<rss version="2.0" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:trackback="http://madskills.com/public/xml/rss/module/trackback/"><channel><title>David M. Kelly</title><link>http://davidmkelly.net</link><description>RSS feeds for David M. Kelly</description><ttl>60</ttl><item><comments>http://www.davidmkelly.net/Home/tabid/36/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/9/New-anti-Scientist.aspx#Comments</comments><slash:comments>0</slash:comments><wfw:commentRss>http://www.davidmkelly.net/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=36&amp;ModuleID=401&amp;ArticleID=9</wfw:commentRss><trackback:ping>http://www.davidmkelly.net/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=9&amp;PortalID=0&amp;TabID=36</trackback:ping><title>New (anti) Scientist?</title><link>http://www.davidmkelly.net/Home/tabid/36/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/9/New-anti-Scientist.aspx</link><description>I've been a long time reader of New Scientist and generally enjoy it's coverage (despite the occasional somewhat dubiously sensationalist headlines) but recently I seem to have seen a strange and somewhat mystifying trend.
Several of the issues recently have had either articles or editorials that seem to take a rather anti-science (or anti-scientist) view. This seems especially prevelent with regards to the recent supposed 'scandals' in climate science and the alleged 'cover up' of anti-climate change data.</description><dc:creator>admin</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 15 Apr 2010 16:38:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:9</guid></item></channel></rss>