<?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: Both Sides Backward on AGW</title>
	<atom:link href="http://michaelsiegel.net/?feed=rss2&#038;p=3029" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://michaelsiegel.net/?p=3029</link>
	<description>Missing Sleep Since June 2007 (Blogging Since 2005)</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Apr 2013 16:22:22 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: jmh</title>
		<link>http://michaelsiegel.net/?p=3029&#038;cpage=1#comment-1048</link>
		<dc:creator>jmh</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 12 Jun 2010 20:25:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://michaelsiegel.net/?p=3029#comment-1048</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Clean Air Act, it was passed by congress right? So it was legislated. Perhaps you might argue that this wasn&#039;t the intent of that legislation, but that&#039;s essentially what the courts are for. So it went to the court and they found that it was. I agree that the process can be important, but the process here seems to go along with what you want.

It&#039;s not like the folks in congress on the right are saying: So the courts decided that the Clean Air Act covers greenhouse gas emissions, but because global warming poses a threat we should probably take up some legislation to address it directly. The right is in complete denial with regard to global warming. Nothing about the process is going to convince them otherwise. Whatever change happens will be perceived as being &quot;crammed&quot; down their throat. Or what ever.

Basically what you are proposes requires two rational actors, but that is not what we have here. The folks on the left can be bad, but to say they are on the same level as the people on the right is a false equivalency.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Clean Air Act, it was passed by congress right? So it was legislated. Perhaps you might argue that this wasn&#8217;t the intent of that legislation, but that&#8217;s essentially what the courts are for. So it went to the court and they found that it was. I agree that the process can be important, but the process here seems to go along with what you want.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s not like the folks in congress on the right are saying: So the courts decided that the Clean Air Act covers greenhouse gas emissions, but because global warming poses a threat we should probably take up some legislation to address it directly. The right is in complete denial with regard to global warming. Nothing about the process is going to convince them otherwise. Whatever change happens will be perceived as being &#8220;crammed&#8221; down their throat. Or what ever.</p>
<p>Basically what you are proposes requires two rational actors, but that is not what we have here. The folks on the left can be bad, but to say they are on the same level as the people on the right is a false equivalency.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
