Ozexpatriate

That is a sensible and understandable position. Earlier in this thread there were some videos by Bob Carter from James Cook University. Bob Carter claims to be "agnostic" about global warming but the sarcasm in his presentation suggests otherwise. On his website, Bob claims that he receives no funding from special interests and I will take his word on this. As an Australian, Bob lives in a country with the highest per-capita CO2 emissions on the planet. The Australian economy is ruled by mining, and a very large share of the mineral exports, including significant amounts of coal, go to China. Australia escaped the worst effects of the debt crunch thanks to their healthy volume of mineral exports to China. Reducing global CO2 emmissions has grave effects on the status-quo in Australia. Does this affect Bob's reasoning? Even he may not know.

Certainly as the earth moves from more elliptical to more circular orbits and wobbles and tilts, the temperature fluctuates enough to produce ice ages and this is clearly evident in the last 400,000 years. Against this timescale, the 200 years since the industrial revolution cannot produce enough definitive data. For me, mountains of coal being pumped into the sky every day all over the planet cannot be a good thing. Over the last 400,000 years the peak atmospheric CO2 was 280ppm with an average of around 200ppm. It is now at 380ppm. This is not a natural cycle and is not confined to Europe and the US. China is the largest emitter of CO2. The earth is a closed system. Any change in this system will have unintended consequences. There's a story - perhaps a bit apocryphal, but it is plausible and goes like this. Cashmere wool comes from central asian goats. To satisfy western demand for cheaper cashmere (Kashmir if you prefer) many goats were bred in central China. They denuded the landscape and created dust clouds. The jet stream carried this high altitude dust across the Pacific and where it affected microclimates in the Pacific Northwest. Goats can change the weather? "Ridiculous!", you might say. It is quite plausible in a closed system.

In amongst the poor grammar that is deplored everywhere, and the inevitable pronunciation* differences: z: zed / zee leverage: lee-ver-ig / lev-er-ig and word subsititutions**: shopping trolley / shopping cart full stop / period railway station / train station fringe / bangs ("bangs" is the 17th most noted Americanism? Really??) I did see a couple of words on the list that actually do resonate with me. The colloquial use of "alternate" (alter-nat, not all-ter-nate) instead of "alternative" in US English is irritating. At least no one posed the non-word "irregardless". * On the subject of pronunciations there are some English pronunciations that make me giggle. Everyone one says "innovation" the same way (inno-vay-shun), but right of the pond, "innovative" becomes in-of-at-iv rather than the more consistent inno-vay-tiv. ** In my formative years my parents were most particular about "rubbish" versus the American "trash". Receptacles for garbage are such a font of regional preferences. We have: dust bin, rubbish bin, garbage bin, trash can, garbage pail, wastepaper basket, rubbish tip, garbage dump, landfill, skip/dumpster, etc ... but "wheelie bin" is truly global! International English is a wellspring of entertainment.

It amuses me to see how many words are blamed on being "Americanisms" that frankly I don't hear on this side of the pond. "Least worst option" and "two-time" are not common vernacular in the US. They're just bad grammar anywhere. Notably, five of the top 10 reported items show quotes from Holland, New Zealand, the United States and Canada. Picking on a few examples from the top 20, the on-line Oxford ENGLISH Dictionary lists as its first references ... for "deplane", a magazine printed in Edinburgh in 1923 for "physicality", a book printed in London in 1827 for "transportation", an ACT OF PARLIAMENT in 1540 for "gotten", the selected works of John Wyclif c1380 for "ridiculosity", a religious tract called "Church of English True Church" from 1645 et cetera. Americanisms? Perhaps not?

Fair enough. (I was keen to see some data - thank you.) I'll restate. Single largest contributor to CO2 emissions is coal-fired power stations. It is greater than all the cars, trucks, ships and trains put togther, by almost 50%. This is particularly true of the growth of CO2 emissions in China. Here's some US data that correlates pretty well with your UK data: The SO2 problem is one that has been significantly addressed in the US. Being the biggest contributor to acid rain in the 1970s there has been a big effort in this space. The coal industry lobby in the US runs ads extolling the virtues of what they call "clean coal" (meaning a coal burning process that produces significantly less SO2.) This is the most monstrously misleading euphemism imaginable. "Clean coal" is eco-friendly, because it's "clean", you see! QED.

Yes, "Greenwashing" is bad. Slapping greenwash on a product is morally very questionable, but in the spirit of P.T.Barnum's "There's a sucker born every minute" it's only going to get worse. The problem with Global Warming (which the Bush administration consistently refered to as "Climate Change") is the maxim that there are "lies, damned lies and statistics". It is impossible for the average person, even a well educated one, to have a truly objective position. To hold an opinion, you have to believe someone else's interpretation. This is an act of faith. The earth is a pecarious place for organic life. The earth has existed for only 4.5 billion (US) years. (Humans only about 120,000 years). It is staggering to look at the number of mass extinctions over the last 500 million years. Every one of these extinctions was caused by some sort of climate change - usually from some sort of gas introduction into the atmosphere. Our present happy and harmonious climate has lasted for about 10,000 years (since glaciation ended) and glaciation will almost certainly return (some day). The single material issue at stake with "global warming" is coal-fired power. The frustrating thing about the "eco" discussion is that so much energy is focused on picayune issues like replacing incandescent light bulbs. Light bulbs are a percentage of domestic power consumption which is a percentage of consumer power consumption which is a percentage of the power actually generated etc. I'm not sure of the data here, but suspect that all the cars, trucks and ships in the world combined, don't create a fraction of the CO2 as coal-fired power stations. (I'd love to see a good reference.) I'd like to suggest a "thought experiment". Think of the big pile of coal at a coal-fired power station. They are huge - tens of metres high. What is the mass of this pile? All of this coal is burnt to drive a colossal steam engine. C + O2 -> CO2 and pretty much all of the pile goes into the atmosphere as gas. Think of how many trains per day replenish the pile to get an idea of how many tonnes of atmospheric CO2 is created for every coal-fired power station in the world every day. It is a lot. Whether you think this is enough to upset the natural balance of the atmosphere is up to what you choose to believe. With the exception of nuclear power (which is not without unpleasant side effects of it's own) alternative "large" renewable sources of power (wind, wave, solar farms etc) are not the answer. They create comparatively small amounts of power. The only technically feasible solution I see would be a massive distributed network of small solar arrays on virtually every building and car park, working in concert to reduce the number of power stations required. It would be hideously expensive and would probably never be cheaper than coal-fired power. Ultimately the question comes back to whether you believe it is important and just how much the atmosphere can self regulate the increasing number of big piles of coal burned into CO2 every day.

It's certainly not an entirely new phenomenon, or this wouldn't be as funny as it was, and clearly still is:

Simon, While I can't pretend that I "know" the real answer, I think the fact that this is a limited edition paint job coupled with the fact that the combination of Sanda Kan and Hornby have really struggled to meet their delivery commitments in the last couple of years and the perception that Hornby need to show their investors revenue right now; means that everything manufactured gets sold. There is nothing set aside for spares. This would cost them sales. That is a current trend in RTR models, particularly evident in this case with the detailed lining in the paint job. Modern mechanics are less easy to repair. (Can motors need to be replaced, unlike older motors that can be rewired and remagnetized.) With the exception of some regular posters here whose work with spray gun and bow pen is excellent, even paint and detailed lining feels like it is beyond many of us. (Perhaps it is fair to admit that many of us are more intimidated than incapable of learning. It certainly feels that way for me.)

I can assure you that A. A. Milne's works (with illustrations by Ernest Shepard) are readily available in quality printed hardbacks in the US. Not everything is Disneyfied.

It depends where you are. This is a grim stretch of road if you are low on fuel. I had to rescue my son when he ran out of gas at night coming the other way.

I see a lot of opprobrium directed at the Juke. Does Nissan not market the Cube in Britain? It is far worse than the Juke. I'm not keen on the Murano Cabriolet either. It just looks ... wrong. Nevertheless, I'm very happy with my 350Z. I very much want to upgrade it to a 370Z, but it runs so well, there's no point.

A very evocative preview.

Should I understand this to mean a Staffordshire Bull Terrier? I was quite at a loss for a while there. Staffy/Staffies is a new term for me.

Are any of these actually successful* in their chosen profession? * Let's define "success" in terms of actually being elected or hired into a relevant paid post. (And asked genuinely without the intent to start a political discussion. I am unfamiliar with the minutia of British politics at the grass roots level.)

Good call. Is their a particular "Anheuser-Busch InBev" lager that wins the largest share of your opprobrium, or do you refer mostly to the one now being advertised here in the US in the 'new chalice can'? The list is disturbingly long. Busch Light, Rock Light and the truly ghastly Natural (aka "Natty") Light have to be near the bottom.

I can't imagine having "Bristol" as a first name! (Through it's certainly preferable to being named "Trig" or "Track".)

Indeed! Given recent trends in appellatives for celebrity offspring I thought "Harper" was quite sedate. The name while uncommon is not unheard of in the US, largely thanks to the novelist Harper Lee and her famous work "To Kill A Mockingbird". On "Seven" however, I make no comments. That worthy on-line reference (people.com / People Magazine) had this to say: So ... is Harper an old English name?

Seconded! Err, presumably stinging insects in the Hymenoptera / Aprocrita subfamily, much like the Vespula genus? See Vespula squamosa, Vespula vulgaris, Vespula Germanica etc.

Far from taking umbrage to mulitprinter's post, firstly as an Australian who went through the Metric transition and secondly as a transplant across the other pond (the Pacific) to the U.S. of A, I find your post hilarious, though perhaps in an ironic way and not at all in agreement with its sentiment. It is indeed deeply suited to the "Grumpies" thread and I don't quite know where to begin to respond so I won't and I'll just enjoy your post for what it is! There is no substitute for the metric system as a coherent system of measurements. I say this as an engineer. There is no simply no place for foot-pound furlongs per fortnight to a scientific mind. Having a coherent system of units where a Joule of energy means the same thing electrically (Volt Amp seconds) as it does in potential energy (kg x m^2/s^2) is wonderful. The Mars Observer, humourously noted by bluebottle is a classic illustration of the problems in maintaining multiple systems of measurement. Much like US spellings, US weights and measures vary considerably from their Imperial ancestors - see here. The US ton (2,000 lb) and the US Gallon are quite different to British measures. This is a source of all kinds of confusion and is very important regarding pints of beer. Personally, for beer, I prefer the Imperial pint (by about 20%)! Khris, ah, there we differ. I was taught the Metric system in Australia in my formative days and am conversant in both Metric and Imperial units. (I currently live in a country that uses psuedo-Imperial units.) I do remember the deep regret with which the generation of older Australians mourned the passing of the 'furlong' when horse races are called. Me, not so much!

Thanks for the catch! I guess I should have been wearing my specs looking at the catalogue.

I certainly hope so. I was a bit disappointed with my Tintagel Castle. After such a long period of anticipation it arrived - a very nice model (and unlike some, I didn't get a smokebox number plate), but lots of bits were broken and rattling in the box. Some of them were easily fixed (like the chimney) but there are some underframe details that I still haven't sorted where they belong or how I will attach them. Perhaps I'm foolish, but while I'll fix my No. 5011 I'm hoping that a new number might arrive intact. Given the popularity of modelling the post-nationalization period, there are understandably more BR than GWR liveries modelled but the ratio is now at least 8:1. Oh, how things have changed since the 1980s! The 2011 catalogue evened up the early and late crests. GWR: Tintagel Castle BR: Earl Cairns (Early crest) Beverston Castle (Early crest) Ince Castle (Late crest, double chimney) Kidwelly Castle (Early crest, sound) Swindon (Late crest - STEAM Museum special) Great Western (Early crest) Clun Castle (Late crest, double chimney, sound) Taunton Castle (Early crest) Multiple edits for accuracy - thanks everyone!

There are four Castles with the latest tooling in the 2011 catalogue. R2848 GWR Tintagel Castle R2849 BR Beverston Castle R2994XS BR Clun Castle (with sound) NEW R2986 BR Taunton Castle (A Date with the Duchy set) NEW Given that there was a 24 month wait for Tintagel Castle, it would both surprise (and in a manner of speaking, disappoint) me to find large stocks of them left. I'm not keeping track of releases for the new 2011 BR Castles, but I don't recall them being released yet, so plans do exist to reuse the fixed Castle tooling. Fixed spelling of Beverston.

I think Walthers is caught between wanting to be both a direct internet-based retailer and what may possibly be the US' leading wholesaler. They clearly don't want to set prices that undercut their biggest customers - the local hobby shops. At this point, since I can, I prefer to use local hobby shops rather than purchase on-line and many of the items I buy come through Walthers but via the local shop. There are at least three local hobby shops in Portland. For UK items everything I buy is on-line/mail order.

My kith and kin are in Brisbane, but I live in rainy Portland, Oregon so regrettably I'm not very close. It's June and the summer solstice is next week, but it's warmer and dryer in Brisbane than it is here this weekend! Unofficially, summer doesn't start here until July 5th.

Good luck with your project - the hobbit holes look very good so far. I like the idea of having dwarves running the railway and the narrow gauge decision suits the theme nicely. I don't think hobbits would be mechanically oriented enough. I think you are heading in a direction that hits the right notes - which is tricky. Because with the Shire, Tolkien romanticized bucolic village life before the industrial revolution and he despises the 'infernal engines' of Saruman's invention, it is very hard to marry steam engines (the very embodiment of the industrial revolution) with Middle Earth. It is easy to imagine an alternative Sharkey's Shire with trainloads of hobbits being packed off to work slavishly in some dark Satanic mill atmosphere. Steam engines fit well into this nightmare vision, but it would be quite an unattractive topic. It looks like you are walking this tightrope quite well and I look forward to your progress.