tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5597906.post7793642167712391128..comments2023-08-24T23:19:59.072+02:00Comments on Opinionations: The Australian and Postmodern SciencePhilip Machanickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03164887573361181817noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5597906.post-47711002241915587732009-07-05T00:21:41.822+02:002009-07-05T00:21:41.822+02:00> 85 per cent of volcanoes are
> unseen and ...> 85 per cent of volcanoes are<br />> unseen and unmeasured <br /><br />And he knows this how?<br /><br />Reminds me of the rather commonly asked questions decades ago when I was a cave tour guide: "How much of this cave has never been explored?"<br /><br />At least back then they knew they didn't know what they didn't know.Hank Robertsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5597906.post-23321318580967822532009-04-23T00:08:00.000+02:002009-04-23T00:08:00.000+02:00Anthony, did he really say that? Carbon is black a...Anthony, did he really say that? Carbon is black anyway ...Philip Machanickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03164887573361181817noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5597906.post-27140330700993096022009-04-22T09:54:00.000+02:002009-04-22T09:54:00.000+02:00Plimer was on ABC2 news this morning with a very v...Plimer was on ABC2 news this morning with a very valuable point along the lines of; it's not 'carbon pollution' because 'carbon' is brown and we'd be able to see it'. <br /><br />Quality padding.Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05849240671473744463noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5597906.post-20212105471926657882009-04-22T08:08:00.000+02:002009-04-22T08:08:00.000+02:00I think we need people like Plimer and outlets lik...I think we need people like Plimer and outlets like The Australian, as they show for the public record just how weak the sceptic's case is. No physics, no data, just a lot of handwaving and obfuscationChrisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5597906.post-36495362434144533932009-04-21T12:35:00.000+02:002009-04-21T12:35:00.000+02:00Anonymous 1: I can't find my source for 2C/century...Anonymous 1: I can't find my source for 2C/century but at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming you will find a higher figure for this for the land trend (lower for oceans). The overall trend should include both figures. As I recall this number is for the rate over recent decades so whatever happened in 1900 is irrelevant. In any case, the Hadley numbers are thin on Arctic weather stations Philip Machanickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03164887573361181817noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5597906.post-66405468602323413562009-04-20T17:40:00.000+02:002009-04-20T17:40:00.000+02:00here's a novel idea. Don't buy the paper.here's a novel idea. Don't buy the paper.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5597906.post-37596754966507131702009-04-20T12:55:00.000+02:002009-04-20T12:55:00.000+02:00ON what basis do you claim that global temeperatur...ON what basis do you claim that global temeperature is rising by 2oC a century, when even GISS, after using bogus 1900 baseline data (which excludes all tropical temperatures because there were NIL records there then) can only report 0.7oC from 1900 to 2000?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com