<?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 on: Proof That &#8216;Climate Skeptics&#8217; Are Right</title>
	<atom:link href="http://sweetness-light.com/archive/proof-skeptics-are-right-about-agw/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://sweetness-light.com/archive/proof-skeptics-are-right-about-agw</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 26 May 2012 20:55:57 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: U NO HOO</title>
		<link>http://sweetness-light.com/archive/proof-skeptics-are-right-about-agw#comment-167194</link>
		<dc:creator>U NO HOO</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 19:18:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sweetness-light.com/archive/proof-skeptics-are-right-about-agw#comment-167194</guid>
		<description>To me from George Marshall:

&quot;Dear contributor to Climate Denial, 

I appreciate the time and trouble you have taken in writing to my blog and so I therefore feel it is only fair that I explain why I have decided not to accept your comments....

...I regret that I will not be able to continue any correspondence, but thank you for reading this letter. 

Yours



George Marshall,
Director of Projects
Climate Outreach Information Network 

COIN is a charitable trust, registration number 1102225. It supports
initiatives and organisations that increase public
understanding and awareness of climate change.&quot;

Perhaps this &quot;censorship,&quot; I mean selective editing, like the leaked emails, is an isolated incident.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>To me from George Marshall:</p>
<p>&#8220;Dear contributor to Climate Denial, </p>
<p>I appreciate the time and trouble you have taken in writing to my blog and so I therefore feel it is only fair that I explain why I have decided not to accept your comments&#8230;.</p>
<p>&#8230;I regret that I will not be able to continue any correspondence, but thank you for reading this letter. </p>
<p>Yours</p>
<p>George Marshall,<br />
Director of Projects<br />
Climate Outreach Information Network </p>
<p>COIN is a charitable trust, registration number 1102225. It supports<br />
initiatives and organisations that increase public<br />
understanding and awareness of climate change.&#8221;</p>
<p>Perhaps this &#8220;censorship,&#8221; I mean selective editing, like the leaked emails, is an isolated incident.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Georgfelis</title>
		<link>http://sweetness-light.com/archive/proof-skeptics-are-right-about-agw#comment-167073</link>
		<dc:creator>Georgfelis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 23:46:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sweetness-light.com/archive/proof-skeptics-are-right-about-agw#comment-167073</guid>
		<description>As I recall, truth is a very good defense against libel.  Had the &quot;stolen&quot; emails been secreted away, to be released one at a time in modified fashion, perhaps...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As I recall, truth is a very good defense against libel.  Had the &#8220;stolen&#8221; emails been secreted away, to be released one at a time in modified fashion, perhaps&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: proreason</title>
		<link>http://sweetness-light.com/archive/proof-skeptics-are-right-about-agw#comment-167060</link>
		<dc:creator>proreason</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 21:56:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sweetness-light.com/archive/proof-skeptics-are-right-about-agw#comment-167060</guid>
		<description>&quot;It is a generally accepted analysis that Kerry’s slow response was a huge strategic mistake which strengthened the smear.&quot;

Slow response is right.  Five years and counting.  (unless you want to go all the way back to the hero&#039;s days in Vietnam when he was frequently bumping into fragments, one of which acutually stuck to his skin.)

Where are those pesky discharge papers?  Where are they?

But back to the Climate Hoax.

The strategy of the barkers is clear.  In a phrase....&quot;out of context&quot;.  The evil deniers have lifted fragments of sentences to prove the saintly scientists are hiding something.

It won&#039;t work.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;It is a generally accepted analysis that Kerry’s slow response was a huge strategic mistake which strengthened the smear.&#8221;</p>
<p>Slow response is right.  Five years and counting.  (unless you want to go all the way back to the hero&#8217;s days in Vietnam when he was frequently bumping into fragments, one of which acutually stuck to his skin.)</p>
<p>Where are those pesky discharge papers?  Where are they?</p>
<p>But back to the Climate Hoax.</p>
<p>The strategy of the barkers is clear.  In a phrase&#8230;.&#8221;out of context&#8221;.  The evil deniers have lifted fragments of sentences to prove the saintly scientists are hiding something.</p>
<p>It won&#8217;t work.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Grassy Knoll</title>
		<link>http://sweetness-light.com/archive/proof-skeptics-are-right-about-agw#comment-167056</link>
		<dc:creator>Grassy Knoll</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 21:37:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sweetness-light.com/archive/proof-skeptics-are-right-about-agw#comment-167056</guid>
		<description>&quot;Mann seeks to keep above the fray but he has plentiful grounds for a string of libel actions.&quot;

So, let me get this straight. Real scientists are shut out of major scientific publications and equated to Holocaust deniers and deemed unworthy of equal time since the &quot;debate is over.&quot; And now they are called to the carpet thanks to their own emails and they want to consider libel charges? I&#039;m sure things are getting a little warm in their world about now. Kind of like hell, I would imagine. I&#039;m reminded of Harry Truman (the irony): &quot;I don&#039;t give &#039;em hell. I just tell the truth and it makes  &#039;em feel like they&#039;re in hell.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Mann seeks to keep above the fray but he has plentiful grounds for a string of libel actions.&#8221;</p>
<p>So, let me get this straight. Real scientists are shut out of major scientific publications and equated to Holocaust deniers and deemed unworthy of equal time since the &#8220;debate is over.&#8221; And now they are called to the carpet thanks to their own emails and they want to consider libel charges? I&#8217;m sure things are getting a little warm in their world about now. Kind of like hell, I would imagine. I&#8217;m reminded of Harry Truman (the irony): &#8220;I don&#8217;t give &#8216;em hell. I just tell the truth and it makes  &#8216;em feel like they&#8217;re in hell.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

