonk' means "I can't answer the question."

It also means, "I am an ostrich".

or "ICBA to read the tedious whitterings of spammers and halfwits", unless
you *like* reading about counterfeit watches and clothes.

mh.
--
http://www.nukesoft.co.uk
http://personal.nukesoft.co.uk

From address is a blackhole. Reply-to address is valid.

Bio-fuel lunacy.
 

In message , Bill Wright
wrote

"Robin Faichney" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 23:06:44 GMT, "Lord Turkey Cough"
wrote:

Well f*ck me, it seems biofuel has destroyed land available
for food crops in a couple of months than global warming would have
done in the next century.

Some idiots will believe any old claptrap, even from a well-known
troll, as long as it leans in the "right" direction.

I was going by the big item about this in yesterday's Times.


There was an 'expert' on Radio 4 around lunch time today suggesting that
engine technology had to change to accept bio-fuel/petrol mix but this
was not happening. The current level of bio in petrol will not harm
engines but it is legislated that levels will rise by 2010. This will
f**k up petrol engines in cars being sold at the present time.

Your car repair bills will be yet another green tax!

Anyone want to buy a windmill to stick on your roof?


--
Alan
news2006 {at} amac {dot} f2s {dot} com

Bio-fuel lunacy.
 

"Alan" wrote in message
...
In message , Bill Wright
wrote

"Robin Faichney" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 23:06:44 GMT, "Lord Turkey Cough"
wrote:

Well f*ck me, it seems biofuel has destroyed land available
for food crops in a couple of months than global warming would have
done in the next century.

Some idiots will believe any old claptrap, even from a well-known
troll, as long as it leans in the "right" direction.

I was going by the big item about this in yesterday's Times.


There was an 'expert' on Radio 4 around lunch time today suggesting that
engine technology had to change to accept bio-fuel/petrol mix but this was
not happening. The current level of bio in petrol will not harm engines
but it is legislated that levels will rise by 2010. This will f**k up
petrol engines in cars being sold at the present time.


I will vandalise any car using biofuel and torch any petrol
station selling biofuel.

I don't like starving to death you see - it's not nice.

Shove that in you tank.


Your car repair bills will be yet another green tax!

Anyone want to buy a windmill to stick on your roof?


--
Alan
news2006 {at} amac {dot} f2s {dot} com

Bio-fuel lunacy.
 

On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 23:06:44 GMT, "Lord Turkey Cough"
wrote:

The idea of biofuel was to combat global warming which would cause
land loss due to rising sea levels.
Well f*ck me, it seems biofuel has destroyed land available
for food crops in a couple of months than global warming would have
done in the next century.

Seems like some overpaid moron w*anker scientist/enviromentlist
has got his sums wrong somewhere down the line.


It had to happen one day - you actually appear to be completely
correct on this one :-(
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Press Ctrl-Alt-Del to continue...
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

Bio-fuel lunacy.
 

"Alex Heney" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 23:06:44 GMT, "Lord Turkey Cough"
wrote:

The idea of biofuel was to combat global warming which would cause
land loss due to rising sea levels.
Well f*ck me, it seems biofuel has destroyed land available
for food crops in a couple of months than global warming would have
done in the next century.

Seems like some overpaid moron w*anker scientist/enviromentlist
has got his sums wrong somewhere down the line.


It had to happen one day - you actually appear to be completely
correct on this one :-(

No thats you.

--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Press Ctrl-Alt-Del to continue...
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

Bio-fuel lunacy.
 

On Apr 16, 7:07*am, Alex Heney wrote:
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 23:06:44 GMT, "Lord Turkey Cough"

wrote:
The idea of biofuel was to combat global warming which would cause
land loss due to rising sea levels.
Well f*ck me, it seems biofuel has destroyed land available
for food crops in a couple of months than global warming would have
done in the next century.

Seems like some overpaid moron w*anker scientist/enviromentlist
has got his sums wrong somewhere down the line.

It had to happen one day - you actually appear to be completely
correct on this one :-(

No, he's completely trolling, and also completely mistaken.

I'd be interested in the modelling you assume to make the link between
biofuels and world food prices.

Fran

Bio-fuel lunacy.
 

"Fran" wrote in message
...
On Apr 16, 7:07 am, Alex Heney wrote:
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 23:06:44 GMT, "Lord Turkey Cough"

wrote:
The idea of biofuel was to combat global warming which would cause
land loss due to rising sea levels.
Well f*ck me, it seems biofuel has destroyed land available
for food crops in a couple of months than global warming would have
done in the next century.

Seems like some overpaid moron w*anker scientist/enviromentlist
has got his sums wrong somewhere down the line.

It had to happen one day - you actually appear to be completely
correct on this one :-(

No, he's completely trolling, and also completely mistaken.

I'd be interested in the modelling you assume to make the link between
biofuels and world food prices.

Fran

Bio-fuel lunacy.
 

"Lord Turkey Cough" wrote in message
...

"Fran" wrote in message
...
On Apr 16, 7:07 am, Alex Heney wrote:
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 23:06:44 GMT, "Lord Turkey Cough"

wrote:
The idea of biofuel was to combat global warming which would cause
land loss due to rising sea levels.
Well f*ck me, it seems biofuel has destroyed land available
for food crops in a couple of months than global warming would have
done in the next century.

Seems like some overpaid moron w*anker scientist/enviromentlist
has got his sums wrong somewhere down the line.

It had to happen one day - you actually appear to be completely
correct on this one :-(

No, he's completely trolling, and also completely mistaken.

I'd be interested in the modelling you assume to make the link between
biofuels and world food prices.


Yes its real complicate.
More bio-fuel = less bio-food.

Maybe get a rocket scientist to explain it to you?


Fran

Bio-fuel lunacy.
 

"Lord Turkey Cough" wrote in message
...
"Mike Thomas" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 23:06:44 +0000, Lord Turkey Cough wrote:
snip
You eat food in uk.tech.digital-tv don't you?
Or do you live off transistors, aerials and old set top boxes?
Can I take it that uk.tech.digital-tv is in favour of world starvation?


Any Usenet group is first and foremost interested in the groups subject,
and this group ain't uk.starvation.

Steve Terry

Bio-fuel lunacy.
 

"Steve Terry" wrote in message
...

"Lord Turkey Cough" wrote in message
...
"Mike Thomas" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 23:06:44 +0000, Lord Turkey Cough wrote:
snip
You eat food in uk.tech.digital-tv don't you?
Or do you live off transistors, aerials and old set top boxes?
Can I take it that uk.tech.digital-tv is in favour of world starvation?


Any Usenet group is first and foremost interested in the groups subject,
and this group ain't uk.starvation.

We as there is no uk.starvation group i just have to make the best of the
groups available. I just thought most of the people in this group, like
yourself, would be living on the breadline so I thought you might be
interested.

Anyway if you are not interested in Bio-fuel lunacy the sensible thing
to do would be to ignore the thread, I actually use that 'trick' myself if i
am
not interested in a topic, I find it helps me aviod reading a lot of stuff I
am
not particularly interested in.

I trust you will be administering the same admonishments to the numerous
threads
such as "Top Quality Citizen Lobella Flower Ladies Watch EW8973-16Y Minimum
Price Wholesale, Discount, Replicas, Fake"
Although obviously it wil take you a while to get through them all.

Obviously I can understant why you are uninterested in half the world
populastion starving to death
when there are more pressing issues in the world such as the DOGS on BB4.
etc.....




Steve Terry

Bio-fuel lunacy.
 

"Mike Thomas" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 09:02:26 +0100, Bill Wright wrote:

"Mike Thomas" wrote in message
has got his sums wrong somewhere down the line.

What has this got to do with uk.tech.digital-tv?
Nothing, but it's always fun to point out how the current green madness
is
causing wrong decisions to be made. Since we're all going to hell in a
handcart the details of the cart are probably more important than digital
TV.

OK. So long as you understand that this thread was started by a troll
as a crosspost with other groups and is therefore likely to become as
large as one of Angrymadman's **MORE**DOG********!!!! crossposted threads.

Says Mike Thomas, ~Troll king of Wales no doubt.

Bio-fuel lunacy.
 

"Mike Thomas" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 09:02:26 +0100, Bill Wright wrote:

"Mike Thomas" wrote in message
has got his sums wrong somewhere down the line.

What has this got to do with uk.tech.digital-tv?
Nothing, but it's always fun to point out how the current green madness
is
causing wrong decisions to be made. Since we're all going to hell in a
handcart the details of the cart are probably more important than digital
TV.

OK. So long as you understand that this thread was started by a troll
as a crosspost with other groups and is therefore likely to become as
large as one of Angrymadman's **MORE**DOG********!!!! crossposted threads.


Personally I only read threads I am interested in, but I guess I am a bit
weird in that respect.

I obviously don't you posesss your plodding methododoligy of reading every
post regardless of whether I have the slightest interest in it in.
Still there are more than one ways to crack an egg.

Bio-fuel lunacy.
 

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 19:02:22 +0100, "Bill Wright"
wrote:


"Robin Faichney" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 23:06:44 GMT, "Lord Turkey Cough"
wrote:

Well f*ck me, it seems biofuel has destroyed land available
for food crops in a couple of months than global warming would have
done in the next century.

Some idiots will believe any old claptrap, even from a well-known
troll, as long as it leans in the "right" direction.

I was going by the big item about this in yesterday's Times.

Did it say that biofuel has destroyed [more] land [that would
otherwise be] available for food crops in a couple of months than
global warming would have done in the next century? Or something else,
by any chance?

(Some words inserted in a valiant but vain attempt to make sense of
the fowl ravings.)
--
http://www.robinfaichney.org/

Bio-fuel lunacy.
 

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 15:24:38 -0700 (PDT), Fran
wrote:

On Apr 16, 7:07*am, Alex Heney wrote:
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 23:06:44 GMT, "Lord Turkey Cough"

wrote:
The idea of biofuel was to combat global warming which would cause
land loss due to rising sea levels.
Well f*ck me, it seems biofuel has destroyed land available
for food crops in a couple of months than global warming would have
done in the next century.

Seems like some overpaid moron w*anker scientist/enviromentlist
has got his sums wrong somewhere down the line.

It had to happen one day - you actually appear to be completely
correct on this one :-(

No, he's completely trolling, and also completely mistaken.

I'd be interested in the modelling you assume to make the link between
biofuels and world food prices.

Fran

Developed nations like the US must review their current policy of
diverting over 20% of their maize crop for making biofuels. The volume
of grains used for biofuel equivalent to a full tank of a SUV could
easily be the food supply for a person for a whole year! Some optimal
balance must be struck between food and biofuels. Otherwise the world
just might witness an epic battle between 800 million automobile users
in the developed world and the 1.5 billion plus poor in the developing
world living on less than $2 a day.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/...ow/2954894.cms

Bio-fuel lunacy.
 

"judith" wrote in message
...
Developed nations like the US must review their current policy of
diverting over 20% of their maize crop for making biofuels. The volume
of grains used for biofuel equivalent to a full tank of a SUV could
easily be the food supply for a person for a whole year! Some optimal
balance must be struck between food and biofuels. Otherwise the world
just might witness an epic battle between 800 million automobile users
in the developed world and the 1.5 billion plus poor in the developing
world living on less than $2 a day.

Yes, it's another own goal for the greenies. When will the world wake up and
realise that we are all going to be impoverished by this madness? nd don't
forget that if the west gets poorer so does the Third World.

Bill

Bio-fuel lunacy.
 

In article , Bill Wright wrote:
"judith" wrote in message*
...
Developed nations like the US must review their current policy of
diverting over 20% of their maize crop for making biofuels. The volume
of grains used for biofuel equivalent to a full tank of a SUV could
easily be the food supply for a person for a whole year! Some optimal
balance must be struck between food and biofuels. Otherwise the world
just might witness an epic battle between 800 million automobile users
in the developed world and the 1.5 billion plus poor in the developing
world living on less than $2 a day.

Yes, it's another own goal for the greenies. When will the world wake up and*
realise that we are all going to be impoverished by this madness? nd don't*
forget that if the west gets poorer so does the Third World.

If we don't educate a lot more scientists and engineers for the future and get
them into positions of power and influence, then *we* will be the Third World.

Rod.

Bio-fuel lunacy.
 

Lord Turkey Cough wrote:
The idea of biofuel was to combat global warming which would cause
land loss due to rising sea levels.
Well f*ck me, it seems biofuel has destroyed land available
for food crops in a couple of months than global warming would have
done in the next century.

Seems like some overpaid moron w*anker scientist/enviromentlist
has got his sums wrong somewhere down the line.


Surely tackling global warming is all about tackling overpopulation?

Bio-fuel lunacy.
 

"Nick" wrote in message
...
Lord Turkey Cough wrote:
The idea of biofuel was to combat global warming which would cause
land loss due to rising sea levels.
Well f*ck me, it seems biofuel has destroyed land available
for food crops in a couple of months than global warming would have
done in the next century.

Seems like some overpaid moron w*anker scientist/enviromentlist
has got his sums wrong somewhere down the line.

Surely tackling global warming is all about tackling overpopulation?#


What by starting world war III?
GLobal warming is not a problem the earth is too cold as it is.
We waste billion of gallons of fossil fuels trying to heat
it.
Two of its ends are great frozen blocks of ice.

Global warmning is the messiah and we are spending billions
trying to kill the messiah.

Bio-fuel lunacy.
 

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
.. .
Yes, it's another own goal for the greenies. When will the world wake up
and
realise that we are all going to be impoverished by this madness? nd
don't
forget that if the west gets poorer so does the Third World.

If we don't educate a lot more scientists and engineers for the future and
get
them into positions of power and influence, then *we* will be the Third
World.

This country is a democracy, which means that we are ruled by the ignorant
superstitions and half-truths of the majority.

Most people in this country believe to some extent in astrology!

Bill

Bio-fuel lunacy.
 

"Nick" wrote in message
...
Surely tackling global warming is all about tackling overpopulation?

That's why it's a waste of time to take environmental measures. It's like
bailing out a boat when there's a hole in the bottom.

Bill

Bio-fuel lunacy.
 

Bill Wright posted

"judith" wrote in message
.. .
Developed nations like the US must review their current policy of
diverting over 20% of their maize crop for making biofuels. The volume
of grains used for biofuel equivalent to a full tank of a SUV could
easily be the food supply for a person for a whole year!

So what? It's been the case for donkeys' years that Westerners consume
hundreds of times more natural resources than people in impoverished
Third World countries. Biofuels don't change any of that. There are
arguments against them, but they are much more mathematically
sophisticated than "Waaah! It's not fair!".

Some optimal
balance must be struck between food and biofuels. Otherwise the world
just might witness an epic battle between 800 million automobile users
in the developed world and the 1.5 billion plus poor in the developing
world living on less than $2 a day.

Yes, it's another own goal for the greenies.

The funny part is that biofuels almost certainly *can* be made to work
well, they might even solve a decent chunk of the nonrenewable fuels
replacement problem. But *only* if we can develop genetically engineered
varieties with very high sugar yields. And, of course, the Greenies are
implacably agin genetic engineering, just as they are implacably agin
nuclear power, which might also have solved a part of the fossil fuel
problem. So they can't support that.

That's the trouble with being a Greenie. If you are agin everything
that's new, then there are no solutions at all, and we're all doomed to
a slow hypothermic death in a cold dark freezing world (or a quick
drowning in a very warm and sunny world, depending on your preferred
doomsday scenario). So we might as well make merrie and burn the oil
while it lasts.

--
Les Invalides

Bio-fuel lunacy.
 

In article , Nick wrote:
Surely tackling global warming is all about tackling overpopulation?

Of course it is. We need to tackle the problem, not its symptoms.

The likelihood of tackling this particular problem could be summarised
by saying that nobody gives a ****, but in a sense the cause of it
could be said to be that too many people do.

Rod.

Bio-fuel lunacy.
 

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 15:24:38 -0700 (PDT), Fran
wrote:

On Apr 16, 7:07*am, Alex Heney wrote:
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 23:06:44 GMT, "Lord Turkey Cough"

wrote:
The idea of biofuel was to combat global warming which would cause
land loss due to rising sea levels.
Well f*ck me, it seems biofuel has destroyed land available
for food crops in a couple of months than global warming would have
done in the next century.

Seems like some overpaid moron w*anker scientist/enviromentlist
has got his sums wrong somewhere down the line.

It had to happen one day - you actually appear to be completely
correct on this one :-(

No, he's completely trolling, and also completely mistaken.


that is most certainly his normal state of affairs (except that I
usually think he really believes the rubbish he comes out with, so is
it really trolling then?)


I'd be interested in the modelling you assume to make the link between
biofuels and world food prices.

What link might that be then?
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
I have enough trouble single-tasking!
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

Bio-fuel lunacy.
 

Lord Turkey Cough wrote:
"Nick" wrote in message
...
Lord Turkey Cough wrote:
The idea of biofuel was to combat global warming which would cause
land loss due to rising sea levels.
Well f*ck me, it seems biofuel has destroyed land available
for food crops in a couple of months than global warming would have
done in the next century.

Seems like some overpaid moron w*anker scientist/enviromentlist
has got his sums wrong somewhere down the line.
Surely tackling global warming is all about tackling overpopulation?#


What by starting world war III?

Famine is another tried and tested method for dealing with resource
shortage/over population.

GLobal warming is not a problem the earth is too cold as it is.
We waste billion of gallons of fossil fuels trying to heat
it.
Two of its ends are great frozen blocks of ice.

Global warmning is the messiah and we are spending billions
trying to kill the messiah.


Ignoring your disputable comments about global warming. Fossil fuels are
running out so what would you use instead?

Bio-fuel lunacy.
 

"Les Invalides" wrote in message
...
Bill Wright posted
The funny part is that biofuels almost certainly *can* be made to work
well, they might even solve a decent chunk of the nonrenewable fuels
replacement problem.

There isn't a problem. There's loads of oil left. They've just found more in
the Arctic than there is in the Middle East. And then there's coal, which
can be turned into engine power by various means. Then there's nuclear, with
modern batteries in the vehicles. And then because the demand is there the
great capitalist engine will force the development of new systems. So we
aren't going to run out of energy. Actually the very idea is absurd. We are
bathed in energy by the sun.


But *only* if we can develop genetically engineered
varieties with very high sugar yields. And, of course, the Greenies are
implacably agin genetic engineering, just as they are implacably agin
nuclear power, which might also have solved a part of the fossil fuel
problem. So they can't support that.

That's the trouble with being a Greenie. If you are agin everything that's
new, then there are no solutions at all, and we're all doomed to a slow
hypothermic death in a cold dark freezing world (or a quick drowning in a
very warm and sunny world, depending on your preferred doomsday scenario).
So we might as well make merrie and burn the oil while it lasts.

Yes, it's a bugger really. The only aspect of human life that brings forth
new developments is technology, and they are opposed to it on principle. But
they need new things to make the green revolution possible. At least the
more reasonable ones do. A lot of them have romantic visions of us all
living in the greenwood like Robin ****ing Hood, robbing the 'rich' (people
who work for a living and pay taxes) to give to the 'poor' (people who have
pretend jobs with long titles). Of course a lot of them would like us to go
back to the Stone Age.

Of course there were tree huggers before there were greenies. It's just that
they weren't as well focused or easily defined. There were varous types of
lefty scumbag, ranging from the urban commie to the urban hippy. Now they're
all under the same umbrella. They all have one thing in common -- a nice big
'cause' that has a lot of media attention. Luckily the media are feckless
and restless. Once it was the hoola hoop. Now it's the environment. Soon
they'll be on to the next thing and we'll gradually get back to normal.

Bill

Bio-fuel lunacy.
 

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Nick wrote:
Surely tackling global warming is all about tackling overpopulation?

Of course it is. We need to tackle the problem, not its symptoms.

The likelihood of tackling this particular problem could be summarised
by saying that nobody gives a ****, but in a sense the cause of it
could be said to be that too many people do.

The Pope is responsible for most births.

Bill

Bio-fuel lunacy.
 

"Nick" wrote in message
...
Ignoring your disputable comments about global warming. Fossil fuels are
running out so what would you use instead?
No it isn't. There's 300 years' worth of coal under Yorkshire alone.

Bill

Bio-fuel lunacy.
 

On Apr 16, 3:12*am, judith wrote:
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 15:24:38 -0700 (PDT), Fran
wrote:





On Apr 16, 7:07*am, Alex Heney wrote:
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 23:06:44 GMT, "Lord Turkey Cough"

wrote:
The idea of biofuel was to combat global warming which would cause
land loss due to rising sea levels.
Well f*ck me, it seems biofuel has destroyed land available
for food crops in a couple of months than global warming would have
done in the next century.

Seems like some overpaid moron w*anker scientist/enviromentlist
has got his sums wrong somewhere down the line.

It had to happen one day - you actually appear to be completely
correct on this one :-(

No, he's completely trolling, and also completely mistaken.

I'd be interested in the modelling you assume to make the link between
biofuels and world food prices.

Fran

*Developed nations like the US must review their current policy of
diverting over 20% of their maize crop for making biofuels. The volume
of grains used for biofuel equivalent to a full tank of a SUV could
easily be the food supply for a person for a whole year! Some optimal
balance must be struck between food and biofuels. Otherwise the world
just might witness an epic battle between 800 million automobile users
in the developed world and the 1.5 billion plus poor in the developing
world living on less than $2 a day.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/...fuel/artic...- Hide quoted text -


Nothing in the model above models the link between biofuel production
and world food prices. How much diversion *has already* taken place,
or will take place within the window in which maize must be purchased?
How much does US-produced maize affect world prices for food? How are
other producers of maize likely to respond to perceived upward
pressure on maize prices as a food staple? Have maize prices
increased by amounts reflective in some measurable way of US
agricultural policies associated with biofuels? What other factors
underpin maize prices? How much has the tripling of crude oil prices
in the last few years affect maize and agruicultural produce prices?

This is not a defence of corn-to-ethanol or biodiesel by the way.
Passing over the use of corn *waste*, I think such policies are ill-
advised. Your assumption though that there is a strong causal link
between biofuels (or even maize to biofuel) and food prices is not
supported by the above text.

A great many things have contributed to upward pressure on food prices
-- including variations in currency values, increasing demands for
meat, which of course places extra demands on agricultural lands,
desertification, drought, blight, agricultural protectionism and so
forth. It's also true that substantial lands are used not to produce
food staples for humans, but the feedstock for convenience foods and
in this respect US maize is an excellent example. So is sugar. If corn-
to-ethanol is a poor trade, then what is corn-to-pop tarts?

Fran