<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_01_0042217</id>
	<title>Plowing Carbon Into the Fields</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1257090420000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>OzPeter writes <i>"A wheat farmer in Australia has eliminated adding fertilizer to his crop by the simple process of <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/national/a-farmers-field-of-dreams-buries-climate-change-war-20091031-hqty.html">injecting the cooled diesel exhaust of his modified tractor into the ground</a> when the wheat is being sown. In doing so he eliminates releasing carbon into the atmosphere and at the same time saves himself up to $500,000 (AUD) that would have been required to fertilize his 3,900 hectares in the traditional way. Yet his crop yields over the last two years have been at least on par with his best yields since 2001. The technique was developed by a Canadian, Gary Lewis of Bio Agtive, and is currently in trial at 100 farms around the world."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>OzPeter writes " A wheat farmer in Australia has eliminated adding fertilizer to his crop by the simple process of injecting the cooled diesel exhaust of his modified tractor into the ground when the wheat is being sown .
In doing so he eliminates releasing carbon into the atmosphere and at the same time saves himself up to $ 500,000 ( AUD ) that would have been required to fertilize his 3,900 hectares in the traditional way .
Yet his crop yields over the last two years have been at least on par with his best yields since 2001 .
The technique was developed by a Canadian , Gary Lewis of Bio Agtive , and is currently in trial at 100 farms around the world .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OzPeter writes "A wheat farmer in Australia has eliminated adding fertilizer to his crop by the simple process of injecting the cooled diesel exhaust of his modified tractor into the ground when the wheat is being sown.
In doing so he eliminates releasing carbon into the atmosphere and at the same time saves himself up to $500,000 (AUD) that would have been required to fertilize his 3,900 hectares in the traditional way.
Yet his crop yields over the last two years have been at least on par with his best yields since 2001.
The technique was developed by a Canadian, Gary Lewis of Bio Agtive, and is currently in trial at 100 farms around the world.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29943852</id>
	<title>Re:Diesel exhaust in your bread?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257067200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Chicken manure is a fantastic fertilizer.  The manure is like lego blocks -- right now, it's poop.  You can't eat it directly.  But microorganisms in the soil break down the poop into its component parts which plants use to build themselves back up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Chicken manure is a fantastic fertilizer .
The manure is like lego blocks -- right now , it 's poop .
You ca n't eat it directly .
But microorganisms in the soil break down the poop into its component parts which plants use to build themselves back up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chicken manure is a fantastic fertilizer.
The manure is like lego blocks -- right now, it's poop.
You can't eat it directly.
But microorganisms in the soil break down the poop into its component parts which plants use to build themselves back up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939355</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939557</id>
	<title>Plough</title>
	<author>ChameleonDave</author>
	<datestamp>1257012300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In Australia, we don't "plow" anything into our fields; we plough it, as the original submission correctly said.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In Australia , we do n't " plow " anything into our fields ; we plough it , as the original submission correctly said .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Australia, we don't "plow" anything into our fields; we plough it, as the original submission correctly said.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29940985</id>
	<title>Re:What a bunch of Bullshit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257083220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except the farmer mentioned in the article is not from Canada.</p><p>Or do you know the price of fertiliser in the Murray Basin?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except the farmer mentioned in the article is not from Canada.Or do you know the price of fertiliser in the Murray Basin ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except the farmer mentioned in the article is not from Canada.Or do you know the price of fertiliser in the Murray Basin?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939387</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939435</id>
	<title>Re:It can't possibly be enough...</title>
	<author>canajin56</author>
	<datestamp>1257010680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's nice that you're so sure actual scientists know less than you, and that there's no such thing as nitrogen fixing bacteria, and that they sure aren't fucking anaerobic and like CO2.  Christ.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's nice that you 're so sure actual scientists know less than you , and that there 's no such thing as nitrogen fixing bacteria , and that they sure are n't fucking anaerobic and like CO2 .
Christ .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's nice that you're so sure actual scientists know less than you, and that there's no such thing as nitrogen fixing bacteria, and that they sure aren't fucking anaerobic and like CO2.
Christ.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939287</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939593</id>
	<title>with millions of dollars at stake im sure....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257012840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>nothing untoward would happen.</p><p>if leaded gas were still legal (and it is in many countries), this would basically be pumping lead into your food. whatever comes out of the tailpipe is going to wind up in that ground, and you might want to figure out what it is before you put it there.</p><p>i am reminded of the uses of raffinate favored by mining companies... including the way they took the raffinate sludge waste from the process of converting uranium yellowcake into uranium hexafluoride, treated it, the called it 'fertilizer' and sprayed it on open fields. with the approval of the nuclear regulatory commission.</p><p>but i guess you are one who thinks it was silly of people to sue them into stopping this? what could be wrong with spraying uranium processing waste on to open fields, right next to a tributary of the mississippi river, and trusting the company to monitor and study the effects of this spraying? (the company that would otherwise have to pay millions of dollars to transport and dump it in a proper disposal facility)?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>nothing untoward would happen.if leaded gas were still legal ( and it is in many countries ) , this would basically be pumping lead into your food .
whatever comes out of the tailpipe is going to wind up in that ground , and you might want to figure out what it is before you put it there.i am reminded of the uses of raffinate favored by mining companies... including the way they took the raffinate sludge waste from the process of converting uranium yellowcake into uranium hexafluoride , treated it , the called it 'fertilizer ' and sprayed it on open fields .
with the approval of the nuclear regulatory commission.but i guess you are one who thinks it was silly of people to sue them into stopping this ?
what could be wrong with spraying uranium processing waste on to open fields , right next to a tributary of the mississippi river , and trusting the company to monitor and study the effects of this spraying ?
( the company that would otherwise have to pay millions of dollars to transport and dump it in a proper disposal facility ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>nothing untoward would happen.if leaded gas were still legal (and it is in many countries), this would basically be pumping lead into your food.
whatever comes out of the tailpipe is going to wind up in that ground, and you might want to figure out what it is before you put it there.i am reminded of the uses of raffinate favored by mining companies... including the way they took the raffinate sludge waste from the process of converting uranium yellowcake into uranium hexafluoride, treated it, the called it 'fertilizer' and sprayed it on open fields.
with the approval of the nuclear regulatory commission.but i guess you are one who thinks it was silly of people to sue them into stopping this?
what could be wrong with spraying uranium processing waste on to open fields, right next to a tributary of the mississippi river, and trusting the company to monitor and study the effects of this spraying?
(the company that would otherwise have to pay millions of dollars to transport and dump it in a proper disposal facility)?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939207</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29942410</id>
	<title>Re:It is funny</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257098640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, I'm pretty sure the reason it drew ire was because in their quest to be contrarian and unintuitive they manage to get everything <a href="http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2009/10/sigh-last-post-on-superfreakonomics-i-promise.html" title="typepad.com" rel="nofollow">completely wrong</a> [typepad.com], including such gems as claiming that "The problem with solar cells is that they're black, because they are designed to absorb light from the sun. But only about 12\% gets turned into electricity and the rest is reradiated as heat - which contributes to global warming." Of course, not only are most solar cells blue, not only do they generally cover surfaces that have no better an albedo than they do, not only would the waste heat from even a large decrease in albedo be no bigger than the waste heat produced by coal plants, but of course the effect of waste heat is completely insignificant compared to the heat trapping effects of the CO2 released by the other power generation methods that solar would supplant, as the most basic <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/an-open-letter-to-steve-levitt/" title="realclimate.org" rel="nofollow">sanity check</a> [realclimate.org] would have shown.</p><p>The also manage to consistently cite climate scientists as saying things <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/10/why\_everything\_in\_superfreakon.php" title="scienceblogs.com" rel="nofollow">diametrically opposed</a> [scienceblogs.com] to their actual positions, which is the sort of thing that really pisses people off, and all to push a <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/why-levitt-and-dubner-like-geo-engineering-and-why-they-are-wrong/" title="realclimate.org" rel="nofollow">highly flawed</a> [realclimate.org] geoengineering "solution" which would require climate models much more precise than we have to not go disastrously wrong, would not stop ocean acidification, would not even stop massive climate change, since the earth is not a uniform system and energy would still be shifted around, and would require a feat of engineering and political cooperation beyond anything humanity has ever accomplished that would have to continue to disperse sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere every year for however many centuries humanity intends to survive on this planet, making it considerably more expensive and difficult than the comparatively easy task of just reducing the fucking emissions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , I 'm pretty sure the reason it drew ire was because in their quest to be contrarian and unintuitive they manage to get everything completely wrong [ typepad.com ] , including such gems as claiming that " The problem with solar cells is that they 're black , because they are designed to absorb light from the sun .
But only about 12 \ % gets turned into electricity and the rest is reradiated as heat - which contributes to global warming .
" Of course , not only are most solar cells blue , not only do they generally cover surfaces that have no better an albedo than they do , not only would the waste heat from even a large decrease in albedo be no bigger than the waste heat produced by coal plants , but of course the effect of waste heat is completely insignificant compared to the heat trapping effects of the CO2 released by the other power generation methods that solar would supplant , as the most basic sanity check [ realclimate.org ] would have shown.The also manage to consistently cite climate scientists as saying things diametrically opposed [ scienceblogs.com ] to their actual positions , which is the sort of thing that really pisses people off , and all to push a highly flawed [ realclimate.org ] geoengineering " solution " which would require climate models much more precise than we have to not go disastrously wrong , would not stop ocean acidification , would not even stop massive climate change , since the earth is not a uniform system and energy would still be shifted around , and would require a feat of engineering and political cooperation beyond anything humanity has ever accomplished that would have to continue to disperse sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere every year for however many centuries humanity intends to survive on this planet , making it considerably more expensive and difficult than the comparatively easy task of just reducing the fucking emissions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, I'm pretty sure the reason it drew ire was because in their quest to be contrarian and unintuitive they manage to get everything completely wrong [typepad.com], including such gems as claiming that "The problem with solar cells is that they're black, because they are designed to absorb light from the sun.
But only about 12\% gets turned into electricity and the rest is reradiated as heat - which contributes to global warming.
" Of course, not only are most solar cells blue, not only do they generally cover surfaces that have no better an albedo than they do, not only would the waste heat from even a large decrease in albedo be no bigger than the waste heat produced by coal plants, but of course the effect of waste heat is completely insignificant compared to the heat trapping effects of the CO2 released by the other power generation methods that solar would supplant, as the most basic sanity check [realclimate.org] would have shown.The also manage to consistently cite climate scientists as saying things diametrically opposed [scienceblogs.com] to their actual positions, which is the sort of thing that really pisses people off, and all to push a highly flawed [realclimate.org] geoengineering "solution" which would require climate models much more precise than we have to not go disastrously wrong, would not stop ocean acidification, would not even stop massive climate change, since the earth is not a uniform system and energy would still be shifted around, and would require a feat of engineering and political cooperation beyond anything humanity has ever accomplished that would have to continue to disperse sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere every year for however many centuries humanity intends to survive on this planet, making it considerably more expensive and difficult than the comparatively easy task of just reducing the fucking emissions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939673</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939247</id>
	<title>Diesel exhaust in your bread?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257008760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Given what's in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel\_exhaust\_air\_contaminants" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">diesel exhaust</a> [wikipedia.org], I don't think I want any of that winding up in my bread.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Given what 's in diesel exhaust [ wikipedia.org ] , I do n't think I want any of that winding up in my bread .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given what's in diesel exhaust [wikipedia.org], I don't think I want any of that winding up in my bread.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29943544</id>
	<title>Re:I am amazed at some of the replies.</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1257108660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>AND just about ALL will SINK TO THE GROUND. So wether you inject it into the soil, OR you lay it on the top, it is the same.</p></div></blockquote><p>No, it won't be the same.  In the atmosphere it will disperse over a much larger area, rather than directly into the plants.  In the air the sun shines through it, it interacts with other things in the air.  In the ground there is certainly less light, usually none, and since the air isn't going to be flowing with the wind its not going to mix with nearly as many other gases so all those chemical reactions are out of the question, possibly replaced with a new set from chemicals in the ground itself.</p><p>I don't know if thats good or bad, but its ignorant to think its going to turn out the same way.</p><p>When you do things different, its not the same, regardless of how little thought you put into figuring out whats different about it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>AND just about ALL will SINK TO THE GROUND .
So wether you inject it into the soil , OR you lay it on the top , it is the same.No , it wo n't be the same .
In the atmosphere it will disperse over a much larger area , rather than directly into the plants .
In the air the sun shines through it , it interacts with other things in the air .
In the ground there is certainly less light , usually none , and since the air is n't going to be flowing with the wind its not going to mix with nearly as many other gases so all those chemical reactions are out of the question , possibly replaced with a new set from chemicals in the ground itself.I do n't know if thats good or bad , but its ignorant to think its going to turn out the same way.When you do things different , its not the same , regardless of how little thought you put into figuring out whats different about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AND just about ALL will SINK TO THE GROUND.
So wether you inject it into the soil, OR you lay it on the top, it is the same.No, it won't be the same.
In the atmosphere it will disperse over a much larger area, rather than directly into the plants.
In the air the sun shines through it, it interacts with other things in the air.
In the ground there is certainly less light, usually none, and since the air isn't going to be flowing with the wind its not going to mix with nearly as many other gases so all those chemical reactions are out of the question, possibly replaced with a new set from chemicals in the ground itself.I don't know if thats good or bad, but its ignorant to think its going to turn out the same way.When you do things different, its not the same, regardless of how little thought you put into figuring out whats different about it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939393</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29941041</id>
	<title>Re:It is funny</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1257084180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Total human energy utilization is about 15 terawatt-years / year (so the average power being utilized by humans at any given point in time is probably somewhere near 15 terawatts).</p><p>The sun strikes the Earth with something like 165 petawatts. So our energy utilization is about 0.01\% of the solar energy striking the planet. In a completely static system, you could expect the conservation of our energy to contribute that 0.01\% to the global temperature (at about that rate, so instead of being 100 degrees, it would be 100.01 degrees...). But it isn't even a completely static system, when you increase the temperature, you increase the rate at which heat is dumped into space.</p><p>The issue with global warming is not simply the building up of heat in the atmosphere and oceans, it is changing the rate at which the heat is dumped into space (which may result in a drastically different average temperature).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Total human energy utilization is about 15 terawatt-years / year ( so the average power being utilized by humans at any given point in time is probably somewhere near 15 terawatts ) .The sun strikes the Earth with something like 165 petawatts .
So our energy utilization is about 0.01 \ % of the solar energy striking the planet .
In a completely static system , you could expect the conservation of our energy to contribute that 0.01 \ % to the global temperature ( at about that rate , so instead of being 100 degrees , it would be 100.01 degrees... ) .
But it is n't even a completely static system , when you increase the temperature , you increase the rate at which heat is dumped into space.The issue with global warming is not simply the building up of heat in the atmosphere and oceans , it is changing the rate at which the heat is dumped into space ( which may result in a drastically different average temperature ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Total human energy utilization is about 15 terawatt-years / year (so the average power being utilized by humans at any given point in time is probably somewhere near 15 terawatts).The sun strikes the Earth with something like 165 petawatts.
So our energy utilization is about 0.01\% of the solar energy striking the planet.
In a completely static system, you could expect the conservation of our energy to contribute that 0.01\% to the global temperature (at about that rate, so instead of being 100 degrees, it would be 100.01 degrees...).
But it isn't even a completely static system, when you increase the temperature, you increase the rate at which heat is dumped into space.The issue with global warming is not simply the building up of heat in the atmosphere and oceans, it is changing the rate at which the heat is dumped into space (which may result in a drastically different average temperature).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29940169</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939959</id>
	<title>I don't get it</title>
	<author>Joce640k</author>
	<datestamp>1257105720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I was at school plants needed Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Potassium in their fertilizer ( <a href="http://www.google.es/search?q=npk+fertilizer" title="google.es">http://www.google.es/search?q=npk+fertilizer</a> [google.es] ).</p><p>I'm guessing the bumper crop won't last very long...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I was at school plants needed Nitrogen , Phosphorus and Potassium in their fertilizer ( http : //www.google.es/search ? q = npk + fertilizer [ google.es ] ) .I 'm guessing the bumper crop wo n't last very long.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I was at school plants needed Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Potassium in their fertilizer ( http://www.google.es/search?q=npk+fertilizer [google.es] ).I'm guessing the bumper crop won't last very long...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29942906</id>
	<title>Re:massive outbreaks say otherwise</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257103740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they were to fertilize those things properly, salmonella wouldn't get into the foods. It's half-assed and poor management pushing for a quick but short-lived profit, not feces fertilization itself which is the problem.</p><p>By "properly" I mean "don't let your illegal immigrant/peasant workers shit in the fields". It could also be spraying fresh manure instead of properly aged manure. It could also be a problem with unhygienic processing of the harvested crops. But the problem isn't feces fertilization itself.</p><p>Keep in mind it's not a problem if you simply cook your food and/or wash it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they were to fertilize those things properly , salmonella would n't get into the foods .
It 's half-assed and poor management pushing for a quick but short-lived profit , not feces fertilization itself which is the problem.By " properly " I mean " do n't let your illegal immigrant/peasant workers shit in the fields " .
It could also be spraying fresh manure instead of properly aged manure .
It could also be a problem with unhygienic processing of the harvested crops .
But the problem is n't feces fertilization itself.Keep in mind it 's not a problem if you simply cook your food and/or wash it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they were to fertilize those things properly, salmonella wouldn't get into the foods.
It's half-assed and poor management pushing for a quick but short-lived profit, not feces fertilization itself which is the problem.By "properly" I mean "don't let your illegal immigrant/peasant workers shit in the fields".
It could also be spraying fresh manure instead of properly aged manure.
It could also be a problem with unhygienic processing of the harvested crops.
But the problem isn't feces fertilization itself.Keep in mind it's not a problem if you simply cook your food and/or wash it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939619</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939895</id>
	<title>Re:Diesel exhaust in your bread?</title>
	<author>Vellmont</author>
	<datestamp>1257018120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You joke, but plants do take up toxins and put them in food.  Arsenic and lead in the soil isn't exactly a good thing.  Dioxins are also present in diesel exhaust.  Are any of those in pig manure in appreciable amounts?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You joke , but plants do take up toxins and put them in food .
Arsenic and lead in the soil is n't exactly a good thing .
Dioxins are also present in diesel exhaust .
Are any of those in pig manure in appreciable amounts ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You joke, but plants do take up toxins and put them in food.
Arsenic and lead in the soil isn't exactly a good thing.
Dioxins are also present in diesel exhaust.
Are any of those in pig manure in appreciable amounts?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939355</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29944028</id>
	<title>Re:It is funny</title>
	<author>An Onerous Coward</author>
	<datestamp>1257068460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Levitt was wrong about so very many things in the global warming section of his book, that it's very hard to take him seriously.</p><p>He claims that global warming today is somehow equivalent to the overblown global cooling warnings of the 1970s.  The fact that he leads the chapter with the climate change deniers' Argument Zero does not inspire confidence.</p><p>Some of his primary sources clearly have no idea what they're talking about.  One of them (Nathan Myhrvold, former CTO of Microsoft, and a cofounder of the company that wants to put up the eighteen mile high SO2 chimney) claimed that solar power was infeasible because solar panels are black, which would significantly alter the Earth's albedo.  He also claims that it would take 30-50 years to pay back all the energy required to set up a solar photovoltaics grid (the actual time taken to pay back a panel's energy debt is about 2 years and falling).</p><p>But I think the big failing of his book is that he offers the very optimistic projections (regarding both effectiveness and cost) of the people who want to sell the technology to the world as pretty much fact, while completely ignoring the huge potential downfalls of his approach, or the economic benefits of reducing CO2 emissions.  He just slaps a trillion dollar price tag on carbon mitigation, a ten billion dollar price tag on his own solution, then says, "Clearly, we should be doing this."</p><p>There are huge problems with that.</p><p>We don't know if SO2 injection will work on a large scale.</p><p>We don't know if it will have unintended side effects (and Levitt's predictions that it won't are based on the same computer climate models he tries to discredit earlier in the chapter).</p><p>We do know that reducing sunlight will cause solar panels to be less efficient.</p><p>We do know that the geoengineering technique will do nothing about ocean acidification, which is nearly as scary as global warming itself.</p><p>We do know that, if we start down this path, then decide to turn off the SO2 injections, any heating we were deflecting will be back within a decade, which could cause a huge shock to the ecosystem.</p><p>We do know that CO2 mitigation, if pursued aggressively enough, will work to reduce *all* the effects of global warming, without the potential side effects of the geoengineering option.</p><p>Most important, we know that many of the approaches we could take to mitigation will benefit the economy, not hinder it.  Some estimates even say that the benefits will cancel out the costs, leaving us exactly as well off as we would be if we did nothing (plus we get to, you know, continue inhabiting the globe, which might be worth something).  Levitt completely ignores any economic benefits to any CO2 mitigation strategy, which is the only way to achieve his trillion dollar price tag.</p><p>I think we should be investigating geoengineering options.  I think we should do so aggressively, because there may come a time when mitigation isn't enough, and it's the only technique that can stand between us and something nasty.  But it should be the ultimate nuclear option.*</p><p>Finally, I've been watching Levitt's response to his critics, and he is an embarrassment.  He constantly avoids directly addressing the actual substance of his critics arguments, while claiming that they're just mad because he's a heritic to the global warming religion.  He clearly thinks (or at least wants his fans to believe) that he is the only rational person in the debate.</p><p>* Which leads to another of the scandals of the Superfreakonomics book.  One of his main sources for the geoengineering material was written about as though he believed that geoengineering was a replacement for CO2 mitigation, when in fact the source's thinking is more like my own.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Levitt was wrong about so very many things in the global warming section of his book , that it 's very hard to take him seriously.He claims that global warming today is somehow equivalent to the overblown global cooling warnings of the 1970s .
The fact that he leads the chapter with the climate change deniers ' Argument Zero does not inspire confidence.Some of his primary sources clearly have no idea what they 're talking about .
One of them ( Nathan Myhrvold , former CTO of Microsoft , and a cofounder of the company that wants to put up the eighteen mile high SO2 chimney ) claimed that solar power was infeasible because solar panels are black , which would significantly alter the Earth 's albedo .
He also claims that it would take 30-50 years to pay back all the energy required to set up a solar photovoltaics grid ( the actual time taken to pay back a panel 's energy debt is about 2 years and falling ) .But I think the big failing of his book is that he offers the very optimistic projections ( regarding both effectiveness and cost ) of the people who want to sell the technology to the world as pretty much fact , while completely ignoring the huge potential downfalls of his approach , or the economic benefits of reducing CO2 emissions .
He just slaps a trillion dollar price tag on carbon mitigation , a ten billion dollar price tag on his own solution , then says , " Clearly , we should be doing this .
" There are huge problems with that.We do n't know if SO2 injection will work on a large scale.We do n't know if it will have unintended side effects ( and Levitt 's predictions that it wo n't are based on the same computer climate models he tries to discredit earlier in the chapter ) .We do know that reducing sunlight will cause solar panels to be less efficient.We do know that the geoengineering technique will do nothing about ocean acidification , which is nearly as scary as global warming itself.We do know that , if we start down this path , then decide to turn off the SO2 injections , any heating we were deflecting will be back within a decade , which could cause a huge shock to the ecosystem.We do know that CO2 mitigation , if pursued aggressively enough , will work to reduce * all * the effects of global warming , without the potential side effects of the geoengineering option.Most important , we know that many of the approaches we could take to mitigation will benefit the economy , not hinder it .
Some estimates even say that the benefits will cancel out the costs , leaving us exactly as well off as we would be if we did nothing ( plus we get to , you know , continue inhabiting the globe , which might be worth something ) .
Levitt completely ignores any economic benefits to any CO2 mitigation strategy , which is the only way to achieve his trillion dollar price tag.I think we should be investigating geoengineering options .
I think we should do so aggressively , because there may come a time when mitigation is n't enough , and it 's the only technique that can stand between us and something nasty .
But it should be the ultimate nuclear option .
* Finally , I 've been watching Levitt 's response to his critics , and he is an embarrassment .
He constantly avoids directly addressing the actual substance of his critics arguments , while claiming that they 're just mad because he 's a heritic to the global warming religion .
He clearly thinks ( or at least wants his fans to believe ) that he is the only rational person in the debate .
* Which leads to another of the scandals of the Superfreakonomics book .
One of his main sources for the geoengineering material was written about as though he believed that geoengineering was a replacement for CO2 mitigation , when in fact the source 's thinking is more like my own .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Levitt was wrong about so very many things in the global warming section of his book, that it's very hard to take him seriously.He claims that global warming today is somehow equivalent to the overblown global cooling warnings of the 1970s.
The fact that he leads the chapter with the climate change deniers' Argument Zero does not inspire confidence.Some of his primary sources clearly have no idea what they're talking about.
One of them (Nathan Myhrvold, former CTO of Microsoft, and a cofounder of the company that wants to put up the eighteen mile high SO2 chimney) claimed that solar power was infeasible because solar panels are black, which would significantly alter the Earth's albedo.
He also claims that it would take 30-50 years to pay back all the energy required to set up a solar photovoltaics grid (the actual time taken to pay back a panel's energy debt is about 2 years and falling).But I think the big failing of his book is that he offers the very optimistic projections (regarding both effectiveness and cost) of the people who want to sell the technology to the world as pretty much fact, while completely ignoring the huge potential downfalls of his approach, or the economic benefits of reducing CO2 emissions.
He just slaps a trillion dollar price tag on carbon mitigation, a ten billion dollar price tag on his own solution, then says, "Clearly, we should be doing this.
"There are huge problems with that.We don't know if SO2 injection will work on a large scale.We don't know if it will have unintended side effects (and Levitt's predictions that it won't are based on the same computer climate models he tries to discredit earlier in the chapter).We do know that reducing sunlight will cause solar panels to be less efficient.We do know that the geoengineering technique will do nothing about ocean acidification, which is nearly as scary as global warming itself.We do know that, if we start down this path, then decide to turn off the SO2 injections, any heating we were deflecting will be back within a decade, which could cause a huge shock to the ecosystem.We do know that CO2 mitigation, if pursued aggressively enough, will work to reduce *all* the effects of global warming, without the potential side effects of the geoengineering option.Most important, we know that many of the approaches we could take to mitigation will benefit the economy, not hinder it.
Some estimates even say that the benefits will cancel out the costs, leaving us exactly as well off as we would be if we did nothing (plus we get to, you know, continue inhabiting the globe, which might be worth something).
Levitt completely ignores any economic benefits to any CO2 mitigation strategy, which is the only way to achieve his trillion dollar price tag.I think we should be investigating geoengineering options.
I think we should do so aggressively, because there may come a time when mitigation isn't enough, and it's the only technique that can stand between us and something nasty.
But it should be the ultimate nuclear option.
*Finally, I've been watching Levitt's response to his critics, and he is an embarrassment.
He constantly avoids directly addressing the actual substance of his critics arguments, while claiming that they're just mad because he's a heritic to the global warming religion.
He clearly thinks (or at least wants his fans to believe) that he is the only rational person in the debate.
* Which leads to another of the scandals of the Superfreakonomics book.
One of his main sources for the geoengineering material was written about as though he believed that geoengineering was a replacement for CO2 mitigation, when in fact the source's thinking is more like my own.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939673</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29940253</id>
	<title>It is not funny</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257068100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bull.  Shit.  Note that Levitt is NOT a climate scientist or even an engineer, so he is not the martyred expert you paint him as.  On this subject he is just another lazy sensationalist amateur who got his facts <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/an-open-letter-to-steve-levitt/" title="realclimate.org" rel="nofollow">very wrong as anyone prepared to think for themselves can easily discover</a> [realclimate.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bull .
Shit. Note that Levitt is NOT a climate scientist or even an engineer , so he is not the martyred expert you paint him as .
On this subject he is just another lazy sensationalist amateur who got his facts very wrong as anyone prepared to think for themselves can easily discover [ realclimate.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bull.
Shit.  Note that Levitt is NOT a climate scientist or even an engineer, so he is not the martyred expert you paint him as.
On this subject he is just another lazy sensationalist amateur who got his facts very wrong as anyone prepared to think for themselves can easily discover [realclimate.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939673</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29941109</id>
	<title>Re:massive outbreaks say otherwise</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1257085080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What's that have to do with manure and plants?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's that have to do with manure and plants ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's that have to do with manure and plants?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939619</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939615</id>
	<title>Re:Diesel exhaust in your bread?</title>
	<author>Ruvim</author>
	<datestamp>1257013140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wonder if the  next logical step: separating questionable components of exhaust from the "useful" ones (such as carbons and nitrates) would bring the cost to be comparable to just buying conventional fertilizers?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if the next logical step : separating questionable components of exhaust from the " useful " ones ( such as carbons and nitrates ) would bring the cost to be comparable to just buying conventional fertilizers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if the  next logical step: separating questionable components of exhaust from the "useful" ones (such as carbons and nitrates) would bring the cost to be comparable to just buying conventional fertilizers?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939247</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29940905</id>
	<title>terra preta</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257081780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder if the effect is in any way similar to what has been observed in terra preta.  Terra preta (black dirt) is a unique man-made type of soil produced by mixing in lots of carbon, in the form of charcoal.  The technique was used to convert nutrient poor soil in the Amazon rain forest into some of the richest land on earth.  It was produced thousands of years ago, no less.  Before the discovery of terra preta, it was largely assumed that rain forest soil could never be rich enough for productive agriculture, because the heavy rains cause all the important nutrients to leach out.  The carbon apparently helps the sequester these nutrients, which would otherwise be lost.  What's more, terra preta appears to be regenerative - i.e. it gets richer all by itself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if the effect is in any way similar to what has been observed in terra preta .
Terra preta ( black dirt ) is a unique man-made type of soil produced by mixing in lots of carbon , in the form of charcoal .
The technique was used to convert nutrient poor soil in the Amazon rain forest into some of the richest land on earth .
It was produced thousands of years ago , no less .
Before the discovery of terra preta , it was largely assumed that rain forest soil could never be rich enough for productive agriculture , because the heavy rains cause all the important nutrients to leach out .
The carbon apparently helps the sequester these nutrients , which would otherwise be lost .
What 's more , terra preta appears to be regenerative - i.e .
it gets richer all by itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if the effect is in any way similar to what has been observed in terra preta.
Terra preta (black dirt) is a unique man-made type of soil produced by mixing in lots of carbon, in the form of charcoal.
The technique was used to convert nutrient poor soil in the Amazon rain forest into some of the richest land on earth.
It was produced thousands of years ago, no less.
Before the discovery of terra preta, it was largely assumed that rain forest soil could never be rich enough for productive agriculture, because the heavy rains cause all the important nutrients to leach out.
The carbon apparently helps the sequester these nutrients, which would otherwise be lost.
What's more, terra preta appears to be regenerative - i.e.
it gets richer all by itself.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29941159</id>
	<title>Re:Resident expert</title>
	<author>Stumbles</author>
	<datestamp>1257085560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am familiar with some farming techniques, especially those involving the use of liquid nitrogen. You might have seen those wheeled white tanks in a farmers field, well that's liquid nitrogen. They use an applicator that has what they refer to as knives. On the back of each knife is a metal tube and is connected via a hose to the storage tank. The applicator device is connected to a tractor, the knives forced into the ground and a valve turned on. Nitrogen in gas form is forced under the tank pressure into the ground. This technique of adding nitrogen to the soil is nearly a 100 years old. The principle described in the article is much the same. So it will work.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am familiar with some farming techniques , especially those involving the use of liquid nitrogen .
You might have seen those wheeled white tanks in a farmers field , well that 's liquid nitrogen .
They use an applicator that has what they refer to as knives .
On the back of each knife is a metal tube and is connected via a hose to the storage tank .
The applicator device is connected to a tractor , the knives forced into the ground and a valve turned on .
Nitrogen in gas form is forced under the tank pressure into the ground .
This technique of adding nitrogen to the soil is nearly a 100 years old .
The principle described in the article is much the same .
So it will work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am familiar with some farming techniques, especially those involving the use of liquid nitrogen.
You might have seen those wheeled white tanks in a farmers field, well that's liquid nitrogen.
They use an applicator that has what they refer to as knives.
On the back of each knife is a metal tube and is connected via a hose to the storage tank.
The applicator device is connected to a tractor, the knives forced into the ground and a valve turned on.
Nitrogen in gas form is forced under the tank pressure into the ground.
This technique of adding nitrogen to the soil is nearly a 100 years old.
The principle described in the article is much the same.
So it will work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939207</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29940763</id>
	<title>Re:It is funny</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257078960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Make no mistake about it: it is <i>technology</i> and <i>progress</i> that the nature lovers are out to destroy. -- The Anti-Industrial Revolution, Ayn Rand, 1971.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Make no mistake about it : it is technology and progress that the nature lovers are out to destroy .
-- The Anti-Industrial Revolution , Ayn Rand , 1971 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Make no mistake about it: it is technology and progress that the nature lovers are out to destroy.
-- The Anti-Industrial Revolution, Ayn Rand, 1971.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939673</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29940717</id>
	<title>Re:It is funny</title>
	<author>BlackPignouf</author>
	<datestamp>1257078060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, maybe that all of our environmental problems come from the fact that (number of people on earth)*(what we consume on average) is way too high to be sustainable.<br>Do you need more than basic math to understand that infinite growth in a finite world just isn't possible?</p><p>So, yes, we'll have to somehow slow down (i.e. less people or less consumption per capita).<br>Geoengineering might help, but for it to have any significant impact on whatever you're trying to heal will imply that it does have other impacts that might be hard to foresee and could have bad consequences.</p><p>Using less isn't the only good thing for the environment, but it sure helps, everybody can do it, and you don't need scientists to do it.<br>Some technology can help, but no single one can solve all our problems, and they would all work better if we do consume less.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , maybe that all of our environmental problems come from the fact that ( number of people on earth ) * ( what we consume on average ) is way too high to be sustainable.Do you need more than basic math to understand that infinite growth in a finite world just is n't possible ? So , yes , we 'll have to somehow slow down ( i.e .
less people or less consumption per capita ) .Geoengineering might help , but for it to have any significant impact on whatever you 're trying to heal will imply that it does have other impacts that might be hard to foresee and could have bad consequences.Using less is n't the only good thing for the environment , but it sure helps , everybody can do it , and you do n't need scientists to do it.Some technology can help , but no single one can solve all our problems , and they would all work better if we do consume less .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, maybe that all of our environmental problems come from the fact that (number of people on earth)*(what we consume on average) is way too high to be sustainable.Do you need more than basic math to understand that infinite growth in a finite world just isn't possible?So, yes, we'll have to somehow slow down (i.e.
less people or less consumption per capita).Geoengineering might help, but for it to have any significant impact on whatever you're trying to heal will imply that it does have other impacts that might be hard to foresee and could have bad consequences.Using less isn't the only good thing for the environment, but it sure helps, everybody can do it, and you don't need scientists to do it.Some technology can help, but no single one can solve all our problems, and they would all work better if we do consume less.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939673</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29940103</id>
	<title>Re:Global Cooling</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257108120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>let me guess, you just got done reading superfreakanomics?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>let me guess , you just got done reading superfreakanomics ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>let me guess, you just got done reading superfreakanomics?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939437</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939821</id>
	<title>Won't do</title>
	<author>flyingfsck</author>
	<datestamp>1257016800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This won't do.  I guess he is not telling the whole story.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This wo n't do .
I guess he is not telling the whole story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This won't do.
I guess he is not telling the whole story.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29941433</id>
	<title>Insignificant amount of nutrients</title>
	<author>tomhath</author>
	<datestamp>1257088920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A modern diesel tractor burns very little fuel (we're talking <a href="http://www.lesspub.com/cgi-bin/site.pl?332&amp;ceNews\_newsID=4489" title="lesspub.com">many acres/gallon</a> [lesspub.com]), so whatever stays in the soil with this process is not going to replace the hundreds of pounds of fertilizer he was applying before.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A modern diesel tractor burns very little fuel ( we 're talking many acres/gallon [ lesspub.com ] ) , so whatever stays in the soil with this process is not going to replace the hundreds of pounds of fertilizer he was applying before .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A modern diesel tractor burns very little fuel (we're talking many acres/gallon [lesspub.com]), so whatever stays in the soil with this process is not going to replace the hundreds of pounds of fertilizer he was applying before.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939957</id>
	<title>Why again is CO2 a world-ending catastrophe?</title>
	<author>WheelDweller</author>
	<datestamp>1257105660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What is it with you brain-washed greenies? Ya look at me like some kind of oddball because I believe in Jesus Christ; there's a lot of indication.  But then when I point to the fossil record, an indisputable record of the long-term effects planet development, you want to believe in personalities, not science.</p><p>CO2 is both exuded and attracted to 3/4 of the world's surface.</p><p>A good sized volcano's blast and we make mankind's march to lower prices look like a booger in a few minutes.</p><p>Get over yourselves; you're surprisingly smaller than the planet. Everything is recycled. Oil spurts out of the ground that is covered with seawater and SURPRISE! It takes care of it's self.</p><p>You live in a riduclously-complex world, not a cardboard box.  Stop playing peid piper and look at the science.</p><p>How many more times will a worldwide hoax take you off your game?  GlobalCooling(TM), GlobalWarming(TM), AcidRain(TM), OzoneHole(TM), PopulationBomb(TM).</p><p>Can you scientists go back to suggestion-and-proof again?  Can you stop acting like young-Earthers believing in a six-day creation despite truth? And can ya do it quickly? We're freezing our asses off in this "GlobalWarming"!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What is it with you brain-washed greenies ?
Ya look at me like some kind of oddball because I believe in Jesus Christ ; there 's a lot of indication .
But then when I point to the fossil record , an indisputable record of the long-term effects planet development , you want to believe in personalities , not science.CO2 is both exuded and attracted to 3/4 of the world 's surface.A good sized volcano 's blast and we make mankind 's march to lower prices look like a booger in a few minutes.Get over yourselves ; you 're surprisingly smaller than the planet .
Everything is recycled .
Oil spurts out of the ground that is covered with seawater and SURPRISE !
It takes care of it 's self.You live in a riduclously-complex world , not a cardboard box .
Stop playing peid piper and look at the science.How many more times will a worldwide hoax take you off your game ?
GlobalCooling ( TM ) , GlobalWarming ( TM ) , AcidRain ( TM ) , OzoneHole ( TM ) , PopulationBomb ( TM ) .Can you scientists go back to suggestion-and-proof again ?
Can you stop acting like young-Earthers believing in a six-day creation despite truth ?
And can ya do it quickly ?
We 're freezing our asses off in this " GlobalWarming " !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is it with you brain-washed greenies?
Ya look at me like some kind of oddball because I believe in Jesus Christ; there's a lot of indication.
But then when I point to the fossil record, an indisputable record of the long-term effects planet development, you want to believe in personalities, not science.CO2 is both exuded and attracted to 3/4 of the world's surface.A good sized volcano's blast and we make mankind's march to lower prices look like a booger in a few minutes.Get over yourselves; you're surprisingly smaller than the planet.
Everything is recycled.
Oil spurts out of the ground that is covered with seawater and SURPRISE!
It takes care of it's self.You live in a riduclously-complex world, not a cardboard box.
Stop playing peid piper and look at the science.How many more times will a worldwide hoax take you off your game?
GlobalCooling(TM), GlobalWarming(TM), AcidRain(TM), OzoneHole(TM), PopulationBomb(TM).Can you scientists go back to suggestion-and-proof again?
Can you stop acting like young-Earthers believing in a six-day creation despite truth?
And can ya do it quickly?
We're freezing our asses off in this "GlobalWarming"!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29941505</id>
	<title>Hold on... Did you just...</title>
	<author>denzacar</author>
	<datestamp>1257089820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...equalize organic matter (as in the organic matter from plants and animals found in the soil) with organic compounds (as in anything from amino-acids to plastic)?<br>You do know that there is a SIGNIFICANT difference between those two?</p><p>Or do you usually go to your local store to get some ham and cheese and instead you return home with a tractor tire and some axle grease?<br>I mean... Considering that apparently it is the same thing to you.<br>Something coming out of a tractor exhaust - and something coming from an exhaust belonging to a pig or a sheep.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...equalize organic matter ( as in the organic matter from plants and animals found in the soil ) with organic compounds ( as in anything from amino-acids to plastic ) ? You do know that there is a SIGNIFICANT difference between those two ? Or do you usually go to your local store to get some ham and cheese and instead you return home with a tractor tire and some axle grease ? I mean... Considering that apparently it is the same thing to you.Something coming out of a tractor exhaust - and something coming from an exhaust belonging to a pig or a sheep .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...equalize organic matter (as in the organic matter from plants and animals found in the soil) with organic compounds (as in anything from amino-acids to plastic)?You do know that there is a SIGNIFICANT difference between those two?Or do you usually go to your local store to get some ham and cheese and instead you return home with a tractor tire and some axle grease?I mean... Considering that apparently it is the same thing to you.Something coming out of a tractor exhaust - and something coming from an exhaust belonging to a pig or a sheep.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939355</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939347</id>
	<title>Re:Diesel exhaust in your bread?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257009900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Considering this stuff normally goes into the air and can be brought back down by rainfall... it probably is already in your bread.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Considering this stuff normally goes into the air and can be brought back down by rainfall... it probably is already in your bread .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Considering this stuff normally goes into the air and can be brought back down by rainfall... it probably is already in your bread.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939247</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29942488</id>
	<title>Re:It is funny</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257099480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>His original book drew ire from conservative types because it presented a convincing argument that legalized abortion has lead to a reduction in crime, but liberal types were generally ok with it.</p></div><p>His argument was that minorities commit crime and legalized abortion gets rid of more minorities, ergo reducing crime. He was making the eugenics case for abortion. Conservatives do object to eugenics and, though they won't admit it outright, liberals do endorse eugenics as in Pelosi's recent declaration that abortion "cuts costs."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>His original book drew ire from conservative types because it presented a convincing argument that legalized abortion has lead to a reduction in crime , but liberal types were generally ok with it.His argument was that minorities commit crime and legalized abortion gets rid of more minorities , ergo reducing crime .
He was making the eugenics case for abortion .
Conservatives do object to eugenics and , though they wo n't admit it outright , liberals do endorse eugenics as in Pelosi 's recent declaration that abortion " cuts costs .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>His original book drew ire from conservative types because it presented a convincing argument that legalized abortion has lead to a reduction in crime, but liberal types were generally ok with it.His argument was that minorities commit crime and legalized abortion gets rid of more minorities, ergo reducing crime.
He was making the eugenics case for abortion.
Conservatives do object to eugenics and, though they won't admit it outright, liberals do endorse eugenics as in Pelosi's recent declaration that abortion "cuts costs.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939673</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939933</id>
	<title>Re:Global Cooling</title>
	<author>evilviper</author>
	<datestamp>1257018720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>How does avoiding the release of CO2 help prevent global cooling,</p></div></blockquote><p>Okay, I'm game.</p><p>Let's see...  It would prevent haphazard release of CO2 into the atmosphere during periods where it is not needed, and perhaps even destructive, and will be slowly be taken out of the environment by natural processes.  Thus, allowing us the luxury of controlled release of the CO2 when it can be the most beneficial.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How does avoiding the release of CO2 help prevent global cooling,Okay , I 'm game.Let 's see... It would prevent haphazard release of CO2 into the atmosphere during periods where it is not needed , and perhaps even destructive , and will be slowly be taken out of the environment by natural processes .
Thus , allowing us the luxury of controlled release of the CO2 when it can be the most beneficial .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How does avoiding the release of CO2 help prevent global cooling,Okay, I'm game.Let's see...  It would prevent haphazard release of CO2 into the atmosphere during periods where it is not needed, and perhaps even destructive, and will be slowly be taken out of the environment by natural processes.
Thus, allowing us the luxury of controlled release of the CO2 when it can be the most beneficial.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939437</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939979</id>
	<title>Re:Something very wrong here.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257106020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, it's an attempt to get money from the Carbon Emissions Trading Scheme! <a href="http://www.bioagtive.com/?s=1&amp;p=143" title="bioagtive.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.bioagtive.com/?s=1&amp;p=143</a> [bioagtive.com] [bioagtive.com]

I agree with you that this seems to be a load of BS, as:
a) I cannot find a scientific paper on this, or any signs of proper scientific research
b) This quote from Dr. Jill Clapperton on the 'official' website: "It works, and its my job to find out how it works.  We will be able to tell you exactly what's happening in the soil in 3-5 years." <a href="http://www.bioagtive.com/?s=1&amp;p=413&amp;op=153" title="bioagtive.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.bioagtive.com/?s=1&amp;p=413&amp;op=153</a> [bioagtive.com] [bioactive.com] (suspicious much?)
c) The most important component of fertiliser is Nitrogen in the form of ammonium (NH4+) and Nitrate (NO3-). Diesel does not release usable amounts of nitrogen in a form that can be utilised by the plant or the nitrogen-fixing bacteria in the soil.
d) Plants also require Potassium, Phosphorous, Calcium, Magnesium and Sulfur. Diesel does not contain all of these elements. CO2 cannot magically turn into all this!</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , it 's an attempt to get money from the Carbon Emissions Trading Scheme !
http : //www.bioagtive.com/ ? s = 1&amp;p = 143 [ bioagtive.com ] [ bioagtive.com ] I agree with you that this seems to be a load of BS , as : a ) I can not find a scientific paper on this , or any signs of proper scientific research b ) This quote from Dr. Jill Clapperton on the 'official ' website : " It works , and its my job to find out how it works .
We will be able to tell you exactly what 's happening in the soil in 3-5 years .
" http : //www.bioagtive.com/ ? s = 1&amp;p = 413&amp;op = 153 [ bioagtive.com ] [ bioactive.com ] ( suspicious much ?
) c ) The most important component of fertiliser is Nitrogen in the form of ammonium ( NH4 + ) and Nitrate ( NO3- ) .
Diesel does not release usable amounts of nitrogen in a form that can be utilised by the plant or the nitrogen-fixing bacteria in the soil .
d ) Plants also require Potassium , Phosphorous , Calcium , Magnesium and Sulfur .
Diesel does not contain all of these elements .
CO2 can not magically turn into all this !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, it's an attempt to get money from the Carbon Emissions Trading Scheme!
http://www.bioagtive.com/?s=1&amp;p=143 [bioagtive.com] [bioagtive.com]

I agree with you that this seems to be a load of BS, as:
a) I cannot find a scientific paper on this, or any signs of proper scientific research
b) This quote from Dr. Jill Clapperton on the 'official' website: "It works, and its my job to find out how it works.
We will be able to tell you exactly what's happening in the soil in 3-5 years.
" http://www.bioagtive.com/?s=1&amp;p=413&amp;op=153 [bioagtive.com] [bioactive.com] (suspicious much?
)
c) The most important component of fertiliser is Nitrogen in the form of ammonium (NH4+) and Nitrate (NO3-).
Diesel does not release usable amounts of nitrogen in a form that can be utilised by the plant or the nitrogen-fixing bacteria in the soil.
d) Plants also require Potassium, Phosphorous, Calcium, Magnesium and Sulfur.
Diesel does not contain all of these elements.
CO2 cannot magically turn into all this!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939797</id>
	<title>Re:Global Cooling</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257016200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>look how witty and contrarian you are</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>look how witty and contrarian you are</tokentext>
<sentencetext>look how witty and contrarian you are</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939437</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939287</id>
	<title>It can't possibly be enough...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257009300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's ignore for the moment the problem that carbon isn't fertilizer.</p><p>He can't possibly be getting enough exhaust to make a difference. There's just not enough carbon in the tank of Diesel to make a difference when spread across the field in the amounts he burns it during tilling/planting.</p><p>As much as we talk about carbon emissions, the exhaust coming out of his equipment is barely changed from what went in. If pumping in the exhaust from his equipment had a noticeable effect, then pumping in twice as much just plain air (readily available) as that would have a much larger effect and being nearly free would seem rather tempting for all farmers.</p><p>This sounds like bunk.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's ignore for the moment the problem that carbon is n't fertilizer.He ca n't possibly be getting enough exhaust to make a difference .
There 's just not enough carbon in the tank of Diesel to make a difference when spread across the field in the amounts he burns it during tilling/planting.As much as we talk about carbon emissions , the exhaust coming out of his equipment is barely changed from what went in .
If pumping in the exhaust from his equipment had a noticeable effect , then pumping in twice as much just plain air ( readily available ) as that would have a much larger effect and being nearly free would seem rather tempting for all farmers.This sounds like bunk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's ignore for the moment the problem that carbon isn't fertilizer.He can't possibly be getting enough exhaust to make a difference.
There's just not enough carbon in the tank of Diesel to make a difference when spread across the field in the amounts he burns it during tilling/planting.As much as we talk about carbon emissions, the exhaust coming out of his equipment is barely changed from what went in.
If pumping in the exhaust from his equipment had a noticeable effect, then pumping in twice as much just plain air (readily available) as that would have a much larger effect and being nearly free would seem rather tempting for all farmers.This sounds like bunk.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939441</id>
	<title>Re:Diesel exhaust in your bread?</title>
	<author>Vylen</author>
	<datestamp>1257010800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, you shouldn't be eating bread anyway - it kills. <a href="http://monster-island.org/tinashumor/humor/breadkills.html" title="monster-island.org" rel="nofollow">http://monster-island.org/tinashumor/humor/breadkills.html</a> [monster-island.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , you should n't be eating bread anyway - it kills .
http : //monster-island.org/tinashumor/humor/breadkills.html [ monster-island.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, you shouldn't be eating bread anyway - it kills.
http://monster-island.org/tinashumor/humor/breadkills.html [monster-island.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939247</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939419</id>
	<title>Re:See you in Court</title>
	<author>Moridineas</author>
	<datestamp>1257010500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>1) Pollution by releasing unauthorized elements- never mind that larger corporates do it all the time.</p></div><p>Ok, yes, people and businesses can be fined for dumping certain chemicals.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>2) Poisoning the food deliberately- never mind the frequent salmonella outbreaks are because of unsafe corporate practices.</p></div><p>Could you give an example of this?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>3) Conspiracy against State - with a view to reduce tax income from corporates by using alternate stuff - ???</p></div><p>Could you give an example of this?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) Pollution by releasing unauthorized elements- never mind that larger corporates do it all the time.Ok , yes , people and businesses can be fined for dumping certain chemicals.2 ) Poisoning the food deliberately- never mind the frequent salmonella outbreaks are because of unsafe corporate practices.Could you give an example of this ? 3 ) Conspiracy against State - with a view to reduce tax income from corporates by using alternate stuff - ? ?
? Could you give an example of this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) Pollution by releasing unauthorized elements- never mind that larger corporates do it all the time.Ok, yes, people and businesses can be fined for dumping certain chemicals.2) Poisoning the food deliberately- never mind the frequent salmonella outbreaks are because of unsafe corporate practices.Could you give an example of this?3) Conspiracy against State - with a view to reduce tax income from corporates by using alternate stuff - ??
?Could you give an example of this?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939345</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29949630</id>
	<title>Re:Coal fire power plants</title>
	<author>richard.cs</author>
	<datestamp>1257173880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I believe this is already done with tomatoes at a few locations.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe this is already done with tomatoes at a few locations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe this is already done with tomatoes at a few locations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939679</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29953126</id>
	<title>Re:I am amazed at some of the replies.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257191460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I grew up on a farm (10,000 acres of cereal crop), and I don't think I've ever seen a tractor used by a serious farmer that is *not* fueled by diesel.</p><p>Also, I heard of farmers doing this to reduce fertilizer costs when I was growing up, over 20 years ago.  Of course it wasn't big news then because it was the nitrogen we were interested in, not the CO2.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I grew up on a farm ( 10,000 acres of cereal crop ) , and I do n't think I 've ever seen a tractor used by a serious farmer that is * not * fueled by diesel.Also , I heard of farmers doing this to reduce fertilizer costs when I was growing up , over 20 years ago .
Of course it was n't big news then because it was the nitrogen we were interested in , not the CO2 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I grew up on a farm (10,000 acres of cereal crop), and I don't think I've ever seen a tractor used by a serious farmer that is *not* fueled by diesel.Also, I heard of farmers doing this to reduce fertilizer costs when I was growing up, over 20 years ago.
Of course it wasn't big news then because it was the nitrogen we were interested in, not the CO2.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939393</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939431</id>
	<title>Can I get the high sulphur version?</title>
	<author>mirix</author>
	<datestamp>1257010620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I prefer grain that has rotten egg like quality to it.<br> <br>

But really, I can't see there being enough anything in the exhaust to make a big difference. I'm not quite understanding the setup here.<br> <br>

Maybe because diesel+fertilizer = bomb, then <br>
diesel - bomb = fertilizer? <br> hmm, nope, that would be negative fertilizer. I'm out of ideas.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I prefer grain that has rotten egg like quality to it .
But really , I ca n't see there being enough anything in the exhaust to make a big difference .
I 'm not quite understanding the setup here .
Maybe because diesel + fertilizer = bomb , then diesel - bomb = fertilizer ?
hmm , nope , that would be negative fertilizer .
I 'm out of ideas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I prefer grain that has rotten egg like quality to it.
But really, I can't see there being enough anything in the exhaust to make a big difference.
I'm not quite understanding the setup here.
Maybe because diesel+fertilizer = bomb, then 
diesel - bomb = fertilizer?
hmm, nope, that would be negative fertilizer.
I'm out of ideas.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29940169</id>
	<title>Re:It is funny</title>
	<author>azgard</author>
	<datestamp>1257066420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There was a critique of the chapter in Super Freakonomics on realclimate.org:<br><a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/why-levitt-and-dubner-like-geo-engineering-and-why-they-are-wrong/" title="realclimate.org">http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/why-levitt-and-dubner-like-geo-engineering-and-why-they-are-wrong/</a> [realclimate.org]<br><a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/an-open-letter-to-steve-levitt/" title="realclimate.org">http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/an-open-letter-to-steve-levitt/</a> [realclimate.org]<br>I think it's worth reading.</p><p>Anyway, I don't believe any geo-engineering solution will help combat GW, for a simple reason: conservation of energy. Fossil fuels are so important because we can use energy at faster rate than we could obtain it from the sun (their EROI is higher), because it has been accumulating for millions years. So any solution to CO2 reduction different from plain reduction of fossil fuel usage will have to ultimately convert excess CO2 somehow, and this will cost same amount of energy (or more) as it would just use a renewable resource (which there is ultimately only one, the Sun) for energy. Basically, the problem is that the rate at which we consume energy is not sustainable; we will have to match our rate to that of what we can get from the Sun.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There was a critique of the chapter in Super Freakonomics on realclimate.org : http : //www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/why-levitt-and-dubner-like-geo-engineering-and-why-they-are-wrong/ [ realclimate.org ] http : //www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/an-open-letter-to-steve-levitt/ [ realclimate.org ] I think it 's worth reading.Anyway , I do n't believe any geo-engineering solution will help combat GW , for a simple reason : conservation of energy .
Fossil fuels are so important because we can use energy at faster rate than we could obtain it from the sun ( their EROI is higher ) , because it has been accumulating for millions years .
So any solution to CO2 reduction different from plain reduction of fossil fuel usage will have to ultimately convert excess CO2 somehow , and this will cost same amount of energy ( or more ) as it would just use a renewable resource ( which there is ultimately only one , the Sun ) for energy .
Basically , the problem is that the rate at which we consume energy is not sustainable ; we will have to match our rate to that of what we can get from the Sun .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was a critique of the chapter in Super Freakonomics on realclimate.org:http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/why-levitt-and-dubner-like-geo-engineering-and-why-they-are-wrong/ [realclimate.org]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/an-open-letter-to-steve-levitt/ [realclimate.org]I think it's worth reading.Anyway, I don't believe any geo-engineering solution will help combat GW, for a simple reason: conservation of energy.
Fossil fuels are so important because we can use energy at faster rate than we could obtain it from the sun (their EROI is higher), because it has been accumulating for millions years.
So any solution to CO2 reduction different from plain reduction of fossil fuel usage will have to ultimately convert excess CO2 somehow, and this will cost same amount of energy (or more) as it would just use a renewable resource (which there is ultimately only one, the Sun) for energy.
Basically, the problem is that the rate at which we consume energy is not sustainable; we will have to match our rate to that of what we can get from the Sun.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939673</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29942506</id>
	<title>Re:Something very wrong here.</title>
	<author>Khyber</author>
	<datestamp>1257099660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"CO2 is not a fertiliser, so pumping into the ground will not help plant grow. it will infact KILL your plants as a plants root zone requires O2 to breath and take up nutrients."</p><p>This is untrue. In fact it has been found that low atmospheric levels of CO2 will cause plants to start seeking out carbon in the root zone. I've tested this many times myself in my own hydroponics plants. I've purposely sealed them up and starved them of CO2, and found that they just go to extracting carbon from the ground (or reservoir in my case) to make up for the lack of it in the air. The roots even have carbon receptors on the semi-permeable membrane. I tested this by getting pure carbon and getting it suspended in a nutrient solution, then using that solution on plants in sealed chambers. Then I had spectrometry performed on the remaining solution to see the levels of carbon remaining. Most of the carbon in the solute was gone, but a large portion of other essential macronutrients were present.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" CO2 is not a fertiliser , so pumping into the ground will not help plant grow .
it will infact KILL your plants as a plants root zone requires O2 to breath and take up nutrients .
" This is untrue .
In fact it has been found that low atmospheric levels of CO2 will cause plants to start seeking out carbon in the root zone .
I 've tested this many times myself in my own hydroponics plants .
I 've purposely sealed them up and starved them of CO2 , and found that they just go to extracting carbon from the ground ( or reservoir in my case ) to make up for the lack of it in the air .
The roots even have carbon receptors on the semi-permeable membrane .
I tested this by getting pure carbon and getting it suspended in a nutrient solution , then using that solution on plants in sealed chambers .
Then I had spectrometry performed on the remaining solution to see the levels of carbon remaining .
Most of the carbon in the solute was gone , but a large portion of other essential macronutrients were present .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"CO2 is not a fertiliser, so pumping into the ground will not help plant grow.
it will infact KILL your plants as a plants root zone requires O2 to breath and take up nutrients.
"This is untrue.
In fact it has been found that low atmospheric levels of CO2 will cause plants to start seeking out carbon in the root zone.
I've tested this many times myself in my own hydroponics plants.
I've purposely sealed them up and starved them of CO2, and found that they just go to extracting carbon from the ground (or reservoir in my case) to make up for the lack of it in the air.
The roots even have carbon receptors on the semi-permeable membrane.
I tested this by getting pure carbon and getting it suspended in a nutrient solution, then using that solution on plants in sealed chambers.
Then I had spectrometry performed on the remaining solution to see the levels of carbon remaining.
Most of the carbon in the solute was gone, but a large portion of other essential macronutrients were present.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939179</id>
	<title>What</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257007800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not that blowing it into the atmosphere is much better, but doesn't diesel exhaust contain all sorts of nasty toxins? If he's polluting his ground water then in a few years he'll have more to worry about than his dying crops..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not that blowing it into the atmosphere is much better , but does n't diesel exhaust contain all sorts of nasty toxins ?
If he 's polluting his ground water then in a few years he 'll have more to worry about than his dying crops. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not that blowing it into the atmosphere is much better, but doesn't diesel exhaust contain all sorts of nasty toxins?
If he's polluting his ground water then in a few years he'll have more to worry about than his dying crops..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939379</id>
	<title>Re:Questions</title>
	<author>jamstar7</author>
	<datestamp>1257010140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>As has been written in here several times, lotta nitrate compounds in diesel exhaust, even more so than gasoline motor exhaust due to the much higher compression ratios that diesel engines require to run on.  Plants need CO2, but they also need nitrates and nitrides in order to grow.  As far as carbon compounds in the exhaust, I dunno if they escape the soil (being gaseous) or get bound up to become part of the plants immediately or what.  I would have loved to see a more technical article than TFA, that's for sure.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As has been written in here several times , lotta nitrate compounds in diesel exhaust , even more so than gasoline motor exhaust due to the much higher compression ratios that diesel engines require to run on .
Plants need CO2 , but they also need nitrates and nitrides in order to grow .
As far as carbon compounds in the exhaust , I dunno if they escape the soil ( being gaseous ) or get bound up to become part of the plants immediately or what .
I would have loved to see a more technical article than TFA , that 's for sure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As has been written in here several times, lotta nitrate compounds in diesel exhaust, even more so than gasoline motor exhaust due to the much higher compression ratios that diesel engines require to run on.
Plants need CO2, but they also need nitrates and nitrides in order to grow.
As far as carbon compounds in the exhaust, I dunno if they escape the soil (being gaseous) or get bound up to become part of the plants immediately or what.
I would have loved to see a more technical article than TFA, that's for sure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939215</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29940897</id>
	<title>In Soviet Russia...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257081660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... we plough Uranium into our fields.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... we plough Uranium into our fields .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... we plough Uranium into our fields.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939557</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939355</id>
	<title>Re:Diesel exhaust in your bread?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257009960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's nothing! NOTHING! Have you even seen what's in pig, chicken, cow, and sheep manure? And they actually use that stuff to grow food. I mean it's the feces of animals, and they're dumping it on our food to make it grow. But somehow the food is okay and safe to eat. Maybe there's something about plants that allows them to thrive on things that are poisonous to us, but allows them to produce fruits and vegetables that are also edible to us.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's nothing !
NOTHING ! Have you even seen what 's in pig , chicken , cow , and sheep manure ?
And they actually use that stuff to grow food .
I mean it 's the feces of animals , and they 're dumping it on our food to make it grow .
But somehow the food is okay and safe to eat .
Maybe there 's something about plants that allows them to thrive on things that are poisonous to us , but allows them to produce fruits and vegetables that are also edible to us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's nothing!
NOTHING! Have you even seen what's in pig, chicken, cow, and sheep manure?
And they actually use that stuff to grow food.
I mean it's the feces of animals, and they're dumping it on our food to make it grow.
But somehow the food is okay and safe to eat.
Maybe there's something about plants that allows them to thrive on things that are poisonous to us, but allows them to produce fruits and vegetables that are also edible to us.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939247</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29940515</id>
	<title>Re:Questions</title>
	<author>ctid</author>
	<datestamp>1257073800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Diesel exhaust is not carbon and oxygen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Diesel exhaust is not carbon and oxygen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Diesel exhaust is not carbon and oxygen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939215</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29940293</id>
	<title>I don't buy it</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1257068820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>As has been mentioned here before, the point of fertilizer is to provide nitrogen, and to a lesser extent, phosphorus and sulfur, not carbon. So how is diesel exhaust providing those elements in sufficient quantity? It's worth noting that this farmer has only been doing it for two years. That's far too short to make the sort of claims he's making.<br> <br>

Doing the math, he's claiming that he saves on about 400 tons of fertilizer for a 3900 hectare farm by pumping roughly 4,000 tons of diesel exhaust into the soil. At a glance, most of this is water, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide. There's a little bit of nitrogen oxides and sulfur. But I don't see the advantage. I'm wondering, if he's getting some nitrogen and other elements from the death of necessary fauna in his soil. That is, he might be getting a couple of good years of crops by killing off most of his earthworms, nematodes, and other animals in the soil who would be poisoned by excess CO2 and CO levels.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As has been mentioned here before , the point of fertilizer is to provide nitrogen , and to a lesser extent , phosphorus and sulfur , not carbon .
So how is diesel exhaust providing those elements in sufficient quantity ?
It 's worth noting that this farmer has only been doing it for two years .
That 's far too short to make the sort of claims he 's making .
Doing the math , he 's claiming that he saves on about 400 tons of fertilizer for a 3900 hectare farm by pumping roughly 4,000 tons of diesel exhaust into the soil .
At a glance , most of this is water , carbon dioxide , and carbon monoxide .
There 's a little bit of nitrogen oxides and sulfur .
But I do n't see the advantage .
I 'm wondering , if he 's getting some nitrogen and other elements from the death of necessary fauna in his soil .
That is , he might be getting a couple of good years of crops by killing off most of his earthworms , nematodes , and other animals in the soil who would be poisoned by excess CO2 and CO levels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As has been mentioned here before, the point of fertilizer is to provide nitrogen, and to a lesser extent, phosphorus and sulfur, not carbon.
So how is diesel exhaust providing those elements in sufficient quantity?
It's worth noting that this farmer has only been doing it for two years.
That's far too short to make the sort of claims he's making.
Doing the math, he's claiming that he saves on about 400 tons of fertilizer for a 3900 hectare farm by pumping roughly 4,000 tons of diesel exhaust into the soil.
At a glance, most of this is water, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide.
There's a little bit of nitrogen oxides and sulfur.
But I don't see the advantage.
I'm wondering, if he's getting some nitrogen and other elements from the death of necessary fauna in his soil.
That is, he might be getting a couple of good years of crops by killing off most of his earthworms, nematodes, and other animals in the soil who would be poisoned by excess CO2 and CO levels.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29942784</id>
	<title>Awesome!</title>
	<author>An Onerous Coward</author>
	<datestamp>1257102840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If true, the farmer is saving a lot of money, a lot of fossil-fuels (in the form of fertilizer), and temporarily sequestering carbon that would have gone into the atmosphere.  I hope this proves successful, and becomes wildly popular.</p><p>Two possible responses:</p><p>1) This proves that the market can respond to the global warming crisis just fine, and we therefore don't need government intervention.</p><p>2) This proves that, with proper incentives, amazing solutions can be found for our carbon problem, and we therefore should expect that CO2 mitigation will be far cheaper than the economic doomsayers claim.</p><p>I think they're both partly right.  The biggest problem with response 1 is that without government intervention, the market will remain forever 'carbon blind', externalizing the costs of pollution.  The only mitigation strategies that will ever be pursued are the ones that also pad the bottom line.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If true , the farmer is saving a lot of money , a lot of fossil-fuels ( in the form of fertilizer ) , and temporarily sequestering carbon that would have gone into the atmosphere .
I hope this proves successful , and becomes wildly popular.Two possible responses : 1 ) This proves that the market can respond to the global warming crisis just fine , and we therefore do n't need government intervention.2 ) This proves that , with proper incentives , amazing solutions can be found for our carbon problem , and we therefore should expect that CO2 mitigation will be far cheaper than the economic doomsayers claim.I think they 're both partly right .
The biggest problem with response 1 is that without government intervention , the market will remain forever 'carbon blind ' , externalizing the costs of pollution .
The only mitigation strategies that will ever be pursued are the ones that also pad the bottom line .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If true, the farmer is saving a lot of money, a lot of fossil-fuels (in the form of fertilizer), and temporarily sequestering carbon that would have gone into the atmosphere.
I hope this proves successful, and becomes wildly popular.Two possible responses:1) This proves that the market can respond to the global warming crisis just fine, and we therefore don't need government intervention.2) This proves that, with proper incentives, amazing solutions can be found for our carbon problem, and we therefore should expect that CO2 mitigation will be far cheaper than the economic doomsayers claim.I think they're both partly right.
The biggest problem with response 1 is that without government intervention, the market will remain forever 'carbon blind', externalizing the costs of pollution.
The only mitigation strategies that will ever be pursued are the ones that also pad the bottom line.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939345</id>
	<title>See you in Court</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257009840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If this is not an Onion story, then the farmer better be prepared for some serious court expenses.<br>He would be sued by the Farm Industry and its associated EPA:<br>1) Pollution by releasing unauthorized elements- never mind that larger corporates do it all the time.<br>2) Poisoning the food deliberately- never mind the frequent salmonella outbreaks are because of unsafe corporate practices.<br>3) Conspiracy against State - with a view to reduce tax income from corporates by using alternate stuff - ???</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If this is not an Onion story , then the farmer better be prepared for some serious court expenses.He would be sued by the Farm Industry and its associated EPA : 1 ) Pollution by releasing unauthorized elements- never mind that larger corporates do it all the time.2 ) Poisoning the food deliberately- never mind the frequent salmonella outbreaks are because of unsafe corporate practices.3 ) Conspiracy against State - with a view to reduce tax income from corporates by using alternate stuff - ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this is not an Onion story, then the farmer better be prepared for some serious court expenses.He would be sued by the Farm Industry and its associated EPA:1) Pollution by releasing unauthorized elements- never mind that larger corporates do it all the time.2) Poisoning the food deliberately- never mind the frequent salmonella outbreaks are because of unsafe corporate practices.3) Conspiracy against State - with a view to reduce tax income from corporates by using alternate stuff - ??
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29942426</id>
	<title>Re:Diesel exhaust in your bread?</title>
	<author>Khyber</author>
	<datestamp>1257098820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ah, another that either never had a horticultural science class or didn't pay attention to high school biology.</p><p>Learn about semi-permeable membranes in the root systems, learn about suberification, learn about ion transport.</p><p>*points down to signature*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah , another that either never had a horticultural science class or did n't pay attention to high school biology.Learn about semi-permeable membranes in the root systems , learn about suberification , learn about ion transport .
* points down to signature *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah, another that either never had a horticultural science class or didn't pay attention to high school biology.Learn about semi-permeable membranes in the root systems, learn about suberification, learn about ion transport.
*points down to signature*</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939247</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939795</id>
	<title>Re:Typical</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257016140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So few facts, so many opinions.</p></div><p>Wrong!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So few facts , so many opinions.Wrong !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So few facts, so many opinions.Wrong!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939261</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939673</id>
	<title>It is funny</title>
	<author>Sycraft-fu</author>
	<datestamp>1257013740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seems to be these days that there are a lot of people that can't possibly believe there are any ecological solutions that don't involve the massive reduction in human emissions. When the talk is about global warming and reducing carbon output, they are on board and scream "You aren't a scientist, you have to listen to the scientists!" to anyone who questions it. However, when scientists have any other solution, one that DOESN'T involve an emission reduction, they get pissed off, and denounce those scientists. Suddenly they are experts in all the reasons that must be wrong.</p><p>A good example of this is what has happened with the new book Super Freakonomics. Levitt does the same thing he does in the original Freakonomics of stripping away morality from various issues and applying economics. His original book drew ire from conservative types because it presented a convincing argument that legalized abortion has lead to a reduction in crime, but liberal types were generally ok with it.</p><p>Well, now he's become someone high up on the enemies list because in Super Freakonomics he analyzes the economics of combating global arming through geoengineering methods, rather than reducing emissions. Note that he doesn't say it isn't real or isn't a problem, just looks at different solutions as being more economically feasible. Yet that has drawn massive ire from the environmentalist types.</p><p>It just seems to be an article of faith these days that the only thing good for the environment is to use less. Any solutions that involves anything else is shouted down. This being the same sort of thing. People point to science as the ultimate bastion of truth... so long as what it shows agrees with their world view. Any time something contrary comes out, all of a sudden they are the experts instead of the scientists.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems to be these days that there are a lot of people that ca n't possibly believe there are any ecological solutions that do n't involve the massive reduction in human emissions .
When the talk is about global warming and reducing carbon output , they are on board and scream " You are n't a scientist , you have to listen to the scientists !
" to anyone who questions it .
However , when scientists have any other solution , one that DOES N'T involve an emission reduction , they get pissed off , and denounce those scientists .
Suddenly they are experts in all the reasons that must be wrong.A good example of this is what has happened with the new book Super Freakonomics .
Levitt does the same thing he does in the original Freakonomics of stripping away morality from various issues and applying economics .
His original book drew ire from conservative types because it presented a convincing argument that legalized abortion has lead to a reduction in crime , but liberal types were generally ok with it.Well , now he 's become someone high up on the enemies list because in Super Freakonomics he analyzes the economics of combating global arming through geoengineering methods , rather than reducing emissions .
Note that he does n't say it is n't real or is n't a problem , just looks at different solutions as being more economically feasible .
Yet that has drawn massive ire from the environmentalist types.It just seems to be an article of faith these days that the only thing good for the environment is to use less .
Any solutions that involves anything else is shouted down .
This being the same sort of thing .
People point to science as the ultimate bastion of truth... so long as what it shows agrees with their world view .
Any time something contrary comes out , all of a sudden they are the experts instead of the scientists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems to be these days that there are a lot of people that can't possibly believe there are any ecological solutions that don't involve the massive reduction in human emissions.
When the talk is about global warming and reducing carbon output, they are on board and scream "You aren't a scientist, you have to listen to the scientists!
" to anyone who questions it.
However, when scientists have any other solution, one that DOESN'T involve an emission reduction, they get pissed off, and denounce those scientists.
Suddenly they are experts in all the reasons that must be wrong.A good example of this is what has happened with the new book Super Freakonomics.
Levitt does the same thing he does in the original Freakonomics of stripping away morality from various issues and applying economics.
His original book drew ire from conservative types because it presented a convincing argument that legalized abortion has lead to a reduction in crime, but liberal types were generally ok with it.Well, now he's become someone high up on the enemies list because in Super Freakonomics he analyzes the economics of combating global arming through geoengineering methods, rather than reducing emissions.
Note that he doesn't say it isn't real or isn't a problem, just looks at different solutions as being more economically feasible.
Yet that has drawn massive ire from the environmentalist types.It just seems to be an article of faith these days that the only thing good for the environment is to use less.
Any solutions that involves anything else is shouted down.
This being the same sort of thing.
People point to science as the ultimate bastion of truth... so long as what it shows agrees with their world view.
Any time something contrary comes out, all of a sudden they are the experts instead of the scientists.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939207</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29950686</id>
	<title>A ton of fuel per hectare?</title>
	<author>ResidentSourcerer</author>
	<datestamp>1257180000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Was that a mis-print  4000 tons of diesel for 3900 hectares?</p><p>Let's see:</p><p>My Deutz has a 20 gallon tank.  Working hard, I can use<br>that tank in a day.  Call it 2.5 gallons per hour.<br>If it was water, that would be 20 lbs.</p><p>Ploughing with a 3 bottom plough does a strip about 4 feet<br>wide.  Moves about 2 mph so that's 12 square feet per second.<br>That's about 43,000 square feet per hour or just under an acre.  2.5 acres per hectare.  So it would be about 50 lbs<br>of fuel per hectare.</p><p>The fertilizer numbers are about right.  100 lbs of fertilizer<br>per acre works out to 500 tons for 4000 hectares.</p><p>Keep in mind that 3900 hectares is 15 square miles.  Not<br>your average homestead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Was that a mis-print 4000 tons of diesel for 3900 hectares ? Let 's see : My Deutz has a 20 gallon tank .
Working hard , I can usethat tank in a day .
Call it 2.5 gallons per hour.If it was water , that would be 20 lbs.Ploughing with a 3 bottom plough does a strip about 4 feetwide .
Moves about 2 mph so that 's 12 square feet per second.That 's about 43,000 square feet per hour or just under an acre .
2.5 acres per hectare .
So it would be about 50 lbsof fuel per hectare.The fertilizer numbers are about right .
100 lbs of fertilizerper acre works out to 500 tons for 4000 hectares.Keep in mind that 3900 hectares is 15 square miles .
Notyour average homestead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Was that a mis-print  4000 tons of diesel for 3900 hectares?Let's see:My Deutz has a 20 gallon tank.
Working hard, I can usethat tank in a day.
Call it 2.5 gallons per hour.If it was water, that would be 20 lbs.Ploughing with a 3 bottom plough does a strip about 4 feetwide.
Moves about 2 mph so that's 12 square feet per second.That's about 43,000 square feet per hour or just under an acre.
2.5 acres per hectare.
So it would be about 50 lbsof fuel per hectare.The fertilizer numbers are about right.
100 lbs of fertilizerper acre works out to 500 tons for 4000 hectares.Keep in mind that 3900 hectares is 15 square miles.
Notyour average homestead.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29940293</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29945782</id>
	<title>Re:BS</title>
	<author>dcam</author>
	<datestamp>1257082260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually only a small proportion would be that. There generally aren't all that many bulls on a farm. A larger proportion would be steer shit and cow shit.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/niggle</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually only a small proportion would be that .
There generally are n't all that many bulls on a farm .
A larger proportion would be steer shit and cow shit .
/niggle</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually only a small proportion would be that.
There generally aren't all that many bulls on a farm.
A larger proportion would be steer shit and cow shit.
/niggle</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939667</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939207</id>
	<title>Resident expert</title>
	<author>ZackSchil</author>
	<datestamp>1257008160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Having absolutely no experience with any farming techniques, any real knowledge of the chemical composition of cooled diesel exhaust or even having read the article, I still somehow feel confident enough to give a vague denouncement of this farming technique.</p><p>AHEM.</p><p>This will never work because the gas will escape/it will poison the ground/I am so much smarter than whoever came up with this.</p><p>Thank you, thank you. Love ya Slashdot. Never change.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Having absolutely no experience with any farming techniques , any real knowledge of the chemical composition of cooled diesel exhaust or even having read the article , I still somehow feel confident enough to give a vague denouncement of this farming technique.AHEM.This will never work because the gas will escape/it will poison the ground/I am so much smarter than whoever came up with this.Thank you , thank you .
Love ya Slashdot .
Never change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having absolutely no experience with any farming techniques, any real knowledge of the chemical composition of cooled diesel exhaust or even having read the article, I still somehow feel confident enough to give a vague denouncement of this farming technique.AHEM.This will never work because the gas will escape/it will poison the ground/I am so much smarter than whoever came up with this.Thank you, thank you.
Love ya Slashdot.
Never change.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29947148</id>
	<title>Re:It is funny</title>
	<author>riverat1</author>
	<datestamp>1257095160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One little thing that a lot of people don't realize is that when temperatures and percentage changes in energy are combined you need to measure from absolute zero.  The average temperature on the surface of the earth is about 58F (14.44C) which is about 288K or 518R (the Rankine scale uses Fahrenheit degrees).  So in your example using an increase 0.01\% in energy 100 degrees F would become 100.0518 degrees F.  That means if CO2 causes a 1\% increase in total energy you're talking about a temperature increase of 5.18F.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One little thing that a lot of people do n't realize is that when temperatures and percentage changes in energy are combined you need to measure from absolute zero .
The average temperature on the surface of the earth is about 58F ( 14.44C ) which is about 288K or 518R ( the Rankine scale uses Fahrenheit degrees ) .
So in your example using an increase 0.01 \ % in energy 100 degrees F would become 100.0518 degrees F. That means if CO2 causes a 1 \ % increase in total energy you 're talking about a temperature increase of 5.18F .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One little thing that a lot of people don't realize is that when temperatures and percentage changes in energy are combined you need to measure from absolute zero.
The average temperature on the surface of the earth is about 58F (14.44C) which is about 288K or 518R (the Rankine scale uses Fahrenheit degrees).
So in your example using an increase 0.01\% in energy 100 degrees F would become 100.0518 degrees F.  That means if CO2 causes a 1\% increase in total energy you're talking about a temperature increase of 5.18F.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29941041</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29941539</id>
	<title>Totally ridiculous story</title>
	<author>Ancient\_Hacker</author>
	<datestamp>1257090120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Totally ridiculous.</p><p>If his$500 of Diesel exhaust had $500,000 of fertilizer in it, there would be dozens of companies making "Rudolph"-brand fertilizer using the same method, for like the last 100 years.</p><p>Crops need nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium, and a few other trace elements.  Almost none of those in Diesel exhaust.</p><p>.  They don't get carbon from the ground.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Totally ridiculous.If his $ 500 of Diesel exhaust had $ 500,000 of fertilizer in it , there would be dozens of companies making " Rudolph " -brand fertilizer using the same method , for like the last 100 years.Crops need nitrogen , phosphorous , potassium , and a few other trace elements .
Almost none of those in Diesel exhaust.. They do n't get carbon from the ground .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Totally ridiculous.If his$500 of Diesel exhaust had $500,000 of fertilizer in it, there would be dozens of companies making "Rudolph"-brand fertilizer using the same method, for like the last 100 years.Crops need nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium, and a few other trace elements.
Almost none of those in Diesel exhaust..  They don't get carbon from the ground.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29943086</id>
	<title>Does it really trap CO2 in the soil?</title>
	<author>gwait</author>
	<datestamp>1257105240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article is a little light on details, but makes claims that this method accomplishes carbon sequestering.<br>I can see how any soot (unburned carbon and friends) would stick to the soil but I'm a little skeptical that C02 itself would be trapped.</p><p>Perhaps microscopic plants in the soil manage to capture the C02 before it makes it's way back out to the atmosphere?</p><p>Anyone know what is the percentage by volume is C02 versus nitrogen gas?</p><p>Interesting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article is a little light on details , but makes claims that this method accomplishes carbon sequestering.I can see how any soot ( unburned carbon and friends ) would stick to the soil but I 'm a little skeptical that C02 itself would be trapped.Perhaps microscopic plants in the soil manage to capture the C02 before it makes it 's way back out to the atmosphere ? Anyone know what is the percentage by volume is C02 versus nitrogen gas ? Interesting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article is a little light on details, but makes claims that this method accomplishes carbon sequestering.I can see how any soot (unburned carbon and friends) would stick to the soil but I'm a little skeptical that C02 itself would be trapped.Perhaps microscopic plants in the soil manage to capture the C02 before it makes it's way back out to the atmosphere?Anyone know what is the percentage by volume is C02 versus nitrogen gas?Interesting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29943726</id>
	<title>Skeptical...</title>
	<author>Kartoffel</author>
	<datestamp>1257066600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I tried fertilizing my garden with used motor oil, but was unable to duplicate the results cited in TFA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I tried fertilizing my garden with used motor oil , but was unable to duplicate the results cited in TFA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I tried fertilizing my garden with used motor oil, but was unable to duplicate the results cited in TFA.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29940059</id>
	<title>Re:It is funny</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257107400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I saw him being interviewed about that chapter in his book. He doesn't present it as a total solution per se, but something that buys us time while working on reducing the excess CO2 ending up in the environment.</p><p>Also, the is different depending on what problem you are talking about; climate change or elevated CO2 levels.<br>If you are talking about elevated C02, there are two legitimate approaches: reducing emissions or just taking more CO2 out of the environment.<br>When talking about climate change, I am not sure how much -if any- detrimental impact elevated CO2 levels without temperature increases have. They might have to be addressed anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I saw him being interviewed about that chapter in his book .
He does n't present it as a total solution per se , but something that buys us time while working on reducing the excess CO2 ending up in the environment.Also , the is different depending on what problem you are talking about ; climate change or elevated CO2 levels.If you are talking about elevated C02 , there are two legitimate approaches : reducing emissions or just taking more CO2 out of the environment.When talking about climate change , I am not sure how much -if any- detrimental impact elevated CO2 levels without temperature increases have .
They might have to be addressed anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I saw him being interviewed about that chapter in his book.
He doesn't present it as a total solution per se, but something that buys us time while working on reducing the excess CO2 ending up in the environment.Also, the is different depending on what problem you are talking about; climate change or elevated CO2 levels.If you are talking about elevated C02, there are two legitimate approaches: reducing emissions or just taking more CO2 out of the environment.When talking about climate change, I am not sure how much -if any- detrimental impact elevated CO2 levels without temperature increases have.
They might have to be addressed anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939673</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29942700</id>
	<title>Re:It is funny</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257101700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Basically, the problem is that the rate at which we consume energy is not sustainable; we will have to match our rate to that of what we can get from the Sun.</p></div><p>More energy from the sun hits the earth in one hour than humans consume in an entire year.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Basically , the problem is that the rate at which we consume energy is not sustainable ; we will have to match our rate to that of what we can get from the Sun.More energy from the sun hits the earth in one hour than humans consume in an entire year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Basically, the problem is that the rate at which we consume energy is not sustainable; we will have to match our rate to that of what we can get from the Sun.More energy from the sun hits the earth in one hour than humans consume in an entire year.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29940169</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939809</id>
	<title>Re:What a bunch of Bullshit</title>
	<author>nas</author>
	<datestamp>1257016500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know which part of Canada you farm in but we probably spend more than that figure. It comes out to 52 $/acre. Using some spring 2009 prices: 60 lbs/acre of N, 25 lbs of P2O5, and 9 lbs of K comes to about 59 $/acre.</p><p>If that exhaust system worked it would be nice. Unfortunately there are no studies that show that it does. Probably the manufacturers are making out okay at $40,000 per system. Hmm.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know which part of Canada you farm in but we probably spend more than that figure .
It comes out to 52 $ /acre .
Using some spring 2009 prices : 60 lbs/acre of N , 25 lbs of P2O5 , and 9 lbs of K comes to about 59 $ /acre.If that exhaust system worked it would be nice .
Unfortunately there are no studies that show that it does .
Probably the manufacturers are making out okay at $ 40,000 per system .
Hmm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know which part of Canada you farm in but we probably spend more than that figure.
It comes out to 52 $/acre.
Using some spring 2009 prices: 60 lbs/acre of N, 25 lbs of P2O5, and 9 lbs of K comes to about 59 $/acre.If that exhaust system worked it would be nice.
Unfortunately there are no studies that show that it does.
Probably the manufacturers are making out okay at $40,000 per system.
Hmm.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939387</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939321</id>
	<title>Re:Diesel exhaust in your bread?</title>
	<author>thesupraman</author>
	<datestamp>1257009660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And even ignoring that, you fertilise mainly to add NITROGEN (compounds, bio available..), not carbon which plants quite happily get from the air ANYWAY.</p><p>In other words, the whole thing is pure BS, and very very slighly bad for the crops, and there are many many rather nasty chemicals in diesel exhaust.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And even ignoring that , you fertilise mainly to add NITROGEN ( compounds , bio available.. ) , not carbon which plants quite happily get from the air ANYWAY.In other words , the whole thing is pure BS , and very very slighly bad for the crops , and there are many many rather nasty chemicals in diesel exhaust .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And even ignoring that, you fertilise mainly to add NITROGEN (compounds, bio available..), not carbon which plants quite happily get from the air ANYWAY.In other words, the whole thing is pure BS, and very very slighly bad for the crops, and there are many many rather nasty chemicals in diesel exhaust.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939247</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939393</id>
	<title>I am amazed at some of the replies.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257010320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>First, Diesel COMES from degraded bio matter. So, what is in there? MOSTLY, the same stuff. That means that is contains the same micro elements. As other have pointed out, NOx are being generated and it would appear that these are also being injected. As to the nasty stuff, ALL of those will ALWAYS be generated in a diesel system. AND just about ALL will SINK TO THE GROUND. So wether you inject it into the soil, OR you lay it on the top, it is the same. The question is, is it a small amount? If it is, then not a big deal. And it would appear to be the case.
<br> <br>This approach makes good sense ASSUMING that you are using a diesel tractor. I am guessing that this will be the norm in another 5 years.</htmltext>
<tokenext>First , Diesel COMES from degraded bio matter .
So , what is in there ?
MOSTLY , the same stuff .
That means that is contains the same micro elements .
As other have pointed out , NOx are being generated and it would appear that these are also being injected .
As to the nasty stuff , ALL of those will ALWAYS be generated in a diesel system .
AND just about ALL will SINK TO THE GROUND .
So wether you inject it into the soil , OR you lay it on the top , it is the same .
The question is , is it a small amount ?
If it is , then not a big deal .
And it would appear to be the case .
This approach makes good sense ASSUMING that you are using a diesel tractor .
I am guessing that this will be the norm in another 5 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, Diesel COMES from degraded bio matter.
So, what is in there?
MOSTLY, the same stuff.
That means that is contains the same micro elements.
As other have pointed out, NOx are being generated and it would appear that these are also being injected.
As to the nasty stuff, ALL of those will ALWAYS be generated in a diesel system.
AND just about ALL will SINK TO THE GROUND.
So wether you inject it into the soil, OR you lay it on the top, it is the same.
The question is, is it a small amount?
If it is, then not a big deal.
And it would appear to be the case.
This approach makes good sense ASSUMING that you are using a diesel tractor.
I am guessing that this will be the norm in another 5 years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939659</id>
	<title>Something very wrong here.</title>
	<author>timmarhy</author>
	<datestamp>1257013560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>CO2 is not a fertiliser, so pumping into the ground will not help plant grow. it will infact KILL your plants as a plants root zone requires O2 to breath and take up nutrients. increasing CO2 is a trick green house growers use, but that's in the air where the leafy matter processes it.<p>
The second problem with this FTA, it that fertiliser does not cost $1200 a tonne.</p><p>
unless TFA is grossly wrong, this sounds a lot like the "magnetic water" bullshit sold to people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>CO2 is not a fertiliser , so pumping into the ground will not help plant grow .
it will infact KILL your plants as a plants root zone requires O2 to breath and take up nutrients .
increasing CO2 is a trick green house growers use , but that 's in the air where the leafy matter processes it .
The second problem with this FTA , it that fertiliser does not cost $ 1200 a tonne .
unless TFA is grossly wrong , this sounds a lot like the " magnetic water " bullshit sold to people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CO2 is not a fertiliser, so pumping into the ground will not help plant grow.
it will infact KILL your plants as a plants root zone requires O2 to breath and take up nutrients.
increasing CO2 is a trick green house growers use, but that's in the air where the leafy matter processes it.
The second problem with this FTA, it that fertiliser does not cost $1200 a tonne.
unless TFA is grossly wrong, this sounds a lot like the "magnetic water" bullshit sold to people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29941547</id>
	<title>My cousins tried this last year</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257090240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My cousins had some neighbours who had spent a lot of money on this and were going one about how good it was, so they decided to give it a try.  However, they decided to just do a couple of strips in the middle of an ordinary crop for a side-by-side comparison.  We went out and had a look.  The strips strips weren't hard to find.  The crop was quite sparse there and only about half the hight of the stuff around them.</p><p>Ideas are good, but if you don't put them to an at least semi-rigorous test, you're just throwing darts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My cousins had some neighbours who had spent a lot of money on this and were going one about how good it was , so they decided to give it a try .
However , they decided to just do a couple of strips in the middle of an ordinary crop for a side-by-side comparison .
We went out and had a look .
The strips strips were n't hard to find .
The crop was quite sparse there and only about half the hight of the stuff around them.Ideas are good , but if you do n't put them to an at least semi-rigorous test , you 're just throwing darts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My cousins had some neighbours who had spent a lot of money on this and were going one about how good it was, so they decided to give it a try.
However, they decided to just do a couple of strips in the middle of an ordinary crop for a side-by-side comparison.
We went out and had a look.
The strips strips weren't hard to find.
The crop was quite sparse there and only about half the hight of the stuff around them.Ideas are good, but if you don't put them to an at least semi-rigorous test, you're just throwing darts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29940989</id>
	<title>Summary of this discussion:</title>
	<author>RichiH</author>
	<datestamp>1257083400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Having no experience whatsoever in any of the relevant fields, I can positively state that this will not work because I am a lot smarter than all the people who were involved in this and invested their time, grants and own money.</p><p>I am cow, hear me moo; I am<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. and lots smarter than you!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Having no experience whatsoever in any of the relevant fields , I can positively state that this will not work because I am a lot smarter than all the people who were involved in this and invested their time , grants and own money.I am cow , hear me moo ; I am / .
and lots smarter than you !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having no experience whatsoever in any of the relevant fields, I can positively state that this will not work because I am a lot smarter than all the people who were involved in this and invested their time, grants and own money.I am cow, hear me moo; I am /.
and lots smarter than you!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29940199</id>
	<title>Re:with millions of dollars at stake im sure....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257066960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>if leaded gas were still legal (and it is in many countries), this would basically be pumping lead into your food.</p></div><p>Except, of course, those engines run on diesel fuel, not gasoline.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>if leaded gas were still legal ( and it is in many countries ) , this would basically be pumping lead into your food.Except , of course , those engines run on diesel fuel , not gasoline .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if leaded gas were still legal (and it is in many countries), this would basically be pumping lead into your food.Except, of course, those engines run on diesel fuel, not gasoline.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939593</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29947124</id>
	<title>Conservation of energy</title>
	<author>AlpineR</author>
	<datestamp>1257094920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm having a hard time following your logic. You seem to be saying that CO2 reduction is a wasted effort, because we'd spend at least as much energy converting CO2 to benign forms as we did from burning the fossil fuel in the first place.</p><p>But conservation of energy only holds in closed systems. My house is not a closed system, my car is not a closed system, and my body is not a closed system.</p><p>I could burn a log of wood, let the CO2 float up into the atmosphere, and in 10,000 years it might be absorbed by a growing tree in a peat bog. In the meantime, it'll warm the atmosphere a smidgen.</p><p>Or I could burn a log of wood, bubble the CO2 through an algae pond, and let them confine it to a bed of gunk at the bottom. Sure they need energy for that process, but they can use solar energy that I don't have the technology to use myself. So I personally could still come out ahead on the energy balance and simultaneously avert the atmospheric warming.</p><p>Or I could put the CO2 in a balloon and leave it as a problem for later. Maybe my great^N grandchildren could pop the balloon when the next ice age hits.</p><p>Of course burning diesel and then using the energy of combustion to synthesize diesel from the exhaust would be a waste of effort. But burning diesel and putting the exhaust in a place or a form that hurts me less needn't be a net loss of energy for me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm having a hard time following your logic .
You seem to be saying that CO2 reduction is a wasted effort , because we 'd spend at least as much energy converting CO2 to benign forms as we did from burning the fossil fuel in the first place.But conservation of energy only holds in closed systems .
My house is not a closed system , my car is not a closed system , and my body is not a closed system.I could burn a log of wood , let the CO2 float up into the atmosphere , and in 10,000 years it might be absorbed by a growing tree in a peat bog .
In the meantime , it 'll warm the atmosphere a smidgen.Or I could burn a log of wood , bubble the CO2 through an algae pond , and let them confine it to a bed of gunk at the bottom .
Sure they need energy for that process , but they can use solar energy that I do n't have the technology to use myself .
So I personally could still come out ahead on the energy balance and simultaneously avert the atmospheric warming.Or I could put the CO2 in a balloon and leave it as a problem for later .
Maybe my great ^ N grandchildren could pop the balloon when the next ice age hits.Of course burning diesel and then using the energy of combustion to synthesize diesel from the exhaust would be a waste of effort .
But burning diesel and putting the exhaust in a place or a form that hurts me less need n't be a net loss of energy for me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm having a hard time following your logic.
You seem to be saying that CO2 reduction is a wasted effort, because we'd spend at least as much energy converting CO2 to benign forms as we did from burning the fossil fuel in the first place.But conservation of energy only holds in closed systems.
My house is not a closed system, my car is not a closed system, and my body is not a closed system.I could burn a log of wood, let the CO2 float up into the atmosphere, and in 10,000 years it might be absorbed by a growing tree in a peat bog.
In the meantime, it'll warm the atmosphere a smidgen.Or I could burn a log of wood, bubble the CO2 through an algae pond, and let them confine it to a bed of gunk at the bottom.
Sure they need energy for that process, but they can use solar energy that I don't have the technology to use myself.
So I personally could still come out ahead on the energy balance and simultaneously avert the atmospheric warming.Or I could put the CO2 in a balloon and leave it as a problem for later.
Maybe my great^N grandchildren could pop the balloon when the next ice age hits.Of course burning diesel and then using the energy of combustion to synthesize diesel from the exhaust would be a waste of effort.
But burning diesel and putting the exhaust in a place or a form that hurts me less needn't be a net loss of energy for me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29940169</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939779</id>
	<title>Re:It is funny</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257016020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>um no. But it does seem "these days" that more and more people who, despite obviously knowing fuck all about science or how evidence bound scientific inquiry functions, nonetheless feel entitled to pontificate endlessly on whatever heavily scientifically related subject they like in total blissful, laughable ignorance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>um no .
But it does seem " these days " that more and more people who , despite obviously knowing fuck all about science or how evidence bound scientific inquiry functions , nonetheless feel entitled to pontificate endlessly on whatever heavily scientifically related subject they like in total blissful , laughable ignorance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>um no.
But it does seem "these days" that more and more people who, despite obviously knowing fuck all about science or how evidence bound scientific inquiry functions, nonetheless feel entitled to pontificate endlessly on whatever heavily scientifically related subject they like in total blissful, laughable ignorance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939673</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29950606</id>
	<title>Re:Diesel exhaust in your bread?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257179580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Manure has been used as a fertilizer since the beginning of civilization.  And yet we're here!  Manure breaks down.  In fact, manure itself is broken down plant matter.  The only problem with moden use of manure is that farmers use too much of it creating runoff, or that the antibiotics in the manure kills of the natural bacterial flora in the soil.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Manure has been used as a fertilizer since the beginning of civilization .
And yet we 're here !
Manure breaks down .
In fact , manure itself is broken down plant matter .
The only problem with moden use of manure is that farmers use too much of it creating runoff , or that the antibiotics in the manure kills of the natural bacterial flora in the soil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Manure has been used as a fertilizer since the beginning of civilization.
And yet we're here!
Manure breaks down.
In fact, manure itself is broken down plant matter.
The only problem with moden use of manure is that farmers use too much of it creating runoff, or that the antibiotics in the manure kills of the natural bacterial flora in the soil.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939355</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29940405</id>
	<title>Dioxins</title>
	<author>Thiarna</author>
	<datestamp>1257071340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Based on the fuss there was in Ireland when the wrong type of oil was used when milling animal feed <a href="http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/1207/pork.html" title="www.rte.ie" rel="nofollow">http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/1207/pork.html</a> [www.rte.ie], I can't imagine this is a good idea. Combustion is exactly the process that generates dioxins, and they build up in animals that cosume them, so if these crops end up used for plant feed, or the process becomes more widespread, eventully even traces of dioxins in the fumes would cause problems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Based on the fuss there was in Ireland when the wrong type of oil was used when milling animal feed http : //www.rte.ie/news/2008/1207/pork.html [ www.rte.ie ] , I ca n't imagine this is a good idea .
Combustion is exactly the process that generates dioxins , and they build up in animals that cosume them , so if these crops end up used for plant feed , or the process becomes more widespread , eventully even traces of dioxins in the fumes would cause problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Based on the fuss there was in Ireland when the wrong type of oil was used when milling animal feed http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/1207/pork.html [www.rte.ie], I can't imagine this is a good idea.
Combustion is exactly the process that generates dioxins, and they build up in animals that cosume them, so if these crops end up used for plant feed, or the process becomes more widespread, eventully even traces of dioxins in the fumes would cause problems.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939399</id>
	<title>You try to make an environmentalist happy...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257010320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... and they whine about why the new technique must not replace the old one (which they are also whining about - of course).<br>I'm morbidly curious how - or if at all - these malcontents would actually envision the ideal society running, but unfortunately that requires handing one over to them, and I don't know of any spare ones.<br>Thus, I will continue to see all the whiners as replying to articles saying "We solved environmental problem X" not as "wont work - " but rather as "No!  Don't take away our reason to complain against the United States.  We need to have something to complain about in order to force our ridiculous policies down everyone's throat!"</p><p>And for the record - I think the whole thing is an absurd sham since I refuse to believe that a gas that every living creature exhales is going to destroy the world.  The world is really big, filled with many strange things we do not yet even comprehend, and certainly not that fragile.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... and they whine about why the new technique must not replace the old one ( which they are also whining about - of course ) .I 'm morbidly curious how - or if at all - these malcontents would actually envision the ideal society running , but unfortunately that requires handing one over to them , and I do n't know of any spare ones.Thus , I will continue to see all the whiners as replying to articles saying " We solved environmental problem X " not as " wont work - " but rather as " No !
Do n't take away our reason to complain against the United States .
We need to have something to complain about in order to force our ridiculous policies down everyone 's throat !
" And for the record - I think the whole thing is an absurd sham since I refuse to believe that a gas that every living creature exhales is going to destroy the world .
The world is really big , filled with many strange things we do not yet even comprehend , and certainly not that fragile .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... and they whine about why the new technique must not replace the old one (which they are also whining about - of course).I'm morbidly curious how - or if at all - these malcontents would actually envision the ideal society running, but unfortunately that requires handing one over to them, and I don't know of any spare ones.Thus, I will continue to see all the whiners as replying to articles saying "We solved environmental problem X" not as "wont work - " but rather as "No!
Don't take away our reason to complain against the United States.
We need to have something to complain about in order to force our ridiculous policies down everyone's throat!
"And for the record - I think the whole thing is an absurd sham since I refuse to believe that a gas that every living creature exhales is going to destroy the world.
The world is really big, filled with many strange things we do not yet even comprehend, and certainly not that fragile.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939261</id>
	<title>Typical</title>
	<author>Jerry Rivers</author>
	<datestamp>1257008940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So few facts, so many opinions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So few facts , so many opinions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So few facts, so many opinions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29942456</id>
	<title>Re:It can't possibly be enough...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257099120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Let's ignore for the moment the problem that carbon isn't fertilizer."</p><p>You're so full of shit. There are 16 elements considered to be fertilizer for plants - Carbon, Oxygen, Nitrogen, Potassium, Phosphorous, Calcium, Magnesium, Sulphur, Boron, Chlorine, Copper, Iron, Manganese, Zinc, Molybdenum, and Hydrogen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Let 's ignore for the moment the problem that carbon is n't fertilizer .
" You 're so full of shit .
There are 16 elements considered to be fertilizer for plants - Carbon , Oxygen , Nitrogen , Potassium , Phosphorous , Calcium , Magnesium , Sulphur , Boron , Chlorine , Copper , Iron , Manganese , Zinc , Molybdenum , and Hydrogen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Let's ignore for the moment the problem that carbon isn't fertilizer.
"You're so full of shit.
There are 16 elements considered to be fertilizer for plants - Carbon, Oxygen, Nitrogen, Potassium, Phosphorous, Calcium, Magnesium, Sulphur, Boron, Chlorine, Copper, Iron, Manganese, Zinc, Molybdenum, and Hydrogen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939287</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939721</id>
	<title>Re:What a bunch of tractor exhaust</title>
	<author>caseih</author>
	<datestamp>1257014520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree with the junk science bit.  As for the price of fertilizer, it's highly variable and is doubtlessly different across the world, depending on the price of natural gas usually, or shipping costs if it's imported.  Given that two seasons ago in Alberta, Canada our fertilizer bill was about $200k for 2500 irrigated acres (this season was about $100k), it's not inconceivable that prices could double, triple, or even quadruple, depending on oil prices.  Not sure what kind of farm you have, but if it's high yield crops on irrigation in sandy soil, fertilizer costs can be staggering.  I agree the article is probably exaggerating the savings, though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with the junk science bit .
As for the price of fertilizer , it 's highly variable and is doubtlessly different across the world , depending on the price of natural gas usually , or shipping costs if it 's imported .
Given that two seasons ago in Alberta , Canada our fertilizer bill was about $ 200k for 2500 irrigated acres ( this season was about $ 100k ) , it 's not inconceivable that prices could double , triple , or even quadruple , depending on oil prices .
Not sure what kind of farm you have , but if it 's high yield crops on irrigation in sandy soil , fertilizer costs can be staggering .
I agree the article is probably exaggerating the savings , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with the junk science bit.
As for the price of fertilizer, it's highly variable and is doubtlessly different across the world, depending on the price of natural gas usually, or shipping costs if it's imported.
Given that two seasons ago in Alberta, Canada our fertilizer bill was about $200k for 2500 irrigated acres (this season was about $100k), it's not inconceivable that prices could double, triple, or even quadruple, depending on oil prices.
Not sure what kind of farm you have, but if it's high yield crops on irrigation in sandy soil, fertilizer costs can be staggering.
I agree the article is probably exaggerating the savings, though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939387</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939667</id>
	<title>BS</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1257013680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Have you even seen what's in pig, chicken, <strong>cow</strong>, and sheep <strong>manure</strong>?</p></div><p>Bullshit.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you even seen what 's in pig , chicken , cow , and sheep manure ? Bullshit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you even seen what's in pig, chicken, cow, and sheep manure?Bullshit.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939355</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939501</id>
	<title>Don't fear the toxins from the desil exhaust</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257011520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The first reaction of "oh no heavy metal compounds and other toxins will get into the food" may be a bit of.</p><p>Yes it is the case that certain plants will absorb toxins from the ground, but those toxins will generally accumulate in one part of the plant. In some cases this may be the part of the plant we eat. ie coconut milk and shell accumulate many heavy metals. But this is not a big problem.</p><p>
&nbsp; There are 3 things worth considering:<br>
&nbsp; a) testing the food produce for unsafe levels of the toxins in diesel fumes is trivial.<br>
&nbsp; b) there exists already toxins in our food (for thousands of years) and most human &amp; animal bodies are more than capable of handling a small amount. We have entire organs just for this!<br>
&nbsp; c) Humans &amp; animals have not evolved with high amounts of toxins in the air. If we are to intake diesel exhaust we are better able to handle it in our digestive system then our respiratory system</p><p>It is worthwhile pointing our that globally ash and toxins from coal/petrol/diesel emissions kill around half a million people per year. So you must adjust your thinking from "toxins in food is bad" to "toxins moved away from the atmosphere is good".</p><p>Its a similar thing to getting over the fear of "nuclear waste", "recycled drinking water" &amp;"geneticly modified foods". Let the science speak, don't let your fear control you.</p><p>-anon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The first reaction of " oh no heavy metal compounds and other toxins will get into the food " may be a bit of.Yes it is the case that certain plants will absorb toxins from the ground , but those toxins will generally accumulate in one part of the plant .
In some cases this may be the part of the plant we eat .
ie coconut milk and shell accumulate many heavy metals .
But this is not a big problem .
  There are 3 things worth considering :   a ) testing the food produce for unsafe levels of the toxins in diesel fumes is trivial .
  b ) there exists already toxins in our food ( for thousands of years ) and most human &amp; animal bodies are more than capable of handling a small amount .
We have entire organs just for this !
  c ) Humans &amp; animals have not evolved with high amounts of toxins in the air .
If we are to intake diesel exhaust we are better able to handle it in our digestive system then our respiratory systemIt is worthwhile pointing our that globally ash and toxins from coal/petrol/diesel emissions kill around half a million people per year .
So you must adjust your thinking from " toxins in food is bad " to " toxins moved away from the atmosphere is good " .Its a similar thing to getting over the fear of " nuclear waste " , " recycled drinking water " &amp; " geneticly modified foods " .
Let the science speak , do n't let your fear control you.-anon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The first reaction of "oh no heavy metal compounds and other toxins will get into the food" may be a bit of.Yes it is the case that certain plants will absorb toxins from the ground, but those toxins will generally accumulate in one part of the plant.
In some cases this may be the part of the plant we eat.
ie coconut milk and shell accumulate many heavy metals.
But this is not a big problem.
  There are 3 things worth considering:
  a) testing the food produce for unsafe levels of the toxins in diesel fumes is trivial.
  b) there exists already toxins in our food (for thousands of years) and most human &amp; animal bodies are more than capable of handling a small amount.
We have entire organs just for this!
  c) Humans &amp; animals have not evolved with high amounts of toxins in the air.
If we are to intake diesel exhaust we are better able to handle it in our digestive system then our respiratory systemIt is worthwhile pointing our that globally ash and toxins from coal/petrol/diesel emissions kill around half a million people per year.
So you must adjust your thinking from "toxins in food is bad" to "toxins moved away from the atmosphere is good".Its a similar thing to getting over the fear of "nuclear waste", "recycled drinking water" &amp;"geneticly modified foods".
Let the science speak, don't let your fear control you.-anon</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29945608</id>
	<title>Re:It is funny</title>
	<author>Derec01</author>
	<datestamp>1257080460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>After reading them, I'd have to say that these "rebuttals" miss the point.

First of all, most of the same criticisms could also be leveled against various carbon reduction efforts and carbon sequestration efforts. Yes, a geo-engineering solution may lock us into a decades long commitment to continuing or only slowing the flow of SO2. Climate agreements involving carbon emission reductions will also lock us into decades long commitments whose costs are at least the same order of magnitude and probably greater, if they are possible. Yes, some sort of international accord would encounter a huge amount of opposition, but with a solution that doesn't hit countries in the pocketbook and is also completely controllable, it would be an entirely different beast than emissions.

Second, as noted, the carbon levels remain in the atmosphere for up to centuries. If you pay attention to the chapter, geoengineering is intended simply to buy us time until carbon reduction has become effective. Ultimately, you are correct. In the long term, we have to switch completely to solar or reach some other equilibrium with the total output of the sun. That is not going to be achievable in the near future. The SO2 solution has effects that are relatively immediate and also disperse relatively quickly, at least for the Pinatubo event. True, we don't know how it might work differently if we injected it elsewhere or in larger amounts. Fine, we can set up the delivery site at Mount Pinatubo and limit our initial effort to a similar quantity of SO2 as Mount Pinatubo as a test. Science is about repeatable experiments, after all.


Finally, all this talk of them being "irresponsible" in spreading such stories seems to indicate that detractors feel like the mere proposition of cheaper geo-engineering solutions undermines the fear of the general populace. The implication is that only this fear can whip people up into enough of a frenzy to meet our desired carbon reduction goals. I find most attempts to manipulate people through fear, though often effective, to be rather despicable. It rarely results in efficiency, either.


Ultimately, we have to start geo-engineering somewhere. The idea that we can solve all our problems by emitting nothing is incomplete, and we might as well start practicing. The idea that we must be afraid of ever affecting the planet in any way is shortsighted. There is no Gaia. The Earth is not friendly to us. It underwent massive shifts in climate before we arrived, and it will continue to do so, and ultimately we'll have to stop events that are not of our making in order to maintain our way of life.</htmltext>
<tokenext>After reading them , I 'd have to say that these " rebuttals " miss the point .
First of all , most of the same criticisms could also be leveled against various carbon reduction efforts and carbon sequestration efforts .
Yes , a geo-engineering solution may lock us into a decades long commitment to continuing or only slowing the flow of SO2 .
Climate agreements involving carbon emission reductions will also lock us into decades long commitments whose costs are at least the same order of magnitude and probably greater , if they are possible .
Yes , some sort of international accord would encounter a huge amount of opposition , but with a solution that does n't hit countries in the pocketbook and is also completely controllable , it would be an entirely different beast than emissions .
Second , as noted , the carbon levels remain in the atmosphere for up to centuries .
If you pay attention to the chapter , geoengineering is intended simply to buy us time until carbon reduction has become effective .
Ultimately , you are correct .
In the long term , we have to switch completely to solar or reach some other equilibrium with the total output of the sun .
That is not going to be achievable in the near future .
The SO2 solution has effects that are relatively immediate and also disperse relatively quickly , at least for the Pinatubo event .
True , we do n't know how it might work differently if we injected it elsewhere or in larger amounts .
Fine , we can set up the delivery site at Mount Pinatubo and limit our initial effort to a similar quantity of SO2 as Mount Pinatubo as a test .
Science is about repeatable experiments , after all .
Finally , all this talk of them being " irresponsible " in spreading such stories seems to indicate that detractors feel like the mere proposition of cheaper geo-engineering solutions undermines the fear of the general populace .
The implication is that only this fear can whip people up into enough of a frenzy to meet our desired carbon reduction goals .
I find most attempts to manipulate people through fear , though often effective , to be rather despicable .
It rarely results in efficiency , either .
Ultimately , we have to start geo-engineering somewhere .
The idea that we can solve all our problems by emitting nothing is incomplete , and we might as well start practicing .
The idea that we must be afraid of ever affecting the planet in any way is shortsighted .
There is no Gaia .
The Earth is not friendly to us .
It underwent massive shifts in climate before we arrived , and it will continue to do so , and ultimately we 'll have to stop events that are not of our making in order to maintain our way of life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After reading them, I'd have to say that these "rebuttals" miss the point.
First of all, most of the same criticisms could also be leveled against various carbon reduction efforts and carbon sequestration efforts.
Yes, a geo-engineering solution may lock us into a decades long commitment to continuing or only slowing the flow of SO2.
Climate agreements involving carbon emission reductions will also lock us into decades long commitments whose costs are at least the same order of magnitude and probably greater, if they are possible.
Yes, some sort of international accord would encounter a huge amount of opposition, but with a solution that doesn't hit countries in the pocketbook and is also completely controllable, it would be an entirely different beast than emissions.
Second, as noted, the carbon levels remain in the atmosphere for up to centuries.
If you pay attention to the chapter, geoengineering is intended simply to buy us time until carbon reduction has become effective.
Ultimately, you are correct.
In the long term, we have to switch completely to solar or reach some other equilibrium with the total output of the sun.
That is not going to be achievable in the near future.
The SO2 solution has effects that are relatively immediate and also disperse relatively quickly, at least for the Pinatubo event.
True, we don't know how it might work differently if we injected it elsewhere or in larger amounts.
Fine, we can set up the delivery site at Mount Pinatubo and limit our initial effort to a similar quantity of SO2 as Mount Pinatubo as a test.
Science is about repeatable experiments, after all.
Finally, all this talk of them being "irresponsible" in spreading such stories seems to indicate that detractors feel like the mere proposition of cheaper geo-engineering solutions undermines the fear of the general populace.
The implication is that only this fear can whip people up into enough of a frenzy to meet our desired carbon reduction goals.
I find most attempts to manipulate people through fear, though often effective, to be rather despicable.
It rarely results in efficiency, either.
Ultimately, we have to start geo-engineering somewhere.
The idea that we can solve all our problems by emitting nothing is incomplete, and we might as well start practicing.
The idea that we must be afraid of ever affecting the planet in any way is shortsighted.
There is no Gaia.
The Earth is not friendly to us.
It underwent massive shifts in climate before we arrived, and it will continue to do so, and ultimately we'll have to stop events that are not of our making in order to maintain our way of life.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29940169</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939559</id>
	<title>Re:Questions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257012300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Fertilizer is nitrogen and phosphorus. Exhaust is carbon and oxygen. Can one pair really be replaced by the other?</p></div><p>"The exhaust gases are believed to stimulate microbial activity and root growth, allowing the plants to more efficiently extract nutrient and moisture from the soil."</p><p><div class="quote"><p>What keeps the injected CO2 from leaking back out?</p></div><p>"The system relies on attraction between negatively-charged ions in the gases and the soil&rsquo;s positively charged alkaline component to hold the gases in the soil, as well as sealing it in."</p><p>
<a href="http://abovecapricorn.blogspot.com/2009/10/soil-carbon-may-come-from-tractor.html" title="blogspot.com">http://abovecapricorn.blogspot.com/2009/10/soil-carbon-may-come-from-tractor.html</a> [blogspot.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fertilizer is nitrogen and phosphorus .
Exhaust is carbon and oxygen .
Can one pair really be replaced by the other ?
" The exhaust gases are believed to stimulate microbial activity and root growth , allowing the plants to more efficiently extract nutrient and moisture from the soil .
" What keeps the injected CO2 from leaking back out ?
" The system relies on attraction between negatively-charged ions in the gases and the soil    s positively charged alkaline component to hold the gases in the soil , as well as sealing it in .
" http : //abovecapricorn.blogspot.com/2009/10/soil-carbon-may-come-from-tractor.html [ blogspot.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fertilizer is nitrogen and phosphorus.
Exhaust is carbon and oxygen.
Can one pair really be replaced by the other?
"The exhaust gases are believed to stimulate microbial activity and root growth, allowing the plants to more efficiently extract nutrient and moisture from the soil.
"What keeps the injected CO2 from leaking back out?
"The system relies on attraction between negatively-charged ions in the gases and the soil’s positively charged alkaline component to hold the gases in the soil, as well as sealing it in.
"
http://abovecapricorn.blogspot.com/2009/10/soil-carbon-may-come-from-tractor.html [blogspot.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939215</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939437</id>
	<title>Global Cooling</title>
	<author>RandySC</author>
	<datestamp>1257010740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How does avoiding the release of CO2 help prevent global cooling, which is our most pressing concern in the near future.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How does avoiding the release of CO2 help prevent global cooling , which is our most pressing concern in the near future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How does avoiding the release of CO2 help prevent global cooling, which is our most pressing concern in the near future.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939619</id>
	<title>massive outbreaks say otherwise</title>
	<author>SuperBanana</author>
	<datestamp>1257013200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>And they actually use that stuff to grow food. I mean it's the feces of animals, and they're dumping it on our food to make it grow. But somehow the food is okay and safe to eat.</i>

<a href="http://www.google.com/search?&amp;q=Salmonella+Contamination" title="google.com">http://www.google.com/search?&amp;q=Salmonella+Contamination</a> [google.com]

</p><p>Spinach, romaine lettuce, pistachios, peanuts, tomatoes, onion sprouts, cantaloupes, alfalfa sprouts, and that's when I stopped looking around page 2-3.

</p><p>Funny definition of "okay and safe to eat."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And they actually use that stuff to grow food .
I mean it 's the feces of animals , and they 're dumping it on our food to make it grow .
But somehow the food is okay and safe to eat .
http : //www.google.com/search ? &amp;q = Salmonella + Contamination [ google.com ] Spinach , romaine lettuce , pistachios , peanuts , tomatoes , onion sprouts , cantaloupes , alfalfa sprouts , and that 's when I stopped looking around page 2-3 .
Funny definition of " okay and safe to eat .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext> And they actually use that stuff to grow food.
I mean it's the feces of animals, and they're dumping it on our food to make it grow.
But somehow the food is okay and safe to eat.
http://www.google.com/search?&amp;q=Salmonella+Contamination [google.com]

Spinach, romaine lettuce, pistachios, peanuts, tomatoes, onion sprouts, cantaloupes, alfalfa sprouts, and that's when I stopped looking around page 2-3.
Funny definition of "okay and safe to eat.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939355</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29941125</id>
	<title>Re:Coal fire power plants</title>
	<author>WindBourne</author>
	<datestamp>1257085260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, that is being done with Algae for converting to oil. What amazes me is that there is plenty of CO2 left over. It seems like it would be smart to do simply allow the extra to spill into those greenhouses and then use robots to work the plants.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , that is being done with Algae for converting to oil .
What amazes me is that there is plenty of CO2 left over .
It seems like it would be smart to do simply allow the extra to spill into those greenhouses and then use robots to work the plants .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, that is being done with Algae for converting to oil.
What amazes me is that there is plenty of CO2 left over.
It seems like it would be smart to do simply allow the extra to spill into those greenhouses and then use robots to work the plants.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939679</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29944722</id>
	<title>Re:Diesel exhaust in your bread?</title>
	<author>Ungrounded Lightning</author>
	<datestamp>1257073140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most of that is either (microscopic amounts of) heavy metal contamination (which you'll find plenty of in other fertilizers) or partially-burned fuel from an engine tuned to avoid making nitrogen oxides (which are perceived as a nasty pollutant due to their role in the formation of petrochemical smog).</p><p>The technology for DETECTING minute amounts of materials has been improving drastically - to the point that traces of darned near anything bad can be detected in darned near anything.  That's where most of that list comes from.</p><p>What's a good way to fix nitrogen?  How about compressing nitrogen and oxygen to high pressures while heating them to high temperatures?  Exactly what happens in a diesel engine.</p><p>If the engine is deliberately tuned to run lean, the production of nitrogen oxides will be greatly enhanced, the fuel will be burned more completely (reducing those non-trace-element contaminants you fret over), and the efficiency as an engine will also increase.</p><p>I have no problem with this - or with eating this guy's produce.</p><p>Why don't you test some of his produce and that of nearby farms producing the same crops, and tell us what, if any, nasty stuff is higher in his crops than the others.  I bet you'll find his are better on most things the natural foodies fret over.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of that is either ( microscopic amounts of ) heavy metal contamination ( which you 'll find plenty of in other fertilizers ) or partially-burned fuel from an engine tuned to avoid making nitrogen oxides ( which are perceived as a nasty pollutant due to their role in the formation of petrochemical smog ) .The technology for DETECTING minute amounts of materials has been improving drastically - to the point that traces of darned near anything bad can be detected in darned near anything .
That 's where most of that list comes from.What 's a good way to fix nitrogen ?
How about compressing nitrogen and oxygen to high pressures while heating them to high temperatures ?
Exactly what happens in a diesel engine.If the engine is deliberately tuned to run lean , the production of nitrogen oxides will be greatly enhanced , the fuel will be burned more completely ( reducing those non-trace-element contaminants you fret over ) , and the efficiency as an engine will also increase.I have no problem with this - or with eating this guy 's produce.Why do n't you test some of his produce and that of nearby farms producing the same crops , and tell us what , if any , nasty stuff is higher in his crops than the others .
I bet you 'll find his are better on most things the natural foodies fret over .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of that is either (microscopic amounts of) heavy metal contamination (which you'll find plenty of in other fertilizers) or partially-burned fuel from an engine tuned to avoid making nitrogen oxides (which are perceived as a nasty pollutant due to their role in the formation of petrochemical smog).The technology for DETECTING minute amounts of materials has been improving drastically - to the point that traces of darned near anything bad can be detected in darned near anything.
That's where most of that list comes from.What's a good way to fix nitrogen?
How about compressing nitrogen and oxygen to high pressures while heating them to high temperatures?
Exactly what happens in a diesel engine.If the engine is deliberately tuned to run lean, the production of nitrogen oxides will be greatly enhanced, the fuel will be burned more completely (reducing those non-trace-element contaminants you fret over), and the efficiency as an engine will also increase.I have no problem with this - or with eating this guy's produce.Why don't you test some of his produce and that of nearby farms producing the same crops, and tell us what, if any, nasty stuff is higher in his crops than the others.
I bet you'll find his are better on most things the natural foodies fret over.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939247</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29941301</id>
	<title>Re:Global Cooling</title>
	<author>ErikZ</author>
	<datestamp>1257087060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought clean water was our most pressing concern in the near future?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought clean water was our most pressing concern in the near future ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought clean water was our most pressing concern in the near future?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939437</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29940029</id>
	<title>Re:Something very wrong here.</title>
	<author>Goldenjera</author>
	<datestamp>1257106920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree with you that this seems to be a load of BS, for a few reasons:</p><p>a) I cannot find a scientific paper on this, or any signs of proper scientific research (as a science undergraduate, I am being trained to need a proper scientific report to believe in a hypothesis)</p><p>b) This quote from Dr. Jill Clapperton on the 'official' website: "It works, and its my job to find out how it works. We will be able to tell you exactly what's happening in the soil in 3-5 years." <a href="http://www.bioagtive.com/?s=1&amp;p=413&amp;op=153" title="bioagtive.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.bioagtive.com/?s=1&amp;p=413&amp;op=153</a> [bioagtive.com] (suspicious much?)</p><p>c) The most important component of fertiliser is Nitrogen in the form of ammonium (NH4+) and Nitrate (NO3-). Diesel does not release usable amounts of nitrogen in a form that can be utilised by the plant or the nitrogen-fixing bacteria in the soil.</p><p>d) Plants also require Potassium, Phosphorous, Calcium, Magnesium and Sulfur. Diesel does not contain all of these elements. CO2 cannot magically turn into all this!</p><p>e) I never trust something that believes in carbon emissions trading schemes <a href="http://www.bioagtive.com/?s=1&amp;p=143" title="bioagtive.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.bioagtive.com/?s=1&amp;p=143</a> [bioagtive.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with you that this seems to be a load of BS , for a few reasons : a ) I can not find a scientific paper on this , or any signs of proper scientific research ( as a science undergraduate , I am being trained to need a proper scientific report to believe in a hypothesis ) b ) This quote from Dr. Jill Clapperton on the 'official ' website : " It works , and its my job to find out how it works .
We will be able to tell you exactly what 's happening in the soil in 3-5 years .
" http : //www.bioagtive.com/ ? s = 1&amp;p = 413&amp;op = 153 [ bioagtive.com ] ( suspicious much ?
) c ) The most important component of fertiliser is Nitrogen in the form of ammonium ( NH4 + ) and Nitrate ( NO3- ) .
Diesel does not release usable amounts of nitrogen in a form that can be utilised by the plant or the nitrogen-fixing bacteria in the soil.d ) Plants also require Potassium , Phosphorous , Calcium , Magnesium and Sulfur .
Diesel does not contain all of these elements .
CO2 can not magically turn into all this ! e ) I never trust something that believes in carbon emissions trading schemes http : //www.bioagtive.com/ ? s = 1&amp;p = 143 [ bioagtive.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with you that this seems to be a load of BS, for a few reasons:a) I cannot find a scientific paper on this, or any signs of proper scientific research (as a science undergraduate, I am being trained to need a proper scientific report to believe in a hypothesis)b) This quote from Dr. Jill Clapperton on the 'official' website: "It works, and its my job to find out how it works.
We will be able to tell you exactly what's happening in the soil in 3-5 years.
" http://www.bioagtive.com/?s=1&amp;p=413&amp;op=153 [bioagtive.com] (suspicious much?
)c) The most important component of fertiliser is Nitrogen in the form of ammonium (NH4+) and Nitrate (NO3-).
Diesel does not release usable amounts of nitrogen in a form that can be utilised by the plant or the nitrogen-fixing bacteria in the soil.d) Plants also require Potassium, Phosphorous, Calcium, Magnesium and Sulfur.
Diesel does not contain all of these elements.
CO2 cannot magically turn into all this!e) I never trust something that believes in carbon emissions trading schemes http://www.bioagtive.com/?s=1&amp;p=143 [bioagtive.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29940743</id>
	<title>Re:It is funny</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257078480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No it's not funny. At all.</p><p>There's so much bullshit walking all the time it's incredible. And people keep buying whatever the techno idiots, marketing droids and conservative apologists tell them. And there's always been bad science, I don't mean the kind that comes with wrong results but instead the pseudo science with bought results.</p><p>It's no rocket science, the only way is to consume less, you greedy bastard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No it 's not funny .
At all.There 's so much bullshit walking all the time it 's incredible .
And people keep buying whatever the techno idiots , marketing droids and conservative apologists tell them .
And there 's always been bad science , I do n't mean the kind that comes with wrong results but instead the pseudo science with bought results.It 's no rocket science , the only way is to consume less , you greedy bastard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No it's not funny.
At all.There's so much bullshit walking all the time it's incredible.
And people keep buying whatever the techno idiots, marketing droids and conservative apologists tell them.
And there's always been bad science, I don't mean the kind that comes with wrong results but instead the pseudo science with bought results.It's no rocket science, the only way is to consume less, you greedy bastard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939673</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29942864</id>
	<title>Re:Diesel exhaust in your bread?</title>
	<author>CAIMLAS</author>
	<datestamp>1257103380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For the most part, they're not dumping that stuff on your food. What they're doing is they're letting it sit for some time (it varies on the quantity and type of manure), then they're diluting it with water (think: 1/50th manure) and spraying it on the fields after crops are harvested in the fall.</p><p>They couldn't just spray it on crops. Animal feces are high in nitrates: that makes them effective in helping plants grow, but in high concentrations (even in the diluted form) would burn the plants. This is why you can't just throw fresh chicken shit from the hen house on your garden - it will kill the plants. You've got to let it weather for a year and for the majority of the nitrates to be diluted. (If you've ever seen a coop shit pile that's in use, it's rarely got anything growing in it. Let it sit for a season or two unused, and it'll grow 3-4 times as quickly as anything around it, however.)</p><p>The end result isn't that much different than letting your livestock forage in the field after the crop is harvested (another method of nitrate reintroduction which has been done since farming began). Whereas animal feces would dry out on the surface fairly quickly and then seep into the soil as they break down and erode, spraying shit on with a machine allows farmers to not also raise livestock, or deal with putting them into their fields.</p><p>Along those lines, there's been a bit of a move towards using the animals themselves to do the job. They've found that with no-till farming, they need to till up the soil slightly in the fall anyway so as to introduce oxygen and whatnot to allow for better growth the next year. Livestock will do this while depositing nitrates. A side benefit is that it provides additional food for your livestock at little to no cost.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For the most part , they 're not dumping that stuff on your food .
What they 're doing is they 're letting it sit for some time ( it varies on the quantity and type of manure ) , then they 're diluting it with water ( think : 1/50th manure ) and spraying it on the fields after crops are harvested in the fall.They could n't just spray it on crops .
Animal feces are high in nitrates : that makes them effective in helping plants grow , but in high concentrations ( even in the diluted form ) would burn the plants .
This is why you ca n't just throw fresh chicken shit from the hen house on your garden - it will kill the plants .
You 've got to let it weather for a year and for the majority of the nitrates to be diluted .
( If you 've ever seen a coop shit pile that 's in use , it 's rarely got anything growing in it .
Let it sit for a season or two unused , and it 'll grow 3-4 times as quickly as anything around it , however .
) The end result is n't that much different than letting your livestock forage in the field after the crop is harvested ( another method of nitrate reintroduction which has been done since farming began ) .
Whereas animal feces would dry out on the surface fairly quickly and then seep into the soil as they break down and erode , spraying shit on with a machine allows farmers to not also raise livestock , or deal with putting them into their fields.Along those lines , there 's been a bit of a move towards using the animals themselves to do the job .
They 've found that with no-till farming , they need to till up the soil slightly in the fall anyway so as to introduce oxygen and whatnot to allow for better growth the next year .
Livestock will do this while depositing nitrates .
A side benefit is that it provides additional food for your livestock at little to no cost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the most part, they're not dumping that stuff on your food.
What they're doing is they're letting it sit for some time (it varies on the quantity and type of manure), then they're diluting it with water (think: 1/50th manure) and spraying it on the fields after crops are harvested in the fall.They couldn't just spray it on crops.
Animal feces are high in nitrates: that makes them effective in helping plants grow, but in high concentrations (even in the diluted form) would burn the plants.
This is why you can't just throw fresh chicken shit from the hen house on your garden - it will kill the plants.
You've got to let it weather for a year and for the majority of the nitrates to be diluted.
(If you've ever seen a coop shit pile that's in use, it's rarely got anything growing in it.
Let it sit for a season or two unused, and it'll grow 3-4 times as quickly as anything around it, however.
)The end result isn't that much different than letting your livestock forage in the field after the crop is harvested (another method of nitrate reintroduction which has been done since farming began).
Whereas animal feces would dry out on the surface fairly quickly and then seep into the soil as they break down and erode, spraying shit on with a machine allows farmers to not also raise livestock, or deal with putting them into their fields.Along those lines, there's been a bit of a move towards using the animals themselves to do the job.
They've found that with no-till farming, they need to till up the soil slightly in the fall anyway so as to introduce oxygen and whatnot to allow for better growth the next year.
Livestock will do this while depositing nitrates.
A side benefit is that it provides additional food for your livestock at little to no cost.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939355</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939215</id>
	<title>Questions</title>
	<author>Lord Byron II</author>
	<datestamp>1257008280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fertilizer is nitrogen and phosphorus. Exhaust is carbon and oxygen. Can one pair really be replaced by the other?</p><p>What keeps the injected CO2 from leaking back out?</p><p>Why doesn't the CO2 in the air already do the same thing?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fertilizer is nitrogen and phosphorus .
Exhaust is carbon and oxygen .
Can one pair really be replaced by the other ? What keeps the injected CO2 from leaking back out ? Why does n't the CO2 in the air already do the same thing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fertilizer is nitrogen and phosphorus.
Exhaust is carbon and oxygen.
Can one pair really be replaced by the other?What keeps the injected CO2 from leaking back out?Why doesn't the CO2 in the air already do the same thing?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29940891</id>
	<title>Re:Typical</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1257081540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Look who's talking. If Slashdot isn't your thing, maybe you should go some place where they'll take your pathetic whining seriously (well aside from the idiot moderator who gave you points for being "insightful"). For my part, I've read both facts and useful opinions. You just need to figure out how to separate the wheat from the chaff. Here's a reference data point. Currently, you are chaff.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Look who 's talking .
If Slashdot is n't your thing , maybe you should go some place where they 'll take your pathetic whining seriously ( well aside from the idiot moderator who gave you points for being " insightful " ) .
For my part , I 've read both facts and useful opinions .
You just need to figure out how to separate the wheat from the chaff .
Here 's a reference data point .
Currently , you are chaff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look who's talking.
If Slashdot isn't your thing, maybe you should go some place where they'll take your pathetic whining seriously (well aside from the idiot moderator who gave you points for being "insightful").
For my part, I've read both facts and useful opinions.
You just need to figure out how to separate the wheat from the chaff.
Here's a reference data point.
Currently, you are chaff.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939261</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939387</id>
	<title>What a bunch of Bullshit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257010260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am a farmer in Canada and fertilizer does not cost 1200 to 1500 a tonne. There's no way in hell it costs half a million dollars to fertilize 3900 HA of wheat. Injecting diesel exhaust fumes in a single planting pass to totally fertilize each HA of wheat sounds like junk science to me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am a farmer in Canada and fertilizer does not cost 1200 to 1500 a tonne .
There 's no way in hell it costs half a million dollars to fertilize 3900 HA of wheat .
Injecting diesel exhaust fumes in a single planting pass to totally fertilize each HA of wheat sounds like junk science to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am a farmer in Canada and fertilizer does not cost 1200 to 1500 a tonne.
There's no way in hell it costs half a million dollars to fertilize 3900 HA of wheat.
Injecting diesel exhaust fumes in a single planting pass to totally fertilize each HA of wheat sounds like junk science to me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939679</id>
	<title>Coal fire power plants</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257013860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We have a lot of coal power here in Victoria, Australia and I have long thought that instead of pumping it straight up into the atmosphere we should pump it sideways into huge glasshouses. They could be built as automated food factories because the air in there would not be healthy for humans. The gas venting at the far end should have much less CO2 than when it goes in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We have a lot of coal power here in Victoria , Australia and I have long thought that instead of pumping it straight up into the atmosphere we should pump it sideways into huge glasshouses .
They could be built as automated food factories because the air in there would not be healthy for humans .
The gas venting at the far end should have much less CO2 than when it goes in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have a lot of coal power here in Victoria, Australia and I have long thought that instead of pumping it straight up into the atmosphere we should pump it sideways into huge glasshouses.
They could be built as automated food factories because the air in there would not be healthy for humans.
The gas venting at the far end should have much less CO2 than when it goes in.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_0042217_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29950606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939355
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939247
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_0042217_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939321
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939247
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_0042217_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29942506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939659
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_0042217_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29950686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29940293
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_0042217_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29947148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29941041
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29940169
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939673
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939207
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_0042217_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939347
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939247
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_0042217_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29942864
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939355
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939247
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_0042217_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29940515
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939215
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_0042217_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939895
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939355
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939247
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_0042217_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29942426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939247
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_0042217_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939379
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939215
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_0042217_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29940985
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939387
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_0042217_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29942410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939673
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939207
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_0042217_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29940059
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939673
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939207
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_0042217_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29941505
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939355
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939247
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_0042217_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29940743
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939673
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939207
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_0042217_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29942456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939287
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_0042217_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29942700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29940169
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939673
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939207
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_0042217_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29942488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939673
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939207
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_0042217_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939441
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939247
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_0042217_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29940103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939437
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_0042217_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939615
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939247
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_0042217_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29943544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939393
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_0042217_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939721
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939387
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_0042217_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29944028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939673
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939207
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_0042217_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29940717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939673
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939207
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_0042217_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29953126
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939393
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_0042217_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29940891
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939261
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_0042217_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29941109
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939619
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939355
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939247
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_0042217_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939435
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939287
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_0042217_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29944722
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939247
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_0042217_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29943852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939355
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939247
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_0042217_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939809
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939387
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_0042217_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939795
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939261
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_0042217_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939979
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939659
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_0042217_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29947124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29940169
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939673
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939207
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_0042217_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29941159
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939207
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_0042217_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29941125
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939679
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_0042217_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29940253
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939673
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939207
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_0042217_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29940199
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939593
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939207
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_0042217_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29945782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939355
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939247
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_0042217_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29942906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939619
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939355
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939247
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_0042217_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939933
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939437
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_0042217_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939215
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_0042217_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29941301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939437
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_0042217_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29940763
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939673
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939207
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_0042217_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29945608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29940169
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939673
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939207
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_0042217_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29949630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939679
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_0042217_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939419
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939345
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_0042217_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939779
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939673
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939207
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_0042217_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29940897
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939557
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_0042217_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29940029
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939659
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_01_0042217_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939797
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939437
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_0042217.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939431
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_0042217.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939287
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29942456
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939435
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_0042217.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939261
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939795
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29940891
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_0042217.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939179
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_0042217.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939501
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_0042217.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939393
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29943544
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29953126
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_0042217.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939557
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29940897
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_0042217.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29940293
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29950686
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_0042217.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939399
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_0042217.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29941539
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_0042217.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939247
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29942426
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939321
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939347
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939615
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939355
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29942864
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939619
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29942906
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29941109
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29950606
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29943852
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29941505
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939667
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29945782
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939895
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939441
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29944722
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_0042217.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29940989
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_0042217.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939345
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939419
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_0042217.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939659
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29942506
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939979
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29940029
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_0042217.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939679
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29949630
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29941125
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_0042217.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939387
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939721
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29940985
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939809
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_0042217.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939437
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29940103
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939797
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939933
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29941301
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_0042217.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939215
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939559
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939379
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29940515
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_01_0042217.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939207
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939593
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29940199
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29941159
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939673
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29942488
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29942410
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29940253
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29940763
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29940059
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29939779
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29940743
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29940169
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29945608
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29942700
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29941041
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29947148
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29947124
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29944028
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_01_0042217.29940717
</commentlist>
</conversation>
