<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"><channel 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/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"><title>PJ Media</title><link>https://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2008/08/06/climate-change/feed/</link><description>PJ Media is a leading news site covering culture, politics, faith, homeland security, and more. Our reporters and columnists provide original, in-depth analysis from a variety of perspectives.</description><language>en-us</language><lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Jun 2026 19:35:56 -0400</lastBuildDate><item><title>Climate change</title><description>&lt;![CDATA[A senior Australian climatologist who reviewed the evidence for the anthropogenic global warming model at a lecture I attended laid out in detail what he felt were the certain, plausible and questionable parts of the AGW case, like a man surveying a building for soundness. He concluded that while there were some points in its favor, AGW was not proved (partly because very large parts of the climate system are only now being studied, partly because parameters in the computer models have been grossly misestimated, etc) but finished with an interesting remark that could have been the subject of another lecture in itself. He said (and I paraphrase)]]&gt;</description><pubDate>Wed, 06 Aug 2008 03:49:53 -0400</pubDate><creator xmlns="dc">&lt;![CDATA[Richard Fernandez]]&gt;</creator><enclosure url="" type="image/jpeg" length="123" /><link>https://pjmedia.com/richard-fernandez/2008/08/06/climate-change-n185846</link></item></channel></rss>