<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Musings of the Technical Bard &#187; Climate change</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.technicalbard.com/archives/category/science/climate-change/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.technicalbard.com</link>
	<description>Thoughts on Politics, Technology and the world around us</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 22 Aug 2010 07:10:51 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>On Climate Change Risk</title>
		<link>http://www.technicalbard.com/archives/592</link>
		<comments>http://www.technicalbard.com/archives/592#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 20 Mar 2010 21:27:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Taliesyn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Climate change]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.technicalbard.com/?p=592</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[One of my readers has asked a question about climate risk.  Recently, statements have been made in various publications, ranging from Scientific American, Discover and The Economist positing that: Action on climate is justified, not because the science is certain, but precisely because it is not. This is a combination of the precautionary principle and [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.technicalbard.com/archives/592/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bad Science in major Science Publications</title>
		<link>http://www.technicalbard.com/archives/585</link>
		<comments>http://www.technicalbard.com/archives/585#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Mar 2010 23:16:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Taliesyn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Climate change]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Education]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.technicalbard.com/?p=585</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Recently, I&#8217;ve stumbled onto a few bad science columns and articles in major science publications, Discover and Scientific American. To start, Lawrence Krauss, a respectable physicist, starts delving into ocean chemistry and climate when he brings forth the notion that increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere will decrease the pH of the ocean, making it [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.technicalbard.com/archives/585/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Canada&#8217;s Climate Change Target</title>
		<link>http://www.technicalbard.com/archives/552</link>
		<comments>http://www.technicalbard.com/archives/552#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 31 Jan 2010 18:28:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Taliesyn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Canadian]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Climate change]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.technicalbard.com/?p=552</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[OK, given that the evidence is now out on climate change, I am very disappointed that the Government of Canada insists on going along with the charade of Copenhagen by committing us, in a non-binding way, to a reduction of 17% in CO2 emissions from 2005 levels by 2020&#8230; Let&#8217;s work out how much that [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.technicalbard.com/archives/552/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>AGW feedback loop &#8220;weaker than thought&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://www.technicalbard.com/archives/545</link>
		<comments>http://www.technicalbard.com/archives/545#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Jan 2010 22:46:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Taliesyn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Climate change]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.technicalbard.com/?p=545</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[So, some climate scientists have published a study showing that the feared feedback loop whereby rising CO2 levels would raise temperatures which would raise CO2 levels, ad infinitum, is not as pronounced as previously believed or modeled. It is interesting though that the scientists are very quick to discount their own research: The authors warn, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.technicalbard.com/archives/545/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>More Global Warming Fraud</title>
		<link>http://www.technicalbard.com/archives/541</link>
		<comments>http://www.technicalbard.com/archives/541#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Jan 2010 16:20:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Taliesyn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Climate change]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.technicalbard.com/?p=541</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The &#8220;uncertainty&#8221; behind global warming science that got its real start with the ClimateGate emails is getting legs as more and more &#8220;questionable&#8221; things start to pop up.  Here is the latest: Glaciergate The IPCC and it&#8217;s chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, are starting to take real heat, particularly in India and the UK for promoting the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.technicalbard.com/archives/541/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Calculating Copenhagen</title>
		<link>http://www.technicalbard.com/archives/529</link>
		<comments>http://www.technicalbard.com/archives/529#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Dec 2009 23:17:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Taliesyn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Climate change]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.technicalbard.com/?p=529</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[OK, so I&#8217;ve crunched the numbers on the non-agreement made at Copenhagen, using data from the IEA on emissions. In 2006, CO2 emissions from the world were about 28.4 billion tonnes, of which about 51.5% were from the &#8220;developed world&#8221;.  This compares to about 21 billion tonnes in 1990, when 66% were from developed countries. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.technicalbard.com/archives/529/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Are you ready to pay?</title>
		<link>http://www.technicalbard.com/archives/512</link>
		<comments>http://www.technicalbard.com/archives/512#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Dec 2009 04:29:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Taliesyn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Climate change]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.technicalbard.com/?p=512</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In the draft proposal leaked in Copenhagen yesterday apparently suggests: &#8230; that developing countries would not be allowed to emit more than 1.44 tonnes of annual carbon dioxide equivalent emissions per person by 2050, but that developed countries would be allowed to emit up to 2.67 tonnes of annual carbon dioxide equivalent emissions per person in [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.technicalbard.com/archives/512/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Understanding &#8220;Hide the Decline&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://www.technicalbard.com/archives/505</link>
		<comments>http://www.technicalbard.com/archives/505#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Dec 2009 02:44:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Taliesyn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Climate change]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Education]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.technicalbard.com/?p=505</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Thanks to Kate over at SDA for this:  Understanding Climategate&#8217;s Hidden Decline.  As she said &#8211; a MUST READ. Key to the problem is: The truth is that the proxy data was scrapped because unlike those measured, reconstructed temperatures showed a marked decline after 1980.  And, as the chart plotted temperature anomalies against what the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.technicalbard.com/archives/505/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>RWP and MWP warmer than current</title>
		<link>http://www.technicalbard.com/archives/498</link>
		<comments>http://www.technicalbard.com/archives/498#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Dec 2009 03:23:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Taliesyn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Climate change]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.technicalbard.com/?p=498</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[So, the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods were warmer than the current day in the North Atlantic.  All while CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere were lower.  Correlation is that higher temperatures are not necessarily caused by high CO2.  So does high CO2 today matter? Also &#8211; see Lord Monckton&#8217;s latest paper on ClimateGate!]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.technicalbard.com/archives/498/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Credibility and Climategate</title>
		<link>http://www.technicalbard.com/archives/495</link>
		<comments>http://www.technicalbard.com/archives/495#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Dec 2009 23:29:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Taliesyn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Climate change]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.technicalbard.com/?p=495</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ronald Bailey has a very good editorial on the subject.  A couple of key portions on the climate change science: In an email to University of Alabama climatologist John Christy I asked, &#8220;Is there a possibility that the teams that compile temperature data could all be making the same set of errors which would result [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.technicalbard.com/archives/495/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
