<?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"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Global Warming Hoax: A Skeptical Beginner&#8217;s Guide, Part I</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.skepticsglobalwarming.com/global-warming-myth/disputing-global-warming/global-warming-hoax-a-skeptical-beginners-guide-part-i/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.skepticsglobalwarming.com/global-warming-myth/disputing-global-warming/global-warming-hoax-a-skeptical-beginners-guide-part-i/</link>
	<description>Global Warming Myth Refuted Weekdays</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2008 18:35:43 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3</generator>
	<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: Ian</title>
		<link>http://www.skepticsglobalwarming.com/global-warming-myth/disputing-global-warming/global-warming-hoax-a-skeptical-beginners-guide-part-i/#comment-942</link>
		<dc:creator>Ian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Aug 2008 05:29:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.skepticsglobalwarming.com/?p=588#comment-942</guid>
		<description>I am been following the AGW warming thing for quite a while now.  I put together the 6 main points that suggest CO2 is probably not the big deal it is made out to be.  Nothing new, just a fairly short and (hopefully) to the point summary of some of the main arguments that some may find of interest.  Very 'graph' heavy 

http://www.ianschumacher.com/global_warming.html</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am been following the AGW warming thing for quite a while now.  I put together the 6 main points that suggest CO2 is probably not the big deal it is made out to be.  Nothing new, just a fairly short and (hopefully) to the point summary of some of the main arguments that some may find of interest.  Very &#8216;graph&#8217; heavy </p>
<p><a href="http://www.ianschumacher.com/global_warming.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.ianschumacher.com/global_warming.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mr. Proofreader</title>
		<link>http://www.skepticsglobalwarming.com/global-warming-myth/disputing-global-warming/global-warming-hoax-a-skeptical-beginners-guide-part-i/#comment-894</link>
		<dc:creator>Mr. Proofreader</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Jun 2008 06:42:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.skepticsglobalwarming.com/?p=588#comment-894</guid>
		<description>It seems like you're off to a good start.

While compelling, your argument would be stronger if you addressed some glaring errors in your composition.

People who read your posts will take your argument more seriously if you take the time to proofread.

For example:

"Oh, and polar bear thing?"----------&#62;"Oh, and the polar bear thing?"

"An global warming activist..."--------&#62;"Any global warming activist..."

"The warming and cooling of the Earth appear cyclical and, over the long run, does not appear to have any direct correlation to CO2 levels.

--------------------&#62;

Although the warming and cooling of the Earth appears cyclical, over the long run, temperature change does not appear to have any direct correlation to CO2 levels.

These are just the glaring errors.  


Respectfully,

Mr. Proofreader</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It seems like you&#8217;re off to a good start.</p>
<p>While compelling, your argument would be stronger if you addressed some glaring errors in your composition.</p>
<p>People who read your posts will take your argument more seriously if you take the time to proofread.</p>
<p>For example:</p>
<p>&#8220;Oh, and polar bear thing?&#8221;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;-&gt;&#8221;Oh, and the polar bear thing?&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8220;An global warming activist&#8230;&#8221;&#8212;&#8212;&#8211;&gt;&#8221;Any global warming activist&#8230;&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8220;The warming and cooling of the Earth appear cyclical and, over the long run, does not appear to have any direct correlation to CO2 levels.</p>
<p>&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8211;&gt;</p>
<p>Although the warming and cooling of the Earth appears cyclical, over the long run, temperature change does not appear to have any direct correlation to CO2 levels.</p>
<p>These are just the glaring errors.  </p>
<p>Respectfully,</p>
<p>Mr. Proofreader</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: winston</title>
		<link>http://www.skepticsglobalwarming.com/global-warming-myth/disputing-global-warming/global-warming-hoax-a-skeptical-beginners-guide-part-i/#comment-893</link>
		<dc:creator>winston</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Jun 2008 05:06:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.skepticsglobalwarming.com/?p=588#comment-893</guid>
		<description>Great website.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great website.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Skeptics Global Warming &#124; Global Warming Hoax: A Skeptical Beginner&#8217;s Guide, Part II</title>
		<link>http://www.skepticsglobalwarming.com/global-warming-myth/disputing-global-warming/global-warming-hoax-a-skeptical-beginners-guide-part-i/#comment-578</link>
		<dc:creator>Skeptics Global Warming &#124; Global Warming Hoax: A Skeptical Beginner&#8217;s Guide, Part II</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 May 2008 21:04:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.skepticsglobalwarming.com/?p=588#comment-578</guid>
		<description>[...] hope everyone enjoyed last week&#8217;s article on the global warming hoax.  This week I conclude the series of talking points I began last week. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] hope everyone enjoyed last week&#8217;s article on the global warming hoax.  This week I conclude the series of talking points I began last week. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
