<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
	<title><![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Bush DOE says wind can be 20 percent of U.S. power by 2030&#8212;with no breakthroughs]]></title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.grist.org/rss/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<description>Grist Comment Feed</description>
	<language>en</language>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #1 by eolico</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/the-renewable-energy-beneath-our-wings/</link>
			<pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 05:53:15 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/the-renewable-energy-beneath-our-wings/1</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>bush doe?</strong></p><p>You make it sound like this report is a product of the executive branch or that the national labs are a mouthpiece for the administration. The authors of this report are accomplished scientists, researchers and consultants (see Appendix D of the report on pg 211) and I wouldn't denigrate their work by associating it with the brain-dead administration now in office. The report accurately reflects the consensus in the literature and to me doesn't suggest any tampering or oversight by administration officials. I don't think this report has been Conney'd (i.e. Philip Cooney'd) and I don't think its helpful to cast the report as a Bush publication. </p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>bush doe?</strong></p><p>You make it sound like this report is a product of the executive branch or that the national labs are a mouthpiece for the administration. The authors of this report are accomplished scientists, researchers and consultants (see Appendix D of the report on pg 211) and I wouldn't denigrate their work by associating it with the brain-dead administration now in office. The report accurately reflects the consensus in the literature and to me doesn't suggest any tampering or oversight by administration officials. I don't think this report has been Conney'd (i.e. Philip Cooney'd) and I don't think its helpful to cast the report as a Bush publication. </p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
 </channel>
</rss>