<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!-- generator="wordpress/2.3.3" -->
<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/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Carbon Commentary &#187; IPCC</title>
	<link>http://www.carboncommentary.com</link>
	<description>A critical appraisal of issues in the move to a low-carbon economy</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 03 Jun 2008 11:15:44 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3</generator>
	<language>en</language>
			<item>
		<title>Roy Spencer presentation to the Heartland Institute conference</title>
		<link>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2008/03/28/81</link>
		<comments>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2008/03/28/81#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Mar 2008 13:05:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Chris Goodall</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[IPCC]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Newsletter #9]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[science]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.carboncommentary.com/2008/03/28/81</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<img src="http://www.carboncommentary.com/wp-includes/images/heartland-institute.jpg" align="left" height="177" hspace="5" width="133" />The Heartland Institute, a US free-market think tank, held a conference on climate change in New York in early March. It was a forum for some of the climate change sceptics to discuss their research. The conference got very little coverage in the media and was ignored by the science pages of the newspapers.

This seems a mistake. A large section of the population of the US and the UK, and smaller numbers elsewhere, believe that the apparent scientific consensus on global warming is a result of selective coverage by TV and press. The failure to cover presentations by some of the leading sceptics is support for the accusation that global media, and mainstream climate scientists, are refusing to engage with the dissenting views of reputable scientists who do not share the standard view.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://www.carboncommentary.com/wp-includes/images/heartland-institute.jpg" align="left" height="177" hspace="5" width="133" />The Heartland Institute, a US free-market think tank, held a conference on climate change in New York in early March. It was a forum for some of the climate change sceptics to discuss their research. The conference got very little coverage in the media and was ignored by the science pages of the newspapers.</p>
<p>This seems a mistake. A large section of the population of the US and the UK, and smaller numbers elsewhere, believe that the apparent scientific consensus on global warming is a result of selective coverage by TV and press. The failure to cover presentations by some of the leading sceptics is support for the accusation that global media, and mainstream climate scientists, are refusing to engage with the dissenting views of reputable scientists who do not share the standard view.</p>
<p> <a href="http://www.carboncommentary.com/2008/03/28/81#more-81" class="more-link">(more&#8230;)</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2008/03/28/81/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The 2007 IPCC synthesis report</title>
		<link>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/11/26/55</link>
		<comments>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/11/26/55#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Nov 2007 23:20:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Chris Goodall</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[IPCC]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Newsletter #6]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[politics]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[science]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/11/26/55</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<img src="http://www.carboncommentary.com/wp-includes/images/IPCC.gif" vspace="5" />
The IPCC released a 23-page report summarising the work of the fourth phase. Newspaper headlines suggested the document was more apocalyptic than the third summary of 2001. The reality is more complex.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://www.carboncommentary.com/wp-includes/images/IPCC.gif" vspace="5" /><br />
The IPCC released a 23-page report summarising the work of the fourth phase. Newspaper headlines suggested the document was more apocalyptic than the third summary of 2001. The reality is more complex.</p>
<p> <a href="http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/11/26/55#more-55" class="more-link">(more&#8230;)</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/11/26/55/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
