<?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: My take on global warming.</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thecrazyaustralian.com/my-take-on-global-warming/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.thecrazyaustralian.com/my-take-on-global-warming/</link>
	<description>&#34;For me, to live is Christ and to die is gain&#34;</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 08:05:51 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: kat</title>
		<link>http://www.thecrazyaustralian.com/my-take-on-global-warming/comment-page-1/#comment-4073</link>
		<dc:creator>kat</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Sep 2008 02:31:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thecrazyaustralian.com/?p=407#comment-4073</guid>
		<description>I definitely agree with you about reducing pollution (amen to that!!) But not all that is labelled air pollution in the global warming debate is literally a pollutant.

Among some of the various Green House Gases are water vapour (comprising between 36% - 70% of the GHG responsible for the Green House Effect) and of course, carbon dioxide, which is naturally given off by rotting leaf matter in rainforests, and is exhaled by animals and human beings. None of these are noxious in their own right.

What concerns me is that when scientists and the media describe all Green House Gases as pollutants, potentially more deleterious alternatives such nuclear power are more likely be accepted since they are often touted as the &#039;clean alternative&#039;. The environmental footprint from a nuclear reactor accident is enormous, with a potential for thousands of years of damage.   Even geothermal power poses the risk of triggering dangerous seismic activity in areas previously considered stable, and potentially introducing toxic substances like mercury and arsenic into surface water.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I definitely agree with you about reducing pollution (amen to that!!) But not all that is labelled air pollution in the global warming debate is literally a pollutant.</p>
<p>Among some of the various Green House Gases are water vapour (comprising between 36% &#8211; 70% of the GHG responsible for the Green House Effect) and of course, carbon dioxide, which is naturally given off by rotting leaf matter in rainforests, and is exhaled by animals and human beings. None of these are noxious in their own right.</p>
<p>What concerns me is that when scientists and the media describe all Green House Gases as pollutants, potentially more deleterious alternatives such nuclear power are more likely be accepted since they are often touted as the &#8216;clean alternative&#8217;. The environmental footprint from a nuclear reactor accident is enormous, with a potential for thousands of years of damage.   Even geothermal power poses the risk of triggering dangerous seismic activity in areas previously considered stable, and potentially introducing toxic substances like mercury and arsenic into surface water.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SmartLX</title>
		<link>http://www.thecrazyaustralian.com/my-take-on-global-warming/comment-page-1/#comment-4038</link>
		<dc:creator>SmartLX</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Sep 2008 23:28:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thecrazyaustralian.com/?p=407#comment-4038</guid>
		<description>So you&#039;re not of the opinion that the Rapture is close enough that it&#039;s all moot?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So you&#8217;re not of the opinion that the Rapture is close enough that it&#8217;s all moot?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

