<?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: EPA HQ and Software Quality Assurance</title>
	<atom:link href="http://danhughes.auditblogs.com/2009/06/10/epa-hq-and-software-quality-assurance/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://danhughes.auditblogs.com/2009/06/10/epa-hq-and-software-quality-assurance/</link>
	<description>by Dan Hughes</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 12:11:45 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: stan</title>
		<link>http://danhughes.auditblogs.com/2009/06/10/epa-hq-and-software-quality-assurance/comment-page-1/#comment-1593</link>
		<dc:creator>stan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Jun 2009 19:23:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://danhughes.auditblogs.com/?p=93#comment-1593</guid>
		<description>1.  &quot;Widely accepted physical principles&quot; -- many of which relating to climate they still don&#039;t know how to model
2.  &quot;ability to accurately reproduce key features of past and current climate&quot; -- anyone can replicate the past with enough degrees of freedom.  So what?  And that reproduction of the present isn&#039;t going so well.
3.  &quot;they have undergone an extensive peer-review process and been validated by numerous scientific bodies&quot; -- given how worthless peer-review is, is that a plus?  And apparently these scientific bodies have managed to validate the models without, you know, actually validating the models.

What a worthless pile of garbage.  Their response actually demonstrates how weak their case is.  They&#039;d have been better off to ignore you.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>1.  &#8220;Widely accepted physical principles&#8221; &#8212; many of which relating to climate they still don&#8217;t know how to model<br />
2.  &#8220;ability to accurately reproduce key features of past and current climate&#8221; &#8212; anyone can replicate the past with enough degrees of freedom.  So what?  And that reproduction of the present isn&#8217;t going so well.<br />
3.  &#8220;they have undergone an extensive peer-review process and been validated by numerous scientific bodies&#8221; &#8212; given how worthless peer-review is, is that a plus?  And apparently these scientific bodies have managed to validate the models without, you know, actually validating the models.</p>
<p>What a worthless pile of garbage.  Their response actually demonstrates how weak their case is.  They&#8217;d have been better off to ignore you.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark Smith</title>
		<link>http://danhughes.auditblogs.com/2009/06/10/epa-hq-and-software-quality-assurance/comment-page-1/#comment-1574</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark Smith</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 14 Jun 2009 07:21:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://danhughes.auditblogs.com/?p=93#comment-1574</guid>
		<description>I&#039;d guess that they know exactly what you&#039;re talking about...they just don&#039;t care.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;d guess that they know exactly what you&#8217;re talking about&#8230;they just don&#8217;t care.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
