<?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: Branding Cap and Trade</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/03/branding-cap-and-trade.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/03/branding-cap-and-trade.html</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 12 Feb 2012 02:03:25 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: ted rado</title>
		<link>http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/03/branding-cap-and-trade.html/comment-page-1#comment-4690</link>
		<dc:creator>ted rado</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Mar 2009 17:17:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climate-skeptic.com/?p=943#comment-4690</guid>
		<description>Even if one accepts the AGW argument completely (which I do not), how can we mandate a reduction in CO2 emmissions without having a viable means to do so? Cap and trade proponents agree that there is now no feasible way to stop CO2 emissions, but hope that the pressure will result in someone inventing something.  What nonsense. The CCS people have nothing to offer but hugely expensive and potentially dangerous systems.  The same people who are in favor of CO2 reduction are also against nuclear energy.  If you are against CO2, give us a viable alternative!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Even if one accepts the AGW argument completely (which I do not), how can we mandate a reduction in CO2 emmissions without having a viable means to do so? Cap and trade proponents agree that there is now no feasible way to stop CO2 emissions, but hope that the pressure will result in someone inventing something.  What nonsense. The CCS people have nothing to offer but hugely expensive and potentially dangerous systems.  The same people who are in favor of CO2 reduction are also against nuclear energy.  If you are against CO2, give us a viable alternative!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: FrankC</title>
		<link>http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/03/branding-cap-and-trade.html/comment-page-1#comment-4671</link>
		<dc:creator>FrankC</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Mar 2009 00:32:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climate-skeptic.com/?p=943#comment-4671</guid>
		<description>Was Battersea power station ever as smoky as in that picture. It was one of the most efficient of its time.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Was Battersea power station ever as smoky as in that picture. It was one of the most efficient of its time.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrew Yoder</title>
		<link>http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/03/branding-cap-and-trade.html/comment-page-1#comment-4661</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrew Yoder</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Mar 2009 18:14:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climate-skeptic.com/?p=943#comment-4661</guid>
		<description>Haha Sweet!  The cover of Animals by Pink Floyd!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Haha Sweet!  The cover of Animals by Pink Floyd!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

