I've got about 50 of his 71 novels. For sure they're entertaining, well constructed and the use of language is delightful.
There's something you notice if you read a whole lot of Wodehouse in quick succession: I'd estimate that there are about 20 plots among the ones I've read -- that is to say, the same situations, characters and plot devices are reused often, and if you removed the redundancy, you'd end up with about 20 novels. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
There's also only one chapter order, which the great man used in every single book: 2 follows 1, 3 follows 2, etc. I can't remember even a flashback? I don't think his interests extended to that. He wrote sentences, paragraphs, not much more.
I have 15-20, my favourite is an unusual one, I think: French Leave.
Good question. Maybe (just speculating here) because it would be dangerous to land with too much fuel on board? Planes dump fuel for that reason when aborting shortly after takeoff, but that may only be a problem with tanks close to full.
After a transatlantic flight it's highly unlikely you'll land over your maximum landing weight. That situation usually happens only when they have to land within an hour of takeoff.
Unfortunately there's a scam for that,apparently. The scam caller tells the victim to call their bank, but doesn't hang up. The victim hangs up, calls the bank, the scammer is still on the line.
If you're concerned about that, wait a minute. I can't find any discussion of the scam online, but I would hazard a guess that this isn't really an attack vector these days.
It happened to an old lady in switzerland recently - she didn't hang up, the scammer just got quiet after saying he would hang up so she could call the police, and then had someone else answer the lady when she assumed she was talking to the police.
Misleading. You have to appeal to pre-history to find temperature levels similar to current.
> Eventually we'll plunge into another glacial period, and no amount of CO2 will stop it.
Eventually, i.e. 10's or 100's of thousands of years, if CO2 levels revert to preindustrial.
You are appealing to timescales of thousands of years, but the timescale relevant to the problem and our response is years and decades. Is your comment intended to minimise the problem of current warming? If so why?
The early Holocene does predate the alphabet, but it's only 6,000 years ago, a blink of an eye geologically speaking. There were also several cooling and warming episodes in the interim since then, with the Minoan, Roman, and Medieval Warm periods all exceeding modern temperatures. Historically, warm climate has correlated with boom times for civilization and cold periods have brought famine. See research below:
(Note: CO2 was at least 100 ppm lower than today yet the Arctic hit much higher temps and had to lose much of its ice as a result)
"Peak warmth occurred ~10 ka BP, with temperatures 7 °C warmer than today due to high radiative forcing and intensified inflow of warm Atlantic waters."
Global average temperatures 6000 years ago were 0.5 °C warmer than baseline (1961-1990 average), now it's 1.1 °C. Historical warm periods were local, and global average temps did not exceed current temperatures. (Also, modern is a weasel word here -- you could pick e.g. 1920 and be correct).
Even if warming stopped now, Arctic and Antarctic would continue to melt for decades to come. Rate of change is key.
Your reference is also local (to the arctic), not global.
Again, what argument are you making here?
Is it: 1: It was warmer in the past / 1a: but nothing bad happened / 1b: therefore current warming is not due to human activity / 2: therefore there is no need to reduce CO2 levels.
From the abstract:
During peak warmth, summer temperatures were 7 °C warmer than today as more solar radiation and warm water reached the Arctic. However, Early Holocene warming was much slower than today.
Another niche sport recommendation: unicycling! Good for core, a unique skill, insanely fun. Learning is a test of perseverance. If you're physically talented, advanced skills will keep you engaged. If you're merely able-bodied, you can still learn to ride. A surprising number of people take it up in their 50s and 60s.
Even if it were true that the climate has changed as much and as rapidly in the past, what difference does that make to our current situation? All but a few years in the next 3 centuries will be hotter than all but a few years in the past 3 centuries, and look at the impacts we're experiencing already.
> There's no doubt we have impact, but it's not certain that it's the major driving force
Just false. There is no reasonable doubt that human activity is responsible for about 100% (could be less, could be more) of the current warming.
I'm in the UK. I get about 2-3 a week on the landline, 1-2 a week on the mobile. 30% "This is Microsoft/your ISP, your computer is hacked", 30% "You were involved in an accident that wasn't your fault", 10% oven cleaning services.
I suspect that English speaking scammer call centres are a reason for this.
There's something you notice if you read a whole lot of Wodehouse in quick succession: I'd estimate that there are about 20 plots among the ones I've read -- that is to say, the same situations, characters and plot devices are reused often, and if you removed the redundancy, you'd end up with about 20 novels. Not that there's anything wrong with that.