<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>kscibar at Yahoo! Groups</title>
    <link>http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/kscibar/</link>
    <description>Knutsford SciBAr</description>

    <item>
      <title>Science - of practical use - as ever</title>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Nov 2009 19:09:40 GMT</pubDate>
      <dc:creator>Dave Thompson</dc:creator>
      <link>http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/kscibar/message/1573</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/kscibar/message/1573</guid>
      <description>Now who said science wasn&#39;t useful. Dave T 07768-355-814 dave@... From Scientific American Strange but True: Turning a Wobbly Table Will Make It</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Just so you know</title>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 09:16:05 GMT</pubDate>
      <dc:creator>Peter Rose</dc:creator>
      <link>http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/kscibar/message/1572</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/kscibar/message/1572</guid>
      <description>Thanks Dave As ever The Telegraph has been selective (and other papers would have done different selections) in what it has taken from this report which can be</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Just so you know</title>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2009 23:33:52 GMT</pubDate>
      <dc:creator>Dave Thompson</dc:creator>
      <link>http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/kscibar/message/1571</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/kscibar/message/1571</guid>
      <description>I know it&#39;s only a newspaper,Peter, but it tells you its sources-if you want them. .......... Is this because we have bigger things to worry about. What are</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Saving energy, water and money</title>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:49:01 GMT</pubDate>
      <dc:creator>Peter Rose</dc:creator>
      <link>http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/kscibar/message/1570</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/kscibar/message/1570</guid>
      <description>Folks I was sent a link to this site by my energy provider http://actonco2.direct.gov.uk/actonco2/home.html There is probably not a lot in there that</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: GW - is the BBC changing its stance</title>
      <pubDate>Thu, 15 Oct 2009 17:14:42 GMT</pubDate>
      <dc:creator>David Skinner</dc:creator>
      <link>http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/kscibar/message/1569</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/kscibar/message/1569</guid>
      <description>Just realised I made an error in my answer to CLAIM 2. Although gasses ARE less soluble in warmer water atmospheric CO2 is currently rising much faster than</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: GW - is the BBC changing its stance</title>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Oct 2009 20:49:22 GMT</pubDate>
      <dc:creator>David Skinner</dc:creator>
      <link>http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/kscibar/message/1568</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/kscibar/message/1568</guid>
      <description>Thanks for the genuine questions Richard. I sometimes feel that I&#39;m putting a lot of time into this subject but nobody reads it. I&#39;ve use PURPLE: From:</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: GW - is the BBC changing its stance</title>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Oct 2009 14:17:01 GMT</pubDate>
      <dc:creator>Peter Rose</dc:creator>
      <link>http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/kscibar/message/1567</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/kscibar/message/1567</guid>
      <description>Thanks Dave From my school boy chemistry carbon monoxide is poisonous as it is preferentially absorbed by haemoglobin instead of oxygen; carbon dioxide,</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: GW - is the BBC changing its stance</title>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Oct 2009 12:04:37 GMT</pubDate>
      <dc:creator>Richard Buttrey</dc:creator>
      <link>http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/kscibar/message/1566</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/kscibar/message/1566</guid>
      <description>Hello David, See my comments below in red From: kscibar@yahoogroups.com [mailto:kscibar@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of David Skinner Sent: 13 October 2009 11:52</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: GW - is the BBC changing its stance</title>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Oct 2009 10:56:40 GMT</pubDate>
      <dc:creator>David Skinner</dc:creator>
      <link>http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/kscibar/message/1565</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/kscibar/message/1565</guid>
      <description>That&#39;s a good reference Peter. It might also be remembered that I posted a response 24th August with links to the actual measured Surface temperatures. These</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>A Hosepipe to the Sky.</title>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Oct 2009 10:11:03 GMT</pubDate>
      <dc:creator>Richard Buttrey</dc:creator>
      <link>http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/kscibar/message/1564</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/kscibar/message/1564</guid>
      <description>I thought I&#39;d added, but it doesn&#39;t appear to have come through, that the ST News Review site would not allow for simple copying and pasting of text, so I had</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: GW - is the BBC changing its stance</title>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Oct 2009 09:40:21 GMT</pubDate>
      <dc:creator>Richard Buttrey</dc:creator>
      <link>http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/kscibar/message/1563</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/kscibar/message/1563</guid>
      <description>Ok, the headline in last Sunday&#39;s News Review, &#39;Why everything you know about global warming is wrong&#39; will no doubt be claimed as being overdramatic, but I&#39;m</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: GW - is the BBC changing its stance</title>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Oct 2009 08:33:26 GMT</pubDate>
      <dc:creator>Peter Rose</dc:creator>
      <link>http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/kscibar/message/1562</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/kscibar/message/1562</guid>
      <description>The headline was *Average temperatures have not increased for over a decade* Searching for this in real Climate gave this article </description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: GW - is the BBC changing its stance</title>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Oct 2009 07:18:50 GMT</pubDate>
      <dc:creator>Peter Rose</dc:creator>
      <link>http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/kscibar/message/1561</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/kscibar/message/1561</guid>
      <description>At last we have a &#39;prediction&#39; from the sceptics- to quote *Sceptics disagree. They insist it is unlikely that temperatures will reach the dizzy heights of</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>GW - is the BBC changing its stance</title>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Oct 2009 22:08:35 GMT</pubDate>
      <dc:creator>Dave Thompson</dc:creator>
      <link>http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/kscibar/message/1560</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/kscibar/message/1560</guid>
      <description>Some suggestions here might be worth a look. I ,personally detect less certainty among GW promoters.That doesn&#39;t mean that the issue has gone away ,but may</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Tree rings say --WHAT??</title>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Oct 2009 13:45:23 GMT</pubDate>
      <dc:creator>David Skinner</dc:creator>
      <link>http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/kscibar/message/1559</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/kscibar/message/1559</guid>
      <description>The thing that struck me about the tree ring revival was how it demonstrated the truth of David Denne&#39;s Guardian piece posted on 15/9/2009. The Guardian says:</description>
    </item>

  </channel>
</rss>
<!-- wr1.grp.sp2.yahoo.com uncompressed/chunked Tue Nov 10 10:21:50 PST 2009 -->
