<?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: Twisting words bends nature out of shape</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2008/11/twisting-words-bends-nature-out-of-shape/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2008/11/twisting-words-bends-nature-out-of-shape/</link>
	<description>Taking the heat out of global warming</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 21:24:32 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Richard</title>
		<link>http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2008/11/twisting-words-bends-nature-out-of-shape/comment-page-1/#comment-20879</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 03 Jan 2010 03:53:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/blog/?p=71#comment-20879</guid>
		<description>He always adds something useful, doesn&#039;t he? It&#039;s noticeable that context and perspective consistently sabotage efforts to raise the alarm over climate. Those who would peddle climatic dismay must obscure part of the situation to be successful.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>He always adds something useful, doesn&#8217;t he? It&#8217;s noticeable that context and perspective consistently sabotage efforts to raise the alarm over climate. Those who would peddle climatic dismay must obscure part of the situation to be successful.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Barry Brill</title>
		<link>http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2008/11/twisting-words-bends-nature-out-of-shape/comment-page-1/#comment-20876</link>
		<dc:creator>Barry Brill</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 03 Jan 2010 00:32:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/blog/?p=71#comment-20876</guid>
		<description>Extract from Monckton&#039;s response to Scientific American:

&quot;Ocean acidification arising from the relatively modest increases in CO2 concentration that we might be able to achieve is impossible.

&quot;Here, as elsewhere in the climate debate, it is useful to keep a sense of due proportion.  When did the calcite corals – the very earliest species – first originate? In the Cambrian era, when CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, according to the UN’s climate panel, was 20 times today’s. When did the more delicate and vulnerable aragonite corals originate? In the Jurassic era, when CO2 concentration was around 15 times today’s. Were the oceans appreciably more acidic than today’s. No.

&quot;Here is why ocean acidification will not be a problem in our own time.

&quot;There is 70 times as much CO2 in the oceans as there is in the atmosphere. Suppose we double today’s concentration of CO2, which is what the UN predicts will happen on the business-as-usual scenario. An amount equivalent to [a] third of what we put into the atmosphere will also accumulate in the oceans. In short, if we do nothing whatever to mitigate our CO2 emissions, one-third of 1/70 of the existing oceanic concentration will be added. That is less than half of one per cent of the CO2 already in today’s oceans.

&quot;And how much CO2 is in today’s oceans? Only 0.025 per cent.... We’ll be adding just about 1 part per million to the proportion of the entire oceans that is represented by CO2. This is where a sense of due proportion comes in useful. That is simply too small an amount to make the slightest difference to the oceans.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Extract from Monckton&#8217;s response to Scientific American:</p>
<p>&#8220;Ocean acidification arising from the relatively modest increases in CO2 concentration that we might be able to achieve is impossible.</p>
<p>&#8220;Here, as elsewhere in the climate debate, it is useful to keep a sense of due proportion.  When did the calcite corals – the very earliest species – first originate? In the Cambrian era, when CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, according to the UN’s climate panel, was 20 times today’s. When did the more delicate and vulnerable aragonite corals originate? In the Jurassic era, when CO2 concentration was around 15 times today’s. Were the oceans appreciably more acidic than today’s. No.</p>
<p>&#8220;Here is why ocean acidification will not be a problem in our own time.</p>
<p>&#8220;There is 70 times as much CO2 in the oceans as there is in the atmosphere. Suppose we double today’s concentration of CO2, which is what the UN predicts will happen on the business-as-usual scenario. An amount equivalent to [a] third of what we put into the atmosphere will also accumulate in the oceans. In short, if we do nothing whatever to mitigate our CO2 emissions, one-third of 1/70 of the existing oceanic concentration will be added. That is less than half of one per cent of the CO2 already in today’s oceans.</p>
<p>&#8220;And how much CO2 is in today’s oceans? Only 0.025 per cent&#8230;. We’ll be adding just about 1 part per million to the proportion of the entire oceans that is represented by CO2. This is where a sense of due proportion comes in useful. That is simply too small an amount to make the slightest difference to the oceans.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

