<?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: Britain&#8217;s Carbon Footprint Has Grown since 1990</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.britishecologicalsociety.org/blog/2010/09/03/britains-carbon-footprint-has-grown-since-1990/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.britishecologicalsociety.org/blog/2010/09/03/britains-carbon-footprint-has-grown-since-1990/</link>
	<description>Advancing ecology and making it count</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 14:42:08 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Luella Maciejko</title>
		<link>http://www.britishecologicalsociety.org/blog/2010/09/03/britains-carbon-footprint-has-grown-since-1990/#comment-2287</link>
		<dc:creator>Luella Maciejko</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Feb 2011 13:48:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://britishecologicalsociety.org/blog/?p=1369#comment-2287</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[So, tree rings correlate with global temperature, I read that everywhere. What if that is untrue though?? I read this book this week, www.blindedbyscience.co.uk, that clearly shows this supposed link to be unfounded. This changes everything, right? If this is the case, what implications does it have for the argument supporting global warming? I think this could be a very important realisation. What do you think?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So, tree rings correlate with global temperature, I read that everywhere. What if that is untrue though?? I read this book this week, <a href="http://www.blindedbyscience.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://www.blindedbyscience.co.uk</a>, that clearly shows this supposed link to be unfounded. This changes everything, right? If this is the case, what implications does it have for the argument supporting global warming? I think this could be a very important realisation. What do you think?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bruce Norwood</title>
		<link>http://www.britishecologicalsociety.org/blog/2010/09/03/britains-carbon-footprint-has-grown-since-1990/#comment-2286</link>
		<dc:creator>Bruce Norwood</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Nov 2010 05:11:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://britishecologicalsociety.org/blog/?p=1369#comment-2286</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Dear Sir of Madam,

You may be interested with a blog that I first used on my new website. It is regarding Supermarket Packaging waste. 

I am a UK citizen currently living in Japan with my wife and family. Please visit the site and leave a comment.

Yours

Bruce]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dear Sir of Madam,</p>
<p>You may be interested with a blog that I first used on my new website. It is regarding Supermarket Packaging waste. </p>
<p>I am a UK citizen currently living in Japan with my wife and family. Please visit the site and leave a comment.</p>
<p>Yours</p>
<p>Bruce</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>