<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!-- generator="FeedCreator 1.7.3" -->
<rss version="2.0">
	<channel>
		<title>UN Models on Global Warming Fundamentally Wrong</title>
		<description>Comments for UN Models on Global Warming Fundamentally Wrong at http://www.rightsidenews.com , comment 1 to 1 out of 1 comments</description>
		<link>http://www.rightsidenews.com</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Mar 2010 07:51:09 +0100</lastBuildDate>
        <generator>FeedCreator 1.7.3</generator>
		<item>
			<title>...</title>
			<link>http://www.rightsidenews.com/200907155494/energy-and-environment/un-models-on-global-warming-fundamentally-wrong.html#comment-3050</link>
			<description>This has already been addressed:

http://www.grist.org/article/it-was-warmer-during-the-holocene-climatic-optimum/

Talk to real climate scientists:

http://www.realclimate.org/

Though I agree that standards are important, the lack of &quot;standards&quot; is subjective and may be due to trivial factors like NOT having a firewall or not having antivirus, or not being networked. Things that have nothing to do with the outputs of the simulations.

Simply because a theory may not fully explain certain phenomena does not mean the theory NOT is a good approximation and may make good predictions for the range of phenomena for which it was designed. 

Heck we might as well throw away General Relativity because it fails to explain Quantum mechanics, might was well throw away quantum mechanics because it fails to explain General relativity. Simply because a theory does not fully explain some phenomena does NOT mean the theory explain CANNOT explain some phenomena. - deloprator</description>
			<pubDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2009 09:33:01 +0100</pubDate>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
