Ooops! - (there goes the planet)

 .. no wuckin' furries, mate...

   .. we have a spare ...

     .. don't we?

-=*=-

Well, no - there is only the one - and it's looking increasingly buggered.

-=*=-

In the 1st instance, any climate-sceptics may leave (dumb, de dumb - all gone yet? Bye!)

In the 2nd instance, there's a fight going on - as to whether Leibniz or Newton invented calculus - ooops! - red herring; doesn't matter who invented it, but the results are *perfectly* clear: to reduce the amount of 'global warming' to a minimum and simultaneously save our once jewel-like planet's ecosphere, excess CO2 production has to be not just reined in (i.e. no more) - but reduced to below a certain, specific, known value, such that the total atmospheric CO2 content does not exceed a critical (for our ecosphere's survival) value.

Calculus comes in because to achieve that reduction, a curve may be drawn - representing our projected CO2 emissions level, and the area below the curve will (or, most likely will not) show the required reduction - IF not THEN disaster.

It's relatively simple mathematics, easily mastered even by the idiots in parliament - providing, of course, that they can get adequate 'advice.'

-=*=-

But (there's almost always quite a good but:) any effective reduction in CO2 output will require at least these three things:

1. People to use less, and/or

2. Fewer people altogether, AND

3. Digging less coal; pumping less oil.

-=*=-

Q: Will it happen?

A: Not likely.

-=*end*=-

PS

Q: "Please, Sir, may I have some more?"

A: No! (Idiot.)