Offering 500,000 sq ft of office space in the foot print of a normal city building ?
That's amazing.
Can we test that by locking you in a room that is adjusted to contain 10% CO2.
TB, I congratulate you on your intelligence and penmanship.
I wish you all the best.
Sorry Alan, but you do appear to be just a smug hypocrit.
You come trundling into threads with half baked ideas and smug little quips that are essentialy vaccuous and based clearly on a complete lack of understanding of what ever issue is at hand.
This is always pointed out by others and you trundle off only to appear elsewhere with yet another contemptuous post implying that everyone argueing against what ever you happen to think is right is moraly below you and lacking in decency.
You can't complain about others whilst spending the majority of your time pretty much being nothing but rude and contemptuous.
Government charge me green tax on fuel because its getting warmer or oil is running out.I pay the tax but its still getting warmer / oil is still running out.
Just where has my money gone ??
Has it saved a tree ???Has it stopped the temperature rising ??
No, then its a scam 
No, but it might just have persuaded you to buy a little less petrol, or turn your heating down a notch.Not all taxes are simply for revenue; some are to discourage you from spending.
That's it then. You stay and I shall move on.
Farewell to AVForums. Obviously the two and a half years or so I've spent helping people with their AV problems and over 4,000 posts count for nothing.
Goodbye.
Wow. That is one of the more ludicrous things I've seen written on this thread.
Why ?
It was simply a rebuff to the assertion that "C02 is harmless plant food".
The poster in question is either being facetious or doesn't know that C02 is infact toxic at anymore than 1% of the atmosphere to humans. Which of course leads to the question of why he seems to continually express his opinion on MMGW and the science behind it.
Maybe you can explain to me why it's seems to you ludicrous as compared to actual assertions made by posters as fact. Maybe you could also contribute to the discussion rather than comming on to point out irrelevancies.
It would indeed be a refreshing change if some of those who 'don't believe' in MMGW would actually show us which bit of the science is at the root of their dis-belief.
If they actually have a problem with the accuracy of the models and the predicted outcome, fine, that is certainly an area open to debate.
If they don't like the way Governments are raising 'carbon taxes' that too may be a fruitful area for discussion.
But to say the whole thing is a con because 'they know' does rather leave no room for debate or discussion and that inevitably leads to short shrift from others.
So, if you think the science is wrong, please be specific about precisely which bit.
Otherwise don't confuse Government policy, Media hype, predictions from models etc etc,with the science behind MMGW.
Oh and definitely don't bother to criticise if you can't tell the difference between weather and climate.
But no doubt this plea will fall on deaf ears. 