<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<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/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
	<title><![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Umbra on winning environmental arguments]]></title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.grist.org/rss/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<description>Grist Comment Feed</description>
	<language>en</language>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #1 by chris@organicmatter</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/umbra-debate/</link>
			<pubDate>Mon, 09 May 2005 11:01:50 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/umbra-debate/1</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>peer-review</strong></p><p>One facet of environmental science that didn't make it into Umbra's response is peer-review. &nbsp;It's true that funding for research often comes from sources with agendas, but those agendas don't much matter when the paper comes in for review for publication in a scholarly journal.</p><p>
Much more commonly it is <strong>anti</strong>-environmental interest groups who bypass this accepted means of filtering real evidence from agendas by funding non peer-reviewed think tanks.</p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>peer-review</strong></p><p>One facet of environmental science that didn't make it into Umbra's response is peer-review. &nbsp;It's true that funding for research often comes from sources with agendas, but those agendas don't much matter when the paper comes in for review for publication in a scholarly journal.</p><p>
Much more commonly it is <strong>anti</strong>-environmental interest groups who bypass this accepted means of filtering real evidence from agendas by funding non peer-reviewed think tanks.</p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
 </channel>
</rss>