c4countdown

Having seen the film 'The Age of Stupid' last week - quite frankly - I'm glad I'm already middle aged and I don't have kids. It doesn't look good for the future and I don't really think enough can be done in time to reverse such things as the melting of the polar icecaps, the advancing of the sahara, rising sea levels. Up-their-own-arses villagers in rural Bedfordshire couldn't see beyond their view being spoiled if a windfarm gets built on a nearby disused airfield, and the noise it'll make despite the fact that their village is right next door to the Santa Pod Drag Racing Circuit, so they had the planning permission quashed. One old dyed-in-the-wool nimby's arguement was that, the monotony of the turning sails would mean anyone driving towards them would be lulled into a hynotic sleep. Good grief. If it wasn't for the carbon emission it would create, the whole wretched lot of them should be firebombed.

How often do we say 'well, we can't really make a difference'. These people were offered the luxury of being able to make a real, tangible, heroic difference but turned their backs on it.

Which of the 'expert' opinions do you agree with... Do you think the planet is doomed, salvageable or that Global Warming is all just hype?

A commendable poll, Sue. I have voted in the spirit you intended for it but, unfortunately, I might come across as a bit of a killjoy here. Strictly speaking, the planet is fine and will always be fine (well, for another 5 billion years, anyway, until the sun dies). When you say 'planet', I know you're actually referring to all the forms of life, their environments, and their quest for survival in the face of climate changes, pollution of land, air and water, and the critical changes in the Earth's magnetic field. For humans there is also the added issue of the global economy, which is having a particularly bad effect on many of the poorest billion of the population.

The Earth's magnetic field we can do nothing about. It completely reverses, on average, every 250,000 years. During the reversal, it's strength is radically reduced for a (geologically) brief period of about 100 years. During this time, the field offers very little protection against the solar wind. (The Auroras are the visible result of the solar wind hitting the magnetosphere in the regions around the poles.) Unfortunately, we could be on the cusp of the next reversal, if current measurements are any indication. There are already a number of significant anomalies (particularly the South Atlantic Anomaly): areas of the planet where the magnetic field has already reversed.

There is great concern about the dwindling supplies of potable water, even in some so-called developed countries, but especially in areas of the world already short of fresh water. You're right to mention the growth of the Sahara (I won't say desert because 'Sahara' already means desert) and there are many more places facing extreme drought. Climate change is a major factor, but certain farming practices and choices of crops and livestock (often driven by economical pressures) are also significant as they can have detrimental effects on the quality of the land.

Before last year's financial hiccup, China's growth was said to be such that its CO2 output would, in just two years, increase by the total amount that the UK currently emits each year. So even if we got the entire UK's output down to zero, in two years' time we'd be back where we started (globally). The only hope I have for the world as we know it is that we might find a sustainable, ecologically sound energy source before it's too late.

But if the magnetic field flips in the meantime, we're buggered anyway. The only safe place will be underground. Time to start digging, I reckon.

For more info from some people in the know (i.e. not the politicians), visit TED and select Global issues under Show talks related to.

We can't afford to be complacent about global warming. Rising sea levels are about to submerge the first inhabited islands:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 897578.ece

"As temperatures rise, ice melts, seas expand and mapmakers are having to redraw the world. Italy and Switzerland are realigning their border after Alpine glaciers that marked out their frontier melted. New islands have appeared off the coast of Greenland as glaciers melted and revealed land previously hidden under ice. Rising sea levels across the world have submerged several uninhabited islands, and now the first inhabited islands are going under — the Carteret Islands off the coast of Papua New Guinea are being evacuated as the sea engulfs the land. The entire 1,000-strong population is being moved to another island."

Alec Rivers wrote: When you say 'planet', I know you're actually referring to all the forms of life, their environments, and their quest for survival in the face of climate changes, pollution of land, air and water, and the critical changes in the Earth's magnetic field. For humans there is also the added issue of the global economy, which is having a particularly bad effect on many of the poorest billion of the population.

Yes - what Alec said - and poll title changed in response.

Alec Rivers wrote: But if the magnetic field flips in the meantime, we're buggered anyway. The only safe place will be underground. Time to start digging, I reckon.

David Essex was right! (the song 'Brave New World in the musical of War of the Worlds)

Just imagine the better place we'd be in now if George W hadn't swindled his way into power - we'd have had 8 extra years of international effort under our belts if the US had been on board which, of course, it would have been under Al Gore.

Sue Sanders wrote:I'm already middle aged and I don't have kids

Kirk could have something to do about that...

I voted for the first option on the grounds that Alec is right. The projected lifetime of the planet means that mass extinctions (which, as we know, have happened in the past) will almost certainly happen many more times in the billions of years before the sun expands and turns the Earth into a cinder. The question is not "Is life as we know it doomed?" so much as "When?" There will be other, possibly more interesting civilisations and lifeforms inhabiting the planet when we're long gone; this is all part of the natural order of things, and the only sad thing is that we'll never get to meet them.

Sue Sanders wrote:Up-their-own-arses villagers in rural Bedfordshire couldn't see beyond their view being spoiled if a windfarm gets built on a nearby disused airfield, and the noise it'll make despite the fact that their village is right next door to the Santa Pod Drag Racing Circuit, so they had the planning permission quashed. One old dyed-in-the-wool nimby's arguement was that, the monotony of the turning sails would mean anyone driving towards them would be lulled into a hynotic sleep.

I've never understood the objection to wind farms on aesthetic grounds, I think they're quite beautiful, like massive moving sculptures. Plus they can produce power, so it's a win-win situation. What's not to like?

Sue Sanders wrote:Just imagine the better place we'd be in now if George W hadn't swindled his way into power - we'd have had 8 extra years of international effort under our belts if the US had been on board which, of course, it would have been under Al Gore.

Although I am far from being a Dubya supporter, in this context (like any other) I would be very wary of believing that
<politician says something> = <politician really would do said thing>.

The human race as a whole is very resilient. Some will certainly die, some will certainly survive. It will not be possible to prevent flooding, probably not disease. It would be nice if we (the human race as a whole) can pull ourselves together enough to prevent wars. I think that is a far more significant factor than mere weather, however extreme.

JimBentley wrote:I've never understood the objection to wind farms on aesthetic grounds, I think they're quite beautiful, like massive moving sculptures. Plus they can produce power, so it's a win-win situation. What's not to like?

There a damn sight better than Anthony Gormley's shit, I grant you that.

Any chance of another option? It's neither doomed nor fine, it's changing and it's changing quickly. Whether it's because of us, who knows, but it's good that it's pushing us strongly towards efficiency, renewable technology etc, the sort of thing that is sensible and very handy to have, but until now there hasn't been the financial incentive simply because oil is cheap and has a century's head start.

JimBentley wrote:I've never understood the objection to wind farms on aesthetic grounds, I think they're quite beautiful, like massive moving sculptures. Plus they can produce power, so it's a win-win situation. What's not to like?

I can see a windfarm out of my bedroom window - particularly beautiful to see them rising up above a sea mist with the sun glinting on them.

Matthew Green wrote:There [sic] a damn sight better than Anthony Gormley's shit, I grant you that.

Having stood and watched the fabulous sight of Gormley's 'Wasteman' set alight for the film 'Exodus', filmed in Margate, I have to say I disagree. It was incredible to see this structure, made entirely of scrap wood donated by the people of Margate, so enormous that the hand on the upstretched arm was a snooker table, towering above the derelict theme park that was 'Dreamland' in my childhood. I then stood with a huge crowd of people who all fell silent and watched as it burned, the heat and the fallout of ash being pretty intense although it was probably 500 yards away. Everybody 'oooh-ed' in unison as the upstretched arm crashed, still burning, to the ground in a massive spray of cinders. It was a spectacle that keep the crowd enraptured for about an hour. Magnificent. I'd like to see more of his stuff - are the figures still on the beach in Liverpool? Matthew, you're a Philistine!

You think we've got problems? What about the Martians? According to NASA, the temperature on Mars has risen by 1 degree Fahrenheit over the last 30 years. That's twice as much as Earth's rise. I don't know how much fossil fuels they're burning over there, but it must be a lot.

In the 6th century approx., there was an area somewhere to the north of New York known to the Greenlandik Vikings as Vinland - vine land - because they grew grapes there. It must have been warmer then than now, and we came through that all right. Roman Carlisle had a temperature more akin to the current south of England than the current north, as well.

Any submerged islands in the Pacific are submerging because of the land sinking, not the sea rising. It's nonsense to think that some Pacific islands are suffering rising sea levels and some aren't - the sea level would rise over its whole area. It's rather like Robin Hood's Bay losing its cliffs while Southport gets more and more beach. It's caused by Britain tilting to the right after the ice sheets melted at the end of the Ice Age - it's not that the North Sea is rising and the Irish Sea falling.

Sue Sanders wrote:Having stood and watched the fabulous sight of Gormley's 'Wasteman' set alight for the film 'Exodus', filmed in Margate, I have to say I disagree. It was incredible to see this structure, made entirely of scrap wood donated by the people of Margate, so enormous that the hand on the upstretched arm was a snooker table, towering above the derelict theme park that was 'Dreamland' in my childhood. I then stood with a huge crowd of people who all fell silent and watched as it burned, the heat and the fallout of ash being pretty intense although it was probably 500 yards away. Everybody 'oooh-ed' in unison as the upstretched arm crashed, still burning, to the ground in a massive spray of cinders. It was a spectacle that keep the crowd enraptured for about an hour. Magnificent. I'd like to see more of his stuff - are the figures still on the beach in Liverpool? Matthew, you're a Philistine!

Yes, they are still there. Though how long they'll remain if people burn snooker tables for fun is anyone's guess.

Sue Sanders wrote:Just imagine the better place we'd be in now if George W hadn't swindled his way into power ...

aka George WTF Bush.

David Williams wrote:

Sue Sanders wrote:Having stood and watched the fabulous sight of Gormley's 'Wasteman' set alight for the film 'Exodus', filmed in Margate, I have to say I disagree. It was incredible to see this structure, made entirely of scrap wood donated by the people of Margate, so enormous that the hand on the upstretched arm was a snooker table, towering above the derelict theme park that was 'Dreamland' in my childhood. I then stood with a huge crowd of people who all fell silent and watched as it burned, the heat and the fallout of ash being pretty intense although it was probably 500 yards away. Everybody 'oooh-ed' in unison as the upstretched arm crashed, still burning, to the ground in a massive spray of cinders. It was a spectacle that keep the crowd enraptured for about an hour. Magnificent. I'd like to see more of his stuff - are the figures still on the beach in Liverpool? Matthew, you're a Philistine!

Yes, they are still there. Though how long they'll remain if people burn snooker tables for fun is anyone's guess.

Oops yes - oh, the irony.

David Roe wrote:According to NASA, the temperature on Mars has risen by 1 degree Fahrenheit over the last 30 years. That's twice as much as Earth's rise. I don't know how much fossil fuels they're burning over there, but it must be a lot.

Mars' atmosphere is already 95% CO2 so there's no useful comparison to be made here. Debunked.

David Roe wrote:In the 6th century approx., there was an area somewhere to the north of New York known to the Greenlandik Vikings as Vinland - vine land - because they grew grapes there. It must have been warmer then than now, and we came through that all right. Roman Carlisle had a temperature more akin to the current south of England than the current north, as well.

Debunked.

David Roe wrote:It's nonsense to think that some Pacific islands are suffering rising sea levels and some aren't - the sea level would rise over its whole area.

I don't think I need a link here to highlight the rather glaring fallacy that not all Pacific islands were at the same height above sea level to begin with.

David Roe wrote:It's nonsense to think that some Pacific islands are suffering rising sea levels and some aren't - the sea level would rise over its whole area.

Debunked.

Charlie Reams wrote:

David Roe wrote:According to NASA, the temperature on Mars has risen by 1 degree Fahrenheit over the last 30 years. That's twice as much as Earth's rise. I don't know how much fossil fuels they're burning over there, but it must be a lot.

Mars' atmosphere is already 95% CO2 so there's no useful comparison to be made here. Debunked.

David Roe wrote:In the 6th century approx., there was an area somewhere to the north of New York known to the Greenlandik Vikings as Vinland - vine land - because they grew grapes there. It must have been warmer then than now, and we came through that all right. Roman Carlisle had a temperature more akin to the current south of England than the current north, as well.

Debunked.

David Roe wrote:It's nonsense to think that some Pacific islands are suffering rising sea levels and some aren't - the sea level would rise over its whole area.

I don't think I need a link here to highlight the rather glaring fallacy that not all Pacific islands were at the same height above sea level to begin with.

First one - your article says temperatures are rising on Mars and they don't know why. That doesn't exactly debunk what I said, except for the bit about Martians burning fossil fuels, which was toingue in cheek anyway. The point is, planetary temperatures can rise without burning fossil fuels.

Second one - your article doesn't debunk anything. It just says that the evidence about Vinland is not convincing, not that Vinland didn't exist.

Third one - I wasn't saying the Pacific islands were all the same height, I really don't know where you got the idea that I did. I was trying to say that if sea level rises by a metre on one, it ought to rise by a metre on them all.

David Roe wrote: First one - your article says temperatures are rising on Mars and they don't know why. That doesn't exactly debunk what I said, except for the bit about Martians burning fossil fuels, which was toingue in cheek anyway. The point is, planetary temperatures can rise without burning fossil fuels.

You might as well say "a cup of coffee can get warmer or colder without burning fossil fuels", since that has as much relevance to the discussion as a planet which (I repeat) has an atmosphere utterly different to ours.

David Roe wrote:Second one - your article doesn't debunk anything. It just says that the evidence about Vinland is not convincing, not that Vinland didn't exist.

So you accept that it's not convincing? If you think there's any significance to the name then I suggest you visit Greenland.

David Roe wrote:Third one - I wasn't saying the Pacific islands were all the same height, I really don't know where you got the idea that I did. I was trying to say that if sea level rises by a metre on one, it ought to rise by a metre on them all.

Oh come on, I'm sure you can figure this out. There are obviously islands to which it makes a great deal of difference and islands where it doesn't, depending on the details of the local geography.

David Roe wrote: I was trying to say that if sea level rises by a metre on one, it ought to rise by a metre on them all.

The bulging of the oceans caused by gravitational pull is going to mean that what can be described as a '1 metre rise' is not going to be consistant across an area the size of the Pacific. The article Ian posted highlights that.

We have a road here in Whitstable that has already been earmarked for sacrifice as the cost of keeping the sea back is too high. So, a metre rise is going to have a pretty devastating effect of the lives of the people living there - whose houses are already unsaleable.

If you fill a glass with ice cubes and then top it up to the brim with water, then wait and let the ice melt, what hapens to the water level?

Ian Fitzpatrick wrote:If you fill a glass with ice cubes and then top it up to the brim with water, then wait and let the ice melt, what hapens to the water level?

It goes down.

Charlie Reams wrote:

David Roe wrote:Second one - your article doesn't debunk anything. It just says that the evidence about Vinland is not convincing, not that Vinland didn't exist.

So you accept that it's not convincing? If you think there's any significance to the name then I suggest you visit Greenland.

I said the article says the evidence is not convincing. I didn't say I accepted it wasn't convincing. For one thing, it's basing the whole thing on a false premise - Vinland is believed to be south of Newfoundland, not in Newfoundland. There is a Viking settlement in Newfoundland, which is believed to be a staging post for the bigger Vinland settlement further south. At least according to our guide to the Newfoundland excavations and the Greenlandic museums.

Which name are you saying is not significant? Because if you're saying Greenland isn't green, that's entirely irrelevant to the question of whether Vinland had vines. Parts of the south west of Greenland are (or were) farming country, on the coastal strip, but the usual explanation for the name is that someone was trying to make it sound attractive. And yes, I've been.

David Roe wrote: Which name are you saying is not significant? Because if you're saying Greenland isn't green, that's entirely irrelevant to the question of whether Vinland had vines. Parts of the south west of Greenland are (or were) farming country, on the coastal strip, but the usual explanation for the name is that someone was trying to make it sound attractive. And yes, I've been.

If you can't figure out what point I was making from that then I retire defeated.

David Roe wrote:In the 6th century approx., there was an area somewhere to the north of New York known to the Greenlandik Vikings as Vinland - vine land - because they grew grapes there. It must have been warmer then than now, and we came through that all right. Roman Carlisle had a temperature more akin to the current south of England than the current north, as well.

My mum came back from Tesco's rather pleased with the latest addition to the 'value' line - a packet of shortbread biscuits costing 9p. I pointed out to her that to produce the vast amount of palm oil required to supply dirt cheap crap food to the decadent West (I sometimes go soap-boxy on her) Orangutans in Borneo are dying as their habitat is ripped out to produce the endless miles of plantations. So the way the Britons and Romans fed themselves when they were hanging out in sunny Carlisle was probably somewhat different. How the world survived when the population was a fraction of what it is today would be a whole other ballgame, so complacency at having got through it before is possibly misplaced.

Sue Sanders wrote:My mum came back from Tesco's rather pleased with the latest addition to the 'value' line - a packet of shortbread biscuits costing 9p. I pointed out to her that to produce the vast amount of palm oil required to supply dirt cheap crap food to the decadent West (I sometimes go soap-boxy on her) Orangutans in Borneo are dying as their habitat is ripped out to produce the endless miles of plantations. So the way the Britons and Romans fed themselves when they were hanging out in sunny Carlisle was probably somewhat different. How the world survived when the population was a fraction of what it is today would be a whole other ballgame, so complacency at having got through it before is possibly misplaced.

You would get on well with my sister! My brother had started buying palm oil for interesting roast potatoes, but she made him stop because she started volunteering for an orang utan charity.
So, he had to kiss his roasts with the slightly suspect orange glow goodbye!

Sue Sanders wrote:My mum came back from Tesco's rather pleased with the latest addition to the 'value' line - a packet of shortbread biscuits costing 9p.

I'm sorry, but I love 'em. On the packet it just says vegetable oil - how do you know it's palm oil?

Derek Hazell wrote:

Sue Sanders wrote:My mum came back from Tesco's rather pleased with the latest addition to the 'value' line - a packet of shortbread biscuits costing 9p. I pointed out to her that to produce the vast amount of palm oil required to supply dirt cheap crap food to the decadent West (I sometimes go soap-boxy on her) Orangutans in Borneo are dying as their habitat is ripped out to produce the endless miles of plantations.

You would get on well with my sister! My brother had started buying palm oil for interesting roast potatoes, but she made him stop because she started volunteering for an orang utan charity.

I love crunchy peanut butter, but even my favourite - Whole Earth Organic - is made with palm oil, which is bad for me as well as being bad for the orang utans. Anyone know of a palm oil-free brand?

Phil Reynolds wrote:I love crunchy peanut butter, but even my favourite - Whole Earth Organic - is made with palm oil, which is bad for me as well as being bad for the orang utans. Anyone know of a palm oil-free brand?

I'm rolling with the same peanut butter at the moment. I've never paid attention to palm oil before, how is it bad for you? (just checked, higher in saturated fats than natural peanut oil)
I usually buy the healthier and tastier darker wholenut type, made with skins left on, but don't have any at the moment to check. Less bothered about brand - supermarket own brand or Whole Earth - though at a guess I can't imagine any of them would be palm oil-free.

A very quick Google search seems to suggest palm oil is used simply for cost effectiveness, to replace the more valuable peanut oil which is extracted to be sold separately. The local health food shop when I was back in Salisbury used to let you make your own peanut butter from a machine using nothing but peanuts, so I reckon your best bet is just to pop into your local health food shop. Considering how this is not just a health issue but an orangutan issue, they're bound to supply a brand which is 100% peanuts.

Anyway, good man on the choice of crunchy. The most important peanut butter-based fact is of course: smooth peanut butter != peanut butter.

Matt Morrison wrote:The most important peanut butter-based fact is of course: smooth peanut butter != peanut butter.

Indeed. I accidentally bought a jar of smooth a few weeks ago and am really struggling to finish it - it's really not nice at all.

Matt Morrison wrote:I'm rolling with the same peanut butter at the moment.

That's some bizarre spliff.

Phil Reynolds wrote:I accidentally bought a jar of smooth a few weeks ago and am really struggling to finish it - it's really not nice at all.

It's dire. Hear, hear!


I like Whole Earth best too, simply because I have a savoury tooth, and other peanut butters taste sweet to me.

Phil Reynolds wrote:

Matt Morrison wrote:I'm rolling with the same peanut butter at the moment.

That's some bizarre spliff.

I'm sure there is actually some sort of high-inducing peanut-based smoke though I forget which part you use.

Derek Hazell wrote:I like Whole Earth best too, simply because I have a savoury tooth, and other peanut butters taste sweet to me.

Sounds like you need to upgrade to the whole nut version as well Dez.

Just found an ingredients list, it's only 97% peanuts, and still uses a touch of palm oil and sea salt (no sugar like the normal Whole Earth one of course).

So, in the meantime, here's your apparently most poular palm oil-free brand:
http://www.goodnessdirect.co.uk/cgi-loc ... _435g.html

Matt Morrison wrote:

Derek Hazell wrote:I like Whole Earth best too, simply because I have a savoury tooth, and other peanut butters taste sweet to me.

Sounds like you need to upgrade to the whole nut version as well Dez.

That looks exactly like the Whole Earth jars that I (and presumably Dez) already buy. It does say it's made with unblanched peanuts; I've never seen any other sort of Whole Earth Crunchy on sale.

I'm on 'Veggie Perrins' Pure Peanut Butter (crunchy) that is £3.99 for a big tub (750g) Ingredients described as 'selected peanuts, freshly hand-roasted in pure peanut oil. No sugar or salt added' and the lid proclaimes 'produced in Kent' It tastes good - I love extra salt and sugar but I can taste that this is healthier - and this big tub had a good long shelf life. I've seen a market stall selling it and there's a shop in Herne Bay that sells it. I could let you try it next time I'm in Leam, Phil, then start being your mule.

http://www.veggieperrins.eu

Matt Morrison wrote:So, in the meantime, here's your apparently most poular palm oil-free brand:
http://www.goodnessdirect.co.uk/cgi-loc ... _435g.html

Ooh, ta. Not expensive either. Might give it a go.

Phil Reynolds wrote:

Matt Morrison wrote:The most important peanut butter-based fact is of course: smooth peanut butter != peanut butter.

Indeed. I accidentally bought a jar of smooth a few weeks ago and am really struggling to finish it - it's really not nice at all.

Use it to cook with. A couple of spoonfuls will thicken and flavour curry, or check out some satay recipes.

Phil Reynolds wrote:That looks exactly like the Whole Earth jars that I (and presumably Dez) already buy. It does say it's made with unblanched peanuts; I've never seen any other sort of Whole Earth Crunchy on sale.

Aha. Now I realise how you raced so far ahead of me in posts, you're separating each response into a separate posting!

Good for (the both of) you if you already are using a whole nut peanut butter, but yes indeed Whole Earth do a 'regular' crunchy version, with a red rather than a green top:


This is what I've got in my cupboard at the moment as the local Co-Op sadly doesn't do the whole nut version. It's not as dark or as wholesome.

Phil Reynolds wrote:

Matt Morrison wrote:So, in the meantime, here's your apparently most poular palm oil-free brand:
http://www.goodnessdirect.co.uk/cgi-loc ... _435g.html

Ooh, ta. Not expensive either. Might give it a go.

No problem. Post 1881.

Ian Fitzpatrick wrote:If you fill a glass with ice cubes and then top it up to the brim with water, then wait and let the ice melt, what hapens to the water level?

That's be great if most of the global ice cubes weren't waiting to slide into the glass...

Matt Morrison wrote:

Phil Reynolds wrote:

Matt Morrison wrote:So, in the meantime, here's your apparently most poular palm oil-free brand:
http://www.goodnessdirect.co.uk/cgi-loc ... _435g.html

Ooh, ta. Not expensive either. Might give it a go.

No problem. Post 1881.

So you don't want me to be your mule?

Post 925

Ian Volante wrote:

Ian Fitzpatrick wrote:If you fill a glass with ice cubes and then top it up to the brim with water, then wait and let the ice melt, what hapens to the water level?

That's be great if most of the global ice cubes weren't waiting to slide into the glass...

Where are those "global ice cubes now"?

Ian Fitzpatrick wrote:

Ian Volante wrote:

Ian Fitzpatrick wrote:If you fill a glass with ice cubes and then top it up to the brim with water, then wait and let the ice melt, what hapens to the water level?

That's be great if most of the global ice cubes weren't waiting to slide into the glass...

Where are those "global ice cubes now"?

Mainly Antarctica and Greenland. Large island near the top, archipelago at the bottom.

Ian Fitzpatrick wrote:

Ian Volante wrote:

Ian Fitzpatrick wrote:If you fill a glass with ice cubes and then top it up to the brim with water, then wait and let the ice melt, what hapens to the water level?

That's be great if most of the global ice cubes weren't waiting to slide into the glass...

Where are those "global ice cubes now"?

Antarctic ice is up to two miles high. It contains 90% of the world's ice. If it were divided up, every person on Earth could have a chunk of ice larger than the Great Pyramid. I'm not going to work out how many cubes that is.

Ian Fitzpatrick wrote:Where are those "global ice cubes now"?

I know some people find the quote feature difficult, but quote marks aren't usually so problematic.

It's a load of nonsense. Global warming has clearly been concocted by orangutan charities to sell peanut butter, or something.

There was an article a couple of weeks ago in the Sunday Times, which I can't seem to find now, but it raised some interesting counterpoints to the climate change orthodoxy. My favourites were about solar panels wasting energy, water vapour being the main greenhouse gas and the fact that global temperatures are no longer rising (actually, those are the only three I can remember off the top of my head; I have no favourites).

Please debunk.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Ian Fitzpatrick wrote:Where are those "global ice cubes" now?

I know some people find the quote feature difficult, but quote marks aren't usually so problematic.

Well you know me and the quote feature!!!!

Sue Sanders wrote:

Phil Reynolds wrote:

Matt Morrison wrote:The most important peanut butter-based fact is of course: smooth peanut butter != peanut butter.

Indeed. I accidentally bought a jar of smooth a few weeks ago and am really struggling to finish it - it's really not nice at all.

Use it to cook with. A couple of spoonfuls will thicken and flavour curry, or check out some satay recipes.

Kernel Sanders

Very witty, Wilde

Matt Morrison wrote:

Phil Reynolds wrote:

Matt Morrison wrote:I'm rolling with the same peanut butter at the moment.

That's some bizarre spliff.

I'm sure there is actually some sort of high-inducing peanut-based smoke though I forget which part you use.

Apparrently if you snort the outer layer of the peanut (not the shell) you can get a high
There are special tools to achieve these fine powders
Kernel sanders

Marc Meakin wrote:Kernel sanders

I think its target has aged better than the joke. I'll leave you to decide how strong a claim that is.

Ooh, cataphora.

I quite frequently find my humerus tickled by Marc Meakin's posts. This is why I'm still very surprised to see him with no votes in the favourite members poll.

Perhaps excessive laughing also adds to global warming though.

Marc Meakin wrote:Apparrently if you snort the outer layer of the peanut (not the shell) you can get a high
There are special tools to achieve these fine powders
Kernel sanders

If you snorted the entire peanut, you can get to have the Himlich Maneouvre performed on you, and do the 'peanuts coming out my nose' trick in quick succession.

How have we managed to get a peanut/peanut butter thread in global warming when we've got a sandwich thread? And could everyone stop posting for a while because I HAVE to go to the gym (to ensure I continue aging well, so as not to disappoint charlie.)

Cross-quoting this:

Alec Rivers wrote:When an eco-nut moans at you for not unplugging a phone charger (0.4W = 35p/year) then boils a full kettle to make one mug of tea! (150 secs @2500W, 5 mugs a day = £19.02/year; my method (one mug of water in kettle): 20 secs @2500W, 5 mugs a day = £2.54/year, and it's fresher, and I don't have to wait so long.) [Using an electricity cost of 10p/unit.]

Yep. When I was an undergraduate, my college's Green Officer (a political post requiring no scientific knowledge) would regularly email asking us to unplug our PCs when we weren't using them. I repeatedly asked why it was not adequate to switch them off in the normal way. Answer came there none.

More broadly speaking, I suggest the book "Sustainable Energy Without The Hot Air", by David MacKay, Cambridge physics professor, Fellow of the Royal Society and now Chief Scientific Advisor to the Department of Energy and Climate Change. Unlike the vast majority of waffle written on the subject, this book is purely scientific and unpoliticised, and merely outlines some possible solutions to the energy sustainability problem, while exploding many of the common myths. Best of all, you can read it for free at withouthotair.com. And it's quite funny.

Charlie Reams wrote:I suggest the book "Sustainable Energy Without The Hot Air", by David MacKay ...
Best of all, you can read it for free at withouthotair.com. And it's quite funny.

Duly downloaded.

Alec Rivers wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:I suggest the book "Sustainable Energy Without The Hot Air", by David MacKay ...
Best of all, you can read it for free at withouthotair.com. And it's quite funny.

Duly downloaded.

I've downloaded it and printed it off. Probably won't get time to read it though.

Jon Corby wrote: I've downloaded it and printed it off. Probably won't get time to read it though.

I hope you switched the printer off afterwards.

Jon Corby wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:I suggest the book "Sustainable Energy Without The Hot Air", by David MacKay ...
Best of all, you can read it for free at withouthotair.com. And it's quite funny.

I've downloaded it and printed it off. Probably won't get time to read it though.

I downloaded it and started printing it, thinking it would make good combustible material for the fire, but frustratingly the printer ran out of ink halfway through.