<?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 for Climate Tasmania</title>
	<atom:link href="http://climatetasmania.com.au/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://climatetasmania.com.au</link>
	<description>Global climate change from a Tasmanian perspective</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 04:55:21 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>Comment on How we can build a sustainable food economy by car insurance</title>
		<link>http://climatetasmania.com.au/2008/06/24/a42/comment-page-1/#comment-3012</link>
		<dc:creator>car insurance</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Mar 2010 00:24:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climatetasmania.com.au/?p=138#comment-3012</guid>
		<description>I keep articles of interest in my files for future reference. Here is one from 5 years ago from the London Telegraph:Leading scientific journals 'are censoring debate on global warming'  Two of the world's leading scientific journals have come under fire from researchers for refusing to publish papers which challenge fashionable wisdom over global warming.  A British authority on natural catastrophes who disputed whether climatologists really agree that the Earth is getting warmer because of human activity, says his work was rejected by the American publication, Science, on the flimsiest of grounds.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I keep articles of interest in my files for future reference. Here is one from 5 years ago from the London Telegraph:Leading scientific journals &#8216;are censoring debate on global warming&#8217;  Two of the world&#8217;s leading scientific journals have come under fire from researchers for refusing to publish papers which challenge fashionable wisdom over global warming.  A British authority on natural catastrophes who disputed whether climatologists really agree that the Earth is getting warmer because of human activity, says his work was rejected by the American publication, Science, on the flimsiest of grounds.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The long vision of a Tasmanian science teacher by 62 infrared thermometer</title>
		<link>http://climatetasmania.com.au/2009/10/27/a112/comment-page-1/#comment-3004</link>
		<dc:creator>62 infrared thermometer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 06 Mar 2010 22:31:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climatetasmania.com.au/?p=1742#comment-3004</guid>
		<description>While doing research for 62 infrared thermometer on Saturday your post regarding The long vision of a Tasmanian science teacher &#124; Climate Tasmania came up. Just wanted to drop a note to let you know what a great site you have. It is a great resource and a great place to drop by.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>While doing research for 62 infrared thermometer on Saturday your post regarding The long vision of a Tasmanian science teacher | Climate Tasmania came up. Just wanted to drop a note to let you know what a great site you have. It is a great resource and a great place to drop by.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on What price to keep the wheels turning? by Mark Duffett</title>
		<link>http://climatetasmania.com.au/2010/02/23/a129/comment-page-1/#comment-2922</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark Duffett</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Feb 2010 01:45:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climatetasmania.com.au/?p=2534#comment-2922</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;Nuclear and biomass power rely on transport to carry fuel, which in the case of biomass means keeping 10,000 tonnes of forest waste burning for each megawatt of electricity generated.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

I'll presume you meant 'megawatt-years', hence 10,000 tonnes of forest waste/megawatt/year.

You left out the bit about nuclear only needing 1 tonne per year.  For 1000 MWyears, not one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Fast_Reactor

http://bravenewclimate.com/</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>Nuclear and biomass power rely on transport to carry fuel, which in the case of biomass means keeping 10,000 tonnes of forest waste burning for each megawatt of electricity generated.</p></blockquote>
<p>I&#8217;ll presume you meant &#8216;megawatt-years&#8217;, hence 10,000 tonnes of forest waste/megawatt/year.</p>
<p>You left out the bit about nuclear only needing 1 tonne per year.  For 1000 MWyears, not one.</p>
<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Fast_Reactor" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Fast_Reactor</a></p>
<p><a href="http://bravenewclimate.com/" rel="nofollow">http://bravenewclimate.com/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
