<?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: Senator Inhofe: Please define &#8220;Prominent Scientist&#8221;.</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.techfun.org/2007/12/400-skeptical-scientists/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.techfun.org/2007/12/400-skeptical-scientists/</link>
	<description>Linux, Politics, Whatever...</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Jun 2010 19:23:20 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Reviews</title>
		<link>http://blog.techfun.org/2007/12/400-skeptical-scientists/comment-page-1/#comment-228</link>
		<dc:creator>Reviews</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Jan 2008 05:37:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.techfun.org/400-skeptical-scientists#comment-228</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;JD Edit:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;em&gt;  I do not make a habit of editing comments, but I wanted to make sure readers were clear on this one since it took me a moment to decipher.  The commenter is pasting from the opening of &lt;a href=&quot;http://creekside1.blogspot.com/2007/03/tom-harris-busted.html&quot;&gt;this blog post&lt;/a&gt; in which Tom Harris the Executive Director of Natural Resources Stewardship Project - an energy industry front group that masquerades as environmentalists - shows his true colors.&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;hr&gt;

http://www.freedominion.ca/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=73474&amp;start=15


&quot;I completely agree with fourhorses that the ultimate aim is to create a situation where the CPC can say assertively, &quot;The science no longer supports the assumptions of the Kyoto Accord.&quot;

However, politically this cannot be done overnight without the Conservatives taking what they consider to be an unacceptable hit (do people think they would really lose votes with this statement (from Canadians who would otherwise vote for them, that is?).

So, the solution put on this site a little while ago by Tina is one I would support as well - namely, they don&#039;t take sides at all and admit they don&#039;t know and so are holding unbiased, public hearings in which scientists from both sides are invited to testify. The resulting chaos, with claims all over the map, will do enough to thoroughly confuse everyone (which is appropriate, actually, since the science is so immature and, frankly, confusing) and take the wind out of the sails of the &quot;we are causing a climate disaster and must stop it&quot; camp entirely, and the CPC can quietly turn to important issues without really having had to say much at all.

What&#039;s wrong with this approach?

Sincerely,
Tom Harris, Executive Director, Natural Resources Stewardship Project
Web: www.nrsp.com</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>JD Edit:</strong><em>  I do not make a habit of editing comments, but I wanted to make sure readers were clear on this one since it took me a moment to decipher.  The commenter is pasting from the opening of <a href="http://creekside1.blogspot.com/2007/03/tom-harris-busted.html">this blog post</a> in which Tom Harris the Executive Director of Natural Resources Stewardship Project &#8211; an energy industry front group that masquerades as environmentalists &#8211; shows his true colors.</em></p>
<hr />
<p><a href="http://www.freedominion.ca/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=73474&#038;start=15" rel="nofollow">http://www.freedominion.ca/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=73474&#038;start=15</a></p>
<p>&#8220;I completely agree with fourhorses that the ultimate aim is to create a situation where the CPC can say assertively, &#8220;The science no longer supports the assumptions of the Kyoto Accord.&#8221;</p>
<p>However, politically this cannot be done overnight without the Conservatives taking what they consider to be an unacceptable hit (do people think they would really lose votes with this statement (from Canadians who would otherwise vote for them, that is?).</p>
<p>So, the solution put on this site a little while ago by Tina is one I would support as well &#8211; namely, they don&#8217;t take sides at all and admit they don&#8217;t know and so are holding unbiased, public hearings in which scientists from both sides are invited to testify. The resulting chaos, with claims all over the map, will do enough to thoroughly confuse everyone (which is appropriate, actually, since the science is so immature and, frankly, confusing) and take the wind out of the sails of the &#8220;we are causing a climate disaster and must stop it&#8221; camp entirely, and the CPC can quietly turn to important issues without really having had to say much at all.</p>
<p>What&#8217;s wrong with this approach?</p>
<p>Sincerely,<br />
Tom Harris, Executive Director, Natural Resources Stewardship Project<br />
Web: <a href="http://www.nrsp.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.nrsp.com</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: WebPlus Beta Comes Online &#124; Techfun</title>
		<link>http://blog.techfun.org/2007/12/400-skeptical-scientists/comment-page-1/#comment-221</link>
		<dc:creator>WebPlus Beta Comes Online &#124; Techfun</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Jan 2008 20:15:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.techfun.org/400-skeptical-scientists#comment-221</guid>
		<description>[...] don&#8217;t normally get annoyed by people&#8217;s sources, but after reviewing Inhofe&#8217;s EPW report on scientists who are portrayed as &#8220;skeptical&#8221; about climate change, and the sheer [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] don&#8217;t normally get annoyed by people&#8217;s sources, but after reviewing Inhofe&#8217;s EPW report on scientists who are portrayed as &#8220;skeptical&#8221; about climate change, and the sheer [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anna</title>
		<link>http://blog.techfun.org/2007/12/400-skeptical-scientists/comment-page-1/#comment-227</link>
		<dc:creator>Anna</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Dec 2007 18:36:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.techfun.org/400-skeptical-scientists#comment-227</guid>
		<description>Hey any time JD. Yes I am from Canada, and I do to love Canada, it is so big, plus I think we spoiled too, even though lot of people complain. PEI is nice, never been there, but it is on the list. So what you have been running away from, lol. Have a good one, Anna :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey any time JD. Yes I am from Canada, and I do to love Canada, it is so big, plus I think we spoiled too, even though lot of people complain. PEI is nice, never been there, but it is on the list. So what you have been running away from, lol. Have a good one, Anna :)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: brewski</title>
		<link>http://blog.techfun.org/2007/12/400-skeptical-scientists/comment-page-1/#comment-229</link>
		<dc:creator>brewski</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Dec 2007 18:28:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.techfun.org/400-skeptical-scientists#comment-229</guid>
		<description>Specifically, the &quot;consensus&quot; about anthropogenic climate change entails the following:

1) the climate is undergoing a pronounced warming trend beyond the range of natural variability;
2) the major cause of most of the observed warming is rising levels of the greenhouse gas CO2;
3) the rise in CO2 is the result of burning fossil fuels;
4) if CO2 continues to rise over the next century, the warming will continue; and
5) a climate change of the projected magnitude over this time frame represents potential danger to human welfare and the environment.

These conclusions have been explicitly endorsed by:

Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academié des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

In addition to these national academies, the following institutions specializing in climate, atmosphere, ocean, and/or earth sciences have endorsed these conclusions:

NASA&#039;s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
American Institute of Physics (AIP)
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)

These organizations also agree with the consensus:

The Earth Institute at Columbia University
Northwestern University
University of Akureyri
University of Iceland
Iceland GeoSurvey
National Centre for Atmospheric Science UK
Climate Group
Climate Institute
Climate Trust
Wuppertal Institute for Climate Environment and Energy
Royal Meteorological Society
Community Research and Development Centre Nigeria
Geological Society of London
Geological Society of America
UK Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment
Pew Center on Global Climate Change
American Association for the Advancement of Science
National Research Council
Juelich Research Centre
US White House
US Council on Environmental Quality
US Office of Science Technology Policy
US National Climatic Data Center
US Department of Commerce
US National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service
The National Academy of Engineering
The Institute of Medicine
UK Natural Environment Research Council
Office of Science and Technology Policy
Council on Environmental Quality
National Economic Council
Office of Management and Budget
The National Academy of Engineering
The Institute of Medicine
UK Natural Environment Research Council
Australian Government Bureau of Meteorology
Engineers Australia
American Chemical Society
American Association of Blacks in Energy
World Petroleum Council
The Weather Channel
National Geographic

The following companies agree with the consensus:

ABB
Air France
Alcan
Alcoa
Allian
American Electric Power
Aristeia Capital
BASF
Bayer
BP America Inc.
Calvert Group
Canadian Electricity Association
Caterpilliar Inc.
Centrica
Ceres
Chevron
China Renewable
Citigroup
ConocoPhillips
Covanta Holding Corporation
Deutsche Telekom
Doosan Babcock Energy Limited
Duke Energy
DuPont
EcoSecurities
Electricity de France North America
Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
Endesa
Energettech Austraila Pty Ltd
Energy East Corporation
Energy Holding Romania
Energy Industry Association
Eni
Eskorn
ETG International
Exelon Corporation
ExxonMobil
F&amp;C Asset Management
FPL Group
General Electric
German Electricity Association
Glitnir Bank
Global Energy Network Institute, Iberdrola
ING Group
Institute for Global Environmental Strategies
Interface Inc.
International Gas Union
International Paper
International Power
Marsh &amp; McLennan Companies
Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Company
MEDIAS-France
MissionPoint Capital Partners
Munich Re
National Grid
National Power Company of Iceland
NGEN mgt II, LLC
NiSource
NRG Energy
PG&amp;E Corporation
PNM Resources
Reykjavik Energy
Ricoh
Rio Tinto Energy Services
Rockefeller Brothers Fund
Rolls-Royce
Societe Generale de Surveillance (SGS Group)
Stora Enso North America
Stratus Consulting
Sun Management Institute
Swiss Re
UCG Partnership
US Geothermal
Verde Venture Partners
Volvo

In addition, the scientific consensus is also endorsed by the CEO&#039;s of the following companies:

A. O. Smith Corporation
Abbott Laboratories
Accenture Ltd.
ACE Limited
ADP
Aetna Inc.
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.
AK Steel Corporation
Alcatel-Lucent
Allstate Insurance Company
ALLTEL Corporation
Altec Industries, Inc.
American Electric Power Company, Inc.
American Express Company
American International Group, Inc.
Ameriprise Financial
AMR Corporation/American Airlines
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation
Apache Corporation
Applera Corporation
Arch Coal, Inc.
Archer Daniels Midland Company
ArvinMeritor, Inc.
AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP
Avery Dennison Corporation
Avis Budget Group, Inc.
Bechtel Group, Inc.
BNSF Railway
Boeing Company
Brink&#039;s Company
CA
Carlson Companies, Inc.
Case New Holland Inc.
Ceridian Corporation
Chemtura Corporation
Chubb Corporation
CIGNA Corporation
Coca-Cola Company
Constellation Energy Group, Inc.
Convergys Corporation
Con-way Incorporated
Corning Incorporated
Crane Co.
CSX Corporation
Cummins Inc.
Deere &amp; Company
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
Delphi Corporation
Dow Chemical Company
Eastman Chemical Company
Eastman Kodak Company
Eaton Corporation
EDS
Eli Lilly and Company
EMC Corporation
Ernst &amp; Young, L.L.P.
Fannie Mae
FedEx Corporation
Fluor Corporation
FMC Corporation
Freddie Mac
General Mills, Inc.
General Motors Corporation
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
Goodrich Corporation
Harman International Industries, Inc.
Hartford Financial Services Group
Home Depot, Inc., The
Honeywell International, Inc.
HSBC - North America
Humana Inc.
IBM Corporation
Ingersoll-Rand Company
International Textile Group
ITT Corporation
Johnson Controls, Inc.
JP Morgan Chase &amp; Co.
KPMG LLP
Liberty Mutual Group
MassMutual
MasterCard Incorporated
McGraw-Hill Companies
McKesson Corporation
MeadWestvaco Corporation
Medco Health Solutions, Inc.
Merck &amp; Co., Inc.
Merrill Lynch &amp; Company, Inc.
MetLife, Inc.
Morgan Stanley
Motorola, Inc.
Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc.
National Gypsum Company
Nationwide
Navistar International Corporation
New York Life Insurance Company
Norfolk Southern Corporation
Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company
Nucor Corporation
NYSE Group, Inc.
Office Depot, Inc.
Owens Corning (Reorganized) Inc.
Pactiv Corporation
Peabody Energy Corporation
Pfizer Inc
PPG Industries, Inc.
Praxair, Inc.
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Principal Financial Group
Procter &amp; Gamble Company
Prudential Financial
Realogy Corporation
Rockwell Automation, Inc.
Ryder System, Inc.
SAP America, Inc.
Sara Lee Corporation
SAS Institute Inc.
Schering-Plough Corporation
Schneider National, Inc.
ServiceMaster Company
Siemens Corporation
Southern Company
Springs Global US, Inc.
Sprint Nextel
St. Paul Travelers Companies, Inc.
State Farm Insurance Companies
Tenneco
Texas Instruments Incorporated
Textron Incorporated
Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc.
TIAA-CREF
Tyco Electronics
Tyco International Ltd.
Union Pacific Corporation
Unisys Corporation
United Technologies Corporation
UnitedHealth Group Incorporated
USG Corporation
Verizon Communications
W.W. Grainger, Inc.
Western &amp; Southern Financial Group
Weyerhaeuser Company
Whirlpool Corporation
Williams Companies, Inc.
Xerox Corporation
YRC Worldwide Inc

I&#039;ll take this &quot;consensus&quot; over the 400 &quot;scientists&quot; handpicked by Sen Inhofe for his minority skeptics report.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Specifically, the &#8220;consensus&#8221; about anthropogenic climate change entails the following:</p>
<p>1) the climate is undergoing a pronounced warming trend beyond the range of natural variability;<br />
2) the major cause of most of the observed warming is rising levels of the greenhouse gas CO2;<br />
3) the rise in CO2 is the result of burning fossil fuels;<br />
4) if CO2 continues to rise over the next century, the warming will continue; and<br />
5) a climate change of the projected magnitude over this time frame represents potential danger to human welfare and the environment.</p>
<p>These conclusions have been explicitly endorsed by:</p>
<p>Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)<br />
Royal Society of Canada<br />
Chinese Academy of Sciences<br />
Academié des Sciences (France)<br />
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)<br />
Indian National Science Academy<br />
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)<br />
Science Council of Japan<br />
Russian Academy of Sciences<br />
Royal Society (United Kingdom)<br />
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)<br />
Australian Academy of Sciences<br />
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts<br />
Caribbean Academy of Sciences<br />
Indonesian Academy of Sciences<br />
Royal Irish Academy<br />
Academy of Sciences Malaysia<br />
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand<br />
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences</p>
<p>In addition to these national academies, the following institutions specializing in climate, atmosphere, ocean, and/or earth sciences have endorsed these conclusions:</p>
<p>NASA&#8217;s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)<br />
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)<br />
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)<br />
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)<br />
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)<br />
Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)<br />
American Geophysical Union (AGU)<br />
American Institute of Physics (AIP)<br />
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)<br />
American Meteorological Society (AMS)<br />
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)</p>
<p>These organizations also agree with the consensus:</p>
<p>The Earth Institute at Columbia University<br />
Northwestern University<br />
University of Akureyri<br />
University of Iceland<br />
Iceland GeoSurvey<br />
National Centre for Atmospheric Science UK<br />
Climate Group<br />
Climate Institute<br />
Climate Trust<br />
Wuppertal Institute for Climate Environment and Energy<br />
Royal Meteorological Society<br />
Community Research and Development Centre Nigeria<br />
Geological Society of London<br />
Geological Society of America<br />
UK Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment<br />
Pew Center on Global Climate Change<br />
American Association for the Advancement of Science<br />
National Research Council<br />
Juelich Research Centre<br />
US White House<br />
US Council on Environmental Quality<br />
US Office of Science Technology Policy<br />
US National Climatic Data Center<br />
US Department of Commerce<br />
US National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service<br />
The National Academy of Engineering<br />
The Institute of Medicine<br />
UK Natural Environment Research Council<br />
Office of Science and Technology Policy<br />
Council on Environmental Quality<br />
National Economic Council<br />
Office of Management and Budget<br />
The National Academy of Engineering<br />
The Institute of Medicine<br />
UK Natural Environment Research Council<br />
Australian Government Bureau of Meteorology<br />
Engineers Australia<br />
American Chemical Society<br />
American Association of Blacks in Energy<br />
World Petroleum Council<br />
The Weather Channel<br />
National Geographic</p>
<p>The following companies agree with the consensus:</p>
<p>ABB<br />
Air France<br />
Alcan<br />
Alcoa<br />
Allian<br />
American Electric Power<br />
Aristeia Capital<br />
BASF<br />
Bayer<br />
BP America Inc.<br />
Calvert Group<br />
Canadian Electricity Association<br />
Caterpilliar Inc.<br />
Centrica<br />
Ceres<br />
Chevron<br />
China Renewable<br />
Citigroup<br />
ConocoPhillips<br />
Covanta Holding Corporation<br />
Deutsche Telekom<br />
Doosan Babcock Energy Limited<br />
Duke Energy<br />
DuPont<br />
EcoSecurities<br />
Electricity de France North America<br />
Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand<br />
Endesa<br />
Energettech Austraila Pty Ltd<br />
Energy East Corporation<br />
Energy Holding Romania<br />
Energy Industry Association<br />
Eni<br />
Eskorn<br />
ETG International<br />
Exelon Corporation<br />
ExxonMobil<br />
F&amp;C Asset Management<br />
FPL Group<br />
General Electric<br />
German Electricity Association<br />
Glitnir Bank<br />
Global Energy Network Institute, Iberdrola<br />
ING Group<br />
Institute for Global Environmental Strategies<br />
Interface Inc.<br />
International Gas Union<br />
International Paper<br />
International Power<br />
Marsh &amp; McLennan Companies<br />
Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Company<br />
MEDIAS-France<br />
MissionPoint Capital Partners<br />
Munich Re<br />
National Grid<br />
National Power Company of Iceland<br />
NGEN mgt II, LLC<br />
NiSource<br />
NRG Energy<br />
PG&amp;E Corporation<br />
PNM Resources<br />
Reykjavik Energy<br />
Ricoh<br />
Rio Tinto Energy Services<br />
Rockefeller Brothers Fund<br />
Rolls-Royce<br />
Societe Generale de Surveillance (SGS Group)<br />
Stora Enso North America<br />
Stratus Consulting<br />
Sun Management Institute<br />
Swiss Re<br />
UCG Partnership<br />
US Geothermal<br />
Verde Venture Partners<br />
Volvo</p>
<p>In addition, the scientific consensus is also endorsed by the CEO&#8217;s of the following companies:</p>
<p>A. O. Smith Corporation<br />
Abbott Laboratories<br />
Accenture Ltd.<br />
ACE Limited<br />
ADP<br />
Aetna Inc.<br />
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.<br />
AK Steel Corporation<br />
Alcatel-Lucent<br />
Allstate Insurance Company<br />
ALLTEL Corporation<br />
Altec Industries, Inc.<br />
American Electric Power Company, Inc.<br />
American Express Company<br />
American International Group, Inc.<br />
Ameriprise Financial<br />
AMR Corporation/American Airlines<br />
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation<br />
Apache Corporation<br />
Applera Corporation<br />
Arch Coal, Inc.<br />
Archer Daniels Midland Company<br />
ArvinMeritor, Inc.<br />
AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP<br />
Avery Dennison Corporation<br />
Avis Budget Group, Inc.<br />
Bechtel Group, Inc.<br />
BNSF Railway<br />
Boeing Company<br />
Brink&#8217;s Company<br />
CA<br />
Carlson Companies, Inc.<br />
Case New Holland Inc.<br />
Ceridian Corporation<br />
Chemtura Corporation<br />
Chubb Corporation<br />
CIGNA Corporation<br />
Coca-Cola Company<br />
Constellation Energy Group, Inc.<br />
Convergys Corporation<br />
Con-way Incorporated<br />
Corning Incorporated<br />
Crane Co.<br />
CSX Corporation<br />
Cummins Inc.<br />
Deere &amp; Company<br />
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu<br />
Delphi Corporation<br />
Dow Chemical Company<br />
Eastman Chemical Company<br />
Eastman Kodak Company<br />
Eaton Corporation<br />
EDS<br />
Eli Lilly and Company<br />
EMC Corporation<br />
Ernst &amp; Young, L.L.P.<br />
Fannie Mae<br />
FedEx Corporation<br />
Fluor Corporation<br />
FMC Corporation<br />
Freddie Mac<br />
General Mills, Inc.<br />
General Motors Corporation<br />
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.<br />
Goodrich Corporation<br />
Harman International Industries, Inc.<br />
Hartford Financial Services Group<br />
Home Depot, Inc., The<br />
Honeywell International, Inc.<br />
HSBC &#8211; North America<br />
Humana Inc.<br />
IBM Corporation<br />
Ingersoll-Rand Company<br />
International Textile Group<br />
ITT Corporation<br />
Johnson Controls, Inc.<br />
JP Morgan Chase &amp; Co.<br />
KPMG LLP<br />
Liberty Mutual Group<br />
MassMutual<br />
MasterCard Incorporated<br />
McGraw-Hill Companies<br />
McKesson Corporation<br />
MeadWestvaco Corporation<br />
Medco Health Solutions, Inc.<br />
Merck &amp; Co., Inc.<br />
Merrill Lynch &amp; Company, Inc.<br />
MetLife, Inc.<br />
Morgan Stanley<br />
Motorola, Inc.<br />
Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc.<br />
National Gypsum Company<br />
Nationwide<br />
Navistar International Corporation<br />
New York Life Insurance Company<br />
Norfolk Southern Corporation<br />
Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company<br />
Nucor Corporation<br />
NYSE Group, Inc.<br />
Office Depot, Inc.<br />
Owens Corning (Reorganized) Inc.<br />
Pactiv Corporation<br />
Peabody Energy Corporation<br />
Pfizer Inc<br />
PPG Industries, Inc.<br />
Praxair, Inc.<br />
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP<br />
Principal Financial Group<br />
Procter &amp; Gamble Company<br />
Prudential Financial<br />
Realogy Corporation<br />
Rockwell Automation, Inc.<br />
Ryder System, Inc.<br />
SAP America, Inc.<br />
Sara Lee Corporation<br />
SAS Institute Inc.<br />
Schering-Plough Corporation<br />
Schneider National, Inc.<br />
ServiceMaster Company<br />
Siemens Corporation<br />
Southern Company<br />
Springs Global US, Inc.<br />
Sprint Nextel<br />
St. Paul Travelers Companies, Inc.<br />
State Farm Insurance Companies<br />
Tenneco<br />
Texas Instruments Incorporated<br />
Textron Incorporated<br />
Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc.<br />
TIAA-CREF<br />
Tyco Electronics<br />
Tyco International Ltd.<br />
Union Pacific Corporation<br />
Unisys Corporation<br />
United Technologies Corporation<br />
UnitedHealth Group Incorporated<br />
USG Corporation<br />
Verizon Communications<br />
W.W. Grainger, Inc.<br />
Western &amp; Southern Financial Group<br />
Weyerhaeuser Company<br />
Whirlpool Corporation<br />
Williams Companies, Inc.<br />
Xerox Corporation<br />
YRC Worldwide Inc</p>
<p>I&#8217;ll take this &#8220;consensus&#8221; over the 400 &#8220;scientists&#8221; handpicked by Sen Inhofe for his minority skeptics report.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Techfun</title>
		<link>http://blog.techfun.org/2007/12/400-skeptical-scientists/comment-page-1/#comment-224</link>
		<dc:creator>Techfun</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Dec 2007 04:43:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.techfun.org/400-skeptical-scientists#comment-224</guid>
		<description>Thanks Anna.  You are from Canada?  I LOVE Canada.  Spent a year on PEI as a teenage runaway.

Happy Holidays to you too and I hope 2008 is great for you.

As far as the work, I only tend to post about stuff that I care about and I like to be complete which takes time.   I hope to have more time to put into posting and reading other blogs after the holidays.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks Anna.  You are from Canada?  I LOVE Canada.  Spent a year on PEI as a teenage runaway.</p>
<p>Happy Holidays to you too and I hope 2008 is great for you.</p>
<p>As far as the work, I only tend to post about stuff that I care about and I like to be complete which takes time.   I hope to have more time to put into posting and reading other blogs after the holidays.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anna</title>
		<link>http://blog.techfun.org/2007/12/400-skeptical-scientists/comment-page-1/#comment-223</link>
		<dc:creator>Anna</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Dec 2007 03:26:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.techfun.org/400-skeptical-scientists#comment-223</guid>
		<description>Hi JD wow you put so much work into your post. However, I know that we have not really visited each other&#039;s blogs and only converse few times on Will&#039;s blog, but I would like to wish you happy holiday&#039;s and happy new year 2008, all the best and I see you around. Anna :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi JD wow you put so much work into your post. However, I know that we have not really visited each other&#8217;s blogs and only converse few times on Will&#8217;s blog, but I would like to wish you happy holiday&#8217;s and happy new year 2008, all the best and I see you around. Anna :)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Techfun</title>
		<link>http://blog.techfun.org/2007/12/400-skeptical-scientists/comment-page-1/#comment-222</link>
		<dc:creator>Techfun</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Dec 2007 01:50:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.techfun.org/400-skeptical-scientists#comment-222</guid>
		<description>Yep!  SourceWatch is great for looking into this stuff.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yep!  SourceWatch is great for looking into this stuff.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: reviewer</title>
		<link>http://blog.techfun.org/2007/12/400-skeptical-scientists/comment-page-1/#comment-226</link>
		<dc:creator>reviewer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Dec 2007 01:32:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.techfun.org/400-skeptical-scientists#comment-226</guid>
		<description>One way to be prominent: edit your description.

Here is where the T. Harris mentioned above was caught:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=User_talk:Tom_Harris</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One way to be prominent: edit your description.</p>
<p>Here is where the T. Harris mentioned above was caught:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=User_talk:Tom_Harris" rel="nofollow">http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=User_talk:Tom_Harris</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Will</title>
		<link>http://blog.techfun.org/2007/12/400-skeptical-scientists/comment-page-1/#comment-225</link>
		<dc:creator>Will</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 23 Dec 2007 22:18:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.techfun.org/400-skeptical-scientists#comment-225</guid>
		<description>Hey JD!  This is a really well written and researched article.  As you know from reading the latest post on my site, I am not a fan at all of all the politics and bickering that accompanies thoughts on the state of the planet and our human contribution to that state.  But this was well worth the read!

I had seen that thread started by Global Girl keep popping up at the top of the Blog Catalog Discussions.  I had not looked at it as I figured it was probably just another boring, polarizing, debate on the merits of Gore, his book, and his film.  Because of your mention of it, I went over there and read through it.  The thread was actually quite an interesting read and mostly very civil throughout.  BC is turning into a very good community of people.

And I agree that Dr. Ian Plimer would be a fascinating dinner guest.

-Will</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey JD!  This is a really well written and researched article.  As you know from reading the latest post on my site, I am not a fan at all of all the politics and bickering that accompanies thoughts on the state of the planet and our human contribution to that state.  But this was well worth the read!</p>
<p>I had seen that thread started by Global Girl keep popping up at the top of the Blog Catalog Discussions.  I had not looked at it as I figured it was probably just another boring, polarizing, debate on the merits of Gore, his book, and his film.  Because of your mention of it, I went over there and read through it.  The thread was actually quite an interesting read and mostly very civil throughout.  BC is turning into a very good community of people.</p>
<p>And I agree that Dr. Ian Plimer would be a fascinating dinner guest.</p>
<p>-Will</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

