<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_19_2314242</id>
	<title>Cosmic Radiation Makes Trees Grow Faster</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1255962360000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Diamonddavej writes <i>"The BBC reports that researchers at the University of Edinburgh have found that <a href="http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/gcr.html">Galactic Cosmic Rays</a> (GCRs) <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth\_news/newsid\_8311000/8311373.stm">somehow makes trees grow faster</a>. GCRs vary according to the 11-year solar cycle, with more GCRs hitting the Earth during solar minimum when there is a lull in the solar wind, which normally acts to protect the inner solar system from external galactic radiation. The mechanism might have something to do with GCRs increasing cloud cover, which diffuses sunlight and increases the efficiency of photosynthesis. Nevertheless, the researchers remain mystified and are requesting further ideas and research collaboration to test hypotheses. (How about <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation\_hormesis"> Radiation Hormesis</a>, AKA 'Vitamin-R?')"</i> Here is the <a href="http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/122597017/abstract?CRETRY=1&amp;SRETRY=0">paper's abstract</a> at the journal <em>New Phytologist</em>. The researchers say: "The relation of the rings to the solar cycle was much stronger than to any climatological factors. ... As for the mechanism, we are puzzled."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Diamonddavej writes " The BBC reports that researchers at the University of Edinburgh have found that Galactic Cosmic Rays ( GCRs ) somehow makes trees grow faster .
GCRs vary according to the 11-year solar cycle , with more GCRs hitting the Earth during solar minimum when there is a lull in the solar wind , which normally acts to protect the inner solar system from external galactic radiation .
The mechanism might have something to do with GCRs increasing cloud cover , which diffuses sunlight and increases the efficiency of photosynthesis .
Nevertheless , the researchers remain mystified and are requesting further ideas and research collaboration to test hypotheses .
( How about Radiation Hormesis , AKA 'Vitamin-R ?
' ) " Here is the paper 's abstract at the journal New Phytologist .
The researchers say : " The relation of the rings to the solar cycle was much stronger than to any climatological factors .
... As for the mechanism , we are puzzled .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Diamonddavej writes "The BBC reports that researchers at the University of Edinburgh have found that Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCRs) somehow makes trees grow faster.
GCRs vary according to the 11-year solar cycle, with more GCRs hitting the Earth during solar minimum when there is a lull in the solar wind, which normally acts to protect the inner solar system from external galactic radiation.
The mechanism might have something to do with GCRs increasing cloud cover, which diffuses sunlight and increases the efficiency of photosynthesis.
Nevertheless, the researchers remain mystified and are requesting further ideas and research collaboration to test hypotheses.
(How about  Radiation Hormesis, AKA 'Vitamin-R?
')" Here is the paper's abstract at the journal New Phytologist.
The researchers say: "The relation of the rings to the solar cycle was much stronger than to any climatological factors.
... As for the mechanism, we are puzzled.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29804047</id>
	<title>Simplification</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1255972380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Summary: trees get a hard-on for radiation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Summary : trees get a hard-on for radiation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Summary: trees get a hard-on for radiation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803397</id>
	<title>It's called research</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255966260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>As for the mechanism, we are puzzled</p></div></blockquote><p>Geez and they're scientists?  Just do a little research.  I suggest Marvel Comics.  Plenty of good info there.  At the risk of starting war, I would caution them against research using DC Comics as they are for simple idiots that live in their mother's basements.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As for the mechanism , we are puzzledGeez and they 're scientists ?
Just do a little research .
I suggest Marvel Comics .
Plenty of good info there .
At the risk of starting war , I would caution them against research using DC Comics as they are for simple idiots that live in their mother 's basements .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As for the mechanism, we are puzzledGeez and they're scientists?
Just do a little research.
I suggest Marvel Comics.
Plenty of good info there.
At the risk of starting war, I would caution them against research using DC Comics as they are for simple idiots that live in their mother's basements.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29805771</id>
	<title>Re:causality is possibly wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256040480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Indeed, and temperatures also show an 11 year cycle...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed , and temperatures also show an 11 year cycle.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed, and temperatures also show an 11 year cycle...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803785</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803903</id>
	<title>Nitrogen Fixation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255970940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>
  This is an easy mystery to solve. When a cosmic ray hits the atmosphere, it
creates a shower of ionizing radiation, each of the secondary particles are
enough to ionizing oxygen and nitrogen molecules in the atmosphere, forming
nitrogen oxides, these react ready with water forming nitric acid, which will
precipitate in dilute form in the rain. Only lightning and cosmic rays can
form nitrogen oxide, and lightning is relatively rare, so the amount of available
free nitrates in the soil, depends very much on the amount cosmic rays
hitting the earth.<p>
Plants of course need nitrogen to grow, the trouble is they can't absorb
nitrogen from the atmosphere (except for Legumes (pea, and beans and similar plants)).
So for the majority of plants and trees, not feed by human fertilizers, the amount
of fertilizing nitrate available to them, is directly proportional the cosmic ray flux.
</p><p>
Mystery Solved.
</p><p>
---
</p><p>
<a href="http://www.feeddistiller.com/blogs/Dark\%20Matter/feed.html" title="feeddistiller.com">Dark Matter</a> [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ <a href="http://www.feeddistiller.com/" title="feeddistiller.com">Feed Distiller</a> [feeddistiller.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is an easy mystery to solve .
When a cosmic ray hits the atmosphere , it creates a shower of ionizing radiation , each of the secondary particles are enough to ionizing oxygen and nitrogen molecules in the atmosphere , forming nitrogen oxides , these react ready with water forming nitric acid , which will precipitate in dilute form in the rain .
Only lightning and cosmic rays can form nitrogen oxide , and lightning is relatively rare , so the amount of available free nitrates in the soil , depends very much on the amount cosmic rays hitting the earth .
Plants of course need nitrogen to grow , the trouble is they ca n't absorb nitrogen from the atmosphere ( except for Legumes ( pea , and beans and similar plants ) ) .
So for the majority of plants and trees , not feed by human fertilizers , the amount of fertilizing nitrate available to them , is directly proportional the cosmic ray flux .
Mystery Solved .
--- Dark Matter [ feeddistiller.com ] Feed @ Feed Distiller [ feeddistiller.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
  This is an easy mystery to solve.
When a cosmic ray hits the atmosphere, it
creates a shower of ionizing radiation, each of the secondary particles are
enough to ionizing oxygen and nitrogen molecules in the atmosphere, forming
nitrogen oxides, these react ready with water forming nitric acid, which will
precipitate in dilute form in the rain.
Only lightning and cosmic rays can
form nitrogen oxide, and lightning is relatively rare, so the amount of available
free nitrates in the soil, depends very much on the amount cosmic rays
hitting the earth.
Plants of course need nitrogen to grow, the trouble is they can't absorb
nitrogen from the atmosphere (except for Legumes (pea, and beans and similar plants)).
So for the majority of plants and trees, not feed by human fertilizers, the amount
of fertilizing nitrate available to them, is directly proportional the cosmic ray flux.
Mystery Solved.
---

Dark Matter [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ Feed Distiller [feeddistiller.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803689</id>
	<title>Re:Cloud cover</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255968780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thanks a lot for ruining the mystery!</p><p>I'm never taking you to a movie, you'd just spoil the ending!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks a lot for ruining the mystery ! I 'm never taking you to a movie , you 'd just spoil the ending !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks a lot for ruining the mystery!I'm never taking you to a movie, you'd just spoil the ending!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803447</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803785</id>
	<title>Re:causality is possibly wrong</title>
	<author>khayman80</author>
	<datestamp>1255969680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's what I'm thinking too. GCR intensity is highest when sunspot activity is lowest, generally modulating on an <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v351/n6321/abs/351042a0.html" title="nature.com">11 year</a> [nature.com] cycle. But solar irradiance also varies at the same frequency; the Sun is actually (~0.1\%) brighter when more sunspots are present, contrary to intuition.</p><p>If tree growth between 1953-2006 really is highest when sunspot activity is lowest, that implies trees grow faster when the Sun is very slightly dimmer. Weird. Their diffusion explanation makes sense, but as they note this cloud condensation effect is supposed to be a very small effect. Perhaps it's just large enough to be noticed in these proxy data, though. I agree, however, that a link to solar irradiance is more intuitively appealing, and it's not immediately obvious how it could be ruled out.</p><p>I'd bet they've already considered this issue and ruled it out, possibly by using satellite measurements of solar irradiance and solar wind over the last few decades. They're supposed to be tightly correlated, but if the solar wind varies even slightly differently than solar irradiance it should be possible to see which is causing this variation in growth rates.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's what I 'm thinking too .
GCR intensity is highest when sunspot activity is lowest , generally modulating on an 11 year [ nature.com ] cycle .
But solar irradiance also varies at the same frequency ; the Sun is actually ( ~ 0.1 \ % ) brighter when more sunspots are present , contrary to intuition.If tree growth between 1953-2006 really is highest when sunspot activity is lowest , that implies trees grow faster when the Sun is very slightly dimmer .
Weird. Their diffusion explanation makes sense , but as they note this cloud condensation effect is supposed to be a very small effect .
Perhaps it 's just large enough to be noticed in these proxy data , though .
I agree , however , that a link to solar irradiance is more intuitively appealing , and it 's not immediately obvious how it could be ruled out.I 'd bet they 've already considered this issue and ruled it out , possibly by using satellite measurements of solar irradiance and solar wind over the last few decades .
They 're supposed to be tightly correlated , but if the solar wind varies even slightly differently than solar irradiance it should be possible to see which is causing this variation in growth rates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's what I'm thinking too.
GCR intensity is highest when sunspot activity is lowest, generally modulating on an 11 year [nature.com] cycle.
But solar irradiance also varies at the same frequency; the Sun is actually (~0.1\%) brighter when more sunspots are present, contrary to intuition.If tree growth between 1953-2006 really is highest when sunspot activity is lowest, that implies trees grow faster when the Sun is very slightly dimmer.
Weird. Their diffusion explanation makes sense, but as they note this cloud condensation effect is supposed to be a very small effect.
Perhaps it's just large enough to be noticed in these proxy data, though.
I agree, however, that a link to solar irradiance is more intuitively appealing, and it's not immediately obvious how it could be ruled out.I'd bet they've already considered this issue and ruled it out, possibly by using satellite measurements of solar irradiance and solar wind over the last few decades.
They're supposed to be tightly correlated, but if the solar wind varies even slightly differently than solar irradiance it should be possible to see which is causing this variation in growth rates.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803409</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29808485</id>
	<title>Seriously poor correlation</title>
	<author>Actinide</author>
	<datestamp>1256055300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Looking at the paper itself.. it rests entirely on an allegedly strong correlation between "annual growth anomaly" (which is the absolute deviation from a cubic spline fitted to the entire data set) and annual cosmic ray flux.  So far so good although the choice of a cubic spline is "interesting" (it has a very good fit to the tree ring data, well no shit Sherlock that's the whole point of a cubic spline isn't it).
</p><p>
The resulting 45-year record has a superficial resemblance to cosmic ray data over the same period although I rather suspect that this is dependent on the degree of smoothing specified for the cubic spline.
</p><p>
But now the good bit - the fit between the growth anomaly and cosmic ray flux has a correlation coefficient of 0.39, or if you prefer an "r^2" of 0.15, from 45 points.  Alternatively you can (and the authors do) specify it as a probability of fit,which gets a mighty 0.8\% (i.e. there is a less than 1\% chance that the cosmic rays explain the growth ring data).
</p><p>
Of course the usual suspects that complain the entire field of anthropogenic global change is "junk science" will doubtless be all over this one like a rash.  Different standards apply to research claiming an extraterrestrial effect, you see..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Looking at the paper itself.. it rests entirely on an allegedly strong correlation between " annual growth anomaly " ( which is the absolute deviation from a cubic spline fitted to the entire data set ) and annual cosmic ray flux .
So far so good although the choice of a cubic spline is " interesting " ( it has a very good fit to the tree ring data , well no shit Sherlock that 's the whole point of a cubic spline is n't it ) .
The resulting 45-year record has a superficial resemblance to cosmic ray data over the same period although I rather suspect that this is dependent on the degree of smoothing specified for the cubic spline .
But now the good bit - the fit between the growth anomaly and cosmic ray flux has a correlation coefficient of 0.39 , or if you prefer an " r ^ 2 " of 0.15 , from 45 points .
Alternatively you can ( and the authors do ) specify it as a probability of fit,which gets a mighty 0.8 \ % ( i.e .
there is a less than 1 \ % chance that the cosmic rays explain the growth ring data ) .
Of course the usual suspects that complain the entire field of anthropogenic global change is " junk science " will doubtless be all over this one like a rash .
Different standards apply to research claiming an extraterrestrial effect , you see. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Looking at the paper itself.. it rests entirely on an allegedly strong correlation between "annual growth anomaly" (which is the absolute deviation from a cubic spline fitted to the entire data set) and annual cosmic ray flux.
So far so good although the choice of a cubic spline is "interesting" (it has a very good fit to the tree ring data, well no shit Sherlock that's the whole point of a cubic spline isn't it).
The resulting 45-year record has a superficial resemblance to cosmic ray data over the same period although I rather suspect that this is dependent on the degree of smoothing specified for the cubic spline.
But now the good bit - the fit between the growth anomaly and cosmic ray flux has a correlation coefficient of 0.39, or if you prefer an "r^2" of 0.15, from 45 points.
Alternatively you can (and the authors do) specify it as a probability of fit,which gets a mighty 0.8\% (i.e.
there is a less than 1\% chance that the cosmic rays explain the growth ring data).
Of course the usual suspects that complain the entire field of anthropogenic global change is "junk science" will doubtless be all over this one like a rash.
Different standards apply to research claiming an extraterrestrial effect, you see..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803409</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803519</id>
	<title>It's Simple Really</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255967340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>What else grows from radiation?  Cancer.  Quod erat demonstratum, trees <i>are</i> cancer.  Therefore we must cut them down and burn them.  Perhaps form some sort of industry devoted to this.  <br> <br>

What?  The "logging" industry?  Oh, well, very good then.  Continue.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What else grows from radiation ?
Cancer. Quod erat demonstratum , trees are cancer .
Therefore we must cut them down and burn them .
Perhaps form some sort of industry devoted to this .
What ? The " logging " industry ?
Oh , well , very good then .
Continue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What else grows from radiation?
Cancer.  Quod erat demonstratum, trees are cancer.
Therefore we must cut them down and burn them.
Perhaps form some sort of industry devoted to this.
What?  The "logging" industry?
Oh, well, very good then.
Continue.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29804527</id>
	<title>Re:Nitrogen Fixation</title>
	<author>Esteanil</author>
	<datestamp>1255979460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow. If correct, (a quick Google of 'cosmic radiation nitrogen fixation' returns this article as the first result...) this is probably the most informative on-topic comment I've ever seen on a Slashdot post.<br>Kudos.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow .
If correct , ( a quick Google of 'cosmic radiation nitrogen fixation ' returns this article as the first result... ) this is probably the most informative on-topic comment I 've ever seen on a Slashdot post.Kudos .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow.
If correct, (a quick Google of 'cosmic radiation nitrogen fixation' returns this article as the first result...) this is probably the most informative on-topic comment I've ever seen on a Slashdot post.Kudos.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803903</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803391</id>
	<title>Red is bad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255966140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And I am Superman, right....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And I am Superman , right... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And I am Superman, right....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29804445</id>
	<title>Re:Nitrogen Fixation</title>
	<author>AJWM</author>
	<datestamp>1255977900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Only lightning and cosmic rays can form nitrogen oxide, and lightning is relatively rare,</i></p><p>Well no, lighting is fairly common, actually -- there's always a lighting storm going on somewhere.   However, if one assumes that the global rate of lightning is fairly constant then given that the amount nitrogen oxides contributed by cosmic rays fluctuates, you'd still see a correlation.  So you may be right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Only lightning and cosmic rays can form nitrogen oxide , and lightning is relatively rare,Well no , lighting is fairly common , actually -- there 's always a lighting storm going on somewhere .
However , if one assumes that the global rate of lightning is fairly constant then given that the amount nitrogen oxides contributed by cosmic rays fluctuates , you 'd still see a correlation .
So you may be right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only lightning and cosmic rays can form nitrogen oxide, and lightning is relatively rare,Well no, lighting is fairly common, actually -- there's always a lighting storm going on somewhere.
However, if one assumes that the global rate of lightning is fairly constant then given that the amount nitrogen oxides contributed by cosmic rays fluctuates, you'd still see a correlation.
So you may be right.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803903</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29805109</id>
	<title>Re:causality is possibly wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256030940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What if trees detect that there is a solar minimum and grow bigger in response to it because trees that grew bigger in the past during solar minimums survived.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What if trees detect that there is a solar minimum and grow bigger in response to it because trees that grew bigger in the past during solar minimums survived .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if trees detect that there is a solar minimum and grow bigger in response to it because trees that grew bigger in the past during solar minimums survived.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803409</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29809771</id>
	<title>Re:causality is possibly wrong</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1256059320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>that implies trees grow faster when the Sun is very slightly dimmer</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>Didn't we learn from Intro to Biology that plants grow on the side facing away from the sun?  That direct sunlight inhibits growth?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>that implies trees grow faster when the Sun is very slightly dimmer Did n't we learn from Intro to Biology that plants grow on the side facing away from the sun ?
That direct sunlight inhibits growth ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> that implies trees grow faster when the Sun is very slightly dimmer Didn't we learn from Intro to Biology that plants grow on the side facing away from the sun?
That direct sunlight inhibits growth?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803785</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29805443</id>
	<title>Re:cue the bad superhero jokes ...</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1256035500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Less of that! Now, please leaf.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Less of that !
Now , please leaf .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Less of that!
Now, please leaf.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803413</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29804575</id>
	<title>Re:Once upon a time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255980420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So? I eat irradiated food from the grocery store? Do you mean "radioactive" food? Being exposed to radiation does not make something radioactive, unless "they" are placing radioactive minerals into the soil and the plant is absorbing them... BTW what does your post have to do with the original topic?</p><p>But then again, "they" do some mysterious stuff, I is afeared.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So ?
I eat irradiated food from the grocery store ?
Do you mean " radioactive " food ?
Being exposed to radiation does not make something radioactive , unless " they " are placing radioactive minerals into the soil and the plant is absorbing them... BTW what does your post have to do with the original topic ? But then again , " they " do some mysterious stuff , I is afeared .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So?
I eat irradiated food from the grocery store?
Do you mean "radioactive" food?
Being exposed to radiation does not make something radioactive, unless "they" are placing radioactive minerals into the soil and the plant is absorbing them... BTW what does your post have to do with the original topic?But then again, "they" do some mysterious stuff, I is afeared.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803625</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29804273</id>
	<title>Re:Repeat after me: Correlation Is Not Causation</title>
	<author>cmdotter</author>
	<datestamp>1255975440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...and I thought this might have been proof that astrology is actually real. Alas, I keep waiting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...and I thought this might have been proof that astrology is actually real .
Alas , I keep waiting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and I thought this might have been proof that astrology is actually real.
Alas, I keep waiting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803493</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29809295</id>
	<title>GW CO2 Claims in Doubt</title>
	<author>Informative</author>
	<datestamp>1256057700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
If you Google "Solar and climate signal records in tree ring width, from Chile (AD 1587-1994)" You find an article with similar findings from 2006.
</p><p>
The most interesting thing about this is not the 11 year cycle that the
Brits in the previous email found this year, but the 50, 100, amd 200
year cycles that these guys found in 2006.   If solar activity (and
hence cosmic rays) is measurably affecting tree growth, what else is
being affected.  Also important is that this paper shows it is not just
historical accounts about the lack of sunspots at the time that can be
correlated with the Maunder Minimum (little ice age), but now there is
concrete data correlating it with cosmic rays (through the measurement
of C14 and Be10).
</p><p>
This is the kind of thing that GW people want to sweep under the rug
because it puts their CO2 claims into doubt.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Abstract</p></div><p><div class="quote"><p>Tree growth rings represent an important natural record of past climate
variations and solar activity effects registered on them. We
performed in this study a wavelet analysis of tree ring samples of
Pilgerodendron cupressoides species, from Glaciar Pio XI (Lat: 491120S;
741550W; Alt: 25 m), Chile. We obtained an average chronology of about
400 years from these trees. The 11-yr solar cycle was present during the
whole period in tree ring data, being more intense during Maunder
minimum (1645\2261715). The short-term periods, around 2\2267 yr, that were
found are more likely associated with ENSO effects. Further, we found
significant periods around 52 and 80\226100 yr. These periodicities are
coincident with the fourth harmonic (52 yr) of the Suess cycle (208 yr)
and Gleissberg (80\226100 yr) solar cycles. Therefore, the present analysis
shows evidence of solar activity effect/modulation on climatic
conditions that affect tree ring growth. Although we cannot say with the
present analysis if this effect is on local, regional or global climate,
these results add evidence to an important role of solar activity over
terrestrial climate over the past 400 yr.</p></div><p>Excerpt from text:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Techniques using cosmogenic isotopes permitted the reconstruction of
solar activity variations on longer timescales. Two isotopes are
commonly used, carbon-14 and beryllium-10, both produced by cosmic rays.
Galactic cosmic rays are modulated by changes in the strength ofthe
interplanetary magnetic field arising from changes in solar activity
(Hoyt and Schatten, 1997). The existence of century scale variations
caused by solar activity has been confirmed from 14C dating (Stuiver and
Quay, 1980) and 10Be ice-core data (Beer et al., 1988). The Sun\222s
long-term behavior also shows transient dynamics such as the Maunder
minimum from AD 1645 to 1715 (Eddy, 1976),</p></div><p><div class="quote"><p>Results and discussion:</p></div><p><div class="quote"><p>The periods analyzed in this work are: (1) 1587\2261994 in tree ring
chronology, (2) 1610\2261994 in Rg and (3) 1876\2261994 in SOI. In order to
identify the main periodi- cities in each time series and study its time
variation, wavelet spectrum was determined for Rg, SOI and tree ring
data using the 95\% confidence level contour (Torrence and Compto, 1998).
</p><p>Fig. 1 shows the wavelet spectrum for the Chile tree ring data. It shows
a signal associated to the 11-yr solar cycle and fourth harmonic (52 yr)
of the Suess cycle (208 yr), in the interval 1645\2261715, and a strong
signal associated with the Gleissberg ($80\226100 yr) solar cycles between
1720 and 1860. Fig. 1 also shows others signals in the 2\2268yr band, which
are visible with more intensity for interval between 1616 and 1742 and
weaker for interval between 1830 and 1950, approximately. This may be an
indication of the response of the tree rings growth to environmental
conditions at their location.
</p><p>Fig. 2 shows the wavelet spectrum for the Rg. The signal near 11-yr is
the strongest feature and it is persistent during the whole period, with
higher intensity in the period 1940\2261994. It may be observed in the
upper panel of Fig. 2 that in this period Rg have shown the highest
amplitudes (higher group sunspot number), which indicates the non-
stationary behavior of the Rg series. The signal near 11-yr do not
appear in the period 1645\2261715, the Maunder Minimum epoch.
</p><p>Fig. 3 shows the wavelet spectrum for the SOI. In this case strong
amplitudes are observed in the interval 2\2268 yr, and the signal is
clearly non-stationary, with periodicities alternating, present in some
times and absent in others</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you Google " Solar and climate signal records in tree ring width , from Chile ( AD 1587-1994 ) " You find an article with similar findings from 2006 .
The most interesting thing about this is not the 11 year cycle that the Brits in the previous email found this year , but the 50 , 100 , amd 200 year cycles that these guys found in 2006 .
If solar activity ( and hence cosmic rays ) is measurably affecting tree growth , what else is being affected .
Also important is that this paper shows it is not just historical accounts about the lack of sunspots at the time that can be correlated with the Maunder Minimum ( little ice age ) , but now there is concrete data correlating it with cosmic rays ( through the measurement of C14 and Be10 ) .
This is the kind of thing that GW people want to sweep under the rug because it puts their CO2 claims into doubt.AbstractTree growth rings represent an important natural record of past climate variations and solar activity effects registered on them .
We performed in this study a wavelet analysis of tree ring samples of Pilgerodendron cupressoides species , from Glaciar Pio XI ( Lat : 491120S ; 741550W ; Alt : 25 m ) , Chile .
We obtained an average chronology of about 400 years from these trees .
The 11-yr solar cycle was present during the whole period in tree ring data , being more intense during Maunder minimum ( 1645 \ 2261715 ) .
The short-term periods , around 2 \ 2267 yr , that were found are more likely associated with ENSO effects .
Further , we found significant periods around 52 and 80 \ 226100 yr. These periodicities are coincident with the fourth harmonic ( 52 yr ) of the Suess cycle ( 208 yr ) and Gleissberg ( 80 \ 226100 yr ) solar cycles .
Therefore , the present analysis shows evidence of solar activity effect/modulation on climatic conditions that affect tree ring growth .
Although we can not say with the present analysis if this effect is on local , regional or global climate , these results add evidence to an important role of solar activity over terrestrial climate over the past 400 yr.Excerpt from text : Techniques using cosmogenic isotopes permitted the reconstruction of solar activity variations on longer timescales .
Two isotopes are commonly used , carbon-14 and beryllium-10 , both produced by cosmic rays .
Galactic cosmic rays are modulated by changes in the strength ofthe interplanetary magnetic field arising from changes in solar activity ( Hoyt and Schatten , 1997 ) .
The existence of century scale variations caused by solar activity has been confirmed from 14C dating ( Stuiver and Quay , 1980 ) and 10Be ice-core data ( Beer et al. , 1988 ) .
The Sun \ 222s long-term behavior also shows transient dynamics such as the Maunder minimum from AD 1645 to 1715 ( Eddy , 1976 ) ,Results and discussion : The periods analyzed in this work are : ( 1 ) 1587 \ 2261994 in tree ring chronology , ( 2 ) 1610 \ 2261994 in Rg and ( 3 ) 1876 \ 2261994 in SOI .
In order to identify the main periodi- cities in each time series and study its time variation , wavelet spectrum was determined for Rg , SOI and tree ring data using the 95 \ % confidence level contour ( Torrence and Compto , 1998 ) .
Fig. 1 shows the wavelet spectrum for the Chile tree ring data .
It shows a signal associated to the 11-yr solar cycle and fourth harmonic ( 52 yr ) of the Suess cycle ( 208 yr ) , in the interval 1645 \ 2261715 , and a strong signal associated with the Gleissberg ( $ 80 \ 226100 yr ) solar cycles between 1720 and 1860 .
Fig. 1 also shows others signals in the 2 \ 2268yr band , which are visible with more intensity for interval between 1616 and 1742 and weaker for interval between 1830 and 1950 , approximately .
This may be an indication of the response of the tree rings growth to environmental conditions at their location .
Fig. 2 shows the wavelet spectrum for the Rg .
The signal near 11-yr is the strongest feature and it is persistent during the whole period , with higher intensity in the period 1940 \ 2261994 .
It may be observed in the upper panel of Fig .
2 that in this period Rg have shown the highest amplitudes ( higher group sunspot number ) , which indicates the non- stationary behavior of the Rg series .
The signal near 11-yr do not appear in the period 1645 \ 2261715 , the Maunder Minimum epoch .
Fig. 3 shows the wavelet spectrum for the SOI .
In this case strong amplitudes are observed in the interval 2 \ 2268 yr , and the signal is clearly non-stationary , with periodicities alternating , present in some times and absent in others</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
If you Google "Solar and climate signal records in tree ring width, from Chile (AD 1587-1994)" You find an article with similar findings from 2006.
The most interesting thing about this is not the 11 year cycle that the
Brits in the previous email found this year, but the 50, 100, amd 200
year cycles that these guys found in 2006.
If solar activity (and
hence cosmic rays) is measurably affecting tree growth, what else is
being affected.
Also important is that this paper shows it is not just
historical accounts about the lack of sunspots at the time that can be
correlated with the Maunder Minimum (little ice age), but now there is
concrete data correlating it with cosmic rays (through the measurement
of C14 and Be10).
This is the kind of thing that GW people want to sweep under the rug
because it puts their CO2 claims into doubt.AbstractTree growth rings represent an important natural record of past climate
variations and solar activity effects registered on them.
We
performed in this study a wavelet analysis of tree ring samples of
Pilgerodendron cupressoides species, from Glaciar Pio XI (Lat: 491120S;
741550W; Alt: 25 m), Chile.
We obtained an average chronology of about
400 years from these trees.
The 11-yr solar cycle was present during the
whole period in tree ring data, being more intense during Maunder
minimum (1645\2261715).
The short-term periods, around 2\2267 yr, that were
found are more likely associated with ENSO effects.
Further, we found
significant periods around 52 and 80\226100 yr. These periodicities are
coincident with the fourth harmonic (52 yr) of the Suess cycle (208 yr)
and Gleissberg (80\226100 yr) solar cycles.
Therefore, the present analysis
shows evidence of solar activity effect/modulation on climatic
conditions that affect tree ring growth.
Although we cannot say with the
present analysis if this effect is on local, regional or global climate,
these results add evidence to an important role of solar activity over
terrestrial climate over the past 400 yr.Excerpt from text:Techniques using cosmogenic isotopes permitted the reconstruction of
solar activity variations on longer timescales.
Two isotopes are
commonly used, carbon-14 and beryllium-10, both produced by cosmic rays.
Galactic cosmic rays are modulated by changes in the strength ofthe
interplanetary magnetic field arising from changes in solar activity
(Hoyt and Schatten, 1997).
The existence of century scale variations
caused by solar activity has been confirmed from 14C dating (Stuiver and
Quay, 1980) and 10Be ice-core data (Beer et al., 1988).
The Sun\222s
long-term behavior also shows transient dynamics such as the Maunder
minimum from AD 1645 to 1715 (Eddy, 1976),Results and discussion:The periods analyzed in this work are: (1) 1587\2261994 in tree ring
chronology, (2) 1610\2261994 in Rg and (3) 1876\2261994 in SOI.
In order to
identify the main periodi- cities in each time series and study its time
variation, wavelet spectrum was determined for Rg, SOI and tree ring
data using the 95\% confidence level contour (Torrence and Compto, 1998).
Fig. 1 shows the wavelet spectrum for the Chile tree ring data.
It shows
a signal associated to the 11-yr solar cycle and fourth harmonic (52 yr)
of the Suess cycle (208 yr), in the interval 1645\2261715, and a strong
signal associated with the Gleissberg ($80\226100 yr) solar cycles between
1720 and 1860.
Fig. 1 also shows others signals in the 2\2268yr band, which
are visible with more intensity for interval between 1616 and 1742 and
weaker for interval between 1830 and 1950, approximately.
This may be an
indication of the response of the tree rings growth to environmental
conditions at their location.
Fig. 2 shows the wavelet spectrum for the Rg.
The signal near 11-yr is
the strongest feature and it is persistent during the whole period, with
higher intensity in the period 1940\2261994.
It may be observed in the
upper panel of Fig.
2 that in this period Rg have shown the highest
amplitudes (higher group sunspot number), which indicates the non-
stationary behavior of the Rg series.
The signal near 11-yr do not
appear in the period 1645\2261715, the Maunder Minimum epoch.
Fig. 3 shows the wavelet spectrum for the SOI.
In this case strong
amplitudes are observed in the interval 2\2268 yr, and the signal is
clearly non-stationary, with periodicities alternating, present in some
times and absent in others
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29806899</id>
	<title>Re:Repeat after me: Correlation Is Not Causation</title>
	<author>locallyunscene</author>
	<datestamp>1256048940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why is the authors' presumption that it's the cosmic rays (or lack thereof) that are regulating tree growth, rather than solar and sunspot activity itself?</p></div><p>Because he has a statistical correlation showing that when comic rays increase, plant growth also increases? FTFA:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>When the intensity of cosmic rays reaching the Earth's surface was higher, the rate of tree growth was faster.

The effect is not large, but it is statistically significant.

The intensity of cosmic rays also correlates better with the changes in tree growth than any other climatological factor, such as varying levels of temperature or precipitation over the years.</p> </div><p>Also interesting for those mentioning sunspots FTFA:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The levels of cosmic rays reaching the Earth go up and down according to the activity of the Sun, which follows an 11-year cycle.

As for the mechanism, we are puzzled
Sigrid Dengel
University of Edinburgh

Every 11 years or so, the Sun becomes more active, producing a peak of sunspots. These sunspots carry a magnetic field that blocks and slows the path of energetic particles.

When the researchers looked at their data, they found that tree growth was highest during periods of low sunspot activity, when most cosmic rays reached Earth.

But growth slowed during the four periods of cosmic ray-blocking high sunspot activity, which have occurred between 1965 and 2005.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is the authors ' presumption that it 's the cosmic rays ( or lack thereof ) that are regulating tree growth , rather than solar and sunspot activity itself ? Because he has a statistical correlation showing that when comic rays increase , plant growth also increases ?
FTFA : When the intensity of cosmic rays reaching the Earth 's surface was higher , the rate of tree growth was faster .
The effect is not large , but it is statistically significant .
The intensity of cosmic rays also correlates better with the changes in tree growth than any other climatological factor , such as varying levels of temperature or precipitation over the years .
Also interesting for those mentioning sunspots FTFA : The levels of cosmic rays reaching the Earth go up and down according to the activity of the Sun , which follows an 11-year cycle .
As for the mechanism , we are puzzled Sigrid Dengel University of Edinburgh Every 11 years or so , the Sun becomes more active , producing a peak of sunspots .
These sunspots carry a magnetic field that blocks and slows the path of energetic particles .
When the researchers looked at their data , they found that tree growth was highest during periods of low sunspot activity , when most cosmic rays reached Earth .
But growth slowed during the four periods of cosmic ray-blocking high sunspot activity , which have occurred between 1965 and 2005 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is the authors' presumption that it's the cosmic rays (or lack thereof) that are regulating tree growth, rather than solar and sunspot activity itself?Because he has a statistical correlation showing that when comic rays increase, plant growth also increases?
FTFA:When the intensity of cosmic rays reaching the Earth's surface was higher, the rate of tree growth was faster.
The effect is not large, but it is statistically significant.
The intensity of cosmic rays also correlates better with the changes in tree growth than any other climatological factor, such as varying levels of temperature or precipitation over the years.
Also interesting for those mentioning sunspots FTFA:The levels of cosmic rays reaching the Earth go up and down according to the activity of the Sun, which follows an 11-year cycle.
As for the mechanism, we are puzzled
Sigrid Dengel
University of Edinburgh

Every 11 years or so, the Sun becomes more active, producing a peak of sunspots.
These sunspots carry a magnetic field that blocks and slows the path of energetic particles.
When the researchers looked at their data, they found that tree growth was highest during periods of low sunspot activity, when most cosmic rays reached Earth.
But growth slowed during the four periods of cosmic ray-blocking high sunspot activity, which have occurred between 1965 and 2005.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803493</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29805481</id>
	<title>Carbon Dioxide</title>
	<author>Rosyna</author>
	<datestamp>1256036160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't think they need to look any further for answers than the Fantastic Four.</p></div><p>I don't think they need to look any further for answers than increasing carbon dioxide amounts somehow makes trees grow faster.</p><p>(Really, it seems like this is to rebuff the notion that <a href="http://co2isgreen.org/" title="co2isgreen.org">CO2 is Green</a> [co2isgreen.org])</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think they need to look any further for answers than the Fantastic Four.I do n't think they need to look any further for answers than increasing carbon dioxide amounts somehow makes trees grow faster .
( Really , it seems like this is to rebuff the notion that CO2 is Green [ co2isgreen.org ] )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think they need to look any further for answers than the Fantastic Four.I don't think they need to look any further for answers than increasing carbon dioxide amounts somehow makes trees grow faster.
(Really, it seems like this is to rebuff the notion that CO2 is Green [co2isgreen.org])
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803389</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803413</id>
	<title>cue the bad superhero jokes ...</title>
	<author>Korbeau</author>
	<datestamp>1255966380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>in one, two, tree<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>in one , two , tree .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in one, two, tree ...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29810607</id>
	<title>Re:Nitrogen Fixation</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1256061960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"and lightning is relatively rare, "</p><p>HAhAHAHAHahahha.. no, it's not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" and lightning is relatively rare , " HAhAHAHAHahahha.. no , it 's not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"and lightning is relatively rare, "HAhAHAHAHahahha.. no, it's not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803903</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803625</id>
	<title>Once upon a time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255968300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They used to grow plants with radiation in the soil because it would cause them to grow faster. However, the problem is that this would irradiate the food that grew off of these plants.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They used to grow plants with radiation in the soil because it would cause them to grow faster .
However , the problem is that this would irradiate the food that grew off of these plants .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They used to grow plants with radiation in the soil because it would cause them to grow faster.
However, the problem is that this would irradiate the food that grew off of these plants.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803639</id>
	<title>Re:It's Simple Really</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255968360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Canker sores could be cancer.  Cancer is treated with radiation therapy.  Canker sores are caused by Hepatitis.  Pamela Anderson has Hepatitis.  She also had breast reduction surgery.  Breast cancer is treated with breast reduction surgery.  Pamela Anderson also causes wood.  Does this mean I should irradiate my penis?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Canker sores could be cancer .
Cancer is treated with radiation therapy .
Canker sores are caused by Hepatitis .
Pamela Anderson has Hepatitis .
She also had breast reduction surgery .
Breast cancer is treated with breast reduction surgery .
Pamela Anderson also causes wood .
Does this mean I should irradiate my penis ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Canker sores could be cancer.
Cancer is treated with radiation therapy.
Canker sores are caused by Hepatitis.
Pamela Anderson has Hepatitis.
She also had breast reduction surgery.
Breast cancer is treated with breast reduction surgery.
Pamela Anderson also causes wood.
Does this mean I should irradiate my penis?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803519</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803447</id>
	<title>Cloud cover</title>
	<author>MichaelSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1255966680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The mechanism might have something to do with GCRs increasing cloud cover, which diffuses sunlight and increases the efficiency of photosynthesis.</p></div><p>How about cloud cover leads to more precipitation?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The mechanism might have something to do with GCRs increasing cloud cover , which diffuses sunlight and increases the efficiency of photosynthesis.How about cloud cover leads to more precipitation ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The mechanism might have something to do with GCRs increasing cloud cover, which diffuses sunlight and increases the efficiency of photosynthesis.How about cloud cover leads to more precipitation?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29805941</id>
	<title>Re:Nitrogen Fixation</title>
	<author>internettoughguy</author>
	<datestamp>1256042280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nitrates are also produced when organic matter decomposes, a la <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen\_cycle" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow"> the nitrogen cycle</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nitrates are also produced when organic matter decomposes , a la the nitrogen cycle [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nitrates are also produced when organic matter decomposes, a la  the nitrogen cycle [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803903</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29804111</id>
	<title>Not puzzled, baffled</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255973220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I contend that since they have no idea of the mechanism, they are not simply puzzled, but have clearly moved into BAFFLED territory. I mean if they had a few good guesses, maybe puzzled. I think TFA Article clearly indicates their BAFFLEMENT.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I contend that since they have no idea of the mechanism , they are not simply puzzled , but have clearly moved into BAFFLED territory .
I mean if they had a few good guesses , maybe puzzled .
I think TFA Article clearly indicates their BAFFLEMENT .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I contend that since they have no idea of the mechanism, they are not simply puzzled, but have clearly moved into BAFFLED territory.
I mean if they had a few good guesses, maybe puzzled.
I think TFA Article clearly indicates their BAFFLEMENT.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803845</id>
	<title>Life imitates Gilligan's Island</title>
	<author>bigsexyjoe</author>
	<datestamp>1255970280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The cool thing is that you get super powers from eating the giant vegetables, too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The cool thing is that you get super powers from eating the giant vegetables , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The cool thing is that you get super powers from eating the giant vegetables, too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29804327</id>
	<title>The Simpsons Had It Right.</title>
	<author>Ironlenny</author>
	<datestamp>1255976160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Homer:  If we learned one thing from "The Amazing Colossal Man" and "Grasshopperus," it's that radiation makes stuff grow real big, real fast.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Homer : If we learned one thing from " The Amazing Colossal Man " and " Grasshopperus , " it 's that radiation makes stuff grow real big , real fast .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Homer:  If we learned one thing from "The Amazing Colossal Man" and "Grasshopperus," it's that radiation makes stuff grow real big, real fast.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803409</id>
	<title>causality is possibly wrong</title>
	<author>wizardforce</author>
	<datestamp>1255966320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the solar cycle is what determines the level of GCR that gets to Earth then it may very well have absolutely nothing to do with the tree growth its self but an indicator of solar conditions which influence tree growth rates.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the solar cycle is what determines the level of GCR that gets to Earth then it may very well have absolutely nothing to do with the tree growth its self but an indicator of solar conditions which influence tree growth rates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the solar cycle is what determines the level of GCR that gets to Earth then it may very well have absolutely nothing to do with the tree growth its self but an indicator of solar conditions which influence tree growth rates.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29806057</id>
	<title>Heart movement price ADIDAS SMITH Fashion Male Sh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256043480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>www.tntshoes.com</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Professional  LEATHER OEM  exporter  manufacture<br>Over 800 bag workers<br>Over 10 years' export experiences<br>Over 20 years'experience in the bag filed<br>Handbags are our speciality<br>Our market is the export market<br>Customer service is our top priority<br>Warmly welcome foreign business<br>The exhibition we attend every year<br>1:Asian Pacific Leather Fair<br>2:China Import and Export Commodities  Fair<br>Top quality ! Competitive Price ! Prompt delivery !<br>( Wholesale lady/fashion/women/brand/leather/designer/handbags/ handbag/bag/bags/wallet/wallets/purses/purse/luggage/shopping bag(OEM) )</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; OUR WEBSITE:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; YAHOO:shoppertrade@yahoo.com.cn</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; MSN:shoppertrade@hotmail.com</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; HTTP://www.tntshoes.com</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>www.tntshoes.com     Professional LEATHER OEM exporter manufactureOver 800 bag workersOver 10 years ' export experiencesOver 20 years'experience in the bag filedHandbags are our specialityOur market is the export marketCustomer service is our top priorityWarmly welcome foreign businessThe exhibition we attend every year1 : Asian Pacific Leather Fair2 : China Import and Export Commodities FairTop quality !
Competitive Price !
Prompt delivery !
( Wholesale lady/fashion/women/brand/leather/designer/handbags/ handbag/bag/bags/wallet/wallets/purses/purse/luggage/shopping bag ( OEM ) )             OUR WEBSITE :                                                             YAHOO : shoppertrade @ yahoo.com.cn                                                                 MSN : shoppertrade @ hotmail.com                                                                           HTTP : //www.tntshoes.com</tokentext>
<sentencetext>www.tntshoes.com
    Professional  LEATHER OEM  exporter  manufactureOver 800 bag workersOver 10 years' export experiencesOver 20 years'experience in the bag filedHandbags are our specialityOur market is the export marketCustomer service is our top priorityWarmly welcome foreign businessThe exhibition we attend every year1:Asian Pacific Leather Fair2:China Import and Export Commodities  FairTop quality !
Competitive Price !
Prompt delivery !
( Wholesale lady/fashion/women/brand/leather/designer/handbags/ handbag/bag/bags/wallet/wallets/purses/purse/luggage/shopping bag(OEM) )
            OUR WEBSITE:
                                                            YAHOO:shoppertrade@yahoo.com.cn
                                                                MSN:shoppertrade@hotmail.com
                                                                          HTTP://www.tntshoes.com</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803893</id>
	<title>Paul Zindel</title>
	<author>sohp</author>
	<datestamp>1255970880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A 1964 publication by Paul Zindel entitled "The Effect of Gamma Rays on Man-in-the-Moon Marigolds" predates this research by quite a bit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A 1964 publication by Paul Zindel entitled " The Effect of Gamma Rays on Man-in-the-Moon Marigolds " predates this research by quite a bit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A 1964 publication by Paul Zindel entitled "The Effect of Gamma Rays on Man-in-the-Moon Marigolds" predates this research by quite a bit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803529</id>
	<title>Grow Ops.</title>
	<author>theReal-Hp\_Sauce</author>
	<datestamp>1255967400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now everyone with a grow op in their basement has to go out and buy new fancy lights which give off Galactic Cosmic Rays.</p><p>-hps</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now everyone with a grow op in their basement has to go out and buy new fancy lights which give off Galactic Cosmic Rays.-hps</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now everyone with a grow op in their basement has to go out and buy new fancy lights which give off Galactic Cosmic Rays.-hps</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29804041</id>
	<title>The professor</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255972260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The professor in Gilligans Island already determined this. Old news, nothing new here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The professor in Gilligans Island already determined this .
Old news , nothing new here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The professor in Gilligans Island already determined this.
Old news, nothing new here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803481</id>
	<title>Re:Big Surprise</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255967040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow... you just got me thinking of the Power Cosmic.</p><p><a href="http://fukung.net/v/15874/db1d5c3fa5f88a3a1f8956f08b40fe19.jpg" title="fukung.net" rel="nofollow">Lawful Neutral</a> [fukung.net]</p><p>Such a bad ass enemy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow... you just got me thinking of the Power Cosmic.Lawful Neutral [ fukung.net ] Such a bad ass enemy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow... you just got me thinking of the Power Cosmic.Lawful Neutral [fukung.net]Such a bad ass enemy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803389</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29805353</id>
	<title>Malk!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256034480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now with Vitamin R!</p><p><a href="http://malk.ytmnd.com/" title="ytmnd.com" rel="nofollow">Malk</a> [ytmnd.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now with Vitamin R ! Malk [ ytmnd.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now with Vitamin R!Malk [ytmnd.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803599</id>
	<title>mod dowN</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255968000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>could sink yOur it.  Do not share a super-organised later ssen in</htmltext>
<tokenext>could sink yOur it .
Do not share a super-organised later ssen in</tokentext>
<sentencetext>could sink yOur it.
Do not share a super-organised later ssen in</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803471</id>
	<title>My pot is doing great</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255966860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Increased GCR's + light diffusion increasing photosynthesis...all natural organic compounds, this year has been heartier than most.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Increased GCR 's + light diffusion increasing photosynthesis...all natural organic compounds , this year has been heartier than most .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Increased GCR's + light diffusion increasing photosynthesis...all natural organic compounds, this year has been heartier than most.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29808331</id>
	<title>Re:Nitrogen Fixation</title>
	<author>RealErmine</author>
	<datestamp>1256054760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nitric acid is also an electrolyte.  I hear those are what plants crave.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nitric acid is also an electrolyte .
I hear those are what plants crave .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nitric acid is also an electrolyte.
I hear those are what plants crave.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803903</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803743</id>
	<title>Re:Once upon a time</title>
	<author>wizardforce</author>
	<datestamp>1255969260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>objects do not become radioactive unless they are bombarded with neutron radiation, high energy protons or extremely high energy gamma radiation capable of ejecting a proton or neutron to form a radioactive isotope.  Simply irradiating an object does not necessarily make the object radioactive.  Now in so far as plants having a higher growth rate due to radiation, I haven't heard much on the subject other than <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiotrophic\_fungus" title="wikipedia.org">radiotropic melanized fungi</a> [wikipedia.org] living near Chernobyl having a substantially increased growth rate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>objects do not become radioactive unless they are bombarded with neutron radiation , high energy protons or extremely high energy gamma radiation capable of ejecting a proton or neutron to form a radioactive isotope .
Simply irradiating an object does not necessarily make the object radioactive .
Now in so far as plants having a higher growth rate due to radiation , I have n't heard much on the subject other than radiotropic melanized fungi [ wikipedia.org ] living near Chernobyl having a substantially increased growth rate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>objects do not become radioactive unless they are bombarded with neutron radiation, high energy protons or extremely high energy gamma radiation capable of ejecting a proton or neutron to form a radioactive isotope.
Simply irradiating an object does not necessarily make the object radioactive.
Now in so far as plants having a higher growth rate due to radiation, I haven't heard much on the subject other than radiotropic melanized fungi [wikipedia.org] living near Chernobyl having a substantially increased growth rate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803625</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803551</id>
	<title>In other dendrochronology news</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255967580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/29/yamal\_scandal/" title="theregister.co.uk" rel="nofollow">Allegations of misconduct</a> [theregister.co.uk] have appeared regarding key IPCC dendrochronological 'evidence.'  Several widely publicized papers may be based on a single flawed survey of cherry picked samples.  Steve McIntyre of climateaudit.org has been analyzing long withheld data and has draw some <a href="http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7168" title="climateaudit.org" rel="nofollow">disturbing conclusions.</a> [climateaudit.org]</p><p>The story involves, in part, the exposure of raw data left unprotected on a file server by jealous researchers.  One would think it might be of interest here on Slashdot given that the NYT is <a href="http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/climate-auditor-challenged-to-do-climate-science/" title="nytimes.com" rel="nofollow">talking about it.</a> [nytimes.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Allegations of misconduct [ theregister.co.uk ] have appeared regarding key IPCC dendrochronological 'evidence .
' Several widely publicized papers may be based on a single flawed survey of cherry picked samples .
Steve McIntyre of climateaudit.org has been analyzing long withheld data and has draw some disturbing conclusions .
[ climateaudit.org ] The story involves , in part , the exposure of raw data left unprotected on a file server by jealous researchers .
One would think it might be of interest here on Slashdot given that the NYT is talking about it .
[ nytimes.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Allegations of misconduct [theregister.co.uk] have appeared regarding key IPCC dendrochronological 'evidence.
'  Several widely publicized papers may be based on a single flawed survey of cherry picked samples.
Steve McIntyre of climateaudit.org has been analyzing long withheld data and has draw some disturbing conclusions.
[climateaudit.org]The story involves, in part, the exposure of raw data left unprotected on a file server by jealous researchers.
One would think it might be of interest here on Slashdot given that the NYT is talking about it.
[nytimes.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29804509</id>
	<title>Re:Nitrogen Fixation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255979040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do we get to see your data now, or do we have to wait for your upcoming paper in The New Phytologist as well?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do we get to see your data now , or do we have to wait for your upcoming paper in The New Phytologist as well ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do we get to see your data now, or do we have to wait for your upcoming paper in The New Phytologist as well?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803903</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29804263</id>
	<title>Re:Life imitates Gilligan's Island</title>
	<author>timlash</author>
	<datestamp>1255975320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Good pop culture reference, but the wrong one.  The Little Rascals and their "invisible rays" hit this nail on the head decades prior to Gilligan.

<a href="http://www.tv.com/little-rascals/robot-wrecks/episode/220468/summary.html" title="tv.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.tv.com/little-rascals/robot-wrecks/episode/220468/summary.html</a> [tv.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Good pop culture reference , but the wrong one .
The Little Rascals and their " invisible rays " hit this nail on the head decades prior to Gilligan .
http : //www.tv.com/little-rascals/robot-wrecks/episode/220468/summary.html [ tv.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good pop culture reference, but the wrong one.
The Little Rascals and their "invisible rays" hit this nail on the head decades prior to Gilligan.
http://www.tv.com/little-rascals/robot-wrecks/episode/220468/summary.html [tv.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803845</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803987</id>
	<title>Cosmic Rays causing cloud cover?</title>
	<author>Sibko</author>
	<datestamp>1255971720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I thought this was thoroughly debunked already.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought this was thoroughly debunked already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought this was thoroughly debunked already.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29807773</id>
	<title>Re:Big Surprise</title>
	<author>EvilBudMan</author>
	<datestamp>1256052480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They doo in fact grow faster but get cancer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They doo in fact grow faster but get cancer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They doo in fact grow faster but get cancer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803389</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803621</id>
	<title>The solution for global warming!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255968240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Cause increased carbon sequestration by <i>bombarding the Earth with radiation!</i> This also has the beneficial side-effect putting an eventual end to homocentric global warming.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cause increased carbon sequestration by bombarding the Earth with radiation !
This also has the beneficial side-effect putting an eventual end to homocentric global warming .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cause increased carbon sequestration by bombarding the Earth with radiation!
This also has the beneficial side-effect putting an eventual end to homocentric global warming.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29811947</id>
	<title>Cosmic rays and carbon absortion</title>
	<author>w0mprat</author>
	<datestamp>1256066520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If this really shows a causal link between cosmic rays and tree growth, you can bet it won't be long before it's pointed out that cosmic rays therefore impact the biospheres carbon absorbtion rate. Which is interesting. This will be misused by climate change denialists.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If this really shows a causal link between cosmic rays and tree growth , you can bet it wo n't be long before it 's pointed out that cosmic rays therefore impact the biospheres carbon absorbtion rate .
Which is interesting .
This will be misused by climate change denialists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this really shows a causal link between cosmic rays and tree growth, you can bet it won't be long before it's pointed out that cosmic rays therefore impact the biospheres carbon absorbtion rate.
Which is interesting.
This will be misused by climate change denialists.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29804193</id>
	<title>Re:Nitrogen Fixation</title>
	<author>Mr. Roadkill</author>
	<datestamp>1255974420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't forget vehicle exhausts as a potential source of nitrogen oxides.</p><p>Perhaps we should get rid of modern three-way <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalytic\_converter" title="wikipedia.org">catalytic converters</a> [wikipedia.org] and bring back the old two-way ones, in the interests of saving the planet and/or growing mutant super trees.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't forget vehicle exhausts as a potential source of nitrogen oxides.Perhaps we should get rid of modern three-way catalytic converters [ wikipedia.org ] and bring back the old two-way ones , in the interests of saving the planet and/or growing mutant super trees .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't forget vehicle exhausts as a potential source of nitrogen oxides.Perhaps we should get rid of modern three-way catalytic converters [wikipedia.org] and bring back the old two-way ones, in the interests of saving the planet and/or growing mutant super trees.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803903</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803493</id>
	<title>Repeat after me: Correlation Is Not Causation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255967160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Especially in a case like this, where there are other tightly-correlated variables.  Why is the authors' presumption that it's the cosmic rays (or lack thereof) that are regulating tree growth, rather than solar and sunspot activity itself?  It seems at least as plausible to me that sunspot activity correlates to some other solar features (e.g., solar irradiance) that would have a more natural and direct effect on tree growth than cosmic rays.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Especially in a case like this , where there are other tightly-correlated variables .
Why is the authors ' presumption that it 's the cosmic rays ( or lack thereof ) that are regulating tree growth , rather than solar and sunspot activity itself ?
It seems at least as plausible to me that sunspot activity correlates to some other solar features ( e.g. , solar irradiance ) that would have a more natural and direct effect on tree growth than cosmic rays .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Especially in a case like this, where there are other tightly-correlated variables.
Why is the authors' presumption that it's the cosmic rays (or lack thereof) that are regulating tree growth, rather than solar and sunspot activity itself?
It seems at least as plausible to me that sunspot activity correlates to some other solar features (e.g., solar irradiance) that would have a more natural and direct effect on tree growth than cosmic rays.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29805415</id>
	<title>Sun spots</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256035140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At the university I studied physics at, they had a nice (old) telescope with which they projected solar images to count sun spots.  They had a graph on the wall of the number of sun spots, going decades back.  There was a nice periodicity in that graphc, and interesting thing is that they could point out two types of events: good wine years, and the occurrence of the "Elfstedentocht" (a major Dutch ice skating event which only happens when the outdoor ice conditions are exactly right).</p><p>I forgot which one happened at sunspot maxima and which at the minima, but there was a striking correlation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At the university I studied physics at , they had a nice ( old ) telescope with which they projected solar images to count sun spots .
They had a graph on the wall of the number of sun spots , going decades back .
There was a nice periodicity in that graphc , and interesting thing is that they could point out two types of events : good wine years , and the occurrence of the " Elfstedentocht " ( a major Dutch ice skating event which only happens when the outdoor ice conditions are exactly right ) .I forgot which one happened at sunspot maxima and which at the minima , but there was a striking correlation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At the university I studied physics at, they had a nice (old) telescope with which they projected solar images to count sun spots.
They had a graph on the wall of the number of sun spots, going decades back.
There was a nice periodicity in that graphc, and interesting thing is that they could point out two types of events: good wine years, and the occurrence of the "Elfstedentocht" (a major Dutch ice skating event which only happens when the outdoor ice conditions are exactly right).I forgot which one happened at sunspot maxima and which at the minima, but there was a striking correlation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29807543</id>
	<title>Increased cloud cover == more rain</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256051640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's why trees grow more during solar minimums.<br>It has nothing to do with diffused sunlight. Bah...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's why trees grow more during solar minimums.It has nothing to do with diffused sunlight .
Bah.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's why trees grow more during solar minimums.It has nothing to do with diffused sunlight.
Bah...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29804313</id>
	<title>Re:Once upon a time</title>
	<author>abarrieris5eV</author>
	<datestamp>1255975860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not sure what you are referring to.  I have heard that rare earth minerals were mixed in with soils in asia because they were believed to promote crop growth, though I have no idea if it's true.  I have also heard that at nuclear test sites there was a zone after the area where everything was dead, but before things were normalized, where plant growth seemed to be accelerated, and that this may be the origin of OMG GIANT BUGZ movies that blamed radiation, also no idea if that is true.  If anyone has some insight I would be interested.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure what you are referring to .
I have heard that rare earth minerals were mixed in with soils in asia because they were believed to promote crop growth , though I have no idea if it 's true .
I have also heard that at nuclear test sites there was a zone after the area where everything was dead , but before things were normalized , where plant growth seemed to be accelerated , and that this may be the origin of OMG GIANT BUGZ movies that blamed radiation , also no idea if that is true .
If anyone has some insight I would be interested .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure what you are referring to.
I have heard that rare earth minerals were mixed in with soils in asia because they were believed to promote crop growth, though I have no idea if it's true.
I have also heard that at nuclear test sites there was a zone after the area where everything was dead, but before things were normalized, where plant growth seemed to be accelerated, and that this may be the origin of OMG GIANT BUGZ movies that blamed radiation, also no idea if that is true.
If anyone has some insight I would be interested.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803625</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803667</id>
	<title>I remember this finding...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255968660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>from many years ago.  The experiment was two identical growing chambers using artificial sunlight.  One was placed in a normal building, the other underneath a mountain or something shielded from cosmic rays like that.  It had the same result:  it was found that plants grew better when they were getting the radiation.  Does anyone remember this experiment?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>from many years ago .
The experiment was two identical growing chambers using artificial sunlight .
One was placed in a normal building , the other underneath a mountain or something shielded from cosmic rays like that .
It had the same result : it was found that plants grew better when they were getting the radiation .
Does anyone remember this experiment ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>from many years ago.
The experiment was two identical growing chambers using artificial sunlight.
One was placed in a normal building, the other underneath a mountain or something shielded from cosmic rays like that.
It had the same result:  it was found that plants grew better when they were getting the radiation.
Does anyone remember this experiment?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29804449</id>
	<title>Galactus</title>
	<author>jdc18</author>
	<datestamp>1255977900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does this mean that Galactus is coming??</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does this mean that Galactus is coming ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does this mean that Galactus is coming?
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29804913</id>
	<title>Complex Systems + Causality ...</title>
	<author>foobsr</author>
	<datestamp>1256071200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.complexsystems.net.au/wiki/Complex\_'09\_Workshop\_on\_Causality\_in\_Complex\_Systems" title="complexsystems.net.au">Quote</a> [complexsystems.net.au]:"One of the reasons people have difficulty in dealing with complex systems is that the linear causal chain way of thinking - A causes B causes C causes D<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... etc - breaks down in the presence of feedback and multiple interactions between causal and influence pathways. One could say that complex systems are characterised by networked rather than linear causal relationships."<br> <br>
Keeping that in mind, I tend to be of the opinion that the best guess regarding an isolated cause is '42'.
<br> <br>
CC.</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Quote [ complexsystems.net.au ] : " One of the reasons people have difficulty in dealing with complex systems is that the linear causal chain way of thinking - A causes B causes C causes D ... etc - breaks down in the presence of feedback and multiple interactions between causal and influence pathways .
One could say that complex systems are characterised by networked rather than linear causal relationships .
" Keeping that in mind , I tend to be of the opinion that the best guess regarding an isolated cause is '42' .
CC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quote [complexsystems.net.au]:"One of the reasons people have difficulty in dealing with complex systems is that the linear causal chain way of thinking - A causes B causes C causes D ... etc - breaks down in the presence of feedback and multiple interactions between causal and influence pathways.
One could say that complex systems are characterised by networked rather than linear causal relationships.
" 
Keeping that in mind, I tend to be of the opinion that the best guess regarding an isolated cause is '42'.
CC.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29804507</id>
	<title>Further ideas?</title>
	<author>kauttapiste</author>
	<datestamp>1255978980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Nevertheless, the researchers remain mystified and are requesting further ideas<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</i> </p><p>
Have they considered <i>Ask Slashdot</i>?
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nevertheless , the researchers remain mystified and are requesting further ideas .. . Have they considered Ask Slashdot ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Nevertheless, the researchers remain mystified and are requesting further ideas ... 
Have they considered Ask Slashdot?
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29808231</id>
	<title>doesnt convincing rule out weather effects</title>
	<author>peter303</author>
	<datestamp>1256054340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And weather could be affected by solar cycles.
The correlation is there, but not a clear causal link.
Solar minimums tend to be cooler periods, e.g. 2008 &amp; 2009.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And weather could be affected by solar cycles .
The correlation is there , but not a clear causal link .
Solar minimums tend to be cooler periods , e.g .
2008 &amp; 2009 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And weather could be affected by solar cycles.
The correlation is there, but not a clear causal link.
Solar minimums tend to be cooler periods, e.g.
2008 &amp; 2009.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29815639</id>
	<title>Re:causality is possibly wrong</title>
	<author>hawkfish</author>
	<datestamp>1256037660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If the solar cycle is what determines the level of GCR that gets to Earth then it may very well have absolutely nothing to do with the tree growth its self but an indicator of solar conditions which influence tree growth rates.</p></div><p>I suspect this is related to one of the current global warming contrarian canards - that GCRs are responsible for increased cloud formation which in turn produces a warmer climate due to more atmospheric water acting as a GHG.  Needless to say, the contrarian "science" there is as bad as it is everywhere else...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the solar cycle is what determines the level of GCR that gets to Earth then it may very well have absolutely nothing to do with the tree growth its self but an indicator of solar conditions which influence tree growth rates.I suspect this is related to one of the current global warming contrarian canards - that GCRs are responsible for increased cloud formation which in turn produces a warmer climate due to more atmospheric water acting as a GHG .
Needless to say , the contrarian " science " there is as bad as it is everywhere else.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the solar cycle is what determines the level of GCR that gets to Earth then it may very well have absolutely nothing to do with the tree growth its self but an indicator of solar conditions which influence tree growth rates.I suspect this is related to one of the current global warming contrarian canards - that GCRs are responsible for increased cloud formation which in turn produces a warmer climate due to more atmospheric water acting as a GHG.
Needless to say, the contrarian "science" there is as bad as it is everywhere else...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803409</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29805797</id>
	<title>GCV m3ds</title>
	<author>grking</author>
	<datestamp>1256040660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mysterious and unclear correlation between GCRs and increased growth?  Spam for Galactic Cosmic Ray tablets coming to an inbox near you...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mysterious and unclear correlation between GCRs and increased growth ?
Spam for Galactic Cosmic Ray tablets coming to an inbox near you.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mysterious and unclear correlation between GCRs and increased growth?
Spam for Galactic Cosmic Ray tablets coming to an inbox near you...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803939</id>
	<title>Re:It's Simple Really</title>
	<author>baKanale</author>
	<datestamp>1255971240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, just your seed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , just your seed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, just your seed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803639</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803489</id>
	<title>Your official guide to the Jigaboo presidency</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255967100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Congratulations on your purchase of a brand new nigger! If handled properly, your apeman will give years of valuable, if reluctant, service.</p><p>INSTALLING YOUR NIGGER.<br>You should install your nigger differently according to whether you have purchased the field or house model. Field niggers work best in a serial configuration, i.e. chained together. Chain your nigger to another nigger immediately after unpacking it, and don't even think about taking that chain off, ever. Many niggers start singing as soon as you put a chain on them. This habit can usually be thrashed out of them if nipped in the bud. House niggers work best as standalone units, but should be hobbled or hamstrung to prevent attempts at escape. At this stage, your nigger can also be given a name. Most owners use the same names over and over, since niggers become confused by too much data. Rufus, Rastus, Remus, Toby, Carslisle, Carlton, Hey-You!-Yes-you!, Yeller, Blackstar, and Sambo are all effective names for your new buck nigger. If your nigger is a ho, it should be called Latrelle, L'Tanya, or Jemima. Some owners call their nigger hoes Latrine for a joke. Pearl, Blossom, and Ivory are also righteous names for nigger hoes. These names go straight over your nigger's head, by the way.</p><p>CONFIGURING YOUR NIGGER<br>Owing to a design error, your nigger comes equipped with a tongue and vocal chords. Most niggers can master only a few basic human phrases with this apparatus - "muh dick" being the most popular. However, others make barking, yelping, yapping noises and appear to be in some pain, so you should probably call a vet and have him remove your nigger's tongue. Once de-tongued your nigger will be a lot happier - at least, you won't hear it complaining anywhere near as much. Niggers have nothing interesting to say, anyway. Many owners also castrate their niggers for health reasons (yours, mine, and that of women, not the nigger's). This is strongly recommended, and frankly, it's a mystery why this is not done on the boat</p><p>HOUSING YOUR NIGGER.<br>Your nigger can be accommodated in cages with stout iron bars. Make sure, however, that the bars are wide enough to push pieces of nigger food through. The rule of thumb is, four niggers per square yard of cage. So a fifteen foot by thirty foot nigger cage can accommodate two hundred niggers. You can site a nigger cage anywhere, even on soft ground. Don't worry about your nigger fashioning makeshift shovels out of odd pieces of wood and digging an escape tunnel under the bars of the cage. Niggers never invented the shovel before and they're not about to now. In any case, your nigger is certainly too lazy to attempt escape. As long as the free food holds out, your nigger is living better than it did in Africa, so it will stay put. Buck niggers and hoe niggers can be safely accommodated in the same cage, as bucks never attempt sex with black hoes.</p><p>FEEDING YOUR NIGGER.<br>Your Nigger likes fried chicken, corn bread, and watermelon. You should therefore give it none of these things because its lazy ass almost certainly doesn't deserve it. Instead, feed it on porridge with salt, and creek water. Your nigger will supplement its diet with whatever it finds in the fields, other niggers, etc. Experienced nigger owners sometimes push watermelon slices through the bars of the nigger cage at the end of the day as a treat, but only if all niggers have worked well and nothing has been stolen that day. Mike of the Old Ranch Plantation reports that this last one is a killer, since all niggers steal something almost every single day of their lives. He reports he doesn't have to spend much on free watermelon for his niggers as a result. You should never allow your nigger meal breaks while at work, since if it stops work for more than ten minutes it will need to be retrained. You would be surprised how long it takes to teach a nigger to pick cotton. You really would. Coffee beans? Don't ask. You have no idea.</p><p>MAKING YOUR NIGGER WORK.<br>Niggers are very, very averse to work of any kind. The nigger's most</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Congratulations on your purchase of a brand new nigger !
If handled properly , your apeman will give years of valuable , if reluctant , service.INSTALLING YOUR NIGGER.You should install your nigger differently according to whether you have purchased the field or house model .
Field niggers work best in a serial configuration , i.e .
chained together .
Chain your nigger to another nigger immediately after unpacking it , and do n't even think about taking that chain off , ever .
Many niggers start singing as soon as you put a chain on them .
This habit can usually be thrashed out of them if nipped in the bud .
House niggers work best as standalone units , but should be hobbled or hamstrung to prevent attempts at escape .
At this stage , your nigger can also be given a name .
Most owners use the same names over and over , since niggers become confused by too much data .
Rufus , Rastus , Remus , Toby , Carslisle , Carlton , Hey-You ! -Yes-you ! , Yeller , Blackstar , and Sambo are all effective names for your new buck nigger .
If your nigger is a ho , it should be called Latrelle , L'Tanya , or Jemima .
Some owners call their nigger hoes Latrine for a joke .
Pearl , Blossom , and Ivory are also righteous names for nigger hoes .
These names go straight over your nigger 's head , by the way.CONFIGURING YOUR NIGGEROwing to a design error , your nigger comes equipped with a tongue and vocal chords .
Most niggers can master only a few basic human phrases with this apparatus - " muh dick " being the most popular .
However , others make barking , yelping , yapping noises and appear to be in some pain , so you should probably call a vet and have him remove your nigger 's tongue .
Once de-tongued your nigger will be a lot happier - at least , you wo n't hear it complaining anywhere near as much .
Niggers have nothing interesting to say , anyway .
Many owners also castrate their niggers for health reasons ( yours , mine , and that of women , not the nigger 's ) .
This is strongly recommended , and frankly , it 's a mystery why this is not done on the boatHOUSING YOUR NIGGER.Your nigger can be accommodated in cages with stout iron bars .
Make sure , however , that the bars are wide enough to push pieces of nigger food through .
The rule of thumb is , four niggers per square yard of cage .
So a fifteen foot by thirty foot nigger cage can accommodate two hundred niggers .
You can site a nigger cage anywhere , even on soft ground .
Do n't worry about your nigger fashioning makeshift shovels out of odd pieces of wood and digging an escape tunnel under the bars of the cage .
Niggers never invented the shovel before and they 're not about to now .
In any case , your nigger is certainly too lazy to attempt escape .
As long as the free food holds out , your nigger is living better than it did in Africa , so it will stay put .
Buck niggers and hoe niggers can be safely accommodated in the same cage , as bucks never attempt sex with black hoes.FEEDING YOUR NIGGER.Your Nigger likes fried chicken , corn bread , and watermelon .
You should therefore give it none of these things because its lazy ass almost certainly does n't deserve it .
Instead , feed it on porridge with salt , and creek water .
Your nigger will supplement its diet with whatever it finds in the fields , other niggers , etc .
Experienced nigger owners sometimes push watermelon slices through the bars of the nigger cage at the end of the day as a treat , but only if all niggers have worked well and nothing has been stolen that day .
Mike of the Old Ranch Plantation reports that this last one is a killer , since all niggers steal something almost every single day of their lives .
He reports he does n't have to spend much on free watermelon for his niggers as a result .
You should never allow your nigger meal breaks while at work , since if it stops work for more than ten minutes it will need to be retrained .
You would be surprised how long it takes to teach a nigger to pick cotton .
You really would .
Coffee beans ?
Do n't ask .
You have no idea.MAKING YOUR NIGGER WORK.Niggers are very , very averse to work of any kind .
The nigger 's most</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Congratulations on your purchase of a brand new nigger!
If handled properly, your apeman will give years of valuable, if reluctant, service.INSTALLING YOUR NIGGER.You should install your nigger differently according to whether you have purchased the field or house model.
Field niggers work best in a serial configuration, i.e.
chained together.
Chain your nigger to another nigger immediately after unpacking it, and don't even think about taking that chain off, ever.
Many niggers start singing as soon as you put a chain on them.
This habit can usually be thrashed out of them if nipped in the bud.
House niggers work best as standalone units, but should be hobbled or hamstrung to prevent attempts at escape.
At this stage, your nigger can also be given a name.
Most owners use the same names over and over, since niggers become confused by too much data.
Rufus, Rastus, Remus, Toby, Carslisle, Carlton, Hey-You!-Yes-you!, Yeller, Blackstar, and Sambo are all effective names for your new buck nigger.
If your nigger is a ho, it should be called Latrelle, L'Tanya, or Jemima.
Some owners call their nigger hoes Latrine for a joke.
Pearl, Blossom, and Ivory are also righteous names for nigger hoes.
These names go straight over your nigger's head, by the way.CONFIGURING YOUR NIGGEROwing to a design error, your nigger comes equipped with a tongue and vocal chords.
Most niggers can master only a few basic human phrases with this apparatus - "muh dick" being the most popular.
However, others make barking, yelping, yapping noises and appear to be in some pain, so you should probably call a vet and have him remove your nigger's tongue.
Once de-tongued your nigger will be a lot happier - at least, you won't hear it complaining anywhere near as much.
Niggers have nothing interesting to say, anyway.
Many owners also castrate their niggers for health reasons (yours, mine, and that of women, not the nigger's).
This is strongly recommended, and frankly, it's a mystery why this is not done on the boatHOUSING YOUR NIGGER.Your nigger can be accommodated in cages with stout iron bars.
Make sure, however, that the bars are wide enough to push pieces of nigger food through.
The rule of thumb is, four niggers per square yard of cage.
So a fifteen foot by thirty foot nigger cage can accommodate two hundred niggers.
You can site a nigger cage anywhere, even on soft ground.
Don't worry about your nigger fashioning makeshift shovels out of odd pieces of wood and digging an escape tunnel under the bars of the cage.
Niggers never invented the shovel before and they're not about to now.
In any case, your nigger is certainly too lazy to attempt escape.
As long as the free food holds out, your nigger is living better than it did in Africa, so it will stay put.
Buck niggers and hoe niggers can be safely accommodated in the same cage, as bucks never attempt sex with black hoes.FEEDING YOUR NIGGER.Your Nigger likes fried chicken, corn bread, and watermelon.
You should therefore give it none of these things because its lazy ass almost certainly doesn't deserve it.
Instead, feed it on porridge with salt, and creek water.
Your nigger will supplement its diet with whatever it finds in the fields, other niggers, etc.
Experienced nigger owners sometimes push watermelon slices through the bars of the nigger cage at the end of the day as a treat, but only if all niggers have worked well and nothing has been stolen that day.
Mike of the Old Ranch Plantation reports that this last one is a killer, since all niggers steal something almost every single day of their lives.
He reports he doesn't have to spend much on free watermelon for his niggers as a result.
You should never allow your nigger meal breaks while at work, since if it stops work for more than ten minutes it will need to be retrained.
You would be surprised how long it takes to teach a nigger to pick cotton.
You really would.
Coffee beans?
Don't ask.
You have no idea.MAKING YOUR NIGGER WORK.Niggers are very, very averse to work of any kind.
The nigger's most</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29811997</id>
	<title>Conclusion is dubious</title>
	<author>Geoffrey.landis</author>
	<datestamp>1256066700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"The BBC reports that researchers at the University of Edinburgh have found that Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCRs) somehow makes trees grow faster.</p></div><p>That conclusion is so distant from the data as to be completely misleading.
</p><p>What they <b>really</b> found was that tree growth rate in <i>one particular site in Scotland</i> seems to show an eleven-year cycle over the last fifty-three years (i.e., not quite five periods).  The eleven year cycle was then connected with sunspots via this reasoning: "Hey, sunspots have an eleven-year cycle, too!".  And then the mechanism was suggested: "Hey, galactic cosmic rays vary with the number of sunspots!"
</p><p>The purported connection from tree-rings at a single spot in Britain, to sunspots, to cosmic rays is very, very tenuous.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" The BBC reports that researchers at the University of Edinburgh have found that Galactic Cosmic Rays ( GCRs ) somehow makes trees grow faster.That conclusion is so distant from the data as to be completely misleading .
What they really found was that tree growth rate in one particular site in Scotland seems to show an eleven-year cycle over the last fifty-three years ( i.e. , not quite five periods ) .
The eleven year cycle was then connected with sunspots via this reasoning : " Hey , sunspots have an eleven-year cycle , too ! " .
And then the mechanism was suggested : " Hey , galactic cosmic rays vary with the number of sunspots !
" The purported connection from tree-rings at a single spot in Britain , to sunspots , to cosmic rays is very , very tenuous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The BBC reports that researchers at the University of Edinburgh have found that Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCRs) somehow makes trees grow faster.That conclusion is so distant from the data as to be completely misleading.
What they really found was that tree growth rate in one particular site in Scotland seems to show an eleven-year cycle over the last fifty-three years (i.e., not quite five periods).
The eleven year cycle was then connected with sunspots via this reasoning: "Hey, sunspots have an eleven-year cycle, too!".
And then the mechanism was suggested: "Hey, galactic cosmic rays vary with the number of sunspots!
"
The purported connection from tree-rings at a single spot in Britain, to sunspots, to cosmic rays is very, very tenuous.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29807213</id>
	<title>Re:causality is possibly wrong</title>
	<author>idunno2112</author>
	<datestamp>1256050260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most plants are more sensitive to the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis#Light\_reactions" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">blue-violet</a> [wikipedia.org] side of the spectrum for photosynthesis, with a few exception having increased sensitivity to the red side.</p><p>My theory is that since humans tend to have <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visible\_light" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">peak sensitivity in the green portion of the spectrum</a> [wikipedia.org] and our <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminosity\_function" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">perception of brightness is near zero in the blue-violet-ultra-violet range it is possible that the brightness of the sun has limited or no effect on plant growth.</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>Moreover, the solar wind is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetosphere#Earth.27s\_magnetosphere" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">directly porportional to the strength of the Earth's magnetic field</a> [wikipedia.org] and the Earth's magnetic field blocks less blue-violet-uv then when the magnetic field is weaker so more blue-violet-uv frequencies make it to the plants and hence increase a plant's photosynthetic rate thus contributing to higher growth.</p><p>Maybe GCR is to photosynthesis what steroids are to muscles.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most plants are more sensitive to the blue-violet [ wikipedia.org ] side of the spectrum for photosynthesis , with a few exception having increased sensitivity to the red side.My theory is that since humans tend to have peak sensitivity in the green portion of the spectrum [ wikipedia.org ] and our perception of brightness is near zero in the blue-violet-ultra-violet range it is possible that the brightness of the sun has limited or no effect on plant growth .
[ wikipedia.org ] Moreover , the solar wind is directly porportional to the strength of the Earth 's magnetic field [ wikipedia.org ] and the Earth 's magnetic field blocks less blue-violet-uv then when the magnetic field is weaker so more blue-violet-uv frequencies make it to the plants and hence increase a plant 's photosynthetic rate thus contributing to higher growth.Maybe GCR is to photosynthesis what steroids are to muscles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most plants are more sensitive to the blue-violet [wikipedia.org] side of the spectrum for photosynthesis, with a few exception having increased sensitivity to the red side.My theory is that since humans tend to have peak sensitivity in the green portion of the spectrum [wikipedia.org] and our perception of brightness is near zero in the blue-violet-ultra-violet range it is possible that the brightness of the sun has limited or no effect on plant growth.
[wikipedia.org]Moreover, the solar wind is directly porportional to the strength of the Earth's magnetic field [wikipedia.org] and the Earth's magnetic field blocks less blue-violet-uv then when the magnetic field is weaker so more blue-violet-uv frequencies make it to the plants and hence increase a plant's photosynthetic rate thus contributing to higher growth.Maybe GCR is to photosynthesis what steroids are to muscles.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803785</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803715</id>
	<title>Radiation Horniness?</title>
	<author>sillivalley</author>
	<datestamp>1255969020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Damn, when I looked at it, I thought for sure it said "radiation <i>horniness</i>" -- following the sunspot cycle?<br> <br>Why not?<br> <br>
People working with long distance radio communications -- whether it's LF for ships, ham radio, or spacecraft, knows the incredible variation the sunspot cycle can have on communications -- there are enormous swings in energy levels involved.  Why shouldn't it show up in complex systems such as trees?<br> <br>
And yes, the link may be indirect, it may not be direct causation, merely correlation, but that's often a good reason to look again, more closely, as there may be something interesting going on.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Damn , when I looked at it , I thought for sure it said " radiation horniness " -- following the sunspot cycle ?
Why not ?
People working with long distance radio communications -- whether it 's LF for ships , ham radio , or spacecraft , knows the incredible variation the sunspot cycle can have on communications -- there are enormous swings in energy levels involved .
Why should n't it show up in complex systems such as trees ?
And yes , the link may be indirect , it may not be direct causation , merely correlation , but that 's often a good reason to look again , more closely , as there may be something interesting going on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Damn, when I looked at it, I thought for sure it said "radiation horniness" -- following the sunspot cycle?
Why not?
People working with long distance radio communications -- whether it's LF for ships, ham radio, or spacecraft, knows the incredible variation the sunspot cycle can have on communications -- there are enormous swings in energy levels involved.
Why shouldn't it show up in complex systems such as trees?
And yes, the link may be indirect, it may not be direct causation, merely correlation, but that's often a good reason to look again, more closely, as there may be something interesting going on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29804837</id>
	<title>Re:Big Surprise</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256070120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hmm, some life giving power outside of our solar system?<br>Proof for God!!!</p><p>Or, the drop of solar activity (which is also causing the increased GCR), causes plant growth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmm , some life giving power outside of our solar system ? Proof for God ! !
! Or , the drop of solar activity ( which is also causing the increased GCR ) , causes plant growth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmm, some life giving power outside of our solar system?Proof for God!!
!Or, the drop of solar activity (which is also causing the increased GCR), causes plant growth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803389</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803389</id>
	<title>Big Surprise</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255966140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> researchers at the University of Edinburgh have found that Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCRs) somehow makes trees grow faster</p></div><p>I don't think they need to look any further for answers than the Fantastic Four.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>researchers at the University of Edinburgh have found that Galactic Cosmic Rays ( GCRs ) somehow makes trees grow fasterI do n't think they need to look any further for answers than the Fantastic Four .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> researchers at the University of Edinburgh have found that Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCRs) somehow makes trees grow fasterI don't think they need to look any further for answers than the Fantastic Four.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29805013</id>
	<title>balancing global warming</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256029680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>if it helps trees grow, then it helps capture more carbon. why not study the positive effect of this on global warming?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>if it helps trees grow , then it helps capture more carbon .
why not study the positive effect of this on global warming ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if it helps trees grow, then it helps capture more carbon.
why not study the positive effect of this on global warming?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29805035</id>
	<title>Re:Repeat after me: Correlation Is Not Causation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256029980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm getting seriously bothered by<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. posters commenting on research papers they have not read with criticisms that are covered in the paper they are commenting on. Why don't you go off and read the paper and then tell us whether it is solar irradiance or not. Now get off my lawn</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm getting seriously bothered by / .
posters commenting on research papers they have not read with criticisms that are covered in the paper they are commenting on .
Why do n't you go off and read the paper and then tell us whether it is solar irradiance or not .
Now get off my lawn</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm getting seriously bothered by /.
posters commenting on research papers they have not read with criticisms that are covered in the paper they are commenting on.
Why don't you go off and read the paper and then tell us whether it is solar irradiance or not.
Now get off my lawn</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803493</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29804005</id>
	<title>Re:Big Surprise</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255971840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Galactic Cosmic Rays? That's a stupid way to say "Sunlight."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Galactic Cosmic Rays ?
That 's a stupid way to say " Sunlight .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Galactic Cosmic Rays?
That's a stupid way to say "Sunlight.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803389</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29806075</id>
	<title>Breaking news...</title>
	<author>Godskitchen</author>
	<datestamp>1256043720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sunlight makes plants grow.

In other news, water is wet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sunlight makes plants grow .
In other news , water is wet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sunlight makes plants grow.
In other news, water is wet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29807573</id>
	<title>Re:It's called research</title>
	<author>jtorkbob</author>
	<datestamp>1256051760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>mothers'</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>mothers'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>mothers'</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803397</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29804617</id>
	<title>Cosmic radiation enhances tree growth?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255980900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about men with small dicks? Any enhanced growth there?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about men with small dicks ?
Any enhanced growth there ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about men with small dicks?
Any enhanced growth there?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29804803</id>
	<title>Re:Once upon a time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256069700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, cancer has an "substantially increased growth rate". So yes, higher growth rate due to radiation is quite common.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , cancer has an " substantially increased growth rate " .
So yes , higher growth rate due to radiation is quite common .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, cancer has an "substantially increased growth rate".
So yes, higher growth rate due to radiation is quite common.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803743</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29804135</id>
	<title>Re:Cloud cover</title>
	<author>pz</author>
	<datestamp>1255973580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>The mechanism might have something to do with GCRs increasing cloud cover, which diffuses sunlight and increases the efficiency of photosynthesis.</p></div><p>How about cloud cover leads to more precipitation?</p></div><p>Right.  Correlation is not causation, no matter how hard you wish it so.  Another hypothesis is that GCRs -- since they are observed to vary with the solar cycle -- are an epiphenomenon, and the real driving force is the solar cycle.</p><p>Nothing to see here but another ill-thought-out observation of which there are plenty.  The 11-year solar cycle also drives the insolation (amount of light hitting the earth), the magnetosphere, the amount of accreted cosmic dust, the aurora borealis, the cloud cover, the sea levels, the mean temperature<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... saying it's the frelling GCRs that causes growth patterns is pretty far down on the list.<br>
&nbsp;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The mechanism might have something to do with GCRs increasing cloud cover , which diffuses sunlight and increases the efficiency of photosynthesis.How about cloud cover leads to more precipitation ? Right .
Correlation is not causation , no matter how hard you wish it so .
Another hypothesis is that GCRs -- since they are observed to vary with the solar cycle -- are an epiphenomenon , and the real driving force is the solar cycle.Nothing to see here but another ill-thought-out observation of which there are plenty .
The 11-year solar cycle also drives the insolation ( amount of light hitting the earth ) , the magnetosphere , the amount of accreted cosmic dust , the aurora borealis , the cloud cover , the sea levels , the mean temperature ... saying it 's the frelling GCRs that causes growth patterns is pretty far down on the list .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>The mechanism might have something to do with GCRs increasing cloud cover, which diffuses sunlight and increases the efficiency of photosynthesis.How about cloud cover leads to more precipitation?Right.
Correlation is not causation, no matter how hard you wish it so.
Another hypothesis is that GCRs -- since they are observed to vary with the solar cycle -- are an epiphenomenon, and the real driving force is the solar cycle.Nothing to see here but another ill-thought-out observation of which there are plenty.
The 11-year solar cycle also drives the insolation (amount of light hitting the earth), the magnetosphere, the amount of accreted cosmic dust, the aurora borealis, the cloud cover, the sea levels, the mean temperature ... saying it's the frelling GCRs that causes growth patterns is pretty far down on the list.
 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803447</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29826299</id>
	<title>Simple explanation - stress</title>
	<author>BranMan</author>
	<datestamp>1256152440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>IF there is a true connection, then it should not be so mystifying.  Radiation has been shown, in studies, to make animals healthier in low doses (i.e more than background radiation, but less than what you'd want to monitor).  The reasoning was that it 'stressed' the animals systems, making them stronger, and thus healthier overall.  The same could apply to trees - Cosmic rays may 'stress' them, causing them to grow faster as a result (trying to compensate).</htmltext>
<tokenext>IF there is a true connection , then it should not be so mystifying .
Radiation has been shown , in studies , to make animals healthier in low doses ( i.e more than background radiation , but less than what you 'd want to monitor ) .
The reasoning was that it 'stressed ' the animals systems , making them stronger , and thus healthier overall .
The same could apply to trees - Cosmic rays may 'stress ' them , causing them to grow faster as a result ( trying to compensate ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IF there is a true connection, then it should not be so mystifying.
Radiation has been shown, in studies, to make animals healthier in low doses (i.e more than background radiation, but less than what you'd want to monitor).
The reasoning was that it 'stressed' the animals systems, making them stronger, and thus healthier overall.
The same could apply to trees - Cosmic rays may 'stress' them, causing them to grow faster as a result (trying to compensate).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_2314242_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29815639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803409
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_2314242_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29806899
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803493
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_2314242_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29804445
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803903
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_2314242_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29804837
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803389
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_2314242_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29804193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803903
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_2314242_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29804273
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803493
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_2314242_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29808331
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803903
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_2314242_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29805109
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803409
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_2314242_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29808485
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803409
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_2314242_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29807573
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803397
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_2314242_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29804263
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803845
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_2314242_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29804005
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803389
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_2314242_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803939
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803519
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_2314242_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29809771
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803785
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803409
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_2314242_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29805481
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803389
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_2314242_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803481
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803389
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_2314242_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29804803
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803743
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803625
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_2314242_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29807773
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803389
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_2314242_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29804509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803903
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_2314242_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29805941
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803903
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_2314242_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29804575
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803625
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_2314242_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29807213
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803785
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803409
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_2314242_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29805771
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803785
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803409
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_2314242_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803447
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_2314242_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29810607
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803903
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_2314242_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29805443
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803413
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_2314242_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29804313
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803625
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_2314242_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29805035
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803493
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_2314242_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29804135
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803447
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_19_2314242_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29804527
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803903
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_2314242.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803903
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29805941
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29804527
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29808331
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29810607
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29804509
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29804193
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29804445
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_2314242.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29804507
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_2314242.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803667
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_2314242.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803409
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29815639
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29808485
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29805109
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803785
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29807213
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29805771
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29809771
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_2314242.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29809295
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_2314242.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803625
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803743
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29804803
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29804575
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29804313
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_2314242.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803493
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29805035
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29804273
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29806899
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_2314242.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803845
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29804263
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_2314242.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803621
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_2314242.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803389
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29804005
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29805481
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29807773
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803481
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29804837
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_2314242.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29804449
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_2314242.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803519
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803639
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803939
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_2314242.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803599
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_2314242.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29804041
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_2314242.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803413
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29805443
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_2314242.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29804047
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_2314242.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803447
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29804135
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803689
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_2314242.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803397
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29807573
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_19_2314242.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_19_2314242.29803893
</commentlist>
</conversation>
