<?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: New Skeptics&#8217; Circle</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/12/20/new-skeptics-circle/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/12/20/new-skeptics-circle/</link>
	<description>I am an astronomer, writer, and skeptic. I likes reality the way it is, and I aims to keep it that way. My real name is Phil Plait, and I run the Bad Astronomy blog.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:50:50 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: The Centipede</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/12/20/new-skeptics-circle/comment-page-1/#comment-60345</link>
		<dc:creator>The Centipede</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Dec 2007 16:42:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/12/20/new-skeptics-circle/#comment-60345</guid>
		<description>Only three things are certain for whatever you do:

1) It probably causes cancer of some sort.
2) It probably harms the environment in some way.
3) It&#039;s probably a sin to &lt;i&gt;someone&#039;s&lt;/i&gt; god.

I &lt;3 Reverend Lovejoy.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Only three things are certain for whatever you do:</p>
<p>1) It probably causes cancer of some sort.<br />
2) It probably harms the environment in some way.<br />
3) It&#8217;s probably a sin to <i>someone&#8217;s</i> god.</p>
<p>I &lt;3 Reverend Lovejoy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael Lonergan</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/12/20/new-skeptics-circle/comment-page-1/#comment-60344</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael Lonergan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Dec 2007 16:06:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/12/20/new-skeptics-circle/#comment-60344</guid>
		<description>LOL@Centipede&amp; Rev. Lovejoy.

In the words of Ned Flanders: &quot;Hi dee ho Good Neighbor.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>LOL@Centipede&amp; Rev. Lovejoy.</p>
<p>In the words of Ned Flanders: &#8220;Hi dee ho Good Neighbor.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Centipede</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/12/20/new-skeptics-circle/comment-page-1/#comment-60343</link>
		<dc:creator>The Centipede</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Dec 2007 14:47:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/12/20/new-skeptics-circle/#comment-60343</guid>
		<description>Eh, being Bad For The Environment is like Offending God: nigh unavoidable.

What is it that Pastor Lovejoy said in [i]The Simpsons[/i]?  &quot;Look, according to the Bible, going to the bathroom is a sin?&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Eh, being Bad For The Environment is like Offending God: nigh unavoidable.</p>
<p>What is it that Pastor Lovejoy said in [i]The Simpsons[/i]?  &#8220;Look, according to the Bible, going to the bathroom is a sin?&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Barton Paul Levenson</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/12/20/new-skeptics-circle/comment-page-1/#comment-60342</link>
		<dc:creator>Barton Paul Levenson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Dec 2007 13:59:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/12/20/new-skeptics-circle/#comment-60342</guid>
		<description>Racer X writes (amidst paragraphs of denunciation of mainstream scientists):

[[&lt;i&gt;Science is NOT consensus and intimidation.&lt;/i&gt;]]

Consensus is very much part of how modern science is done.  The scientific consensus is not a majority vote, it is a general agreement on what is already known.  Sometimes the consensus has been wrong -- but not as often as lone cranks and crackpots (like the global warming deniers) have been wrong.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Racer X writes (amidst paragraphs of denunciation of mainstream scientists):</p>
<p>[[<i>Science is NOT consensus and intimidation.</i>]]</p>
<p>Consensus is very much part of how modern science is done.  The scientific consensus is not a majority vote, it is a general agreement on what is already known.  Sometimes the consensus has been wrong &#8212; but not as often as lone cranks and crackpots (like the global warming deniers) have been wrong.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: sam</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/12/20/new-skeptics-circle/comment-page-1/#comment-60341</link>
		<dc:creator>sam</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Dec 2007 00:30:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/12/20/new-skeptics-circle/#comment-60341</guid>
		<description>Great story about lucky charms on the podblack blog, well researched. Anyone here ever take a toy or gaming character with them to an exam? Looking at the results from my finals, I think I could have used a stegosaurus or a pikachu to cheer me up during the calculations.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great story about lucky charms on the podblack blog, well researched. Anyone here ever take a toy or gaming character with them to an exam? Looking at the results from my finals, I think I could have used a stegosaurus or a pikachu to cheer me up during the calculations.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Racer X</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/12/20/new-skeptics-circle/comment-page-1/#comment-60340</link>
		<dc:creator>Racer X</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Dec 2007 21:07:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/12/20/new-skeptics-circle/#comment-60340</guid>
		<description>Where&#039;s some skepticism on the GW issue?

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport

Short quote: &quot;Many of the scientists featured in this report consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution.&quot;

Whether you support AGW, plain GW or nothing, you have to admit this is NOT what science is supposed to be about. Science is NOT consensus and intimidation. The whole &quot;the only deniers are religious idiopts, politicians and oil company shills&quot; is propaganda and demonization that ranks with the best of history&#039;s madmen and dictators. I hope you who indulge in this are proud of yourselves for the oppressive situation you have created.

Another quote: “Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media.&quot; --- Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies.

But it&#039;s just a government report, so we can safely ignore it, right? Ignore all those voices of the scientists outside the Inquisition, oops, I mean the Consensus.

The situation is shameful. Utterly shameful. It is a massive blind spot for the skeptical community.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Where&#8217;s some skepticism on the GW issue?</p>
<p><a href="http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport" rel="nofollow">http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport</a></p>
<p>Short quote: &#8220;Many of the scientists featured in this report consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution.&#8221;</p>
<p>Whether you support AGW, plain GW or nothing, you have to admit this is NOT what science is supposed to be about. Science is NOT consensus and intimidation. The whole &#8220;the only deniers are religious idiopts, politicians and oil company shills&#8221; is propaganda and demonization that ranks with the best of history&#8217;s madmen and dictators. I hope you who indulge in this are proud of yourselves for the oppressive situation you have created.</p>
<p>Another quote: “Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media.&#8221; &#8212; Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies.</p>
<p>But it&#8217;s just a government report, so we can safely ignore it, right? Ignore all those voices of the scientists outside the Inquisition, oops, I mean the Consensus.</p>
<p>The situation is shameful. Utterly shameful. It is a massive blind spot for the skeptical community.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael Lonergan</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/12/20/new-skeptics-circle/comment-page-1/#comment-60339</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael Lonergan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Dec 2007 19:25:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/12/20/new-skeptics-circle/#comment-60339</guid>
		<description>HA!  Loved the article on Divorce Is Bad For the Environment.  Speaking as one that has just gone through a divorce, it is a safe bet to assume I would have been added to the already overpopulated prison system if I had stayed with that woman, because I would have probably murdered the woman if I had to live with her any longer.  I&#039;ll take my chances with Global Warming, thanks.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>HA!  Loved the article on Divorce Is Bad For the Environment.  Speaking as one that has just gone through a divorce, it is a safe bet to assume I would have been added to the already overpopulated prison system if I had stayed with that woman, because I would have probably murdered the woman if I had to live with her any longer.  I&#8217;ll take my chances with Global Warming, thanks.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
