<?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: The climate bats last</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.cejournal.net/?feed=rss2&#038;p=2756" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.cejournal.net/?p=2756</link>
	<description>News &#38; Perspective from the Center for Environmental Journalism</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 08 Jan 2012 20:05:12 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: 2 climate studies offer hope on global warming &#8211; Houston Chronicle &#124; .:: MrCoi Blog ::.</title>
		<link>http://www.cejournal.net/?p=2756&#038;cpage=1#comment-5835</link>
		<dc:creator>2 climate studies offer hope on global warming &#8211; Houston Chronicle &#124; .:: MrCoi Blog ::.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Jan 2010 11:44:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cejournal.net/?p=2756#comment-5835</guid>
		<description>[...] The status bats terminal &#124; CEJournal [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] The status bats terminal | CEJournal [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Greenhoof &#187; Blog Archive &#187; The Climate Post: The documents &#8230; they are &#8230; Alive! Alive!</title>
		<link>http://www.cejournal.net/?p=2756&#038;cpage=1#comment-5833</link>
		<dc:creator>Greenhoof &#187; Blog Archive &#187; The Climate Post: The documents &#8230; they are &#8230; Alive! Alive!</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Jan 2010 00:43:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cejournal.net/?p=2756#comment-5833</guid>
		<description>[...] andpatience to fall down the rabbit hole, which few people have. Andthere&#8217;s always plenty of other interesting material around to consider. Here&#8217;s the Wikipedia page with a history of Hanno [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] andpatience to fall down the rabbit hole, which few people have. Andthere&#8217;s always plenty of other interesting material around to consider. Here&#8217;s the Wikipedia page with a history of Hanno [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Living Documents &#171; THE CLIMATE POST</title>
		<link>http://www.cejournal.net/?p=2756&#038;cpage=1#comment-5831</link>
		<dc:creator>Living Documents &#171; THE CLIMATE POST</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jan 2010 22:09:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cejournal.net/?p=2756#comment-5831</guid>
		<description>[...] patience to fall down the rabbit hole, which few people have. And there&#8217;s always plenty of other interesting material around to consider. Here&#8217;s the Wikipedia page with a history of Hanno [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] patience to fall down the rabbit hole, which few people have. And there&#8217;s always plenty of other interesting material around to consider. Here&#8217;s the Wikipedia page with a history of Hanno [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Are Climate Bats More Like Fruit Bats or Vampire Bats? &#171; Cruel Mistress</title>
		<link>http://www.cejournal.net/?p=2756&#038;cpage=1#comment-5830</link>
		<dc:creator>Are Climate Bats More Like Fruit Bats or Vampire Bats? &#171; Cruel Mistress</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jan 2010 14:22:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cejournal.net/?p=2756#comment-5830</guid>
		<description>[...] Like Fruit Bats or Vampire&#160;Bats? January 28, 2010   Friend and colleague Tom Yulsman has a nice post over at the Center for Environmental Journalism on the recent Chiroptera kerfuffle. Meanwhile, friend and colleague Roger Pielke Jr. has several [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Like Fruit Bats or Vampire&nbsp;Bats? January 28, 2010   Friend and colleague Tom Yulsman has a nice post over at the Center for Environmental Journalism on the recent Chiroptera kerfuffle. Meanwhile, friend and colleague Roger Pielke Jr. has several [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Raven</title>
		<link>http://www.cejournal.net/?p=2756&#038;cpage=1#comment-5829</link>
		<dc:creator>Raven</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jan 2010 12:06:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cejournal.net/?p=2756#comment-5829</guid>
		<description>What we should be debating is the policies - not the science. e.g. is adaptation a more cost effective strategy? 

Unfortunately, the debate was hijacked long ago by people who decided what policies they wanted to impose and sought to use the &#039;science&#039; as a way to bully people into accepting them. That is why the credibility of scientists has become such a focus today. 

It does not have to be that way. It should be possible to restart a conversation first acknowledging that the science cannnot dictate our policy choices because there are too many unknowns and that we, as a society, must decide how we will balance risk against the cost of hedging against that risk. 

Any conversation that starts with the premise that radical reductions in CO2 are the only available policy choice will end quickly because many people feel that no matter how much we might want to reduce CO2 emissions the reality is that cannot happen until we find C02 free energy sources that are cheaper than fossil fuels and do not require governments to artificially increase the price of energy.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What we should be debating is the policies &#8211; not the science. e.g. is adaptation a more cost effective strategy? </p>
<p>Unfortunately, the debate was hijacked long ago by people who decided what policies they wanted to impose and sought to use the &#8216;science&#8217; as a way to bully people into accepting them. That is why the credibility of scientists has become such a focus today. </p>
<p>It does not have to be that way. It should be possible to restart a conversation first acknowledging that the science cannnot dictate our policy choices because there are too many unknowns and that we, as a society, must decide how we will balance risk against the cost of hedging against that risk. </p>
<p>Any conversation that starts with the premise that radical reductions in CO2 are the only available policy choice will end quickly because many people feel that no matter how much we might want to reduce CO2 emissions the reality is that cannot happen until we find C02 free energy sources that are cheaper than fossil fuels and do not require governments to artificially increase the price of energy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
