<?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: Why Historic Proxy Studies Matter</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2007/11/why-historic-pr.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2007/11/why-historic-pr.html</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 16:51:39 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: TCO</title>
		<link>http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2007/11/why-historic-pr.html/comment-page-1#comment-246</link>
		<dc:creator>TCO</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Dec 2007 16:29:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2007/11/why-historic-pr.html#comment-246</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Loehle&#039;s article is not a good study.  He does not do a good literature review.  Does not properly compare his work to that of Moberg (closest comparison).  Messes up on at least one of the selected proxies.  Does not disclose his reasons for inclusion and screening out proxies.  It&#039;s really, really not a quality piece of work.  I don&#039;t think he puiblished in EE because of controversial stance.  I think he published there...because they tolerate slack work.&lt;/p&gt;

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Loehle&#8217;s article is not a good study.  He does not do a good literature review.  Does not properly compare his work to that of Moberg (closest comparison).  Messes up on at least one of the selected proxies.  Does not disclose his reasons for inclusion and screening out proxies.  It&#8217;s really, really not a quality piece of work.  I don&#8217;t think he puiblished in EE because of controversial stance.  I think he published there&#8230;because they tolerate slack work.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tony Suruda</title>
		<link>http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2007/11/why-historic-pr.html/comment-page-1#comment-245</link>
		<dc:creator>Tony Suruda</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 02 Dec 2007 23:18:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2007/11/why-historic-pr.html#comment-245</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Funny thing today on Samizdata someone posted a link to an article in the Financial Post about Rhodes Fairbridge&#039;s work on the variation in solar output associated with changes in the solar system&#039;s center of gravity.  His work predicts that we are entering a period of reduced solar output and are due for a period of global cooling in a few years.  I like these sort of predictions because we&#039;ll get to find out if they are right.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;I&#039;m an amateur astronomer and have noted the lack of sunspot activity recently, a phenomenon associated with reduced solar heat output.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;I enjoy reading this blog.&lt;/p&gt;

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Funny thing today on Samizdata someone posted a link to an article in the Financial Post about Rhodes Fairbridge&#8217;s work on the variation in solar output associated with changes in the solar system&#8217;s center of gravity.  His work predicts that we are entering a period of reduced solar output and are due for a period of global cooling in a few years.  I like these sort of predictions because we&#8217;ll get to find out if they are right.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m an amateur astronomer and have noted the lack of sunspot activity recently, a phenomenon associated with reduced solar heat output.</p>
<p>I enjoy reading this blog.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

