<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	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/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Ross Parker &#187; science</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.rossparker.com/tag/science/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.rossparker.com</link>
	<description>my personal homepage</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Aug 2010 22:32:57 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Climate change astrology</title>
		<link>http://www.rossparker.com/2009/03/05/climate-change-astrology/</link>
		<comments>http://www.rossparker.com/2009/03/05/climate-change-astrology/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Mar 2009 14:32:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ross</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Learning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Thinking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[climate change]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[global warming]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[science]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rossparker.com/?p=138</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I was handed a free copy of the WSJ Europe this morning. It contained the following snippet in the opinion section, spurred by [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I was handed a free copy of the WSJ Europe this morning. It contained the following snippet in the opinion section, spurred by a Japanese paper questioning the use (or rejection of) the scientific method in developing climate change models:</p>
<blockquote><p>[T]oday&#8217;s climate science is so complex that only time &#8211; and a lot more observation &#8211; will tell whether what scientists think they know is really correct&#8230;. Until then, the alarmist findings by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are &#8220;an unprovable hypothesis&#8221;.</p></blockquote>
<p>Here&#8217;s <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123619258091831663.html" onclick="pageTracker._trackPageview('/outgoing/online.wsj.com/article/SB123619258091831663.html?referer=');">the full piece</a>. Aside from it being nice to see<em> The Register</em> referenced in the mainstream media, the piece is worth bearing in mind the next time you hear scientists say &#8220;the science is clear that <em>x</em>&#8221; or politicans claim that &#8220;the consensus among scientists is that <em>x</em>&#8220;. Science is a process, not a consensus, and the significant of the problems that climate change can cause should not lead us to cut corners in that process.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.rossparker.com/2009/03/05/climate-change-astrology/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
