<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:s="http://www.techrepublic.com/search" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"  xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
    <title><![CDATA[Discussion on (Photos: Melting glacier uncovers island) ]]></title>
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-221460]]></link>
    <atom:link rel="hub" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" />
    <atom:link rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-221460/rss" />

    <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>2013-05-26T01:48:10-07:00</lastBuildDate>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[you missed the point]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-221460-2251101]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[mine was not to point a finger of blame, it is to show that when hysteria hits, as it has started or is starting to, action has just as many, if not more, consequences. if you don't stop and think, rationally and thoroughly, you get what i described, a kneejerk response that actually could be responsible for what these people are saying is going on.  so what next?  once we have decided that we are better off dumping tons of corn cobs, husks and stalks into compost heaps that generate more co2 than cars do in order to ease dependence on foriegn oil among other things, and the landfills are full of compact flourescent lamps that don't decompose any better than anything else, cost more and don't actually work as well (yes, i've been testing them for ~2 years now) and the 'greenhouse' gets 'worse' (who's to say this is worse other than people don't like more water???), then we will be talking about recovering/reacting/repairing from some different calamity, right?]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-221460-2251101]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[inertman@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 06 Jun 2007 16:00:51 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[if anything was a kneejerk reaction, that was]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-221460-2249344]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Who cares who's fault it is, or even if we had anything to do with it.  The question is: What do you do about it?  I personally think that the loss of much of our existing coastline and existing croplands is worth getting excited over.I'm not so concerned with 'stopping' the warming process as I am with the fact that nobody seems to be preparing to deal with the consequences.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-221460-2249344]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[mford66215]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 04 Jun 2007 12:29:30 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[another example of kneejerk]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-221460-2248397]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[in the 70's, once again there was a poorly thought out kneejerk response the  i believe is an example of how we got here if humans are responsible for the supposed warming.  car exhaust. everyone was so worried about car exhaust pollution that along came catalitic converters converting some of the pollutants into co2, the big bad monster of global warming.  great idea, huh. besides this, 2 more points.  who are we that we are so important we get to decide that there is something actually wrong with the earth getting warmer(if it actually is)?  we may not like what's going to happen, but we're so self centered that we think that, not only are we causing it and that it's bad for us, that we can stop it.  point 2, another leading swcientist who actually quotes factual data that means something(to offset the al gore horror story) points out that there are 38 molecules of co2 per 100000 of air and it would take 5 years to get to 39 at the supposedly current volume that the world is producing.  whoa, the end is truely near, eh.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-221460-2248397]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[inertman@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sat, 02 Jun 2007 15:18:28 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Doom and Gloom! Pass the popcorn......]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-221460-2247229]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I like this thread so I figured id just chime in. Ive been a casual follower of this topic for a long time.Things are a little different than they were in the prehistoric times .. where evolution followed  the planetary condition. Natural adaptation to the environment.. population control..  biological mechanisms far beyond my understanding but clearly important to all living things on this planet were perfected over millions of years. If the planet cooled or warmed the nice little inhabitants of the planet would do their best to figure out what they needed to do to survive.. A lot would die.. a lot would adopt and the wheel of time would drone on. Like it or not I?m inclined to believe humanity is likely to face the same pressures in the future. That?s nature.. I do pray it?s not in my time but from my limited view it looks unavoidable. The planet is overpopulated. Humans are stretching the limits to sustain the growth. There isn?t enough water now.  Pretty much any  kind of climate change is going to disrupt water supply.. food supply etc. That?s not to say that im not a proponent for a clean and efficient environment.. Big interests have purposefully kept innovation off the agenda because well it?s not in their best interest. They make a lot of money keeping things the way they are.  It?s unfortunate that that?s the way the world works but in any case Innovation is long overdue. Cleaner fuels, recycling, and taking care of the environment should not be fueled (pardon the pun) by the global warming debate. They make plenty of sense on their own. Look at the evolution in processors and computing. If only there was that kind of competition in the energy arena, every company actively looking for newer better ways to get something done. The history of the planet makes it a little hard to believe we had major role in any kind of planetary climate change. I?ve read a lot on the topic and there is little real consensus about anything other than the planet is warming.  Haha check this article out.. Scientists are thinking (ok granted 100 million years ago) that temperatures in the tropical Atlantic ocean were as high as 107?F (42?C). Now that?s toasty!http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=9779&amp;tid=282&amp;cid=10346&amp;ct=162I guess wait and see what happens &amp;#61514; I think we may need some of those giant planetary atmosphere generators from that were in the alien movies ]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-221460-2247229]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[icebutt24601@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 01 Jun 2007 00:57:03 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[psst...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-221460-2247228]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[oops]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-221460-2247228]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[icebutt24601@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 01 Jun 2007 00:54:44 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[good post, but I would like to add something to this]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-221460-2241882]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Finally, here's the real kicker, Sugar Ethanol, which the Corn Lobby has successfully banned imports of, is more efficient than, and less environmentally costly, than Corn Ethanol. Where does this make sense?It's imports.  Imports of energy drives alot of our national policy which most people disagree with.  It also lays us open to black male by foeign countries.  I would rather pay the higher price to an American Farmer then any foreign country. To take this a step further.  The surgar ethanol is a better product, you are correct.  Why not biotechnoligy to modify the sugar crop so that it can be grown in the United States. Thus, 3 birds killed with one stone.  Still not reliant on  foreign energy source, american's are being paid, and more cost efficient in producing ethanolGood post... Liked that.  Realistic look at it all. And I learned a few things also.dan]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-221460-2241882]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[DanLM]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 24 May 2007 12:09:07 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[The 'cure' may be more damaging than the 'disease'.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-221460-2241697]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I'm all for a better world for our children, but turning our landfills into hazardous waste sites and doubling the cost of food for the world's poor doesn't strike me as the proper direction to go for a .00000000001% improvement (my under exaggerated guess). Do I have the answers, no - I wish I did, but some of the ones we have are worse than the problems. If Krakatau exploded again tomorrow, the temperature would drop 1.2 degrees Celsius within a year; we can't compete with that.To use similar scare tactics as the global warming alarmists, let's say we change out all of our incandescent light bulbs to CFLs. The kids 'throw the ball' in their room and crash a table lamp to the floor. With the exception of a new crease in the lampshade, the lamp is okay, but the CFL is shattered. They scoop it up, toss it in the garbage, vacuum the remnants, and replace the bulb before they get in trouble...then one day they wake up numb and blind from Mercury poisoning. Meanwhile you've used the vacuum 3 times before changing the bag, and now the whole house is contaminated. It also rained the day the garbage was picked up; water runoff from the landfill has entered a nearby river and the water supply for the downstream town is contaminated, but not at a poisonous level, yet. What are the chances of this happening, I don't know, but it's probably far greater than the sea level rising several meters over the next few years, and has probably already happened. Now, unlike the alarmists, I won't conveniently leave out countering information: power generation facilities put Mercury vapor into the atmosphere every day at what the EPA calls 'safe' levels, and this is perfectly acceptable, but we can reduce the amount of Mercury vapor by 80% per light bulb (which, individually is negligible, but quite a bit collectively) at the risk of six times the 'safe' level upon breakage, per CFL, in our homes. I'll take the incandescent every day, thank you.'Climate Change' hasn't been an environmental movement for quite a while, and sadly, in recent years, has turned into a political and economic movement, which can clearly be seen in bad products and policies.Here's another one: Ethanol. Thanks to the Corn Lobby, the U.S. is moving toward Corn Ethanol, and even though I live in Indiana, I really do not like this. Corn Ethanol is not efficient. It takes more energy to produce a gallon of corn-based Ethanol than required to refine a gallon of gasoline, and at about 2/3 the combustion capacity. The true net effect from production to tailpipe is zero...and I've seen articles that state that the emissions are more toxic than previously thought. Add to that that it needs to be subsidized by the government to be competitive with gasoline, when we are already subsidizing gasoline production to keep the price at the pump artificially low, and it really starts to look economically stupid, but no one will accept removing the gasoline subsidy, because the price of gas is supposedly too high! Yet, a dollar for a 20 oz. soda is fine? ...But wait, that 20 oz. soda is going to cost more now, because it contains high fructose corn syrup. Finally, here's the real kicker, Sugar Ethanol, which the Corn Lobby has successfully banned imports of, is more efficient than, and less environmentally costly, than Corn Ethanol. Where does this make sense?Here's an a few interesting articles:http://ellsworthmaine.com/site/index.php?option=com_content&amp;task=view&amp;id=7446&amp;Itemid=31http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2007/05/22/corn.html]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-221460-2241697]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[rwire@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 24 May 2007 09:23:24 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Mankind's pollution is on top of natural sources]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-221460-2238933]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[mankinds air pollution is ON TOP of all natural sources.  ADDITIVE!and warming or cooling didn't matter so much when vast numbers of people weren't living near shores and we now have vastly more infrastructure that can't be moved inland.   Plus billions of people depend on glacier melt for drinking water.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-221460-2238933]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Dr Dij]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 21 May 2007 11:11:24 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Inconvenient or not - still warming]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-221460-2238928]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I continue to maintain that it doesn't matter whether or not the change in climate is man-made or naturally occurring...we have to start dealing with the consequences now.Even if we were to stop emitting carbons, or were able to cap all the volcanoes (roughly equal chances there, I think) the temperature will continue to rise throughout our lifetimes.  Flooding, destruction of sustainable areable lands...I just want better for my kids than that.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-221460-2238928]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[mford66215]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 21 May 2007 11:03:31 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[...And critical thinking on you.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-221460-2238673]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[1. Correct. Climate change is a gradual occurrence, and it would take hundreds of years for the effects to be seen. Among the good things that happened in the this period was the establishment of trade routes between the East and West, with the northeastern coast of Italy being one of the major trade hubs.2. Partially correct. All of Europe had its share of religious zealots. This can be seen repeatedly in The Crusades, the rise of Lutheranism, the Spanish Inquisition, and the Pope in Vatican City...all spanning the period from more than 800 years ago, up to and through the Renaissance. Perhaps you should look up the definition of 'fostered'?3. Nothing confirms a flawed argument like a personal attack. Thank you for your input. If the oceans were to rise 23 feet, or whatever Al Gore claims in his &quot;An Inconvenient Truth&quot;, several river towns, Evansville included, would find large portions flooded and destroyed. &quot;An Inconvenient Truth&quot; is a very appropriate title for his documentary, since he conveniently leaves out a number of items such as: perfectly natural volcanic activity puts far more CO2 into the atmosphere than all of human industry; the weakening of the Earth's protective magnetic field letting in more light and heat; and dangers produced by alarmists, such as the clearing of jungles in southeast Asia, usually by burning them, to produce renewable fuel sources for Europe, or the ingenious idea of the compact fluorescent light bulb which contains six times more mercury than the EPA safe levels. Didn't we just get rid of all of our mercury thermometers 30 years ago because of the dangers posed by mercury in the hands of the general public? Also, just 30 years ago, weren't we on the verge of a new ice age?]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-221460-2238673]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[rwire@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 21 May 2007 06:38:02 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[The bread basket of the world]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-221460-2237583]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[3. A major downside of global warming is that it will NOT drown the midwestern United States and the ignorant religion-based thinking that comes out of there.You sound like you would like to see it destroyed?  Dan]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-221460-2237583]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[DanLM]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 18 May 2007 16:48:29 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Here's the good thing that will come of this  inertman]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-221460-2237581]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[We will become less dependant on foreign energy.  We can tell those scum bag's in Iraq, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Russia to kiss our butts.I don't care about global warming, I think its b.s.  I want this nation self sufficient on it's energy needs.  I will gladly pay an American farmer, who is subsidized for my transportation energy.  At least he isn't trying to kill thousands of Americans.Screw them scum bags.  Let the global warmers screech and scream.  As long as it makes this country energy independent, I don't care.Dan]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-221460-2237581]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[DanLM]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 18 May 2007 16:46:48 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[I think the same people that are trumpeting global warming]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-221460-2237456]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Are putting up road blocks in various methods that have been discussed in reducing it.I also truthfully think that they are trying to dismantle industrial nations.  Otherwise, they would have us moving forward with the idea's that have already been discussed as clean energy, and not looking for the perfect solution which requires nations/companies to go bankrupt putting into place.  If we start investing NOW into specific area's, then the long term payment will not change.  But will be spread out over a period of time to not adversly affect both nations and companies.  These groups don't want that.  If they did... More would be done by THEM with regard to cleaner coal burning, nuculear being built, bio fuels, hydrolelectric, windmills.  These groups have placed more restrictions on these technoligy's or where they are used to the point that it isnt econimically feasible.They are making it just as hard to use clean energy as it is to use carbon based energy.  Why is that? Unless they want industrial nations to fail.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-221460-2237456]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[DanLM]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 18 May 2007 13:37:39 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[NO]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-221460-2237428]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Greenland &amp; Iceland were both named by the vikings to confuse those who came after them..Iceland was the lush covered one but the vikings did not want every coming there.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-221460-2237428]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[wayoutinva]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 18 May 2007 12:47:14 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[I guess history was lost on you]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-221460-2237376]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[1.  800 years ago was 1207.  Hundreds of years before the Renaissance.2. Northern Europe was full of superstitious savages at that time, not unlike the Indiana of today.  They contributed very little to the Renaissance which sprang up in the Arno valley of northern Italy.3. A major downside of global warming is that it will NOT drown the midwestern United States and the ignorant religion-based thinking that comes out of there.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-221460-2237376]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[mrkahatr]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 18 May 2007 12:28:54 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[a kneejerk won't help]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-221460-2237304]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[colorado hasjust had the 2nd coldest winter on record, the ice caps on mars are melting, what should we do?  the last time we tried to do something because of the media frenzy around climate change could be responsible for what global warming freaks are crying about now.  30 years ago newsweek, new york times, et al, told of a coming ice age age immediatly people thought we should do something.  and so they did.  if you look, and even if you don't, you can find pictures from the 70's in which tankers are in the arctic melting ice pack, whether glacial or floes i don't know.  but does anyone really think that humans can instantly affect the whole earth?  and if so, then yes, because of things like that, we are responsible.  and it was a paniced, kneejerk response that did it!  however, i don't believe that we are as responsible as some would have us believe, not that we shouldn't pay attention to what we do, but really.  things like ethenol and lcf's.  we need to think about things like, how much goes into producing a lcf versus a regular incandecent, or how will they effect landfills when the expire, or can they be recycled?  what about the waste invovled in producing corn for fuel just to put the rest in a compost to produce so much more co2 not to mention raising the cost of other corn related products including beef because of feed costs?  how about stop paying farmers subsidies not to grow and then let them produce more of these bio fuel crops but figure out what to do w/ the extra waste?  pay attention to what we do, but think this thing through before acting too quickly or rashly!]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-221460-2237304]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[inertman@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 18 May 2007 11:52:48 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Just read about an interesting alternative theory...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-221460-2236341]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[That it isn't all necessarily global warming, but that some  (or most)of the northern melting may be due to earth's impending magnetic flip. http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth_poles_040407.html(Doesn't make the melting/magnetic flip, just talks about the flip. The melting connection was talked about elsewhere, but I don't recall where, I wasn't paying very close attention. Interesting thought though...)]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-221460-2236341]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[shardeth-15902278]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 17 May 2007 12:27:11 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Normal or not, gotta do something.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-221460-2235232]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[My recommendation is to move away from the coast, and further north.  You might also invest in hydroponics, as most the croplands we currently use are going to be scorched.It might also be smart to tell the developing nations about those technologies we know of that are 'green' and still economical, such as STE (Sea Thermal Energy), forms of bio-diesel not based on corn, re-cycling programs, etc...What amazes me is that the big companies still haven't grasped that they can make money teaching these techniques to the up and coming...who don't want to be dependent on outside sources for energy any more than we do.  I agree with Ethical_Loner that we &quot;but we should at least know WHAT to do before we do it. &quot;; but I think that we already know what to do - and very few are doing it.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-221460-2235232]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[mford66215]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 16 May 2007 09:32:02 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Human Folly]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-221460-2235148]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Now there's folly for you - to think that we can just throw hundreds of billions of dollars (just like we do with everything else) and &quot;fix&quot; the normal evolution of this planet. What about the normal evolution of the rest of the galaxy, or universe for that matter? Not that we shouldn't do anything, if there is anything we can do, but we should at least know WHAT to do before we do it. Personally I think that no matter what we &quot;enlightened&quot; countries do it will all be undone by the now emerging nations going through their own industrialization periods. How do we tell them &quot;No, you can't, but it was OK for us&quot;?]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-221460-2235148]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Ethical_Loner]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 16 May 2007 08:10:41 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[So, we just gonna sit here??]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-221460-2235054]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[My point is that is doesnt matter if global temperature raising is cuased by natural or human events....the temperature is going up and it's going to have a BIG impact on us.When you get a flat tire on your car, you can puzzle out whether it was a factory defect or if you hit something, but until you change the tire your not going anywhere.Why must people always discuss cause, and assign blame, when the topic should be &quot;What can we do about this?&quot;.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-221460-2235054]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[mford66215]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 16 May 2007 06:57:13 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

