<?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/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" 	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Will Drilling ANWR Ease the Oil Crisis?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.rv.net/2008/06/will-drilling-anwr-ease-the-oil-crisis/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.rv.net/2008/06/will-drilling-anwr-ease-the-oil-crisis/</link>
	<description>RV Campground &#38; Camping Information - RV, Motorhome, Camper, Travel Trailer &#38; 5th Wheel Owners</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 21:54:04 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Not Many Negatives With These Oil Stocks &#171; Oil and Gas Stocks Exchange Traded Funds NYSE AMEX NASDAQ ETF Joint Ventures Chevron Exxon Mobile Oil and Gas Due Diligence Chesapeake Oil Acquisitions Total Oil Stocks Oil ETF Oil Stocks &#38; Projects Res</title>
		<link>http://blog.rv.net/2008/06/will-drilling-anwr-ease-the-oil-crisis/comment-page-2/#comment-123880</link>
		<dc:creator>Not Many Negatives With These Oil Stocks &#171; Oil and Gas Stocks Exchange Traded Funds NYSE AMEX NASDAQ ETF Joint Ventures Chevron Exxon Mobile Oil and Gas Due Diligence Chesapeake Oil Acquisitions Total Oil Stocks Oil ETF Oil Stocks &#38; Projects Res</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Jan 2012 11:23:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.rv.net/?p=1664#comment-123880</guid>
		<description>[...] Photo Credit. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Photo Credit. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael</title>
		<link>http://blog.rv.net/2008/06/will-drilling-anwr-ease-the-oil-crisis/comment-page-2/#comment-67668</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Jan 2009 09:51:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.rv.net/?p=1664#comment-67668</guid>
		<description>I for one am irritated beyond belief at the following &quot;Buzzwords&quot; :

1 - Global Warming  2 - Climate Change  3 - Carbon Footprint  4- Oil Shortage

    5 - United Nations&#039;, and their &quot;Committee&#039;s of Concerned Scientists&quot;.

 Global Warming is a theory - it&#039;s not a fact.   Climate Change has been happening,and will continue as long as there is a climate.  Carbon Footprint is what I&#039;d like to leave on Al Gore&#039;s front door (on at least ONE of his mansions).

Oil Shortage....they&#039;ve been happening since the 1920&#039;s. Do you think their something to do with money? 

  UN and their activities : A worthless bunch of  self - professed &quot;World Leaders&quot;, who do nothing but posture and preen for the camera&#039;s and each other. Most of the UN nations&#039; aren&#039;t friendly to the USA, but this country gives them millions of dollars and a place to meet,security; and &quot;Diplomatic Immunity&quot;. I&#039;m sure they are a trustworthy bunch....&quot;Food for oil&quot;?

If the UN provided an all - expense junket to a conference,Business - class airfare,gourmet meals,and a few speeches....to an &#039;amenable&#039; group of Scientists....do you think the experts would sign a paper? Maybe accept some research money?  Accept another invitation if they&#039;re doing a bit of research?  

At one time it was believed that the Sun rotated around the earth. Galileo was imprisoned for insisting that the Earth rotated around the Sun...The Fool! All Scientists,and Enlightened people (the ones in power) knew that it was a FACT that Galileo was wrong,he was a HERETIC!

The world is Flat &quot;Fact&quot; .  Just a couple of examples of Science. I say,we should all be digging caves to live in....and paint the inside (With only environmentally acceptable coatings) GREEN. 

Someone&#039;s gonna make a lot of GREEN!

Remember,bicycles aren&#039;t GREEN. They may be Greener than other modes of transportation,but compared to walking;they have a HUGE Carbon Footprint.They have rubber tires (oil),lubrication (oil) a seat cover (oil) a helmet (oil),and they&#039;re made of steel (Coal). How toxic to the planet.

If people wouldn&#039;t exercise,there would be an incredible decrease in their Carbon Dioxide Emissions.  In fact, if we got rid of 80% of all people,this world would become more balanced...plenty of oil,less of a Carbon Footprint.

If you&#039;re really worried about Carbon, plant a tree. Plant several trees.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I for one am irritated beyond belief at the following &#8220;Buzzwords&#8221; :</p>
<p>1 &#8211; Global Warming  2 &#8211; Climate Change  3 &#8211; Carbon Footprint  4- Oil Shortage</p>
<p>    5 &#8211; United Nations&#8217;, and their &#8220;Committee&#8217;s of Concerned Scientists&#8221;.</p>
<p> Global Warming is a theory &#8211; it&#8217;s not a fact.   Climate Change has been happening,and will continue as long as there is a climate.  Carbon Footprint is what I&#8217;d like to leave on Al Gore&#8217;s front door (on at least ONE of his mansions).</p>
<p>Oil Shortage&#8230;.they&#8217;ve been happening since the 1920&#8217;s. Do you think their something to do with money? </p>
<p>  UN and their activities : A worthless bunch of  self &#8211; professed &#8220;World Leaders&#8221;, who do nothing but posture and preen for the camera&#8217;s and each other. Most of the UN nations&#8217; aren&#8217;t friendly to the USA, but this country gives them millions of dollars and a place to meet,security; and &#8220;Diplomatic Immunity&#8221;. I&#8217;m sure they are a trustworthy bunch&#8230;.&#8221;Food for oil&#8221;?</p>
<p>If the UN provided an all &#8211; expense junket to a conference,Business &#8211; class airfare,gourmet meals,and a few speeches&#8230;.to an &#8216;amenable&#8217; group of Scientists&#8230;.do you think the experts would sign a paper? Maybe accept some research money?  Accept another invitation if they&#8217;re doing a bit of research?  </p>
<p>At one time it was believed that the Sun rotated around the earth. Galileo was imprisoned for insisting that the Earth rotated around the Sun&#8230;The Fool! All Scientists,and Enlightened people (the ones in power) knew that it was a FACT that Galileo was wrong,he was a HERETIC!</p>
<p>The world is Flat &#8220;Fact&#8221; .  Just a couple of examples of Science. I say,we should all be digging caves to live in&#8230;.and paint the inside (With only environmentally acceptable coatings) GREEN. </p>
<p>Someone&#8217;s gonna make a lot of GREEN!</p>
<p>Remember,bicycles aren&#8217;t GREEN. They may be Greener than other modes of transportation,but compared to walking;they have a HUGE Carbon Footprint.They have rubber tires (oil),lubrication (oil) a seat cover (oil) a helmet (oil),and they&#8217;re made of steel (Coal). How toxic to the planet.</p>
<p>If people wouldn&#8217;t exercise,there would be an incredible decrease in their Carbon Dioxide Emissions.  In fact, if we got rid of 80% of all people,this world would become more balanced&#8230;plenty of oil,less of a Carbon Footprint.</p>
<p>If you&#8217;re really worried about Carbon, plant a tree. Plant several trees.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ken Gordon</title>
		<link>http://blog.rv.net/2008/06/will-drilling-anwr-ease-the-oil-crisis/comment-page-2/#comment-59832</link>
		<dc:creator>Ken Gordon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Dec 2008 15:41:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.rv.net/?p=1664#comment-59832</guid>
		<description>Bob, 

I don&#039;t know where you get the 3% number but I&#039;m sure I could find numbers higher than that.  Maybe if you only count the oil that is currently available for drilling and ignore the vast areas that are off limits it would be 3%.  But that isn&#039;t the point.  The piont is that anything we can do to reduce importing oil from other countries, especially those that want to destory us, will help our country.  And if we would have gone after the oil in ANWR ten years ago we would be better off today.

I&#039;m all for finding other fuels we could produce to lessen our dependence on oil.  I think we should be encouraging companies to invest in nuclear power and hydro power as these technologies are presently available.  I also think oil derived from algea shows promise if we can get the cost down.  I don&#039;t think the money for these projects should come from the government as that is not how capitalism system works.  The only help the government should lend to the private sector are tax incentives to develope the technologies and build the facilities.  Doing so would have the added benefit of providing jobs to the economy.

As for global warming, I haven&#039;t bought off on that yet.  To do so would require me to ignore the evidence to the contary.  I believe there are scientists on the side of global warming that have too much invested in the theory ever be honest about the subject and therefore I question their creditablity.  The scientists that are speaking out against the global warming theory are being ridiculed and even condemned by the people promoting the theory.  People willing to risk that kind treatment should at least be heard, in my opinion.

So, in the words of our now famous govenor from Alaska,  Drill Baby Drill!

(These opinions are mine alone and are not necessarily shared by my employer.)

Ken Gordon
Fairbanks, Alaska</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Bob, </p>
<p>I don&#8217;t know where you get the 3% number but I&#8217;m sure I could find numbers higher than that.  Maybe if you only count the oil that is currently available for drilling and ignore the vast areas that are off limits it would be 3%.  But that isn&#8217;t the point.  The piont is that anything we can do to reduce importing oil from other countries, especially those that want to destory us, will help our country.  And if we would have gone after the oil in ANWR ten years ago we would be better off today.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m all for finding other fuels we could produce to lessen our dependence on oil.  I think we should be encouraging companies to invest in nuclear power and hydro power as these technologies are presently available.  I also think oil derived from algea shows promise if we can get the cost down.  I don&#8217;t think the money for these projects should come from the government as that is not how capitalism system works.  The only help the government should lend to the private sector are tax incentives to develope the technologies and build the facilities.  Doing so would have the added benefit of providing jobs to the economy.</p>
<p>As for global warming, I haven&#8217;t bought off on that yet.  To do so would require me to ignore the evidence to the contary.  I believe there are scientists on the side of global warming that have too much invested in the theory ever be honest about the subject and therefore I question their creditablity.  The scientists that are speaking out against the global warming theory are being ridiculed and even condemned by the people promoting the theory.  People willing to risk that kind treatment should at least be heard, in my opinion.</p>
<p>So, in the words of our now famous govenor from Alaska,  Drill Baby Drill!</p>
<p>(These opinions are mine alone and are not necessarily shared by my employer.)</p>
<p>Ken Gordon<br />
Fairbanks, Alaska</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bob Difley</title>
		<link>http://blog.rv.net/2008/06/will-drilling-anwr-ease-the-oil-crisis/comment-page-2/#comment-59669</link>
		<dc:creator>Bob Difley</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Dec 2008 19:33:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.rv.net/?p=1664#comment-59669</guid>
		<description>Ken - The bottom line is that we need to replace oil as a prime US fuel, not only to avoid the problem of buying it from countries that do not like us, but also to combat global warming. The theory is that with so little oil available (the US has only 3% of global oil supplies yet uses 25% of the world&#039;s supply), let&#039;s instead take that money that would be spent to develop more oil out of ANWR, including the subsidies paid to the oil companies, and put it into alternative, clean, renewable sources of energy that will not become exhausted in a few years (as the oil in ANWR will) but will continue to produce energy on and on as well as solve the two problems of buying foreign oil and combating global warming.  
Thanks for your contribution to the conversation.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ken &#8211; The bottom line is that we need to replace oil as a prime US fuel, not only to avoid the problem of buying it from countries that do not like us, but also to combat global warming. The theory is that with so little oil available (the US has only 3% of global oil supplies yet uses 25% of the world&#8217;s supply), let&#8217;s instead take that money that would be spent to develop more oil out of ANWR, including the subsidies paid to the oil companies, and put it into alternative, clean, renewable sources of energy that will not become exhausted in a few years (as the oil in ANWR will) but will continue to produce energy on and on as well as solve the two problems of buying foreign oil and combating global warming.<br />
Thanks for your contribution to the conversation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ken Gordon</title>
		<link>http://blog.rv.net/2008/06/will-drilling-anwr-ease-the-oil-crisis/comment-page-2/#comment-59532</link>
		<dc:creator>Ken Gordon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Dec 2008 00:14:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.rv.net/?p=1664#comment-59532</guid>
		<description>I live in Fairbanks, Alaska, and I work on the North Slope of Alaska so I know more about this subject than all the so-called experts down in the lower 48.  Anyone that says it will take ten years to get oil from ANWR is not only wrong but they are lying to presude people against drilling there.  And the pictures they show you to prove how pristine the area is are pictures taken far away from the flat tundra where the oil drilling will take place.  Again, an attempt to mislead people, more lies.  

If the oil companies were allowed to go after the oil and given the proper incentives to do so, we could have oil flowing out of ANWR in a couple years.  The amount of oil we pump from ANWR would help this country lower the amount of oil we are buying from people that don&#039;t like us.  

Furthermore, opening ANWR would provide good paying jobs at a time thay are needed by people in this country that are hurting.  People from all over the country travel to the North Slope of Alaska to work so the added jobs would not only help Alaskans.

Finally, the companies operating on the North Slope spend millions each year to protect the environment and are carefully watched by state and federal agencies.   If an oil spill happens, and they do, teams of people contain and clean up the spill as soon as possibile.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I live in Fairbanks, Alaska, and I work on the North Slope of Alaska so I know more about this subject than all the so-called experts down in the lower 48.  Anyone that says it will take ten years to get oil from ANWR is not only wrong but they are lying to presude people against drilling there.  And the pictures they show you to prove how pristine the area is are pictures taken far away from the flat tundra where the oil drilling will take place.  Again, an attempt to mislead people, more lies.  </p>
<p>If the oil companies were allowed to go after the oil and given the proper incentives to do so, we could have oil flowing out of ANWR in a couple years.  The amount of oil we pump from ANWR would help this country lower the amount of oil we are buying from people that don&#8217;t like us.  </p>
<p>Furthermore, opening ANWR would provide good paying jobs at a time thay are needed by people in this country that are hurting.  People from all over the country travel to the North Slope of Alaska to work so the added jobs would not only help Alaskans.</p>
<p>Finally, the companies operating on the North Slope spend millions each year to protect the environment and are carefully watched by state and federal agencies.   If an oil spill happens, and they do, teams of people contain and clean up the spill as soon as possibile.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bob Difley</title>
		<link>http://blog.rv.net/2008/06/will-drilling-anwr-ease-the-oil-crisis/comment-page-2/#comment-49863</link>
		<dc:creator>Bob Difley</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Sep 2008 20:51:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.rv.net/?p=1664#comment-49863</guid>
		<description>lobosolo - Related to your comments, the following story came out yesterday, September 25th, from Reuters:
&quot;By David Fogarty

SINGAPORE (Reuters) - Global carbon emissions rose rapidly in 2007, an annual study says, with developing nations such as China and India now producing more than half of mankind&#039;s output of carbon dioxide, the main gas blamed for global warming.

The Global Carbon Project said in its report carbon dioxide emissions from mankind are growing about four times faster since 2000 than during the 1990s, despite efforts by a number of nations to rein in emissions under the Kyoto Protocol.

Emissions from burning fossil fuels was a major contributor to the increase, the authors said in their &quot;Global Carbon Project (2008) Carbon budget and trends 2007&quot; report (http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbontrends/index_new.htm).

India would soon overtake Russia to become the world&#039;s third largest CO2 emitter, it says.

&quot;What we are talking about now for the first time is that the absolute value of all emissions going into the atmosphere every year are bigger coming from less developing countries than the developed world,&quot; said the project&#039;s Australia-based executive director Pep Canadell.

&quot;The other thing we confirm is that China is indeed now the top emitter,&quot; he told Reuters, adding that China alone accounted for 60 percent of all growth in emissions. The United States was the second largest emitter.

The project is supported by the International Council for Science, the umbrella body for all national academies of science.&quot;

That&#039;s pretty strong. You can read the entire article at http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE48O3KZ20080925.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>lobosolo &#8211; Related to your comments, the following story came out yesterday, September 25th, from Reuters:<br />
&#8220;By David Fogarty</p>
<p>SINGAPORE (Reuters) &#8211; Global carbon emissions rose rapidly in 2007, an annual study says, with developing nations such as China and India now producing more than half of mankind&#8217;s output of carbon dioxide, the main gas blamed for global warming.</p>
<p>The Global Carbon Project said in its report carbon dioxide emissions from mankind are growing about four times faster since 2000 than during the 1990s, despite efforts by a number of nations to rein in emissions under the Kyoto Protocol.</p>
<p>Emissions from burning fossil fuels was a major contributor to the increase, the authors said in their &#8220;Global Carbon Project (2008) Carbon budget and trends 2007&#8243; report (<a href="http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbontrends/index_new.htm)" rel="nofollow">http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbontrends/index_new.htm)</a>.</p>
<p>India would soon overtake Russia to become the world&#8217;s third largest CO2 emitter, it says.</p>
<p>&#8220;What we are talking about now for the first time is that the absolute value of all emissions going into the atmosphere every year are bigger coming from less developing countries than the developed world,&#8221; said the project&#8217;s Australia-based executive director Pep Canadell.</p>
<p>&#8220;The other thing we confirm is that China is indeed now the top emitter,&#8221; he told Reuters, adding that China alone accounted for 60 percent of all growth in emissions. The United States was the second largest emitter.</p>
<p>The project is supported by the International Council for Science, the umbrella body for all national academies of science.&#8221;</p>
<p>That&#8217;s pretty strong. You can read the entire article at <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE48O3KZ20080925." rel="nofollow">http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE48O3KZ20080925.</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bob Difley</title>
		<link>http://blog.rv.net/2008/06/will-drilling-anwr-ease-the-oil-crisis/comment-page-2/#comment-49856</link>
		<dc:creator>Bob Difley</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Sep 2008 20:08:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.rv.net/?p=1664#comment-49856</guid>
		<description>lobosolo - I&#039;m sure  you know that you are going against the majority of the world&#039;s climate change scientists, and the United Nation&#039;s panel of experts that studied the issue, and a lot of hard date that indicates the opposite. 
Point number 2: It&#039;s not a question of what is perfect. The world we live in has adapted to the temperature range that exists, and we will adapt to any future changes in this average temperature. The point is, are we willing just to accept what Mother Nature will dish out to us, more severe weather--stronger hurricanes, hotter summers, etc.--which will change where we can effectively farm, what species will disappear, how much of the rest of the planet will turn into deserts, how much of our coastal areas will be under water, whether the Gulf Stream will change directions--all these things that could, I said COULD, happen. We don&#039;t know whether will this will happen or not, but there are plenty of very bright scientists and thinkers feeding mountains of data into supercomputers that indicate that they are extremely possible if we don&#039;t cut greenhouse gas emissions. Do you have the knowledge and expertise to justifiably disagree with them?
However, if everyone did what you are doing--using biodiesel, solar, and wind--we wouldn&#039;t have to have this debate. It would resolve itself. I congratulate you on the moves you have taken and would urge all of us to follow. Then if the climate change people are wrong, it wouldn&#039;t matter--we would still be ahead of the game, which I&#039;m sure you already know you are.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>lobosolo &#8211; I&#8217;m sure  you know that you are going against the majority of the world&#8217;s climate change scientists, and the United Nation&#8217;s panel of experts that studied the issue, and a lot of hard date that indicates the opposite.<br />
Point number 2: It&#8217;s not a question of what is perfect. The world we live in has adapted to the temperature range that exists, and we will adapt to any future changes in this average temperature. The point is, are we willing just to accept what Mother Nature will dish out to us, more severe weather&#8211;stronger hurricanes, hotter summers, etc.&#8211;which will change where we can effectively farm, what species will disappear, how much of the rest of the planet will turn into deserts, how much of our coastal areas will be under water, whether the Gulf Stream will change directions&#8211;all these things that could, I said COULD, happen. We don&#8217;t know whether will this will happen or not, but there are plenty of very bright scientists and thinkers feeding mountains of data into supercomputers that indicate that they are extremely possible if we don&#8217;t cut greenhouse gas emissions. Do you have the knowledge and expertise to justifiably disagree with them?<br />
However, if everyone did what you are doing&#8211;using biodiesel, solar, and wind&#8211;we wouldn&#8217;t have to have this debate. It would resolve itself. I congratulate you on the moves you have taken and would urge all of us to follow. Then if the climate change people are wrong, it wouldn&#8217;t matter&#8211;we would still be ahead of the game, which I&#8217;m sure you already know you are.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: lobosolo</title>
		<link>http://blog.rv.net/2008/06/will-drilling-anwr-ease-the-oil-crisis/comment-page-2/#comment-49766</link>
		<dc:creator>lobosolo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Sep 2008 00:18:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.rv.net/?p=1664#comment-49766</guid>
		<description>Oops, I mean GW is NOT caused by man.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oops, I mean GW is NOT caused by man.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: lobosolo</title>
		<link>http://blog.rv.net/2008/06/will-drilling-anwr-ease-the-oil-crisis/comment-page-2/#comment-49763</link>
		<dc:creator>lobosolo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Sep 2008 00:11:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.rv.net/?p=1664#comment-49763</guid>
		<description>Sorry Bob, I&#039;ve done a lot, and I mean a lot of reading on the subject and I&#039;ve come to the conclusion that:

1. Any global warming is caused by man nor can it be stopped by man.

2. Do we know what the &quot;perfect&quot; temperature should be?

Others have gone into many of the arguments. Just call me skeptic that uses biodiesel, wind turbines, and solar panels for reasons other than GW.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sorry Bob, I&#8217;ve done a lot, and I mean a lot of reading on the subject and I&#8217;ve come to the conclusion that:</p>
<p>1. Any global warming is caused by man nor can it be stopped by man.</p>
<p>2. Do we know what the &#8220;perfect&#8221; temperature should be?</p>
<p>Others have gone into many of the arguments. Just call me skeptic that uses biodiesel, wind turbines, and solar panels for reasons other than GW.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Charles Hill</title>
		<link>http://blog.rv.net/2008/06/will-drilling-anwr-ease-the-oil-crisis/comment-page-2/#comment-48275</link>
		<dc:creator>Charles Hill</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Sep 2008 17:25:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.rv.net/?p=1664#comment-48275</guid>
		<description>John McCain to support drilling in ANWR, biggest news from Palin/Gipson interview.

http://strategicthought-charles77.blogspot.com/2008/09/john-mccain-to-support-drilling-in-anwr.html</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>John McCain to support drilling in ANWR, biggest news from Palin/Gipson interview.</p>
<p><a href="http://strategicthought-charles77.blogspot.com/2008/09/john-mccain-to-support-drilling-in-anwr.html" rel="nofollow">http://strategicthought-charles77.blogspot.com/2008/09/john-mccain-to-support-drilling-in-anwr.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

