<?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: A Farmer in the Times</title>
	<atom:link href="http://jcwinnie.biz/wordpress/?feed=rss2&#038;p=9327" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://jcwinnie.biz/wordpress/?p=9327</link>
	<description>Just another pretty face</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Feb 2013 00:16:16 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: jcwinnie</title>
		<link>http://jcwinnie.biz/wordpress/?p=9327#comment-22389</link>
		<dc:creator>jcwinnie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Dec 2010 02:05:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jcwinnie.biz/wordpress/?p=9327#comment-22389</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[“The UK’s Royal Society has published a detailed study of &lt;a href=&quot;http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2010.0303&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;how the world will look when it is 4 °C warmer&lt;/a&gt;,” which could happen as early as 2060.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>“The UK’s Royal Society has published a detailed study of <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2010.0303" rel="nofollow nofollow">how the world will look when it is 4 °C warmer</a>,” which could happen as early as 2060.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jcwinnie</title>
		<link>http://jcwinnie.biz/wordpress/?p=9327#comment-22365</link>
		<dc:creator>jcwinnie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Nov 2010 17:21:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jcwinnie.biz/wordpress/?p=9327#comment-22365</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[There is the S&amp;P, NASDAQ, and now for the ear-tagged, the API -- I think it stands for American Politics Index:
&lt;blockquote&gt;The American Petroleum Institute spent $1.27 million in the third quarter to lobby the federal government on climate legislation and other issues, according to a disclosure report.

That’s down from the $2.16 million that the oil industry group spent in the year-ago period and also less than the $2.31 million it spent in the second quarter of this year. API also lobbied the federal government on legislation involving the summertime ban on offshore oil drilling, liabilities related to offshore drilling, tax proposals and bills that promote natural gas vehicles, according to the report filed on Oct. 20.

The institute was deeply critical of House and Senate climate bills that would have limited how much carbon dioxide oil refineries and other companies could release into the air. It called the House climate bill a job killer and lobbied for measures that would promote greater use of cleaner-burning natural gas.

API also complained when the U.S. shut down deepwater oil exploration following the April 20 rig explosion that pumped 172 million gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. The moratorium, combined with tough new rules for drillers, nearly halted all offshore drilling activity in U.S. waters for several months. The drilling ban has since been lifted.&lt;/blockquote&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;right&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9JPRFEO0.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Business Week&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There is the S&#038;P, NASDAQ, and now for the ear-tagged, the API &#8212; I think it stands for American Politics Index:</p>
<blockquote><p>The American Petroleum Institute spent $1.27 million in the third quarter to lobby the federal government on climate legislation and other issues, according to a disclosure report.</p>
<p>That’s down from the $2.16 million that the oil industry group spent in the year-ago period and also less than the $2.31 million it spent in the second quarter of this year. API also lobbied the federal government on legislation involving the summertime ban on offshore oil drilling, liabilities related to offshore drilling, tax proposals and bills that promote natural gas vehicles, according to the report filed on Oct. 20.</p>
<p>The institute was deeply critical of House and Senate climate bills that would have limited how much carbon dioxide oil refineries and other companies could release into the air. It called the House climate bill a job killer and lobbied for measures that would promote greater use of cleaner-burning natural gas.</p>
<p>API also complained when the U.S. shut down deepwater oil exploration following the April 20 rig explosion that pumped 172 million gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. The moratorium, combined with tough new rules for drillers, nearly halted all offshore drilling activity in U.S. waters for several months. The drilling ban has since been lifted.</p></blockquote>
<div align="right"><a href="http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9JPRFEO0.htm" rel="nofollow nofollow">Business Week</a></div>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jcwinnie</title>
		<link>http://jcwinnie.biz/wordpress/?p=9327#comment-22363</link>
		<dc:creator>jcwinnie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Nov 2010 18:31:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jcwinnie.biz/wordpress/?p=9327#comment-22363</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;One of the greatest failings of the climate science community (and the media) is not spelling out as clearly as possible the risks we face on our current emissions path, as well as the plausible worst-case scenario, which includes massive ecosystem collapse. So much of what the public and policymakers think is coming is a combination of&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ol&gt; 
&lt;li&gt;The low end of the expected range of warming and impacts based on aggressive policies to reduce emissions (and no serious carbon-cycle feedbacks)&lt;/li&gt; 
&lt;li&gt;Analyses of a few selected impacts, but not an integrated examination of multiple impacts&lt;/li&gt; 
&lt;li&gt;Disinformation pushed by the anti-science, pro-pollution crowd&lt;/li&gt; 
&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
&lt;div align=&quot;right&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://climateprogress.org/2010/11/29/royal-society-special-issue-4-degrees-world/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Joseph Romm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>One of the greatest failings of the climate science community (and the media) is not spelling out as clearly as possible the risks we face on our current emissions path, as well as the plausible worst-case scenario, which includes massive ecosystem collapse. So much of what the public and policymakers think is coming is a combination of</p>
<ol>
<li>The low end of the expected range of warming and impacts based on aggressive policies to reduce emissions (and no serious carbon-cycle feedbacks)</li>
<li>Analyses of a few selected impacts, but not an integrated examination of multiple impacts</li>
<li>Disinformation pushed by the anti-science, pro-pollution crowd</li>
</ol>
<blockquote>
<div align="right"><a href="http://climateprogress.org/2010/11/29/royal-society-special-issue-4-degrees-world/" rel="nofollow nofollow">Joseph Romm</a></div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Served from: jcwinnie.biz @ 2013-06-19 09:26:59 by W3 Total Cache -->