<?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/">
<channel>
<title>AgnosticWeb.com - Climate Change</title>
<link>https://agnosticweb.com/</link>
<description>An Agnostic&#039;s Brief Guide to the Universe</description>
<language>en</language>
<item>
<title>Climate Change (reply)</title>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I thought this graphic might be found amusing-http://www.humanistlife.org.uk/2010/01/31486-scientists-skeptical-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/#comments-It&amp;apos;s just the black dot that represents the 31486, not the whole of the upside-down figure.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
<link>https://agnosticweb.com/index.php?id=2912</link>
<guid>https://agnosticweb.com/index.php?id=2912</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 11 Jan 2010 21:28:56 +0000</pubDate>
<category>A mad world</category><dc:creator>George Jelliss</dc:creator>
</item>
<item>
<title>Climate Change (reply)</title>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>The &amp;quot;Watts up&amp;quot; blog definitely clouds the idea of a consensus. At any rate, I&amp;apos;m a little disappointed in those organizations. - Thank you. And for your brief autobiography; it helps to explain your points. The data you wanted sourced came off the internet from one of the faculty types I have been following, but I can&amp;apos;t remember where, and will end this thread, although it is a good example of why skepticism in all areas is valuable. - Part of source:   <a href="http://www.physorg.com/news166715232.html">http://www.physorg.com/news166715232.html</a></p>
</blockquote>]]></content:encoded>
<link>https://agnosticweb.com/index.php?id=1853</link>
<guid>https://agnosticweb.com/index.php?id=1853</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 29 Jul 2009 13:19:19 +0000</pubDate>
<category>A mad world</category><dc:creator>David Turell</dc:creator>
</item>
<item>
<title>Climate Change (reply)</title>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>dhw-- - You beat me to the punch!  Sorry about that! - Dr. Turell,&amp;#13;&amp;#10;In short, as this thread will likely draw heat, I&amp;apos;ll be concise. - The &amp;quot;Watts up&amp;quot; blog definitely clouds the idea of a consensus.  I can safely say that I&amp;apos;m not used to such debates NOT getting much light or attention.  However, <strong>at this moment</strong> I still stand by the fact that no <em>large body</em> of American science is <em>presently challenging</em> what is touted to be a consensus view.  The silence here should be at least a little bit unsettling.   - Massimo Pigliucci speaks often that the worst thing for evolution has been scientists who simply think &amp;quot;the data shall speak for itself&amp;quot; and don&amp;apos;t actively promote debate among the public.  Those organizations are abdicating their responsibility if there really <em>wasn&amp;apos;t</em> a consensus and they&amp;apos;re saying nothing about it.  Maybe its just another footnote for Kuhn, I don&amp;apos;t know. At any rate, I&amp;apos;m a little disappointed in those organizations.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
<link>https://agnosticweb.com/index.php?id=1849</link>
<guid>https://agnosticweb.com/index.php?id=1849</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 29 Jul 2009 12:18:28 +0000</pubDate>
<category>A mad world</category><dc:creator>xeno6696</dc:creator>
</item>
<item>
<title>Climate Change</title>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>If climate change is a problem,&amp;#13;&amp;#10;I offer no solution.&amp;#13;&amp;#10;    My cry ... from the heart ...&amp;#13;&amp;#10;    Is please keep it apart&amp;#13;&amp;#10;From the Theory of Evolution.</strong> - David and Matt, and any other contributor, please do NOT reply directly to each other, but put your next response on this thread. Thank you.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
<link>https://agnosticweb.com/index.php?id=1846</link>
<guid>https://agnosticweb.com/index.php?id=1846</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 29 Jul 2009 08:52:14 +0000</pubDate>
<category>A mad world</category><dc:creator>dhw</dc:creator>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
