<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Climate-Change on John Stowers</title><link>https://johnstowers.co.nz/tags/climate-change/</link><description>Recent content in Climate-Change on John Stowers</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en-us</language><lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 Nov 2006 11:23:25 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://johnstowers.co.nz/tags/climate-change/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>More pseudoscience..... debunked!</title><link>https://johnstowers.co.nz/2006/11/15/more-pseudoscience-debunked/</link><pubDate>Wed, 15 Nov 2006 11:23:25 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://johnstowers.co.nz/2006/11/15/more-pseudoscience-debunked/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;Like many people I am becoming incredibly frustrated with the way that science is twisted for political and religions means. It is good to see that this latest pseudoscience article &lt;a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nosplit/nwarm05.xml" rel="noopener"&gt;wrongly dismissing climate change&lt;/a&gt;
 from the Sunday Telegraph has been &lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1947248,00.html" rel="noopener"&gt;debunked&lt;/a&gt;
.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;&amp;quot;[&lt;strong&gt;The Sunday Telegraph Article]&lt;/strong&gt; is a dazzling debunking of climate change science. It is also wildly wrong&amp;hellip; In keeping with most of the articles about climate change in [the Sunday Telegraph], it is a mixture of cherry-picking, downright misrepresentation, and pseudo-scientific gibberish. But it has the virtue of being incomprehensible to anyone who is not an atmospheric physicist&amp;hellip; As for James Hansen, he did not tell the US Congress that temperatures would rise by 0.3C by the end of the past century. He presented three possible scenarios to the US Senate — high, medium, and low. Both the high and low scenarios, he explained, were unlikely to materialise. The middle one was &amp;rsquo;the most plausible.&amp;rsquo; As it happens, the middle scenario was almost exactly right. He did not claim, under any scenario, that sea levels would rise by several feet by 2000.&amp;quot;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>