Peckris 2

I choose to believe the vast majority of scientists rather than follow conspiracy theories. Yes, my choice.

Yes, it's true that the Earth has gone through extremes of climate change. During the past x billion years, the planet has been totally frozen over, while at other times it has been a fiery desert. In both extremes life almost died out apart from a few critical bacteria which survived. We cannot know what the climate will do in 1000 years. We can know what is affecting it - and has affected it since the Industrial Revolution - in recent centuries. We know: - the effect of industrialisation on the production of CO2 - the effect of greenhouse gases on the atmosphere - the effect of HCFCs on the ozone layer hole - the effect of massive destruction of the rainforests Yes, there are also natural factors. This, from the Met Office's website: Natural changes to the climate The leading cause of climate change is human activity and the release of greenhouse gases. However, there are lots of natural causes that also lead to changes in the climate system. Natural cycles can cause the climate to alternate between warming and cooling. There are also natural factors that force the climate to change, known as 'forcings'. Even though these natural causes contribute to climate change, we know that they are not the primary cause, based on scientific evidence. Some of these natural cycles include: Milankovitch cycles – As Earth travels around the sun, its path and the tilt of its axis can change slightly. These changes, called Milankovitch cycles, affect the amount of sunlight that falls on Earth. This can cause the temperature of Earth to change. However, these cycles take place over tens or hundreds of thousands of years and are unlikely to be causing the changes to the climate that we are seeing today. El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) – ENSO is a pattern of changing water temperatures in the Pacific Ocean. In an 'El Niño' year, the global temperature warms up, and in a 'La Niña' year, it cools down. These patterns can affect the global temperature for a short amount of time (months or years) but cannot explain the persistent warming that we see today. Natural forcings that can contribute to climate change include: Solar irradiance – Changing energy from the sun has affected the temperature of Earth in the past. However, we have not seen anything strong enough to change our climate. Any increase in solar energy would make the entire atmosphere of Earth warm, but we can only see warming in the bottom layer. Volcanic eruptions – Volcanoes have a mixed effect on our climate. Eruptions produce aerosol particles that cool Earth, but they also release carbon dioxide, which warms it. Volcanoes produce 50 times less carbon dioxide than humans do, so we know they are not the leading cause of global warming. On top of this, cooling is the dominant effect of volcanic eruptions, not warming. I don't know why you choose to go against over 90% of the scientific community who state unequivocally that greenhouse gases are the prime cause of the climate change we are experiencing. Those other historical factors you mention are due to the "mini Ice Age" the planet went through from the late medieval period to the 19th Century. This, from Wikipedia: The Little Ice Age (LIA) was a period of regional cooling, particularly pronounced in the North Atlantic region, that occurred after the Medieval Warm Period.[2] It was not a true ice age of global extent. The term was introduced into scientific literature by François E. Matthes in 1939.[3] The time period has been conventionally defined as extending from the 16th to the 19th centuries,[4][5][6] but some experts prefer an alternative timespan from about 1300[7] to about 1850.[8][9][10] The NASA Earth Observatory notes three particularly cold intervals. One began about 1650, another about 1770, and the last in 1850, all of which were separated by intervals of slight warming.[6] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Assessment Report considered that the timing and the areas affected by the Little Ice Age suggested largely independent regional climate changes, rather than a globally synchronous increased glaciation. At most, there was modest cooling of the Northern Hemisphere during the period.[11] Several causes have been proposed: cyclical lows in solar radiation, heightened volcanic activity, changes in the ocean circulation, variations in Earth's orbit and axial tilt (orbital forcing), inherent variability in global climate, and decreases in the human population (such as from the Black Death and the epidemics emerging in the Americas upon European contact[12]). And this diagram should give you pause for thought: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age#/media/File:2000+_year_global_temperature_including_Medieval_Warm_Period_and_Little_Ice_Age_-_Ed_Hawkins.svg

I simply cannot believe the climate change deniers in this forum. Even knowing your politics, I still cannot believe it. Even Boris Johnson was so concerned about it that he passed a law banning new petrol driven cars from 2030, and has promoted energy alternatives to fossil fuels. You know, does it matter a damn whether climate change is caused by man (yet the facts point very clearly to it)? The average global temperature has steadily increased since it started being measured. And the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased during the same period. Ice caps are melting. Coincidence? Obviously not. Ok, let's indulge ourselves in the climate equivalent of Pascal's wager: 1. Climate change is happening (whether caused by man is not relevant) 2. We can spend trillions trying to prevent or even reverse it. 1. True. 2. True. result: a positive impact on the climate, which improves the lives of every creature on the planet 1. True. 2. False. result: things get worse and worse, and the habitable areas on the planet diminish, with severe fires, floods, storms, etc becoming more and more frequent 1. False. 2. False. result: things stay much as they are now 1. False. 2. True. result: the world economy goes into the same recession as covid caused, and all for no good reason. This shows that the second alternative is by far the worst. I'd rather be proved wrong on climate knowing that even so we did our best in case (as the science indicates) it was true.

"Would the coins historical value decrease if I did the same? " No, not its historical value, especially what is personal to you. Obviously its actual monetary value will be severely affected.

Thanks. It seems absolutely clear from that that the protest group are not Extinction Rebellion, but a group I hadn't heard of called Insulate Britain (though I'm 100% in favour of what they want to achieve). Holding up ambulances would be most unfortunate, though I'm wondering how ambulances deal with ordinary tailbacks? They must have protocols to deal with it, as there many jams and eventual temporary closures on the M25 caused by breakdowns, accidents, or even a heavy commute.

That sounds like a Daily Mail story. Do you have a source for such an event?

Yes, people on low incomes do need help. But so does the planet and we have no time to waste. Those 'eco loons' can see what's coming.

But are you sure that's a result of the gulf stream, rather than climate change? If Europe experiences the same things we do, then the latter is almost certainly the cause IMO.

It's virtually a Catch 22 - we need alternative energy now more than ever (urgently), yet the way energy supplies are structured there are so many people who can't afford to pay for it. It will take imagination on the part of government (which sadly so few of them have) to find radical new ways to supply and pay for our energy needs.

The result of the Gulf Stream sinking further South does in fact mean we will lose its protection. However, you can't compare us with Canada - even without the GS the prevailing tendency will still be westerly winds off the Atlantic so though colder than now in winter, we'll still be milder than 'over there'. However, measures to slow climate change right down are the best thing.

Let's just hope that this is a spur to quickening up the research into energy efficient alternatives - solar panels on roofs are slowly spreading but making them more efficient would be good, and they've only just begun to work out how to make wave energy work. Meantime, I hear Bill Gates is putting investment money into a modern, cleaner, more fuel efficient form of nuclear reactor whose advantage is that it can use the waste fuel from older reactors (whose design is appallingly out of date - 1950s in some cases). If Putin's warmongering hastens sustainable and efficient alternatives to energy, then that's one in the eye for him.

So basically it's the equivalent of a postal auction?

That baffles me too - if they manage to track down an upgrade, you'd think they would be generous enough to make the first example available to other collectors.

What infuriates me is when sites insist you have to have a mobile number when you register with them. Sites like Google and PayPal can send a code via voicemail to your landline - why can't other sites?? Why do they all insist you MUST own a mobile? And has anyone tried to buy a PAYG phone recently?

I don't know how accurate this is, but I once read that there were intended to be two series of The Prisoner (at least). The first series was to be 13 episodes, and they had already filmed the first two episodes of Series 2 - "Living In Harmony" and "The Girl Who Was Death" - which do have a different feel about them to the initial 13. However, for the reasons DaveG says, it wasn't taken up so they broadcast them immediately following the supposed end of Series 1. But they did need to end the show somehow, so McGoohan was instructed to do that, and he is listed as the writer for episodes 16 and 17, for which they also brought back Leo McKern as Number Two. I'm not sure McGoohan even knew how it was all meant to end - if at all - which explains the very psychedelic and confusing final episode which left more balls in the air than they knew what to do with. The very end though, does make you think that he never did escape ... though whether that means The Village or - by analogy - from what society was becoming, the whole show being a metaphor of some kind, is left rather open-ended.

The ending is kind of appropriate, but the original had an ending which was the result of not knowing how to end it, which is why they came up with that totally psychedelic final episode.

Did you ever see the remake, which aired on ITV about ?15 years ago? It got panned, but mostly by fans of the original. Actually it wasn't half bad, and Ruth Wilson gave it her usual edgy glamour. Never even got repeated which is a shame.

Mike should set his computer's clock back 6 months, then send Ingrams an email marked "urgent"

There is one other possibility which you may or may not have already considered: Your contents insurer will have a valuables component which usually has a 100% replacement value attached to it. Coin collections may (or not) be included, but the valuables cover they provide will be inadequate for your needs. However, they may be open to extending the maximum covered considerably at a higher premium cost which you would have to agree with them. Whether or not 'contents' insurance covers valuables which are stored in a bank, is an additional question and I'm not competent to answer it!

Just one more thing: You might want to handle coins only by the edges. With the older and toned coins you're doing, it matters less, but with uncirculated coins it's the best way to put fingerprints on the coin; and do it enough times and you will begin to see slight wear as well.