<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	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/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Comments, corrections, clarifications, and c*ckups</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/10/31/comments-corrections-clarifications-and-cckups/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/10/31/comments-corrections-clarifications-and-cckups/</link>
	<description>now with extra source</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:23:56 +1100</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Richard McGuire</title>
		<link>http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/10/31/comments-corrections-clarifications-and-cckups/#comment-834</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard McGuire</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-834</guid>
		<description>Here we go again. It&#039;s a tedious business but someone has to do it. Three naysayers to respond to this time.......................................First to Jeffrey Coombs. I would steer clear of the web site called &quot;Junk Science&quot; Jeffrey. The only thing to be said in its favour is the fact that its title accurately reflects its content. Your use of a graph from this source to claim that atmospheric CO2 levels have not been as low for 300 million years demonstrates this fact.   This what the IPCC&#039;s 4th Summary Report had to say on the subject.  &quot;Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 (379 ppm) in 2005 exceed by far  the natural range over the last 650,000 years.&quot;   Take my advice Jeffrey stay away from &quot;Junk Science.&quot;.......................................Eric Brodrick sees ahead, a Middle Ages scenario, where we&#039;ll need to adapt to &quot;mass migrations, warfare and general disruption&quot; which is likely to be spot on if we follow Eric&#039;s advice......................................Finally to that serial offender Tamas Calderwood.   Referring to your graph Tamas, do we see a world getting warmer? Yes.   Maybe not climatically extreme just yet. But changing quickly enough to start alarm bells ringing.    As for those ARGO buoys, the subject was covered in the science blog Real Climate, 18th April 2007 and again 19th June 2008. It turns out the ARGO buoy data showing ocean cooling was incorrrect.  Happy researching Tamas.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Here we go again. It&#8217;s a tedious business but someone has to do it. Three naysayers to respond to this time&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;First to Jeffrey Coombs. I would steer clear of the web site called &#8220;Junk Science&#8221; Jeffrey. The only thing to be said in its favour is the fact that its title accurately reflects its content. Your use of a graph from this source to claim that atmospheric CO2 levels have not been as low for 300 million years demonstrates this fact.   This what the IPCC&#8217;s 4th Summary Report had to say on the subject.  &#8220;Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 (379 ppm) in 2005 exceed by far  the natural range over the last 650,000 years.&#8221;   Take my advice Jeffrey stay away from &#8220;Junk Science.&#8221;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;Eric Brodrick sees ahead, a Middle Ages scenario, where we&#8217;ll need to adapt to &#8220;mass migrations, warfare and general disruption&#8221; which is likely to be spot on if we follow Eric&#8217;s advice&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;..Finally to that serial offender Tamas Calderwood.   Referring to your graph Tamas, do we see a world getting warmer? Yes.   Maybe not climatically extreme just yet. But changing quickly enough to start alarm bells ringing.    As for those ARGO buoys, the subject was covered in the science blog Real Climate, 18th April 2007 and again 19th June 2008. It turns out the ARGO buoy data showing ocean cooling was incorrrect.  Happy researching Tamas.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael de Angelos</title>
		<link>http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/10/31/comments-corrections-clarifications-and-cckups/#comment-835</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael de Angelos</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-835</guid>
		<description>I assumed Catherine James was being tongue in cheek when she said &quot;whoever she is&quot; in reference to Evelyn Waugh so I think those knocking her are being rather smug but as Alexis points out the obvious-that the writer Evelyn Waugh of Brideshead Revisited fame went to his maker decades ago, we have no proof that the one claiming to be the current Waugh is not a female.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Or have we all been had-perhaps the new Evelyn Waugh is none other than-Catherine James and that is why she knows the sex of Crikey&#039;s Evelyn !.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I assumed Catherine James was being tongue in cheek when she said &#8220;whoever she is&#8221; in reference to Evelyn Waugh so I think those knocking her are being rather smug but as Alexis points out the obvious-that the writer Evelyn Waugh of Brideshead Revisited fame went to his maker decades ago, we have no proof that the one claiming to be the current Waugh is not a female.</p>
<p>Or have we all been had-perhaps the new Evelyn Waugh is none other than-Catherine James and that is why she knows the sex of Crikey&#8217;s Evelyn !.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mick</title>
		<link>http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/10/31/comments-corrections-clarifications-and-cckups/#comment-836</link>
		<dc:creator>Mick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-836</guid>
		<description>Nice work Tamas....you can misinterpret graphs and data with the best of them.....I trust that you are employed in an industry that doesn&#039;t require adherence to evidence-based decision making.....say politics or banking</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nice work Tamas&#8230;.you can misinterpret graphs and data with the best of them&#8230;..I trust that you are employed in an industry that doesn&#8217;t require adherence to evidence-based decision making&#8230;..say politics or banking</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stilgherrian</title>
		<link>http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/10/31/comments-corrections-clarifications-and-cckups/#comment-837</link>
		<dc:creator>Stilgherrian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-837</guid>
		<description>Alan Kennedy quite rightfully points out that baby boomers are a big internet-using demographic, as are older people still. Both are fast-growth areas in the numbers of internet users. However I was quoting network engineer Mark Newton when talking about people &quot;not understanding&quot; the internet, and he was specifically pointing the finger &quot;baby boomer politicians&quot;, not baby boomers in general.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Alan Kennedy quite rightfully points out that baby boomers are a big internet-using demographic, as are older people still. Both are fast-growth areas in the numbers of internet users. However I was quoting network engineer Mark Newton when talking about people &#8220;not understanding&#8221; the internet, and he was specifically pointing the finger &#8220;baby boomer politicians&#8221;, not baby boomers in general.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alexis</title>
		<link>http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/10/31/comments-corrections-clarifications-and-cckups/#comment-838</link>
		<dc:creator>Alexis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-838</guid>
		<description>John H Williams and Keith - Evelyn Waugh is dead, as you&#039;ve said. So isn&#039;t Catherine James right in saying &quot;whoever she is&quot;? Just because the real Evelyn Waugh was male doesn&#039;t make the person who penned that piece also male. Perhaps Catherine James should have written &quot;whoever it is&quot;, but whether she referred to he, she or it, the writer&#039;s identity wasn&#039;t the point of her comment.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>John H Williams and Keith - Evelyn Waugh is dead, as you&#8217;ve said. So isn&#8217;t Catherine James right in saying &#8220;whoever she is&#8221;? Just because the real Evelyn Waugh was male doesn&#8217;t make the person who penned that piece also male. Perhaps Catherine James should have written &#8220;whoever it is&#8221;, but whether she referred to he, she or it, the writer&#8217;s identity wasn&#8217;t the point of her comment.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
