<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_16_2336239</id>
	<title>Russians Claim More Climate Data Was Manipulated</title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1260979800000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>DustyShadow writes <i>"On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) claimed that the Hadley Center for Climate Change had probably <a href="http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020126/climategate-goes-serial-now-the-russians-confirm-that-uk-climate-scientists-manipulated-data-to-exaggerate-global-warming/">tampered with Russian-climate data</a>. The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country&rsquo;s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25\% of such stations in its reports. Over 40\% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.  The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley CRU survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>DustyShadow writes " On Tuesday , the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis ( IEA ) claimed that the Hadley Center for Climate Change had probably tampered with Russian-climate data .
The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory .
Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country    s territory , and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25 \ % of such stations in its reports .
Over 40 \ % of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons , rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations .
The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley CRU survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DustyShadow writes "On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) claimed that the Hadley Center for Climate Change had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.
The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory.
Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25\% of such stations in its reports.
Over 40\% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.
The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley CRU survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469596</id>
	<title>Re:Evolution of an Argument</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259693040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>3-Insightful?</p><p>This is an insightful analysis of the AGW argument? You've got to be kidding me!</p><p>Where is the evidence of scientific fraud? If it was so clear that fraud had been commited, surely credible journals such as Nature and Science would be hard pressed to call denier's arguments 'laughable'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>3-Insightful ? This is an insightful analysis of the AGW argument ?
You 've got to be kidding me ! Where is the evidence of scientific fraud ?
If it was so clear that fraud had been commited , surely credible journals such as Nature and Science would be hard pressed to call denier 's arguments 'laughable' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3-Insightful?This is an insightful analysis of the AGW argument?
You've got to be kidding me!Where is the evidence of scientific fraud?
If it was so clear that fraud had been commited, surely credible journals such as Nature and Science would be hard pressed to call denier's arguments 'laughable'.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469754</id>
	<title>Re:This is good news!</title>
	<author>Torodung</author>
	<datestamp>1259694360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey, the Republican color is "red." Significance?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;^)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , the Republican color is " red .
" Significance ?
; ^ )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, the Republican color is "red.
" Significance?
;^)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469102</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469310</id>
	<title>Look at bottom of page....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259690700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://www.surfacestations.org/</p><p>If you pick which stations you want to use you can prove either point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.surfacestations.org/If you pick which stations you want to use you can prove either point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.surfacestations.org/If you pick which stations you want to use you can prove either point.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469632</id>
	<title>Re:This is good news!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259693400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Climate Change junkies are no better than Muslim extremists and religious nut balls running around the world. Soon you will see climate change zealots running into building with bombs attach to their heads yelling "Climate Change is Real, you blasphemers must die!"! LOL! After they explode, Al-Gore comes in with a carbon credit voucher saying it was a carbon credited authorized bombing.</p><p>Great! More religious nut balls!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Climate Change junkies are no better than Muslim extremists and religious nut balls running around the world .
Soon you will see climate change zealots running into building with bombs attach to their heads yelling " Climate Change is Real , you blasphemers must die ! " !
LOL ! After they explode , Al-Gore comes in with a carbon credit voucher saying it was a carbon credited authorized bombing.Great !
More religious nut balls !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Climate Change junkies are no better than Muslim extremists and religious nut balls running around the world.
Soon you will see climate change zealots running into building with bombs attach to their heads yelling "Climate Change is Real, you blasphemers must die!"!
LOL! After they explode, Al-Gore comes in with a carbon credit voucher saying it was a carbon credited authorized bombing.Great!
More religious nut balls!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469102</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30470122</id>
	<title>Re:Why is there even a debate?</title>
	<author>Draek</author>
	<datestamp>1259697540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There's serious debate about the theory of relativity, the standard model, and hell, the evolution of species, but there's no serious debate about anthropological global warming? Doesn't sound like science to me.</p></div><p>You'd notice, however, there's no debate about planets moving in orbits around the sun, electrons moving about, and evolution happening. The only debate is in the theories explaining the reasons for those phenomena, same as with Global Warming.</p><p>Refute the theory all you like (as long as you have rational arguments for it, plz), but when you start doubting the phenomena itself I'm instantly reminded of creationists and their pathetic denial of evolution in the face of hundreds of experiments.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's serious debate about the theory of relativity , the standard model , and hell , the evolution of species , but there 's no serious debate about anthropological global warming ?
Does n't sound like science to me.You 'd notice , however , there 's no debate about planets moving in orbits around the sun , electrons moving about , and evolution happening .
The only debate is in the theories explaining the reasons for those phenomena , same as with Global Warming.Refute the theory all you like ( as long as you have rational arguments for it , plz ) , but when you start doubting the phenomena itself I 'm instantly reminded of creationists and their pathetic denial of evolution in the face of hundreds of experiments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's serious debate about the theory of relativity, the standard model, and hell, the evolution of species, but there's no serious debate about anthropological global warming?
Doesn't sound like science to me.You'd notice, however, there's no debate about planets moving in orbits around the sun, electrons moving about, and evolution happening.
The only debate is in the theories explaining the reasons for those phenomena, same as with Global Warming.Refute the theory all you like (as long as you have rational arguments for it, plz), but when you start doubting the phenomena itself I'm instantly reminded of creationists and their pathetic denial of evolution in the face of hundreds of experiments.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469308</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469234</id>
	<title>In Soviet Russia....</title>
	<author>mano.m</author>
	<datestamp>1259690100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Go on, extrapolate the rest.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Go on , extrapolate the rest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Go on, extrapolate the rest.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30474878</id>
	<title>Pollution == Peeing yourself. Stupids.</title>
	<author>eagee</author>
	<datestamp>1261071600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let's forget climate change for a minute, what would be the end result of solving this problem be? A cleaner world, less pollution, less illness resulting from pollution, and potentially slowing what a good deal of scientists point to as a global catastrophe?
<br> 
<br> 
We all have to make sacrifices to make the world a better place, for instance, the south had to give up having slaves, would any of you short sighted mo-rons go back to that? No, because it was a stupid and barbaric practice. Did it hurt economically? Sure it did, but it was the right thing to do.
<br> 
<br> 
Pissing in your pants only keeps you warm for so long - pollution is the same thing - we effing live here people - yet that's exactly what you're actually fighting for the right to do. We should've stopped doing it just on principle, but for the sake of "economics" we're just going to keep right on doing it anyway. That's some lame and stupid bullshit.
<br> 
<br> 
At this point, I've kind of lost all hope in you people. I used to be against global warming, but honestly, if this is the best humanity can come up with - the next ice age can't get here soon enough. I hope you enjoy bitching about this big "conspiracy" to clean-the-fuck-up-after-ourselves when it hits. Maybe you can do it from your girly pansy ass SUVs. Sho nuff, I'm sure you probably will.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's forget climate change for a minute , what would be the end result of solving this problem be ?
A cleaner world , less pollution , less illness resulting from pollution , and potentially slowing what a good deal of scientists point to as a global catastrophe ?
We all have to make sacrifices to make the world a better place , for instance , the south had to give up having slaves , would any of you short sighted mo-rons go back to that ?
No , because it was a stupid and barbaric practice .
Did it hurt economically ?
Sure it did , but it was the right thing to do .
Pissing in your pants only keeps you warm for so long - pollution is the same thing - we effing live here people - yet that 's exactly what you 're actually fighting for the right to do .
We should 've stopped doing it just on principle , but for the sake of " economics " we 're just going to keep right on doing it anyway .
That 's some lame and stupid bullshit .
At this point , I 've kind of lost all hope in you people .
I used to be against global warming , but honestly , if this is the best humanity can come up with - the next ice age ca n't get here soon enough .
I hope you enjoy bitching about this big " conspiracy " to clean-the-fuck-up-after-ourselves when it hits .
Maybe you can do it from your girly pansy ass SUVs .
Sho nuff , I 'm sure you probably will .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's forget climate change for a minute, what would be the end result of solving this problem be?
A cleaner world, less pollution, less illness resulting from pollution, and potentially slowing what a good deal of scientists point to as a global catastrophe?
We all have to make sacrifices to make the world a better place, for instance, the south had to give up having slaves, would any of you short sighted mo-rons go back to that?
No, because it was a stupid and barbaric practice.
Did it hurt economically?
Sure it did, but it was the right thing to do.
Pissing in your pants only keeps you warm for so long - pollution is the same thing - we effing live here people - yet that's exactly what you're actually fighting for the right to do.
We should've stopped doing it just on principle, but for the sake of "economics" we're just going to keep right on doing it anyway.
That's some lame and stupid bullshit.
At this point, I've kind of lost all hope in you people.
I used to be against global warming, but honestly, if this is the best humanity can come up with - the next ice age can't get here soon enough.
I hope you enjoy bitching about this big "conspiracy" to clean-the-fuck-up-after-ourselves when it hits.
Maybe you can do it from your girly pansy ass SUVs.
Sho nuff, I'm sure you probably will.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30473710</id>
	<title>Re:Evolution of an Argument</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261066860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Interesting timeline. I'm so glad the source you linked to (the same source, after all) went through all four of those arguments in such a short time.</p><p>But by the way, don't you mean "global climate change" and not "global warming?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting timeline .
I 'm so glad the source you linked to ( the same source , after all ) went through all four of those arguments in such a short time.But by the way , do n't you mean " global climate change " and not " global warming ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting timeline.
I'm so glad the source you linked to (the same source, after all) went through all four of those arguments in such a short time.But by the way, don't you mean "global climate change" and not "global warming?
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469300</id>
	<title>bias or not</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259690640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would like to know why only 25\% were included</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would like to know why only 25 \ % were included</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would like to know why only 25\% were included</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469086</id>
	<title>Why is there even a debate?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259688900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is data about the amount of CO2 and methane released by humans. There's no serious debate about those numbers. The arctic is melting as are the vast majority of glaciers and even the antarctic is showing signs of melt. The signs are obvious to the naked eye so there shouldn't be a debate about these facts. Even Sarah Palin has admitted there's a warming trend. Where the two sides diverge is the cause. Is there any significant evidence of natural changes worldwide? Volcanic activity, solar radiation, etc? No one has yet to point to any. In fact the sun light has decreased, traceable to the 1960s, by solar dimming from pollution and extra cloud cover. Volcanic activity is within normal ranges for the last 100,000 years. Oddly enough CO2 levels are at a million year high and they are projected to hit 60 million year highs by 2100. Now is the stance of the non human source crowd that human produced CO2 is inherently different than naturally occuring CO2 and can't affect weather? We produce billions of tons of CO2 a year, where does it go and why can't it affect global temperatures? This same argument that humans can't affect their environment has been made and disproved for hundreds of years. We can't cut down all the trees, well we're doing a good job of it. We can't deplete fish in the ocean, same with whales, those were disproven long ago but it was the belief 200 years ago. We can't pollute the oceans because they are too big. There are toxic levels of mercury in fish and there's a plastic mass bigger than Texas in the Pacific Ocean. All these arguments have been made over the years by groups wishing to exploit resources without restriction. Notice the loudest voices are the ones closely tied to big business? The goal is to delay legislation as long as they can to maximize profits.</p><p>Use a little common sense. Release thousands of tons of fertilizer into the water and you get a dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico from algae caused by pollution. Release billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, not debated. CO2 levels affect global temperatures, not debated. Human produced CO2 affects global temperatures, debated???? There appears to be a gap in the logic. The increase in CO2 mirrors the industrial revolution. No one has found another source for the extra CO2 or another source for global warming. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to do the math but it takes sticking your head in the sand to ignore the facts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is data about the amount of CO2 and methane released by humans .
There 's no serious debate about those numbers .
The arctic is melting as are the vast majority of glaciers and even the antarctic is showing signs of melt .
The signs are obvious to the naked eye so there should n't be a debate about these facts .
Even Sarah Palin has admitted there 's a warming trend .
Where the two sides diverge is the cause .
Is there any significant evidence of natural changes worldwide ?
Volcanic activity , solar radiation , etc ?
No one has yet to point to any .
In fact the sun light has decreased , traceable to the 1960s , by solar dimming from pollution and extra cloud cover .
Volcanic activity is within normal ranges for the last 100,000 years .
Oddly enough CO2 levels are at a million year high and they are projected to hit 60 million year highs by 2100 .
Now is the stance of the non human source crowd that human produced CO2 is inherently different than naturally occuring CO2 and ca n't affect weather ?
We produce billions of tons of CO2 a year , where does it go and why ca n't it affect global temperatures ?
This same argument that humans ca n't affect their environment has been made and disproved for hundreds of years .
We ca n't cut down all the trees , well we 're doing a good job of it .
We ca n't deplete fish in the ocean , same with whales , those were disproven long ago but it was the belief 200 years ago .
We ca n't pollute the oceans because they are too big .
There are toxic levels of mercury in fish and there 's a plastic mass bigger than Texas in the Pacific Ocean .
All these arguments have been made over the years by groups wishing to exploit resources without restriction .
Notice the loudest voices are the ones closely tied to big business ?
The goal is to delay legislation as long as they can to maximize profits.Use a little common sense .
Release thousands of tons of fertilizer into the water and you get a dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico from algae caused by pollution .
Release billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere , not debated .
CO2 levels affect global temperatures , not debated .
Human produced CO2 affects global temperatures , debated ? ? ? ?
There appears to be a gap in the logic .
The increase in CO2 mirrors the industrial revolution .
No one has found another source for the extra CO2 or another source for global warming .
It does n't take a rocket scientist to do the math but it takes sticking your head in the sand to ignore the facts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is data about the amount of CO2 and methane released by humans.
There's no serious debate about those numbers.
The arctic is melting as are the vast majority of glaciers and even the antarctic is showing signs of melt.
The signs are obvious to the naked eye so there shouldn't be a debate about these facts.
Even Sarah Palin has admitted there's a warming trend.
Where the two sides diverge is the cause.
Is there any significant evidence of natural changes worldwide?
Volcanic activity, solar radiation, etc?
No one has yet to point to any.
In fact the sun light has decreased, traceable to the 1960s, by solar dimming from pollution and extra cloud cover.
Volcanic activity is within normal ranges for the last 100,000 years.
Oddly enough CO2 levels are at a million year high and they are projected to hit 60 million year highs by 2100.
Now is the stance of the non human source crowd that human produced CO2 is inherently different than naturally occuring CO2 and can't affect weather?
We produce billions of tons of CO2 a year, where does it go and why can't it affect global temperatures?
This same argument that humans can't affect their environment has been made and disproved for hundreds of years.
We can't cut down all the trees, well we're doing a good job of it.
We can't deplete fish in the ocean, same with whales, those were disproven long ago but it was the belief 200 years ago.
We can't pollute the oceans because they are too big.
There are toxic levels of mercury in fish and there's a plastic mass bigger than Texas in the Pacific Ocean.
All these arguments have been made over the years by groups wishing to exploit resources without restriction.
Notice the loudest voices are the ones closely tied to big business?
The goal is to delay legislation as long as they can to maximize profits.Use a little common sense.
Release thousands of tons of fertilizer into the water and you get a dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico from algae caused by pollution.
Release billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, not debated.
CO2 levels affect global temperatures, not debated.
Human produced CO2 affects global temperatures, debated????
There appears to be a gap in the logic.
The increase in CO2 mirrors the industrial revolution.
No one has found another source for the extra CO2 or another source for global warming.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to do the math but it takes sticking your head in the sand to ignore the facts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469454</id>
	<title>We can certainly....</title>
	<author>SwedishChef</author>
	<datestamp>1259691960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>trust the Russians.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>trust the Russians .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>trust the Russians.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469102</id>
	<title>This is good news!</title>
	<author>Jay L</author>
	<datestamp>1259688960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Finally, an answer that will appeal to all the faith-based populists:</p><p>"You know who ELSE doesn't believe in global warming?  Russia."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Finally , an answer that will appeal to all the faith-based populists : " You know who ELSE does n't believe in global warming ?
Russia. "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Finally, an answer that will appeal to all the faith-based populists:"You know who ELSE doesn't believe in global warming?
Russia."</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30477366</id>
	<title>Re:Why is there even a debate?</title>
	<author>rgviza</author>
	<datestamp>1261081440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then there's the desertification of the Sahara, the millions of acres a year that we are clear-cutting out of forests.</p><p>It's not just carbon use that's causing it. It's carbon use, destruction of biomass, the natural cooling/warming cycle of the earth, and the natural temperature variations of the sun (which causes the other planets to warm and cool), changing ocean currents etc etc etc.</p><p>The product of all of this stuff combined is what we are seeing. Only problem is we don't how much each factor really contributes, including AGW.</p><p>Then there's the global cooling scare during the 80's. Prove to me that the current AGW alarmism isn't the same thing? I'd lay money down that says in 20 years we'll be ashamed of ourselves for being so stupid.</p><p>The glaciers started melting 12000 years ago. Man had nothing to do with it. We've been on a constant upward trend since then. We've had some dips, but overall, it's been getting warmer since before our species existed. Of course it's been getting warmer since we started collecting data.</p><p>Canada, the EU and a lot of the U.S. used to be under ice that had thickness which measured in kilometers. That all melted long before the industrial age. The great lakes were carved by glaciers and that ice was gone before human history. What's the AGW argument for this? When should the cooling cycle have begun? Nobody knows if it should have already, or whether it should be 2000 years from now.</p><p>The only facts we have is that the earth gets warmer, it also gets cooler, and we also have a bunch of incomplete statistical data that's less than 200 years old being used to try and predict what's going on with a macro-climactic cycle that lasts over 100000 years.</p><p>AGW theory is just that, a theory. It hasn't been tested yet. We don't have the knowledge or data to predict what part we play in anything on this scale.</p><p>I'm not saying the theory is wrong, just that people shouldn't portray it as something that is definite. If you do you are talking out of your ass. You can believe in a theory, but if you state it as fact, you are as bad as a right wing fundamentalist Christian. At this point, they have just as much evidence for their theory as you do for yours: a bunch of people said so, here's what they say they saw.</p><p>"There's absolutely no question that we humans are changing the atmospheric makeup of the earth." No shit. The question of the day is whether or not it's enough to impact climate cycles.</p><p>Climate science has become a religion followed by fervent zealots. This is not a good thing because facts go out the window and people get persecuted because of religion. They also become incapable of real science because of fear of the zealots and bias.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then there 's the desertification of the Sahara , the millions of acres a year that we are clear-cutting out of forests.It 's not just carbon use that 's causing it .
It 's carbon use , destruction of biomass , the natural cooling/warming cycle of the earth , and the natural temperature variations of the sun ( which causes the other planets to warm and cool ) , changing ocean currents etc etc etc.The product of all of this stuff combined is what we are seeing .
Only problem is we do n't how much each factor really contributes , including AGW.Then there 's the global cooling scare during the 80 's .
Prove to me that the current AGW alarmism is n't the same thing ?
I 'd lay money down that says in 20 years we 'll be ashamed of ourselves for being so stupid.The glaciers started melting 12000 years ago .
Man had nothing to do with it .
We 've been on a constant upward trend since then .
We 've had some dips , but overall , it 's been getting warmer since before our species existed .
Of course it 's been getting warmer since we started collecting data.Canada , the EU and a lot of the U.S. used to be under ice that had thickness which measured in kilometers .
That all melted long before the industrial age .
The great lakes were carved by glaciers and that ice was gone before human history .
What 's the AGW argument for this ?
When should the cooling cycle have begun ?
Nobody knows if it should have already , or whether it should be 2000 years from now.The only facts we have is that the earth gets warmer , it also gets cooler , and we also have a bunch of incomplete statistical data that 's less than 200 years old being used to try and predict what 's going on with a macro-climactic cycle that lasts over 100000 years.AGW theory is just that , a theory .
It has n't been tested yet .
We do n't have the knowledge or data to predict what part we play in anything on this scale.I 'm not saying the theory is wrong , just that people should n't portray it as something that is definite .
If you do you are talking out of your ass .
You can believe in a theory , but if you state it as fact , you are as bad as a right wing fundamentalist Christian .
At this point , they have just as much evidence for their theory as you do for yours : a bunch of people said so , here 's what they say they saw .
" There 's absolutely no question that we humans are changing the atmospheric makeup of the earth .
" No shit .
The question of the day is whether or not it 's enough to impact climate cycles.Climate science has become a religion followed by fervent zealots .
This is not a good thing because facts go out the window and people get persecuted because of religion .
They also become incapable of real science because of fear of the zealots and bias .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then there's the desertification of the Sahara, the millions of acres a year that we are clear-cutting out of forests.It's not just carbon use that's causing it.
It's carbon use, destruction of biomass, the natural cooling/warming cycle of the earth, and the natural temperature variations of the sun (which causes the other planets to warm and cool), changing ocean currents etc etc etc.The product of all of this stuff combined is what we are seeing.
Only problem is we don't how much each factor really contributes, including AGW.Then there's the global cooling scare during the 80's.
Prove to me that the current AGW alarmism isn't the same thing?
I'd lay money down that says in 20 years we'll be ashamed of ourselves for being so stupid.The glaciers started melting 12000 years ago.
Man had nothing to do with it.
We've been on a constant upward trend since then.
We've had some dips, but overall, it's been getting warmer since before our species existed.
Of course it's been getting warmer since we started collecting data.Canada, the EU and a lot of the U.S. used to be under ice that had thickness which measured in kilometers.
That all melted long before the industrial age.
The great lakes were carved by glaciers and that ice was gone before human history.
What's the AGW argument for this?
When should the cooling cycle have begun?
Nobody knows if it should have already, or whether it should be 2000 years from now.The only facts we have is that the earth gets warmer, it also gets cooler, and we also have a bunch of incomplete statistical data that's less than 200 years old being used to try and predict what's going on with a macro-climactic cycle that lasts over 100000 years.AGW theory is just that, a theory.
It hasn't been tested yet.
We don't have the knowledge or data to predict what part we play in anything on this scale.I'm not saying the theory is wrong, just that people shouldn't portray it as something that is definite.
If you do you are talking out of your ass.
You can believe in a theory, but if you state it as fact, you are as bad as a right wing fundamentalist Christian.
At this point, they have just as much evidence for their theory as you do for yours: a bunch of people said so, here's what they say they saw.
"There's absolutely no question that we humans are changing the atmospheric makeup of the earth.
" No shit.
The question of the day is whether or not it's enough to impact climate cycles.Climate science has become a religion followed by fervent zealots.
This is not a good thing because facts go out the window and people get persecuted because of religion.
They also become incapable of real science because of fear of the zealots and bias.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30495350</id>
	<title>It was 45 degrees this morning, and now it's 70</title>
	<author>AthleteMusicianNerd</author>
	<datestamp>1261143660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's the way the earth works.  It rotates and it orbits the sun.

When you read books like "The Salem Witch Trial" and wonder how could people have been so stupid...Well, we're living it!</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's the way the earth works .
It rotates and it orbits the sun .
When you read books like " The Salem Witch Trial " and wonder how could people have been so stupid...Well , we 're living it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's the way the earth works.
It rotates and it orbits the sun.
When you read books like "The Salem Witch Trial" and wonder how could people have been so stupid...Well, we're living it!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469232</id>
	<title>Yeah, AND...</title>
	<author>cboscari</author>
	<datestamp>1259690040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the CRU is taking blowtorches to all the glacial ice in Greenland and the polar caps to make their case, too!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the CRU is taking blowtorches to all the glacial ice in Greenland and the polar caps to make their case , too !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the CRU is taking blowtorches to all the glacial ice in Greenland and the polar caps to make their case, too!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30470092</id>
	<title>Re:This is good news!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259697300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Finally, an answer that will appeal to all the faith-based populists:</p><p>"You know who ELSE doesn't believe in global warming?  Russia."</p></div><p>I don't know... There's a compelling case to be made for <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzygTCDPyAo" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">Climatology as Scientology</a> [youtube.com], so American "faith-based populists" will be conflicted.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Finally , an answer that will appeal to all the faith-based populists : " You know who ELSE does n't believe in global warming ?
Russia. " I do n't know... There 's a compelling case to be made for Climatology as Scientology [ youtube.com ] , so American " faith-based populists " will be conflicted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Finally, an answer that will appeal to all the faith-based populists:"You know who ELSE doesn't believe in global warming?
Russia."I don't know... There's a compelling case to be made for Climatology as Scientology [youtube.com], so American "faith-based populists" will be conflicted.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469102</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469742</id>
	<title>Re:Why is there even a debate?</title>
	<author>CAIMLAS</author>
	<datestamp>1259694240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uh, I'm pretty sure that the sun's activity was highest in quite some time over the past 20 years (or so). It's recently started to subside, however.</p><p>I'm also sure most of what else you say is completely fabricated, or found in some fiction novel.</p><p>And while evidence isn't the plural for anecdote, I will also add this: myself, and many others, have been noticing how fucking cold it's been this winter, and how mild last summer was. Not just in a specific area, either, but nationwide. Record cold, early on in the year, during the summer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh , I 'm pretty sure that the sun 's activity was highest in quite some time over the past 20 years ( or so ) .
It 's recently started to subside , however.I 'm also sure most of what else you say is completely fabricated , or found in some fiction novel.And while evidence is n't the plural for anecdote , I will also add this : myself , and many others , have been noticing how fucking cold it 's been this winter , and how mild last summer was .
Not just in a specific area , either , but nationwide .
Record cold , early on in the year , during the summer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh, I'm pretty sure that the sun's activity was highest in quite some time over the past 20 years (or so).
It's recently started to subside, however.I'm also sure most of what else you say is completely fabricated, or found in some fiction novel.And while evidence isn't the plural for anecdote, I will also add this: myself, and many others, have been noticing how fucking cold it's been this winter, and how mild last summer was.
Not just in a specific area, either, but nationwide.
Record cold, early on in the year, during the summer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30487246</id>
	<title>But everyone's still assuming the response...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261152000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We already know the data is manipulated. That's what mathematical modeling is. Where is a description of the biases used, how many data points don't fit, etc.?</p><p>But all that aside, everyone seems to assume that once convinced the response is clear: "reverse the process".</p><p>I don't know that I agree with that. Why should I spend all that money to try to reduce the earth's temperature? The reported alternative is slightly higher alternative temperatures and higher ocean levels. Maybe that's acceptable. Some people with cancer choose not to treat it. That's an acceptable response.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We already know the data is manipulated .
That 's what mathematical modeling is .
Where is a description of the biases used , how many data points do n't fit , etc .
? But all that aside , everyone seems to assume that once convinced the response is clear : " reverse the process " .I do n't know that I agree with that .
Why should I spend all that money to try to reduce the earth 's temperature ?
The reported alternative is slightly higher alternative temperatures and higher ocean levels .
Maybe that 's acceptable .
Some people with cancer choose not to treat it .
That 's an acceptable response .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We already know the data is manipulated.
That's what mathematical modeling is.
Where is a description of the biases used, how many data points don't fit, etc.
?But all that aside, everyone seems to assume that once convinced the response is clear: "reverse the process".I don't know that I agree with that.
Why should I spend all that money to try to reduce the earth's temperature?
The reported alternative is slightly higher alternative temperatures and higher ocean levels.
Maybe that's acceptable.
Some people with cancer choose not to treat it.
That's an acceptable response.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30477004</id>
	<title>Re:Just more right wing nonsense</title>
	<author>REALMAN</author>
	<datestamp>1261080000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Kyoto is killing off the world economy like an "international Auschwitz," "The Kyoto Protocol is a death pact, however strange it may sound, because its main aim is to strangle economic growth and economic activity in countries that accept the protocol's requirements."</p><p>Why is a statement of truth bad?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Kyoto is killing off the world economy like an " international Auschwitz , " " The Kyoto Protocol is a death pact , however strange it may sound , because its main aim is to strangle economic growth and economic activity in countries that accept the protocol 's requirements .
" Why is a statement of truth bad ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Kyoto is killing off the world economy like an "international Auschwitz," "The Kyoto Protocol is a death pact, however strange it may sound, because its main aim is to strangle economic growth and economic activity in countries that accept the protocol's requirements.
"Why is a statement of truth bad?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469498</id>
	<title>Boy the IEA sounds so trustworthy...wait...</title>
	<author>Anarchduke</author>
	<datestamp>1259692320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The author of the source article,  ahem.. BLOG, seems to be trying to masquerade as a reputable journalist, yet he isn't.  His <a href="http://www.jamesdelingpole.com/" title="jamesdelingpole.com" rel="nofollow">personal website</a> [jamesdelingpole.com] (BLOG) contains nothing except climate skeptic material for at least 7 pages back in his history, then <a href="http://jamesdelingpole.com/2009/11/27/warts-and-all/" title="jamesdelingpole.com" rel="nofollow">a couple of confusing paragraphs </a> [jamesdelingpole.com]that might make sense to one of his next door neighbors, then back to the climate skeptic material again.<br> <br>

The source material seemed a little suspect, so with the aid of Google Translate, I attempted to understand a bit about the Russian IEA Mr. Delingpole quotes so freely.   The IEA, or Institute of Economic Analysis, is hardly an expert on climate science.  The first article on the <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&amp;sl=ru&amp;u=http://www.iea.ru/&amp;ei=bLYpS5f-M4GwswOcnrmIBA&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=translate&amp;ct=result&amp;resnum=4&amp;ved=0CBMQ7gEwAw&amp;prev=/search\%3Fq\%3DInstitute\%2Bof\%2BEconomic\%2BAnalysis\%26hl\%3Den\%26client\%3Dfirefox-a\%26rls\%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official\%26hs\%3D60n" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">IEA's website</a> [google.com] says:<blockquote><div><p>new: <em>scientific consensus on climate issues does not exist - Novaya Gazeta, December 16, 2009</em>
<br>

- Instead of articulating and prosecution of false targets political leaders gathered in Copenhagen should concentrate on the other - to develop policies that promote more effective human adaptation to climate change, economic growth, the development of free trade, protection of property rights, strengthen democracy.</p></div> </blockquote><p>
This hardly seems to be an unbiased website, so I thought I would dig deeper.  The article the IEA quoted is also fairly suspect, since it goes into detail and reveals the inherently <a href="http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate\_c?hl=en&amp;sl=ru&amp;u=http://www.iea.ru/kioto\_order.php\%3Fid\%3D8&amp;prev=/search\%3Fq\%3DInstitute\%2Bof\%2BEconomic\%2BAnalysis\%26hl\%3Den\%26client\%3Dfirefox-a\%26rls\%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official\%26hs\%3D60n&amp;rurl=translate.google.com&amp;usg=ALkJrhiD2yrBPNdZXsKIV2T6PWg8ponAtg" title="googleusercontent.com" rel="nofollow">anti "global warming" bias</a> [googleusercontent.com] of the source.</p><blockquote><div><p>Adoption of the "Arctic ice melt" is outdated. Instead of reducing the area of ice cover in the Arctic is actually observed in 1979-2007 gg. In recent years its growth has come. In those same years saw an increase in the Antarctic ice sheet.
<br> <br>
"Excessive prices for oil and food" to a certain extent the result of policy restrictions on the use of hydrocarbons, the effect of extrusion from the structure of arable food crops through improved crop plants from which ethanol is produced to replace hydrocarbons as fuel.  In other words, it is recommended that treatment policy ensures "high prices for oil and food, leading to chaos awaiting us in the future."</p></div></blockquote><p>
I <a href="http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/arcticice\_decline.html" title="nasa.gov" rel="nofollow">shouldn't have to point out the satellite photos of Arctic Ice and how it has shrunk</a> [nasa.gov], or how Polar Bears are in real danger of extinction because of the loss of their frozen habitat.<br>
This drivel seems to come right out of the climate skeptic/big business lobbyist handbook.  Normally,  I wouldn't bother to respond, but the author's Russian source got me interested enough  to investigate.  As I suspected, its bullshit.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The author of the source article , ahem.. BLOG , seems to be trying to masquerade as a reputable journalist , yet he is n't .
His personal website [ jamesdelingpole.com ] ( BLOG ) contains nothing except climate skeptic material for at least 7 pages back in his history , then a couple of confusing paragraphs [ jamesdelingpole.com ] that might make sense to one of his next door neighbors , then back to the climate skeptic material again .
The source material seemed a little suspect , so with the aid of Google Translate , I attempted to understand a bit about the Russian IEA Mr. Delingpole quotes so freely .
The IEA , or Institute of Economic Analysis , is hardly an expert on climate science .
The first article on the IEA 's website [ google.com ] says : new : scientific consensus on climate issues does not exist - Novaya Gazeta , December 16 , 2009 - Instead of articulating and prosecution of false targets political leaders gathered in Copenhagen should concentrate on the other - to develop policies that promote more effective human adaptation to climate change , economic growth , the development of free trade , protection of property rights , strengthen democracy .
This hardly seems to be an unbiased website , so I thought I would dig deeper .
The article the IEA quoted is also fairly suspect , since it goes into detail and reveals the inherently anti " global warming " bias [ googleusercontent.com ] of the source.Adoption of the " Arctic ice melt " is outdated .
Instead of reducing the area of ice cover in the Arctic is actually observed in 1979-2007 gg .
In recent years its growth has come .
In those same years saw an increase in the Antarctic ice sheet .
" Excessive prices for oil and food " to a certain extent the result of policy restrictions on the use of hydrocarbons , the effect of extrusion from the structure of arable food crops through improved crop plants from which ethanol is produced to replace hydrocarbons as fuel .
In other words , it is recommended that treatment policy ensures " high prices for oil and food , leading to chaos awaiting us in the future .
" I should n't have to point out the satellite photos of Arctic Ice and how it has shrunk [ nasa.gov ] , or how Polar Bears are in real danger of extinction because of the loss of their frozen habitat .
This drivel seems to come right out of the climate skeptic/big business lobbyist handbook .
Normally , I would n't bother to respond , but the author 's Russian source got me interested enough to investigate .
As I suspected , its bullshit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The author of the source article,  ahem.. BLOG, seems to be trying to masquerade as a reputable journalist, yet he isn't.
His personal website [jamesdelingpole.com] (BLOG) contains nothing except climate skeptic material for at least 7 pages back in his history, then a couple of confusing paragraphs  [jamesdelingpole.com]that might make sense to one of his next door neighbors, then back to the climate skeptic material again.
The source material seemed a little suspect, so with the aid of Google Translate, I attempted to understand a bit about the Russian IEA Mr. Delingpole quotes so freely.
The IEA, or Institute of Economic Analysis, is hardly an expert on climate science.
The first article on the IEA's website [google.com] says:new: scientific consensus on climate issues does not exist - Novaya Gazeta, December 16, 2009


- Instead of articulating and prosecution of false targets political leaders gathered in Copenhagen should concentrate on the other - to develop policies that promote more effective human adaptation to climate change, economic growth, the development of free trade, protection of property rights, strengthen democracy.
This hardly seems to be an unbiased website, so I thought I would dig deeper.
The article the IEA quoted is also fairly suspect, since it goes into detail and reveals the inherently anti "global warming" bias [googleusercontent.com] of the source.Adoption of the "Arctic ice melt" is outdated.
Instead of reducing the area of ice cover in the Arctic is actually observed in 1979-2007 gg.
In recent years its growth has come.
In those same years saw an increase in the Antarctic ice sheet.
"Excessive prices for oil and food" to a certain extent the result of policy restrictions on the use of hydrocarbons, the effect of extrusion from the structure of arable food crops through improved crop plants from which ethanol is produced to replace hydrocarbons as fuel.
In other words, it is recommended that treatment policy ensures "high prices for oil and food, leading to chaos awaiting us in the future.
"
I shouldn't have to point out the satellite photos of Arctic Ice and how it has shrunk [nasa.gov], or how Polar Bears are in real danger of extinction because of the loss of their frozen habitat.
This drivel seems to come right out of the climate skeptic/big business lobbyist handbook.
Normally,  I wouldn't bother to respond, but the author's Russian source got me interested enough  to investigate.
As I suspected, its bullshit.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469206</id>
	<title>Hanson, you're next</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259689740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Going to be lots of fun pawing through NASA's dirty climate laundry.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>We're collecting the information and will respond with all the responsive relevant information to all of his requests," Mr. Hess said. "It's just a process you have to go through where you have to collect data that's responsive.</p></div><p> <a href="http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/12/nasas\_nonresponse\_response\_to.html" title="americanthinker.com" rel="nofollow">Comply with FOIA</a> [americanthinker.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Going to be lots of fun pawing through NASA 's dirty climate laundry.We 're collecting the information and will respond with all the responsive relevant information to all of his requests , " Mr. Hess said .
" It 's just a process you have to go through where you have to collect data that 's responsive .
Comply with FOIA [ americanthinker.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Going to be lots of fun pawing through NASA's dirty climate laundry.We're collecting the information and will respond with all the responsive relevant information to all of his requests," Mr. Hess said.
"It's just a process you have to go through where you have to collect data that's responsive.
Comply with FOIA [americanthinker.com]
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469522</id>
	<title>Re:Why is there even a debate?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259692440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a debate.  You're just making assumptions and stating these as facts.</p><p>Here are some facts:<br>- In the past 1000 years parts of the earth has been much cooler than it is today.<br>- In the past 1000 years parts of the earth have been much warmer than they are today.</p><p>Observations;<br>- Man has an impact on climate.</p><p>Question:<br>- Is man's impact on climate stastically meaningful?</p><p>And *that* is where this whole debate has fallen on its head.  Many of those doing the research are either grossly incompetent in that their models aren't clearly stated and the data used are from a biased population.  Which takes up back to the models...at this point it seems that there is no such thing as a good model for this data.</p><p>So can we all agree to stop making political decisions that will result in damaging economies already???</p><p>So with the above</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a debate .
You 're just making assumptions and stating these as facts.Here are some facts : - In the past 1000 years parts of the earth has been much cooler than it is today.- In the past 1000 years parts of the earth have been much warmer than they are today.Observations ; - Man has an impact on climate.Question : - Is man 's impact on climate stastically meaningful ? And * that * is where this whole debate has fallen on its head .
Many of those doing the research are either grossly incompetent in that their models are n't clearly stated and the data used are from a biased population .
Which takes up back to the models...at this point it seems that there is no such thing as a good model for this data.So can we all agree to stop making political decisions that will result in damaging economies already ? ?
? So with the above</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a debate.
You're just making assumptions and stating these as facts.Here are some facts:- In the past 1000 years parts of the earth has been much cooler than it is today.- In the past 1000 years parts of the earth have been much warmer than they are today.Observations;- Man has an impact on climate.Question:- Is man's impact on climate stastically meaningful?And *that* is where this whole debate has fallen on its head.
Many of those doing the research are either grossly incompetent in that their models aren't clearly stated and the data used are from a biased population.
Which takes up back to the models...at this point it seems that there is no such thing as a good model for this data.So can we all agree to stop making political decisions that will result in damaging economies already??
?So with the above</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30473360</id>
	<title>Re:Evolution of an Argument</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261065420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>THEN it was "Wait- it's a lie after all. This is all about MONEY. Climate change has no evidence behind it-- it's a massive collaborate scheme by those get-rich-quick green people. <b>If by get-rich-quick you mean don't get particularly rich or quick, and of course the green titans of industry will have to wait 20+ years</b> for their invented theory to persuade the majority of scientists in nearly every field from climatology to sociology-- I mean for them to be slowly recruited into the mass hoax. I certainly believe the poor oil industry establishment over those moneybag scientists.)</p></div><p>Your must not be aware of who is going to immediately profit from this and that is the companies buying and selling carbon credits. Al Gore is a major player in this industry and stands to personally make <i> <strong>billions</strong> </i> from it. I have a lot of difficulty getting behind these types of things when the biggest proponent of the initiative stands to prosper significantly from it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>THEN it was " Wait- it 's a lie after all .
This is all about MONEY .
Climate change has no evidence behind it-- it 's a massive collaborate scheme by those get-rich-quick green people .
If by get-rich-quick you mean do n't get particularly rich or quick , and of course the green titans of industry will have to wait 20 + years for their invented theory to persuade the majority of scientists in nearly every field from climatology to sociology-- I mean for them to be slowly recruited into the mass hoax .
I certainly believe the poor oil industry establishment over those moneybag scientists .
) Your must not be aware of who is going to immediately profit from this and that is the companies buying and selling carbon credits .
Al Gore is a major player in this industry and stands to personally make billions from it .
I have a lot of difficulty getting behind these types of things when the biggest proponent of the initiative stands to prosper significantly from it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>THEN it was "Wait- it's a lie after all.
This is all about MONEY.
Climate change has no evidence behind it-- it's a massive collaborate scheme by those get-rich-quick green people.
If by get-rich-quick you mean don't get particularly rich or quick, and of course the green titans of industry will have to wait 20+ years for their invented theory to persuade the majority of scientists in nearly every field from climatology to sociology-- I mean for them to be slowly recruited into the mass hoax.
I certainly believe the poor oil industry establishment over those moneybag scientists.
)Your must not be aware of who is going to immediately profit from this and that is the companies buying and selling carbon credits.
Al Gore is a major player in this industry and stands to personally make  billions  from it.
I have a lot of difficulty getting behind these types of things when the biggest proponent of the initiative stands to prosper significantly from it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469124</id>
	<title>Well duh!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259689080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In Soviet Russia planet warms you!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In Soviet Russia planet warms you !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Soviet Russia planet warms you!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469994</id>
	<title>Re:Why is there even a debate?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259696580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>WTF?  Does that not mean that one gallon of gasoline has to weigh at least 1/3 that, assuming carbon and oxygen weigh the same (which of course they don't..) and gasoline is 100\% carbon (which it isn't) and that burning gas is a 100\% gas+O2 -&gt; CO2 reaction?  I mean really, where the hell does that number come from?  Even on the surface your math does not make sense!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>WTF ?
Does that not mean that one gallon of gasoline has to weigh at least 1/3 that , assuming carbon and oxygen weigh the same ( which of course they do n't.. ) and gasoline is 100 \ % carbon ( which it is n't ) and that burning gas is a 100 \ % gas + O2 - &gt; CO2 reaction ?
I mean really , where the hell does that number come from ?
Even on the surface your math does not make sense !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WTF?
Does that not mean that one gallon of gasoline has to weigh at least 1/3 that, assuming carbon and oxygen weigh the same (which of course they don't..) and gasoline is 100\% carbon (which it isn't) and that burning gas is a 100\% gas+O2 -&gt; CO2 reaction?
I mean really, where the hell does that number come from?
Even on the surface your math does not make sense!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469376</id>
	<title>Re:Why is there even a debate?</title>
	<author>jpmorgan</author>
	<datestamp>1259691300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because the CO2 isn't sufficient to cause a major impact alone. The disaster scenarios that motivate the extreme measures proposed rely on complex feedback effects that aren't well understood and whose implementation in climate models is very ad hoc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because the CO2 is n't sufficient to cause a major impact alone .
The disaster scenarios that motivate the extreme measures proposed rely on complex feedback effects that are n't well understood and whose implementation in climate models is very ad hoc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because the CO2 isn't sufficient to cause a major impact alone.
The disaster scenarios that motivate the extreme measures proposed rely on complex feedback effects that aren't well understood and whose implementation in climate models is very ad hoc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30477428</id>
	<title>Re:Evolution of an Argument</title>
	<author>hkmwbz</author>
	<datestamp>1261081620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Now that it appears serious scientific fraud was committed, we have "Even IF the data is fake, we should still spend several hundred billions dollars cause otherwise climate change will kill everyone on the planet".</p></div></blockquote><p>
Except there was no fraud, and no one is using that argument.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now that it appears serious scientific fraud was committed , we have " Even IF the data is fake , we should still spend several hundred billions dollars cause otherwise climate change will kill everyone on the planet " .
Except there was no fraud , and no one is using that argument .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now that it appears serious scientific fraud was committed, we have "Even IF the data is fake, we should still spend several hundred billions dollars cause otherwise climate change will kill everyone on the planet".
Except there was no fraud, and no one is using that argument.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469308</id>
	<title>Re:Why is there even a debate?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259690640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There's no serious debate about those numbers.</p> </div><p>And that's the problem right there.</p><p>There's serious debate about the theory of relativity, the standard model, and hell, the evolution of species, but there's no serious debate about anthropological global warming?  Doesn't sound like science to me.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's no serious debate about those numbers .
And that 's the problem right there.There 's serious debate about the theory of relativity , the standard model , and hell , the evolution of species , but there 's no serious debate about anthropological global warming ?
Does n't sound like science to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's no serious debate about those numbers.
And that's the problem right there.There's serious debate about the theory of relativity, the standard model, and hell, the evolution of species, but there's no serious debate about anthropological global warming?
Doesn't sound like science to me.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469822</id>
	<title>Re:Evolution of an Argument</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259694960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find it more interesting how the argument against climate change has been evolving.</p><p>First we have "there's no such thing as global warming"</p><p>Then it's "okay, there is global warming but it's not man-made"</p><p>Then it was "okay it is man-made but there's nothing we can do about it now"</p><p>THEN it was "Wait- it's a lie after all.  This is all about MONEY.  Climate change has no evidence behind it-- it's a massive collaborate scheme by those get-rich-quick green people.  If by get-rich-quick you mean don't get particularly rich or quick, and of course the green titans of industry will have to wait 20+ years for their invented theory to persuade the majority of scientists in nearly every field from climatology to sociology-- I mean for them to be slowly  recruited into the mass hoax.  I certainly believe the poor oil industry establishment over those moneybag scientists.)</p><p>Now it's taken a real conspiracy twist:  "<a href="http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/" title="factcheck.org" rel="nofollow">Climategate!!!</a> [factcheck.org]"  followed by "The Telegraph quoted a russian free-market lobbying press-release!!"</p><p>Sorry, but when the truth threatens the profits and practices of major industries, we should just expect these obfuscation and lies.  And ignore them.</p><p>(And yes, smoking really <i>does</i> cause cancer. That wasn't a hoax either.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it more interesting how the argument against climate change has been evolving.First we have " there 's no such thing as global warming " Then it 's " okay , there is global warming but it 's not man-made " Then it was " okay it is man-made but there 's nothing we can do about it now " THEN it was " Wait- it 's a lie after all .
This is all about MONEY .
Climate change has no evidence behind it-- it 's a massive collaborate scheme by those get-rich-quick green people .
If by get-rich-quick you mean do n't get particularly rich or quick , and of course the green titans of industry will have to wait 20 + years for their invented theory to persuade the majority of scientists in nearly every field from climatology to sociology-- I mean for them to be slowly recruited into the mass hoax .
I certainly believe the poor oil industry establishment over those moneybag scientists .
) Now it 's taken a real conspiracy twist : " Climategate ! ! !
[ factcheck.org ] " followed by " The Telegraph quoted a russian free-market lobbying press-release ! !
" Sorry , but when the truth threatens the profits and practices of major industries , we should just expect these obfuscation and lies .
And ignore them .
( And yes , smoking really does cause cancer .
That was n't a hoax either .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it more interesting how the argument against climate change has been evolving.First we have "there's no such thing as global warming"Then it's "okay, there is global warming but it's not man-made"Then it was "okay it is man-made but there's nothing we can do about it now"THEN it was "Wait- it's a lie after all.
This is all about MONEY.
Climate change has no evidence behind it-- it's a massive collaborate scheme by those get-rich-quick green people.
If by get-rich-quick you mean don't get particularly rich or quick, and of course the green titans of industry will have to wait 20+ years for their invented theory to persuade the majority of scientists in nearly every field from climatology to sociology-- I mean for them to be slowly  recruited into the mass hoax.
I certainly believe the poor oil industry establishment over those moneybag scientists.
)Now it's taken a real conspiracy twist:  "Climategate!!!
[factcheck.org]"  followed by "The Telegraph quoted a russian free-market lobbying press-release!!
"Sorry, but when the truth threatens the profits and practices of major industries, we should just expect these obfuscation and lies.
And ignore them.
(And yes, smoking really does cause cancer.
That wasn't a hoax either.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469362</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30474406</id>
	<title>Re:Evolution of an Argument</title>
	<author>King Louie</author>
	<datestamp>1261069500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, you missed the very beginning of the argument. Those of us who remember the 70s recall the breathless press accounts of the coming ice age, which would have had a substantial portion of the world population dead of starvation by now because of the loss of farmland to glaciers. Given the full 30+ year history of climate change alarmism, a little skepticism is healthy.</p><p>The plain fact is, there is a whole lot more uncertainty surrounding the climate than most people are willing to admit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , you missed the very beginning of the argument .
Those of us who remember the 70s recall the breathless press accounts of the coming ice age , which would have had a substantial portion of the world population dead of starvation by now because of the loss of farmland to glaciers .
Given the full 30 + year history of climate change alarmism , a little skepticism is healthy.The plain fact is , there is a whole lot more uncertainty surrounding the climate than most people are willing to admit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, you missed the very beginning of the argument.
Those of us who remember the 70s recall the breathless press accounts of the coming ice age, which would have had a substantial portion of the world population dead of starvation by now because of the loss of farmland to glaciers.
Given the full 30+ year history of climate change alarmism, a little skepticism is healthy.The plain fact is, there is a whole lot more uncertainty surrounding the climate than most people are willing to admit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30477094</id>
	<title>Re:Boy the IEA sounds so trustworthy...wait...</title>
	<author>REALMAN</author>
	<datestamp>1261080420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's one thing to claim shrinkage of sea ice, it's quite another to PROVE that Man's emissions of CO2 is what caused it and not normal climate change via the sun and thousands of other factors.</p><p>I'm still waiting for someone to prove that it was CO2.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's one thing to claim shrinkage of sea ice , it 's quite another to PROVE that Man 's emissions of CO2 is what caused it and not normal climate change via the sun and thousands of other factors.I 'm still waiting for someone to prove that it was CO2 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's one thing to claim shrinkage of sea ice, it's quite another to PROVE that Man's emissions of CO2 is what caused it and not normal climate change via the sun and thousands of other factors.I'm still waiting for someone to prove that it was CO2.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469498</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30475932</id>
	<title>Re:Pollution == Peeing yourself. Stupids.</title>
	<author>KillaBeave</author>
	<datestamp>1261076100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree with you to a point.  I'm all for less pollution, just for the sake of less pollution.  The point of contention for me is the thought that the ONLY cost would be economic.  The past 100 years we've seen our standard of living and life expectancy increase at a nearly exponential rate.  The cause of much of this increase?  Transportation and the ability for a single human being to more easily obtain and use energy<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... mostly in the form of fossil fuels.
<br> <br>ANY form of VIABLE transportation<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... fossil fueled.  Batteries/biofuels etc aren't there yet, so should we go back to living/dieing within a 20 mile radius as our great grand-parents did? (Unless of course they came to America on a coal powered ship.)  Throw our wildly efficient modern farming techniques in there as fossil fueled as well.
<br> <br>Electricity?  Nuclear is nice, but the world isn't comfortable (for good reason) with unstable countries having these capabilities.  Solar/wind/geo-thermal etc<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... also nice, but not economically viable in the poorer parts of the world.  Could America go nuclear + solar + wind?   Sure, it would hurt financially but could be done.  Could Sub-Saharan Africa?  Not without even more people starving.
<br>
<br>I'll stop there, but hopefully my point is clearly stated.  I would gladly trade a couple *C warming for the vast increases in quality of life we've enjoyed over the past century.  Should we try and curb emissions if possible YES!!  But we mustn't lock out the developing world from the very advantages we've enjoyed, economically or otherwise.  Nor should we force ourselves to go backwards!  If we did, we would essentially be trading people for polar bears<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... if that's the choice, fuck the polar bears.

<br> <br>To assert that the only cost to reducing emissions are economic in nature is to dismiss the fact that economies feed people.  When these economies are unduly burdened, people starve<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... even here in the states.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with you to a point .
I 'm all for less pollution , just for the sake of less pollution .
The point of contention for me is the thought that the ONLY cost would be economic .
The past 100 years we 've seen our standard of living and life expectancy increase at a nearly exponential rate .
The cause of much of this increase ?
Transportation and the ability for a single human being to more easily obtain and use energy ... mostly in the form of fossil fuels .
ANY form of VIABLE transportation ... fossil fueled .
Batteries/biofuels etc are n't there yet , so should we go back to living/dieing within a 20 mile radius as our great grand-parents did ?
( Unless of course they came to America on a coal powered ship .
) Throw our wildly efficient modern farming techniques in there as fossil fueled as well .
Electricity ? Nuclear is nice , but the world is n't comfortable ( for good reason ) with unstable countries having these capabilities .
Solar/wind/geo-thermal etc ... also nice , but not economically viable in the poorer parts of the world .
Could America go nuclear + solar + wind ?
Sure , it would hurt financially but could be done .
Could Sub-Saharan Africa ?
Not without even more people starving .
I 'll stop there , but hopefully my point is clearly stated .
I would gladly trade a couple * C warming for the vast increases in quality of life we 've enjoyed over the past century .
Should we try and curb emissions if possible YES ! !
But we must n't lock out the developing world from the very advantages we 've enjoyed , economically or otherwise .
Nor should we force ourselves to go backwards !
If we did , we would essentially be trading people for polar bears ... if that 's the choice , fuck the polar bears .
To assert that the only cost to reducing emissions are economic in nature is to dismiss the fact that economies feed people .
When these economies are unduly burdened , people starve ... even here in the states .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with you to a point.
I'm all for less pollution, just for the sake of less pollution.
The point of contention for me is the thought that the ONLY cost would be economic.
The past 100 years we've seen our standard of living and life expectancy increase at a nearly exponential rate.
The cause of much of this increase?
Transportation and the ability for a single human being to more easily obtain and use energy ... mostly in the form of fossil fuels.
ANY form of VIABLE transportation ... fossil fueled.
Batteries/biofuels etc aren't there yet, so should we go back to living/dieing within a 20 mile radius as our great grand-parents did?
(Unless of course they came to America on a coal powered ship.
)  Throw our wildly efficient modern farming techniques in there as fossil fueled as well.
Electricity?  Nuclear is nice, but the world isn't comfortable (for good reason) with unstable countries having these capabilities.
Solar/wind/geo-thermal etc ... also nice, but not economically viable in the poorer parts of the world.
Could America go nuclear + solar + wind?
Sure, it would hurt financially but could be done.
Could Sub-Saharan Africa?
Not without even more people starving.
I'll stop there, but hopefully my point is clearly stated.
I would gladly trade a couple *C warming for the vast increases in quality of life we've enjoyed over the past century.
Should we try and curb emissions if possible YES!!
But we mustn't lock out the developing world from the very advantages we've enjoyed, economically or otherwise.
Nor should we force ourselves to go backwards!
If we did, we would essentially be trading people for polar bears ... if that's the choice, fuck the polar bears.
To assert that the only cost to reducing emissions are economic in nature is to dismiss the fact that economies feed people.
When these economies are unduly burdened, people starve ... even here in the states.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30474878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469520</id>
	<title>A failure of science and of media</title>
	<author>dirkdodgers</author>
	<datestamp>1259692440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And how will AGW proponents respond to this in the media? With appeals to authority, ad hominem attacks, and bluster.</p><p>The media and the scientists who have become the public faces of AGW in the media have taken the position that the public is too stupid to understand AGW, and must be convinced by multimedia slideshows, appeals to authority, and bluster. They do not seek to convey an understanding of the data, methods, and conclusions. Instead, they seek to replace one belief with another. When this is how you approach your audience, it doesn't matter whether what you teach is true or false, it is indoctrination, not education.</p><p>How should they handle it in the media? They should spend 4 hours in primetime, instead of Dances with Fucktards, walk the public through the data, walk the public through the methods, examine the claim being made here, and explain its impact or irrelevance to the conclusions.  You know. EDUCATE. Not pontificate. Not intimidate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And how will AGW proponents respond to this in the media ?
With appeals to authority , ad hominem attacks , and bluster.The media and the scientists who have become the public faces of AGW in the media have taken the position that the public is too stupid to understand AGW , and must be convinced by multimedia slideshows , appeals to authority , and bluster .
They do not seek to convey an understanding of the data , methods , and conclusions .
Instead , they seek to replace one belief with another .
When this is how you approach your audience , it does n't matter whether what you teach is true or false , it is indoctrination , not education.How should they handle it in the media ?
They should spend 4 hours in primetime , instead of Dances with Fucktards , walk the public through the data , walk the public through the methods , examine the claim being made here , and explain its impact or irrelevance to the conclusions .
You know .
EDUCATE. Not pontificate .
Not intimidate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And how will AGW proponents respond to this in the media?
With appeals to authority, ad hominem attacks, and bluster.The media and the scientists who have become the public faces of AGW in the media have taken the position that the public is too stupid to understand AGW, and must be convinced by multimedia slideshows, appeals to authority, and bluster.
They do not seek to convey an understanding of the data, methods, and conclusions.
Instead, they seek to replace one belief with another.
When this is how you approach your audience, it doesn't matter whether what you teach is true or false, it is indoctrination, not education.How should they handle it in the media?
They should spend 4 hours in primetime, instead of Dances with Fucktards, walk the public through the data, walk the public through the methods, examine the claim being made here, and explain its impact or irrelevance to the conclusions.
You know.
EDUCATE. Not pontificate.
Not intimidate.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30485462</id>
	<title>Re:  Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis</title>
	<author>ibsteve2u</author>
	<datestamp>1261140960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What I get out of this?  That we Americans are a lot better these days at spreading the idea of using think-tanks to justify whatever further enriches the individual than we are at "spreading democracy" that benefits entire nations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What I get out of this ?
That we Americans are a lot better these days at spreading the idea of using think-tanks to justify whatever further enriches the individual than we are at " spreading democracy " that benefits entire nations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I get out of this?
That we Americans are a lot better these days at spreading the idea of using think-tanks to justify whatever further enriches the individual than we are at "spreading democracy" that benefits entire nations.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30477332</id>
	<title>NOT!</title>
	<author>Viking Coder</author>
	<datestamp>1261081260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What you said, except THE OPPOSITE:</p><p>Russian analysis confirms 20th century CRU temperatures</p><p><a href="http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/russian\_analysis\_confirms\_20th.php" title="scienceblogs.com">http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/russian\_analysis\_confirms\_20th.php</a> [scienceblogs.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What you said , except THE OPPOSITE : Russian analysis confirms 20th century CRU temperatureshttp : //scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/russian \ _analysis \ _confirms \ _20th.php [ scienceblogs.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What you said, except THE OPPOSITE:Russian analysis confirms 20th century CRU temperatureshttp://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/russian\_analysis\_confirms\_20th.php [scienceblogs.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30496832</id>
	<title>cop-out-in-hagen produced ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261162260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>16, 000 rapes; victims were 80\% men, 20\% women.  Analysis: Cop-out-in-hagens prefer men.</p><p>100,000 muggings; victims were 90\% men, 10\% women.  Analysis: Cop-out-in-hagens prefer men.</p><p>1 Gt mass of trash; 80\% hypodermic needles, 10\% "weed"-paper, 10\% "rolled" one-dollar bills with traces of cocaine and excrement.  Analysis: Cop-out-in-hagens need toilet paper and water closet training.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>16 , 000 rapes ; victims were 80 \ % men , 20 \ % women .
Analysis : Cop-out-in-hagens prefer men.100,000 muggings ; victims were 90 \ % men , 10 \ % women .
Analysis : Cop-out-in-hagens prefer men.1 Gt mass of trash ; 80 \ % hypodermic needles , 10 \ % " weed " -paper , 10 \ % " rolled " one-dollar bills with traces of cocaine and excrement .
Analysis : Cop-out-in-hagens need toilet paper and water closet training .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>16, 000 rapes; victims were 80\% men, 20\% women.
Analysis: Cop-out-in-hagens prefer men.100,000 muggings; victims were 90\% men, 10\% women.
Analysis: Cop-out-in-hagens prefer men.1 Gt mass of trash; 80\% hypodermic needles, 10\% "weed"-paper, 10\% "rolled" one-dollar bills with traces of cocaine and excrement.
Analysis: Cop-out-in-hagens need toilet paper and water closet training.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30468900</id>
	<title>Why Are We Deferring to an Economic Organization?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259687460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, let's see if <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&amp;sl=ru&amp;u=http://www.iea.ru/&amp;ei=aaspS971NIennQe6gLntCA&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=translate&amp;ct=result&amp;resnum=4&amp;ved=0CBYQ7gEwAw&amp;prev=/search\%3Fq\%3DInstitute\%2Bof\%2BEconomic\%2BAnalysis\%26hl\%3Den\%26client\%3Dfirefox-a\%26rls\%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official\%26hs\%3DdHn" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">they have any bias</a> [google.com] (although this is poorly translated):<p><div class="quote"><p>Proposed supporters of climate alarmism methods to combat global warming by reducing carbon dioxide emissions are not only scientifically unfounded - in the absence of extraordinary characteristics of modern climate change, but also incredibly expensive in economic terms. Especially dangerous such measures, if adopted, are for the medium and low levels of economic development, effectively cut off their path to reduce the economic gap with more developed nations of the world.</p></div><p>I'm going to venture out on a limb here and say that the Institute of <b>Economic</b> Analysis is primarily concerned about the economic problems with combatting anthropogenic global warming.  Unfortunately, that's not what this is about.  This is about what scientific tools we can apply to develop a percentage of how sure we are that such climate change is created by man and -- actually happening.  Until we establish it is or isn't, will the economic institutions relax and let the institutions who contain the most appropriate experts publish, release and make conclusions from the data.  <br> <br>

Credibility skyrockets when I read the subtext of the blog's heading (that is linked to by the story):</p><p><div class="quote"><p>James Delingpole is a writer, journalist and broadcaster who is right about everything. He is the author of numerous fantastically entertaining books including Welcome To Obamaland: I've Seen Your Future And It Doesn't Work, How To Be Right, and the Coward series of WWII adventure novels. His website is www.jamesdelingpole.com</p></div><p>Oh if you think he might be an unbiased reporter working for the telegraph, please visit his page that he shamelessly plugs.  <br> <br>

Unless the IEA produces data it claims is 100\% raw uncut, this story is below the threshold of credibility.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , let 's see if they have any bias [ google.com ] ( although this is poorly translated ) : Proposed supporters of climate alarmism methods to combat global warming by reducing carbon dioxide emissions are not only scientifically unfounded - in the absence of extraordinary characteristics of modern climate change , but also incredibly expensive in economic terms .
Especially dangerous such measures , if adopted , are for the medium and low levels of economic development , effectively cut off their path to reduce the economic gap with more developed nations of the world.I 'm going to venture out on a limb here and say that the Institute of Economic Analysis is primarily concerned about the economic problems with combatting anthropogenic global warming .
Unfortunately , that 's not what this is about .
This is about what scientific tools we can apply to develop a percentage of how sure we are that such climate change is created by man and -- actually happening .
Until we establish it is or is n't , will the economic institutions relax and let the institutions who contain the most appropriate experts publish , release and make conclusions from the data .
Credibility skyrockets when I read the subtext of the blog 's heading ( that is linked to by the story ) : James Delingpole is a writer , journalist and broadcaster who is right about everything .
He is the author of numerous fantastically entertaining books including Welcome To Obamaland : I 've Seen Your Future And It Does n't Work , How To Be Right , and the Coward series of WWII adventure novels .
His website is www.jamesdelingpole.comOh if you think he might be an unbiased reporter working for the telegraph , please visit his page that he shamelessly plugs .
Unless the IEA produces data it claims is 100 \ % raw uncut , this story is below the threshold of credibility .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, let's see if they have any bias [google.com] (although this is poorly translated):Proposed supporters of climate alarmism methods to combat global warming by reducing carbon dioxide emissions are not only scientifically unfounded - in the absence of extraordinary characteristics of modern climate change, but also incredibly expensive in economic terms.
Especially dangerous such measures, if adopted, are for the medium and low levels of economic development, effectively cut off their path to reduce the economic gap with more developed nations of the world.I'm going to venture out on a limb here and say that the Institute of Economic Analysis is primarily concerned about the economic problems with combatting anthropogenic global warming.
Unfortunately, that's not what this is about.
This is about what scientific tools we can apply to develop a percentage of how sure we are that such climate change is created by man and -- actually happening.
Until we establish it is or isn't, will the economic institutions relax and let the institutions who contain the most appropriate experts publish, release and make conclusions from the data.
Credibility skyrockets when I read the subtext of the blog's heading (that is linked to by the story):James Delingpole is a writer, journalist and broadcaster who is right about everything.
He is the author of numerous fantastically entertaining books including Welcome To Obamaland: I've Seen Your Future And It Doesn't Work, How To Be Right, and the Coward series of WWII adventure novels.
His website is www.jamesdelingpole.comOh if you think he might be an unbiased reporter working for the telegraph, please visit his page that he shamelessly plugs.
Unless the IEA produces data it claims is 100\% raw uncut, this story is below the threshold of credibility.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30489920</id>
	<title>I call BS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261162140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nothing to see here folks, move along. Obviously, Slashdot readers have  been identified, correctly, as opinion makers online. We are. But we're not stupid, either. Thanks for playing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nothing to see here folks , move along .
Obviously , Slashdot readers have been identified , correctly , as opinion makers online .
We are .
But we 're not stupid , either .
Thanks for playing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nothing to see here folks, move along.
Obviously, Slashdot readers have  been identified, correctly, as opinion makers online.
We are.
But we're not stupid, either.
Thanks for playing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469436</id>
	<title>Re:Why is there even a debate?</title>
	<author>Kr1ll1n</author>
	<datestamp>1259691780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html" title="time.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html</a> [time.com] - one more reason people are so skeptical about all of this...... This is a Times article from 1974. The title? "Another Ice Age?"</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html [ time.com ] - one more reason people are so skeptical about all of this...... This is a Times article from 1974 .
The title ?
" Another Ice Age ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html [time.com] - one more reason people are so skeptical about all of this...... This is a Times article from 1974.
The title?
"Another Ice Age?
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30471382</id>
	<title>Re:A failure of science and of media</title>
	<author>Jedi Alec</author>
	<datestamp>1261048980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>And how will AGW proponents respond to this in the media? With appeals to authority, ad hominem attacks, and bluster.</i></p><p><i>The media and the scientists who have become the public faces of AGW in the media have taken the position that the public is too stupid to understand AGW, and must be convinced by multimedia slideshows, appeals to authority, and bluster. They do not seek to convey an understanding of the data, methods, and conclusions. Instead, they seek to replace one belief with another. When this is how you approach your audience, it doesn't matter whether what you teach is true or false, it is indoctrination, not education.</i></p><p><i>How should they handle it in the media? They should spend 4 hours in primetime, instead of Dances with Fucktards, walk the public through the data, walk the public through the methods, examine the claim being made here, and explain its impact or irrelevance to the conclusions. You know. EDUCATE. Not pontificate. Not intimidate.</i></p><p>And what difference will that make? The ignorant will remain ignorant, the faithful will keep believing, the pundits will scream, and Sean Hannity says it snowed in Houston.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And how will AGW proponents respond to this in the media ?
With appeals to authority , ad hominem attacks , and bluster.The media and the scientists who have become the public faces of AGW in the media have taken the position that the public is too stupid to understand AGW , and must be convinced by multimedia slideshows , appeals to authority , and bluster .
They do not seek to convey an understanding of the data , methods , and conclusions .
Instead , they seek to replace one belief with another .
When this is how you approach your audience , it does n't matter whether what you teach is true or false , it is indoctrination , not education.How should they handle it in the media ?
They should spend 4 hours in primetime , instead of Dances with Fucktards , walk the public through the data , walk the public through the methods , examine the claim being made here , and explain its impact or irrelevance to the conclusions .
You know .
EDUCATE. Not pontificate .
Not intimidate.And what difference will that make ?
The ignorant will remain ignorant , the faithful will keep believing , the pundits will scream , and Sean Hannity says it snowed in Houston .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And how will AGW proponents respond to this in the media?
With appeals to authority, ad hominem attacks, and bluster.The media and the scientists who have become the public faces of AGW in the media have taken the position that the public is too stupid to understand AGW, and must be convinced by multimedia slideshows, appeals to authority, and bluster.
They do not seek to convey an understanding of the data, methods, and conclusions.
Instead, they seek to replace one belief with another.
When this is how you approach your audience, it doesn't matter whether what you teach is true or false, it is indoctrination, not education.How should they handle it in the media?
They should spend 4 hours in primetime, instead of Dances with Fucktards, walk the public through the data, walk the public through the methods, examine the claim being made here, and explain its impact or irrelevance to the conclusions.
You know.
EDUCATE. Not pontificate.
Not intimidate.And what difference will that make?
The ignorant will remain ignorant, the faithful will keep believing, the pundits will scream, and Sean Hannity says it snowed in Houston.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469698</id>
	<title>Re:Why is there even a debate?</title>
	<author>luzr</author>
	<datestamp>1259693940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Simple question: What if it is methan or NO2 instead of CO2? Will we spend trillions and achive nothing by cap&amp;trade then?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Simple question : What if it is methan or NO2 instead of CO2 ?
Will we spend trillions and achive nothing by cap&amp;trade then ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Simple question: What if it is methan or NO2 instead of CO2?
Will we spend trillions and achive nothing by cap&amp;trade then?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30470300</id>
	<title>Re:Why is there even a debate?</title>
	<author>LingNoi</author>
	<datestamp>1261081320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And how much of that CO2 was then absorbed by plants, into desserts, etc? Once it gets into the air doesn't mean it just stops so why do you end your math there?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And how much of that CO2 was then absorbed by plants , into desserts , etc ?
Once it gets into the air does n't mean it just stops so why do you end your math there ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And how much of that CO2 was then absorbed by plants, into desserts, etc?
Once it gets into the air doesn't mean it just stops so why do you end your math there?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469794</id>
	<title>Re:In Soviet Russia....</title>
	<author>Torodung</author>
	<datestamp>1259694660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The climate data determines the weather stations?</p><p>Mother Russia destroys global warming?</p><p>It's so damn cold in your shorts pee YOU?</p><p>No wait, I think that last one was Yoda-talk.</p><p>--<br>Toro</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The climate data determines the weather stations ? Mother Russia destroys global warming ? It 's so damn cold in your shorts pee YOU ? No wait , I think that last one was Yoda-talk.--Toro</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The climate data determines the weather stations?Mother Russia destroys global warming?It's so damn cold in your shorts pee YOU?No wait, I think that last one was Yoda-talk.--Toro</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469234</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469770</id>
	<title>Re:Why is there even a debate?</title>
	<author>CAIMLAS</author>
	<datestamp>1259694480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If CO2 is in any significant way related to climate change (temperature, over time, say) would we not see a system change which is not only in lock-step with the increase in CO2 into the atmosphere, by proportionate volume, but at a fairly exponential fashion due to the fact that CO2 doesn't simply "disappear".</p><p>How much CO2 does a Bengal tiger emit in a year? I'd bet "a lot". Or sperm whales? Good thing there aren't many left, or we might have to kill some to stop it...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If CO2 is in any significant way related to climate change ( temperature , over time , say ) would we not see a system change which is not only in lock-step with the increase in CO2 into the atmosphere , by proportionate volume , but at a fairly exponential fashion due to the fact that CO2 does n't simply " disappear " .How much CO2 does a Bengal tiger emit in a year ?
I 'd bet " a lot " .
Or sperm whales ?
Good thing there are n't many left , or we might have to kill some to stop it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If CO2 is in any significant way related to climate change (temperature, over time, say) would we not see a system change which is not only in lock-step with the increase in CO2 into the atmosphere, by proportionate volume, but at a fairly exponential fashion due to the fact that CO2 doesn't simply "disappear".How much CO2 does a Bengal tiger emit in a year?
I'd bet "a lot".
Or sperm whales?
Good thing there aren't many left, or we might have to kill some to stop it...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469362</id>
	<title>Evolution of an Argument</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259691180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Interesting how the argument in favor of AGW has evolved.</p><p>First we had "They science is settled.  The scientific community agrees about man-made global warming (cause we won't let contrary views get published).  Besides anyone who denies it is a stupid poopy-head!".</p><p>Then when the climate-gate memos came out we had "No smoking gun.  It's all taken out of context.  Nothing to see here, move along".</p><p>Now that it appears serious scientific fraud was committed, we have "Even IF the data is fake, we should still spend several hundred billions dollars cause otherwise climate change will kill everyone on the planet".</p><p>Bernie Madoff was an amateur.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting how the argument in favor of AGW has evolved.First we had " They science is settled .
The scientific community agrees about man-made global warming ( cause we wo n't let contrary views get published ) .
Besides anyone who denies it is a stupid poopy-head !
" .Then when the climate-gate memos came out we had " No smoking gun .
It 's all taken out of context .
Nothing to see here , move along " .Now that it appears serious scientific fraud was committed , we have " Even IF the data is fake , we should still spend several hundred billions dollars cause otherwise climate change will kill everyone on the planet " .Bernie Madoff was an amateur .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting how the argument in favor of AGW has evolved.First we had "They science is settled.
The scientific community agrees about man-made global warming (cause we won't let contrary views get published).
Besides anyone who denies it is a stupid poopy-head!
".Then when the climate-gate memos came out we had "No smoking gun.
It's all taken out of context.
Nothing to see here, move along".Now that it appears serious scientific fraud was committed, we have "Even IF the data is fake, we should still spend several hundred billions dollars cause otherwise climate change will kill everyone on the planet".Bernie Madoff was an amateur.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469528</id>
	<title>Hardly a consensus</title>
	<author>RJBeery</author>
	<datestamp>1259692500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Prior to Climategate and unbeknownst to many, there are many of scientists who question the data behind the AGW proponents' claims.  I would venture to say that, due to the politically volatile nature of this subject, there are many more that would also like to become signatories yet fear the repercussions.

<a href="http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/index.php?option=com\_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=64" title="copenhagen...llenge.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/index.php?option=com\_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=64</a> [copenhagen...llenge.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Prior to Climategate and unbeknownst to many , there are many of scientists who question the data behind the AGW proponents ' claims .
I would venture to say that , due to the politically volatile nature of this subject , there are many more that would also like to become signatories yet fear the repercussions .
http : //www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/index.php ? option = com \ _content&amp;view = article&amp;id = 64 [ copenhagen...llenge.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Prior to Climategate and unbeknownst to many, there are many of scientists who question the data behind the AGW proponents' claims.
I would venture to say that, due to the politically volatile nature of this subject, there are many more that would also like to become signatories yet fear the repercussions.
http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/index.php?option=com\_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=64 [copenhagen...llenge.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469406</id>
	<title>Re:Why is there even a debate?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259691600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not only is the CO2 data available, it's easy enough to compute with only high school algebra. Burning one gallon of gasoline generates 19.4lb of CO2. In the US, we went from almost zero gasoline burned in 1920 to <a href="http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004727.html" title="infoplease.com">around 160,000,000,000 gallons in 2000</a> [infoplease.com] and the usage graph is conveniently linear.  Thus we can compute the area inside the triangle to find that we have pumped 1.24 x 10^14 lb of CO2 into the air in the last eighty years.  62 billion tons from the US alone.</p><p>Unfortunately the global consumption of fossil fuels has grown to the point that the world is now emitting <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon\_dioxide" title="wikipedia.org">around 30 billion tons per year</a> [wikipedia.org].  There's absolutely no question that we humans are changing the atmospheric makeup of the earth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not only is the CO2 data available , it 's easy enough to compute with only high school algebra .
Burning one gallon of gasoline generates 19.4lb of CO2 .
In the US , we went from almost zero gasoline burned in 1920 to around 160,000,000,000 gallons in 2000 [ infoplease.com ] and the usage graph is conveniently linear .
Thus we can compute the area inside the triangle to find that we have pumped 1.24 x 10 ^ 14 lb of CO2 into the air in the last eighty years .
62 billion tons from the US alone.Unfortunately the global consumption of fossil fuels has grown to the point that the world is now emitting around 30 billion tons per year [ wikipedia.org ] .
There 's absolutely no question that we humans are changing the atmospheric makeup of the earth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not only is the CO2 data available, it's easy enough to compute with only high school algebra.
Burning one gallon of gasoline generates 19.4lb of CO2.
In the US, we went from almost zero gasoline burned in 1920 to around 160,000,000,000 gallons in 2000 [infoplease.com] and the usage graph is conveniently linear.
Thus we can compute the area inside the triangle to find that we have pumped 1.24 x 10^14 lb of CO2 into the air in the last eighty years.
62 billion tons from the US alone.Unfortunately the global consumption of fossil fuels has grown to the point that the world is now emitting around 30 billion tons per year [wikipedia.org].
There's absolutely no question that we humans are changing the atmospheric makeup of the earth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469166</id>
	<title>Just more right wing nonsense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259689380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its pretty clear that the "Institute of Economic Analysis" is a right wing whackjob source.  It was founded by <a href="http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1056" title="exxonsecrets.org" rel="nofollow">this guy</a> [exxonsecrets.org].  His <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrei\_Illarionov" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">wikipedia entry</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>Who also authored stuff like:</p><p>"Kyoto is killing off the world economy like an "international Auschwitz," "The Kyoto Protocol is a death pact, however strange it may sound, because its main aim is to strangle economic growth and economic activity in countries that accept the protocol's requirements."</p><p>and</p><p>"A Liberal Agenda for the New Century: A Global Perspective"</p><p>and has been in a ton of questionable institutes.</p><p>So believing anything from a group like this would probably not be wise to say the least.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its pretty clear that the " Institute of Economic Analysis " is a right wing whackjob source .
It was founded by this guy [ exxonsecrets.org ] .
His wikipedia entry [ wikipedia.org ] Who also authored stuff like : " Kyoto is killing off the world economy like an " international Auschwitz , " " The Kyoto Protocol is a death pact , however strange it may sound , because its main aim is to strangle economic growth and economic activity in countries that accept the protocol 's requirements .
" and " A Liberal Agenda for the New Century : A Global Perspective " and has been in a ton of questionable institutes.So believing anything from a group like this would probably not be wise to say the least .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its pretty clear that the "Institute of Economic Analysis" is a right wing whackjob source.
It was founded by this guy [exxonsecrets.org].
His wikipedia entry [wikipedia.org]Who also authored stuff like:"Kyoto is killing off the world economy like an "international Auschwitz," "The Kyoto Protocol is a death pact, however strange it may sound, because its main aim is to strangle economic growth and economic activity in countries that accept the protocol's requirements.
"and"A Liberal Agenda for the New Century: A Global Perspective"and has been in a ton of questionable institutes.So believing anything from a group like this would probably not be wise to say the least.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30473546</id>
	<title>Re:Evolution of an Argument</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261066260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah! And global cooling was real too!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah !
And global cooling was real too !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah!
And global cooling was real too!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30478316</id>
	<title>What I Gathered From This Thread...</title>
	<author>BJ\_Covert\_Action</author>
	<datestamp>1261041480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, I made it almost all the way through this comment page and so far this is what I learned about Global Climate Change or whatever:
<br> <br>
This is a complicated issue.
<br> <br>
Some people get very riled up and immature about this issue:
<br> <br>
Some people use hot topics like this to demonstrate their egotism via displays of logical analysis that take shots at other folk's posts but don't actually address the issue of global climate change.
<br> <br>
No one seems to agree that any sort of climate change consensus can be trusted.
<br> <br>
Some seem to feel that no sort of climate change consensus matters or can be reached.
<br> <br>
Climate change stories gather more interest now than stories regarding potential organic matter on the moon as well as mappings of a particular cancer's genome.
<br> <br>
My scientific conclusion:<br>
Global climate change has become such a clusterfuck issue that it now ranks right up there with abortion, healthcare, and the extent to which any given religious text should be taken seriously in modern social context in terms of unpleasantness to discuss. In other words, people's eyes are going to start glazing over and their ears are going to become desensitized to anything relating to the environment. This whole issue is a forsaken mess.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I made it almost all the way through this comment page and so far this is what I learned about Global Climate Change or whatever : This is a complicated issue .
Some people get very riled up and immature about this issue : Some people use hot topics like this to demonstrate their egotism via displays of logical analysis that take shots at other folk 's posts but do n't actually address the issue of global climate change .
No one seems to agree that any sort of climate change consensus can be trusted .
Some seem to feel that no sort of climate change consensus matters or can be reached .
Climate change stories gather more interest now than stories regarding potential organic matter on the moon as well as mappings of a particular cancer 's genome .
My scientific conclusion : Global climate change has become such a clusterfuck issue that it now ranks right up there with abortion , healthcare , and the extent to which any given religious text should be taken seriously in modern social context in terms of unpleasantness to discuss .
In other words , people 's eyes are going to start glazing over and their ears are going to become desensitized to anything relating to the environment .
This whole issue is a forsaken mess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I made it almost all the way through this comment page and so far this is what I learned about Global Climate Change or whatever:
 
This is a complicated issue.
Some people get very riled up and immature about this issue:
 
Some people use hot topics like this to demonstrate their egotism via displays of logical analysis that take shots at other folk's posts but don't actually address the issue of global climate change.
No one seems to agree that any sort of climate change consensus can be trusted.
Some seem to feel that no sort of climate change consensus matters or can be reached.
Climate change stories gather more interest now than stories regarding potential organic matter on the moon as well as mappings of a particular cancer's genome.
My scientific conclusion:
Global climate change has become such a clusterfuck issue that it now ranks right up there with abortion, healthcare, and the extent to which any given religious text should be taken seriously in modern social context in terms of unpleasantness to discuss.
In other words, people's eyes are going to start glazing over and their ears are going to become desensitized to anything relating to the environment.
This whole issue is a forsaken mess.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30472972</id>
	<title>Re:Just more right wing nonsense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261063620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Says someone who believes that "right wing" is an insult, rather than a badge of honor granted to free thinkers who question the "Establishment consensus" of our time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Says someone who believes that " right wing " is an insult , rather than a badge of honor granted to free thinkers who question the " Establishment consensus " of our time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Says someone who believes that "right wing" is an insult, rather than a badge of honor granted to free thinkers who question the "Establishment consensus" of our time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30473522</id>
	<title>Re:Evolution of an Argument</title>
	<author>Remus Shepherd</author>
	<datestamp>1261066200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&ldquo;First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.&rdquo;</p><p>-- Mahatma Gandhi</p><p>They've gone past ignoring and laughing.  Now we (sane people who believe in science) have a fight on our hands.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>   First they ignore you , then they laugh at you , then they fight you , then you win.    -- Mahatma GandhiThey 've gone past ignoring and laughing .
Now we ( sane people who believe in science ) have a fight on our hands .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”-- Mahatma GandhiThey've gone past ignoring and laughing.
Now we (sane people who believe in science) have a fight on our hands.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30477642</id>
	<title>Explain this</title>
	<author>mschuyler</author>
	<datestamp>1261082340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFbUVBYIPlI/" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFbUVBYIPlI/</a> [youtube.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = DFbUVBYIPlI/ [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFbUVBYIPlI/ [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30489774</id>
	<title>THE NEXT SHOE TO DROP</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261161720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Theory of Evolution is also a HUGE DISCEPTION even bigger the Global Warming.</p><p>It is NOT supported in the fossil record, where are all those Missing Links they should be there<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... AND all those ENDANGERED SPECIES why are not any of them mutating and morphing into an animal that can survive.</p><p>All the corporate polution of the 60s, 70s, and 80s, it seemed to be intentional, IT WAS, those corporate BOOBs that BELIEVE all the Evolutionary CRAP thought they could bring PROOF of Evolution into being by forcing spieces to MUTATE -- YET IT HAS NOT HAPPENED ALL THE ENDAGERED SPECIES ARE JUST DEING !!!!!!</p><p>NOW the corporate BOOBs are environmentalists because they do not want you to know what their smartest people, NASA, have figured out.</p><p>You say, well its a gradual thing, SOO GRADUAL THEY WILL ALL DIE ??? That is NOT Evolution that is simply DEATH !</p><p>The Theory of Evolution is NONSENSE !!!!!!</p><p>AND this means that there are NO Eletes, it is ALL just training, nurture NOT nature, also consider the genetic narrowing that is KNOWN to have happened in the Human Genone a LONG TIME AGO, THERE ARE NO ELETS, there are NO supperiors, there are no SPECIAL PEOPLE WITH SUPERIOR GENES, there is only genetic desease, and we DO NOT KNOW exactly how genetics work, but we do know how it DOES NOT WORK and it is NOT the utterly simple ways that you have been taught and it is NOT the Evolutionary way.</p><p>My guess is we have a very large and OLD gene warehouse in the Junk genes where select genes come out to play only when environmental conditions change a great deal and this also has something to do, perhaps when it malfunctions, with genetic desease and Cancer.</p><p>The planet was terriformed in the absense of any other viable solutions or theories, for now this is the TRUE state of our most advanced sciences.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Theory of Evolution is also a HUGE DISCEPTION even bigger the Global Warming.It is NOT supported in the fossil record , where are all those Missing Links they should be there ... ... AND all those ENDANGERED SPECIES why are not any of them mutating and morphing into an animal that can survive.All the corporate polution of the 60s , 70s , and 80s , it seemed to be intentional , IT WAS , those corporate BOOBs that BELIEVE all the Evolutionary CRAP thought they could bring PROOF of Evolution into being by forcing spieces to MUTATE -- YET IT HAS NOT HAPPENED ALL THE ENDAGERED SPECIES ARE JUST DEING ! ! ! ! !
! NOW the corporate BOOBs are environmentalists because they do not want you to know what their smartest people , NASA , have figured out.You say , well its a gradual thing , SOO GRADUAL THEY WILL ALL DIE ? ? ?
That is NOT Evolution that is simply DEATH ! The Theory of Evolution is NONSENSE ! ! ! ! !
! AND this means that there are NO Eletes , it is ALL just training , nurture NOT nature , also consider the genetic narrowing that is KNOWN to have happened in the Human Genone a LONG TIME AGO , THERE ARE NO ELETS , there are NO supperiors , there are no SPECIAL PEOPLE WITH SUPERIOR GENES , there is only genetic desease , and we DO NOT KNOW exactly how genetics work , but we do know how it DOES NOT WORK and it is NOT the utterly simple ways that you have been taught and it is NOT the Evolutionary way.My guess is we have a very large and OLD gene warehouse in the Junk genes where select genes come out to play only when environmental conditions change a great deal and this also has something to do , perhaps when it malfunctions , with genetic desease and Cancer.The planet was terriformed in the absense of any other viable solutions or theories , for now this is the TRUE state of our most advanced sciences .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Theory of Evolution is also a HUGE DISCEPTION even bigger the Global Warming.It is NOT supported in the fossil record, where are all those Missing Links they should be there ... ... AND all those ENDANGERED SPECIES why are not any of them mutating and morphing into an animal that can survive.All the corporate polution of the 60s, 70s, and 80s, it seemed to be intentional, IT WAS, those corporate BOOBs that BELIEVE all the Evolutionary CRAP thought they could bring PROOF of Evolution into being by forcing spieces to MUTATE -- YET IT HAS NOT HAPPENED ALL THE ENDAGERED SPECIES ARE JUST DEING !!!!!
!NOW the corporate BOOBs are environmentalists because they do not want you to know what their smartest people, NASA, have figured out.You say, well its a gradual thing, SOO GRADUAL THEY WILL ALL DIE ???
That is NOT Evolution that is simply DEATH !The Theory of Evolution is NONSENSE !!!!!
!AND this means that there are NO Eletes, it is ALL just training, nurture NOT nature, also consider the genetic narrowing that is KNOWN to have happened in the Human Genone a LONG TIME AGO, THERE ARE NO ELETS, there are NO supperiors, there are no SPECIAL PEOPLE WITH SUPERIOR GENES, there is only genetic desease, and we DO NOT KNOW exactly how genetics work, but we do know how it DOES NOT WORK and it is NOT the utterly simple ways that you have been taught and it is NOT the Evolutionary way.My guess is we have a very large and OLD gene warehouse in the Junk genes where select genes come out to play only when environmental conditions change a great deal and this also has something to do, perhaps when it malfunctions, with genetic desease and Cancer.The planet was terriformed in the absense of any other viable solutions or theories, for now this is the TRUE state of our most advanced sciences.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30552824</id>
	<title>AC</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261738620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Man made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on this planet, in all of its history.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Man made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on this planet , in all of its history .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Man made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on this planet, in all of its history.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469138</id>
	<title>obvious</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259689200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In Soviet Russia, climate manipulate YOU!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In Soviet Russia , climate manipulate YOU !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Soviet Russia, climate manipulate YOU!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469442</id>
	<title>This will be exaggerated</title>
	<author>Gadget\_Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1259691840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey <b>often</b> does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.</p></div><p>There is the key word: often. That does not mean that all, or even the majority, of the stations shows this. Is the percentage of stations not getting much warmer the same as the percentage in the officially used data? They just leave that point dangling in the hope that we will infer that it is not the same.</p><p>Already people have taken this to say more that it does. Some blogs have already claimed that ALL of the stations used did not show warming. For example, here is a blatent bit of misquoting from a <a href="http://www.blogs.investors.com/capitalhill/index.php/home/35-politics/1057-russian-think-tank-alleges-climate-data-tampered-with" title="investors.com">randomly googled blog</a> [investors.com]:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The data from the unused stations reportedly did not show any substantial warming trends.</p></div><p>Oh dear. It is just a slight change, but it completely changes the meaning. And where is that skepticism that is supposed to be at work here? Why assume that the economic think tank is correct?</p><p>I will wait to find what the selection criteria was before taking this to be any proof of a global conspiracy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK ( HadCRUT ) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.There is the key word : often .
That does not mean that all , or even the majority , of the stations shows this .
Is the percentage of stations not getting much warmer the same as the percentage in the officially used data ?
They just leave that point dangling in the hope that we will infer that it is not the same.Already people have taken this to say more that it does .
Some blogs have already claimed that ALL of the stations used did not show warming .
For example , here is a blatent bit of misquoting from a randomly googled blog [ investors.com ] : The data from the unused stations reportedly did not show any substantial warming trends.Oh dear .
It is just a slight change , but it completely changes the meaning .
And where is that skepticism that is supposed to be at work here ?
Why assume that the economic think tank is correct ? I will wait to find what the selection criteria was before taking this to be any proof of a global conspiracy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.There is the key word: often.
That does not mean that all, or even the majority, of the stations shows this.
Is the percentage of stations not getting much warmer the same as the percentage in the officially used data?
They just leave that point dangling in the hope that we will infer that it is not the same.Already people have taken this to say more that it does.
Some blogs have already claimed that ALL of the stations used did not show warming.
For example, here is a blatent bit of misquoting from a randomly googled blog [investors.com]:The data from the unused stations reportedly did not show any substantial warming trends.Oh dear.
It is just a slight change, but it completely changes the meaning.
And where is that skepticism that is supposed to be at work here?
Why assume that the economic think tank is correct?I will wait to find what the selection criteria was before taking this to be any proof of a global conspiracy.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30471902</id>
	<title>Re:Why is there even a debate?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261054080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;Even Sarah Palin has admitted there's a warming trend.</p><p>I don't think you've got this argument from authority working quite right yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Even Sarah Palin has admitted there 's a warming trend.I do n't think you 've got this argument from authority working quite right yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;Even Sarah Palin has admitted there's a warming trend.I don't think you've got this argument from authority working quite right yet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469086</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30473472</id>
	<title>Re:Why is there even a debate?</title>
	<author>Remus Shepherd</author>
	<datestamp>1261065960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The debate about relativity and the standard model are debates where both sides are scientists specialized in those fields.  They are debating on fine points of the theories, and both sides are backed up by convincing models and hard data.</p><p>The debate on the evolution of species and global warming are debates where one side has scientists with hard data, and the other side has vested emotional or financial interest but no special training or insight into the science.  These are debates between specialists and amateurs.</p><p>You can hold any opinions you wish, but don't elevate amateurs with agendas to the level of scientists.  They do not know what they are talking about, no matter how passionately they parrot their disagreements.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The debate about relativity and the standard model are debates where both sides are scientists specialized in those fields .
They are debating on fine points of the theories , and both sides are backed up by convincing models and hard data.The debate on the evolution of species and global warming are debates where one side has scientists with hard data , and the other side has vested emotional or financial interest but no special training or insight into the science .
These are debates between specialists and amateurs.You can hold any opinions you wish , but do n't elevate amateurs with agendas to the level of scientists .
They do not know what they are talking about , no matter how passionately they parrot their disagreements .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The debate about relativity and the standard model are debates where both sides are scientists specialized in those fields.
They are debating on fine points of the theories, and both sides are backed up by convincing models and hard data.The debate on the evolution of species and global warming are debates where one side has scientists with hard data, and the other side has vested emotional or financial interest but no special training or insight into the science.
These are debates between specialists and amateurs.You can hold any opinions you wish, but don't elevate amateurs with agendas to the level of scientists.
They do not know what they are talking about, no matter how passionately they parrot their disagreements.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469308</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30471346</id>
	<title>Re:A failure of science and of media</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261048740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The media and the scientists who have become the public faces of AGW in the media have taken the position that the public is too stupid to understand AGW, and must be convinced by multimedia slideshows, appeals to authority, and bluster. They do not seek to convey an understanding of the data, methods, and conclusions.</p></div><p>You know, they have this thing called "journals". Where scientists convey an understanding of the data, methods and conclusions. In ten thousands of so-called "articles". If the public were willing to read these they would get EDUCATED. Since they prefer Dances with Dirkdodgers, they must be convinced by appeals to authority instead...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The media and the scientists who have become the public faces of AGW in the media have taken the position that the public is too stupid to understand AGW , and must be convinced by multimedia slideshows , appeals to authority , and bluster .
They do not seek to convey an understanding of the data , methods , and conclusions.You know , they have this thing called " journals " .
Where scientists convey an understanding of the data , methods and conclusions .
In ten thousands of so-called " articles " .
If the public were willing to read these they would get EDUCATED .
Since they prefer Dances with Dirkdodgers , they must be convinced by appeals to authority instead.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The media and the scientists who have become the public faces of AGW in the media have taken the position that the public is too stupid to understand AGW, and must be convinced by multimedia slideshows, appeals to authority, and bluster.
They do not seek to convey an understanding of the data, methods, and conclusions.You know, they have this thing called "journals".
Where scientists convey an understanding of the data, methods and conclusions.
In ten thousands of so-called "articles".
If the public were willing to read these they would get EDUCATED.
Since they prefer Dances with Dirkdodgers, they must be convinced by appeals to authority instead...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30479060</id>
	<title>Re:Pollution == Peeing yourself. Stupids.</title>
	<author>DustyShadow</author>
	<datestamp>1261044300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8a-oaXAQY8A&amp;feature=related" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8a-oaXAQY8A&amp;feature=related</a> [youtube.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = 8a-oaXAQY8A&amp;feature = related [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8a-oaXAQY8A&amp;feature=related [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30474878</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2336239_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30477094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2336239_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469086
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2336239_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30470092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469102
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2336239_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30477428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2336239_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469086
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2336239_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469086
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2336239_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469234
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2336239_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30472972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2336239_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30471382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2336239_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30479060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30474878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2336239_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30473360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2336239_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30473522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2336239_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469102
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2336239_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30473710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2336239_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2336239_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30477366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469086
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2336239_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30471902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469086
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2336239_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469086
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2336239_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469086
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2336239_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30471346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2336239_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30477004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2336239_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469086
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2336239_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30474406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2336239_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30475932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30474878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2336239_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30470122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469086
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2336239_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469102
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2336239_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30470300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469086
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2336239_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30473546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2336239_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30473472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469086
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_16_2336239_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469086
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_2336239.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30474878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30475932
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30479060
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_2336239.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469206
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_2336239.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469086
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469522
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469406
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469770
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30477366
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469994
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30470300
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469376
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469742
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469698
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30471902
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469436
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469308
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30473472
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30470122
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_2336239.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469102
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469754
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30470092
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469632
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_2336239.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30468900
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_2336239.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469442
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_2336239.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469528
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_2336239.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469520
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30471382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30471346
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_2336239.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469362
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469822
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30473546
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30473360
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30474406
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30473710
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30473522
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30477428
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469596
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_2336239.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469234
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469794
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_2336239.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469498
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30477094
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_16_2336239.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30469166
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30472972
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_16_2336239.30477004
</commentlist>
</conversation>
