<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.1" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: PGDW#8:  THE BIG LIE&#8211;Magical Pollution Reduction</title>
	<link>http://climateprogress.org/2007/05/30/pgdw7-the-big-lie-magical-pollution-reduction/</link>
	<description>The Latest on Climate Science, Solutions, and Politics</description>
	<pubDate>Sun, 07 Sep 2008 01:40:31 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.1</generator>

	<item>
		<title>By: wotzi</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2007/05/30/pgdw7-the-big-lie-magical-pollution-reduction/#comment-4511</link>
		<author>wotzi</author>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 May 2007 03:03:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://climateprogress.org/2007/05/30/pgdw7-the-big-lie-magical-pollution-reduction/#comment-4511</guid>
					<description>Joe,

Re: Big Lie..

Yes, I'd agree with what you are saying but ask you please also consider that these guys are running a Bush line on emissions intensity. 

From what I've seen of the Brits' experience - where it was pushed between 2002 and September 2006 the EI line includes all GHGs plus ozone - six of them from memory - which have declined whereas we otherwise know that anthropo-C has increased..

The primary aspect of this EI line, however, is to suggest that 'overall CO2' has declined even as anthropo-C increased along with growth economic activity.

These things you know, but my point is to have you also aware of the smoke and mirrors nature we are confronted by.

Given a little time I may be able to set out a more substantive blog or two in the not too distant future..

cheers</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Joe,</p>
<p>Re: Big Lie..</p>
<p>Yes, I&#8217;d agree with what you are saying but ask you please also consider that these guys are running a Bush line on emissions intensity. </p>
<p>From what I&#8217;ve seen of the Brits&#8217; experience - where it was pushed between 2002 and September 2006 the EI line includes all GHGs plus ozone - six of them from memory - which have declined whereas we otherwise know that anthropo-C has increased..</p>
<p>The primary aspect of this EI line, however, is to suggest that &#8216;overall CO2&#8242; has declined even as anthropo-C increased along with growth economic activity.</p>
<p>These things you know, but my point is to have you also aware of the smoke and mirrors nature we are confronted by.</p>
<p>Given a little time I may be able to set out a more substantive blog or two in the not too distant future..</p>
<p>cheers</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve Bloom</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2007/05/30/pgdw7-the-big-lie-magical-pollution-reduction/#comment-4512</link>
		<author>Steve Bloom</author>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 May 2007 07:29:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://climateprogress.org/2007/05/30/pgdw7-the-big-lie-magical-pollution-reduction/#comment-4512</guid>
					<description>"environmental activism leading to tough air pollution standards"

Yes, but let's not forget that we also exported a whole bunch of it.  Coal in China, anyone?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;environmental activism leading to tough air pollution standards&#8221;</p>
<p>Yes, but let&#8217;s not forget that we also exported a whole bunch of it.  Coal in China, anyone?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joe</title>
		<link>http://climateprogress.org/2007/05/30/pgdw7-the-big-lie-magical-pollution-reduction/#comment-4513</link>
		<author>Joe</author>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 May 2007 19:15:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://climateprogress.org/2007/05/30/pgdw7-the-big-lie-magical-pollution-reduction/#comment-4513</guid>
					<description>Wotzi -- post here when you do a blog.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wotzi &#8212; post here when you do a blog.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
