<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_21_0210227</id>
	<title>Black Soot May Be Aiding Melting In the Himalayas</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1261400700000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://hughpickens.com/slashdot/" rel="nofollow">Hugh Pickens</a> writes <i>"The Himalayas, home to some 10,000 glaciers, are the main source of replenishment to lakes, streams, and some of the continent's mightiest rivers, on which millions of people depend for their water supplies. Since the 1960s, the acreage covered by Himalayan glaciers has declined by more than 20 percent with a rate of warming twice the global average over the past 30 years. Now Live Science reports that tiny particles of pollution known as 'black carbon' &mdash; and not heat-trapping greenhouse gases &mdash; may be <a href="http://www.livescience.com/environment/091214-black-carbon-himalaya-glacier.html">causing much of the rapid melting of glaciers in the Himalayas</a>. 'Tibet's glaciers are retreating at an alarming rate,' says James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City. 'Black soot is probably responsible for as much as half of the glacial melt, and greenhouse gases are responsible for the rest.' The circulation of the atmosphere in the region causes much of the soot-laden air to 'pile up' against the Himalayas. The soot mixes with other dust from nearby deserts, creating a <a href="http://www.nsf.gov/news/mmg/media/images/himalayan\_glaciers\_h.jpg">massive brown cloud visible from space</a> that absorbs incoming solar radiation. As this layer heats up in the Himalayan foothills, it rises and enhances the seasonal northward flow of humid monsoon winds, forcing moisture and hot air up the slopes of the mountain range."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hugh Pickens writes " The Himalayas , home to some 10,000 glaciers , are the main source of replenishment to lakes , streams , and some of the continent 's mightiest rivers , on which millions of people depend for their water supplies .
Since the 1960s , the acreage covered by Himalayan glaciers has declined by more than 20 percent with a rate of warming twice the global average over the past 30 years .
Now Live Science reports that tiny particles of pollution known as 'black carbon '    and not heat-trapping greenhouse gases    may be causing much of the rapid melting of glaciers in the Himalayas .
'Tibet 's glaciers are retreating at an alarming rate, ' says James Hansen , director of NASA 's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City .
'Black soot is probably responsible for as much as half of the glacial melt , and greenhouse gases are responsible for the rest .
' The circulation of the atmosphere in the region causes much of the soot-laden air to 'pile up ' against the Himalayas .
The soot mixes with other dust from nearby deserts , creating a massive brown cloud visible from space that absorbs incoming solar radiation .
As this layer heats up in the Himalayan foothills , it rises and enhances the seasonal northward flow of humid monsoon winds , forcing moisture and hot air up the slopes of the mountain range .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hugh Pickens writes "The Himalayas, home to some 10,000 glaciers, are the main source of replenishment to lakes, streams, and some of the continent's mightiest rivers, on which millions of people depend for their water supplies.
Since the 1960s, the acreage covered by Himalayan glaciers has declined by more than 20 percent with a rate of warming twice the global average over the past 30 years.
Now Live Science reports that tiny particles of pollution known as 'black carbon' — and not heat-trapping greenhouse gases — may be causing much of the rapid melting of glaciers in the Himalayas.
'Tibet's glaciers are retreating at an alarming rate,' says James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City.
'Black soot is probably responsible for as much as half of the glacial melt, and greenhouse gases are responsible for the rest.
' The circulation of the atmosphere in the region causes much of the soot-laden air to 'pile up' against the Himalayas.
The soot mixes with other dust from nearby deserts, creating a massive brown cloud visible from space that absorbs incoming solar radiation.
As this layer heats up in the Himalayan foothills, it rises and enhances the seasonal northward flow of humid monsoon winds, forcing moisture and hot air up the slopes of the mountain range.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30512554</id>
	<title>Imaginary brown space cloud?</title>
	<author>Kreeben</author>
	<datestamp>1261413660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Submitter, I have no trouble at all visualizing what "a massive brown cloud visible from space" would look like. I'm gonna need you though to go ahead an produce me a picture of this here event of which you speak.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Submitter , I have no trouble at all visualizing what " a massive brown cloud visible from space " would look like .
I 'm gon na need you though to go ahead an produce me a picture of this here event of which you speak .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Submitter, I have no trouble at all visualizing what "a massive brown cloud visible from space" would look like.
I'm gonna need you though to go ahead an produce me a picture of this here event of which you speak.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30512802</id>
	<title>Re:here we have a nugget of scientific observation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261414920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No matter how forcefully you swear, and how certain you think you are that your proposed solutions are right, you are still no more correct than the rest of us morons.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No matter how forcefully you swear , and how certain you think you are that your proposed solutions are right , you are still no more correct than the rest of us morons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No matter how forcefully you swear, and how certain you think you are that your proposed solutions are right, you are still no more correct than the rest of us morons.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30515652</id>
	<title>Re:Some nice backpedaling there, bud</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1261427400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's a lot of error in this thread so please, allow me to correct the situation. First, all glaciers melt. Whether a glacier advances or retreats depends on whether the current melting rate is faster than the rate at which the ice is replenished. Doubling the melt rate from soot contamination can explain glacial retreat all by itself, merely, because it is a substantial increase in the rate at which the glacier melts without a corresponding increase in ice replenishment.<br> <br>

Second, soot production doesn't correlation with CO2 emissions. Yes, they both require  the burning of of a carbon-containing material (well, there are some other CO2 emission sources, like concrete manufacture and bakeries) but they are relatively minor), but soot comes from a small amount of <b>inefficient</b> combustion (and can vary greatly in concentration) while CO2 can come from both efficient or inefficient combustion. What that means is that you can have considerable soot production from a relatively small portion of overall production of CO2. In particular, reducing soot production doesn't imply that you reduce overall CO2 emissions or vice versa.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a lot of error in this thread so please , allow me to correct the situation .
First , all glaciers melt .
Whether a glacier advances or retreats depends on whether the current melting rate is faster than the rate at which the ice is replenished .
Doubling the melt rate from soot contamination can explain glacial retreat all by itself , merely , because it is a substantial increase in the rate at which the glacier melts without a corresponding increase in ice replenishment .
Second , soot production does n't correlation with CO2 emissions .
Yes , they both require the burning of of a carbon-containing material ( well , there are some other CO2 emission sources , like concrete manufacture and bakeries ) but they are relatively minor ) , but soot comes from a small amount of inefficient combustion ( and can vary greatly in concentration ) while CO2 can come from both efficient or inefficient combustion .
What that means is that you can have considerable soot production from a relatively small portion of overall production of CO2 .
In particular , reducing soot production does n't imply that you reduce overall CO2 emissions or vice versa .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a lot of error in this thread so please, allow me to correct the situation.
First, all glaciers melt.
Whether a glacier advances or retreats depends on whether the current melting rate is faster than the rate at which the ice is replenished.
Doubling the melt rate from soot contamination can explain glacial retreat all by itself, merely, because it is a substantial increase in the rate at which the glacier melts without a corresponding increase in ice replenishment.
Second, soot production doesn't correlation with CO2 emissions.
Yes, they both require  the burning of of a carbon-containing material (well, there are some other CO2 emission sources, like concrete manufacture and bakeries) but they are relatively minor), but soot comes from a small amount of inefficient combustion (and can vary greatly in concentration) while CO2 can come from both efficient or inefficient combustion.
What that means is that you can have considerable soot production from a relatively small portion of overall production of CO2.
In particular, reducing soot production doesn't imply that you reduce overall CO2 emissions or vice versa.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511454</id>
	<title>Re:Seems Familiar</title>
	<author>rlp</author>
	<datestamp>1261407300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Don't all apocalypse movies start with ominous scientific discoveries in remote geographical locations?</i></p><p><i>I hereby predict that within 4 or 5 years the UN will unveil a scheme to Save Mankind from, ummmmmmm, a passing neutron star. The scheme will feature <b>several hundred billion dollars given to UN bureaucrats, corrupt NGO's and various tinpot dictators and tyrants</b> </i></p><p>Fixed it for ya.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't all apocalypse movies start with ominous scientific discoveries in remote geographical locations ? I hereby predict that within 4 or 5 years the UN will unveil a scheme to Save Mankind from , ummmmmmm , a passing neutron star .
The scheme will feature several hundred billion dollars given to UN bureaucrats , corrupt NGO 's and various tinpot dictators and tyrants Fixed it for ya .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't all apocalypse movies start with ominous scientific discoveries in remote geographical locations?I hereby predict that within 4 or 5 years the UN will unveil a scheme to Save Mankind from, ummmmmmm, a passing neutron star.
The scheme will feature several hundred billion dollars given to UN bureaucrats, corrupt NGO's and various tinpot dictators and tyrants Fixed it for ya.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30513628</id>
	<title>Al Bore and Goldman Sucks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261418400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Must be really p*ssed with yet another inconvenient truth about global warming. First the most reliable records were fudged ( see Climate Gate ) and now one of the most visible symptoms was not caused by our carbon dioxide. How's he going to get Cap and Tax passed ( and allow his and Goldman's partnership to skim a percentage ) now ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Must be really p * ssed with yet another inconvenient truth about global warming .
First the most reliable records were fudged ( see Climate Gate ) and now one of the most visible symptoms was not caused by our carbon dioxide .
How 's he going to get Cap and Tax passed ( and allow his and Goldman 's partnership to skim a percentage ) now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Must be really p*ssed with yet another inconvenient truth about global warming.
First the most reliable records were fudged ( see Climate Gate ) and now one of the most visible symptoms was not caused by our carbon dioxide.
How's he going to get Cap and Tax passed ( and allow his and Goldman's partnership to skim a percentage ) now ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30541428</id>
	<title>Re:Global Warming may be (less than correct)?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259770440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What a load of crap.  There is ample evidence that increases in CO2 have contributed to the warming.  There is ample evidence that without CO2 in the atmosphere the average surface temperature would be 10-15 F lower than it is now.  2007/2008 had a La Nina going and so were somewhat colder than the norm but they were still warmer globally than any year before 1997 (in the instrument record).  2009 is probably going to be the 2nd or 3rd warmest year ever in the instrument record.</p><p>It's hysterically funny to see deniers commenting on snow in Copenhagen in December as if that's an unusual occurrence.  Point me to a source that shows the lows in Copenhagen were records, but even if they are, so what?  Global warming doesn't preclude record lows from happening, it just says they will probably occur less often than in the past.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What a load of crap .
There is ample evidence that increases in CO2 have contributed to the warming .
There is ample evidence that without CO2 in the atmosphere the average surface temperature would be 10-15 F lower than it is now .
2007/2008 had a La Nina going and so were somewhat colder than the norm but they were still warmer globally than any year before 1997 ( in the instrument record ) .
2009 is probably going to be the 2nd or 3rd warmest year ever in the instrument record.It 's hysterically funny to see deniers commenting on snow in Copenhagen in December as if that 's an unusual occurrence .
Point me to a source that shows the lows in Copenhagen were records , but even if they are , so what ?
Global warming does n't preclude record lows from happening , it just says they will probably occur less often than in the past .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What a load of crap.
There is ample evidence that increases in CO2 have contributed to the warming.
There is ample evidence that without CO2 in the atmosphere the average surface temperature would be 10-15 F lower than it is now.
2007/2008 had a La Nina going and so were somewhat colder than the norm but they were still warmer globally than any year before 1997 (in the instrument record).
2009 is probably going to be the 2nd or 3rd warmest year ever in the instrument record.It's hysterically funny to see deniers commenting on snow in Copenhagen in December as if that's an unusual occurrence.
Point me to a source that shows the lows in Copenhagen were records, but even if they are, so what?
Global warming doesn't preclude record lows from happening, it just says they will probably occur less often than in the past.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30514078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511806</id>
	<title>Re:ZOMG! Global warming is wrong!</title>
	<author>foobsr</author>
	<datestamp>1261409460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>renewable energy</i>
<br> <br>
A marketing fad suggesting that the second law of thermodynamics is not valid. That said, the core problem is that growth is not sustainable, but everybody tries to deny it.
<br> <br>
CC.</htmltext>
<tokenext>renewable energy A marketing fad suggesting that the second law of thermodynamics is not valid .
That said , the core problem is that growth is not sustainable , but everybody tries to deny it .
CC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>renewable energy
 
A marketing fad suggesting that the second law of thermodynamics is not valid.
That said, the core problem is that growth is not sustainable, but everybody tries to deny it.
CC.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511286</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30513168</id>
	<title>Re:here we have a nugget of scientific observation</title>
	<author>Mspangler</author>
	<datestamp>1261416360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"if you don't believe the earth is heating up, you still have to admit the earth has had historic swings in climate, and that we earthlings will have to intervene at some point, correct?"</p><p>Good point, if for no other reason that no one has claimed the Ice Age cycle of the last 2 million years is over. So eventually we are going to have to slag some glaciers. Solid ice from Chicago to Long Island. Think the economic disruption that would cause. Not to mention the next Lake Missoula flood blowing over the Hanford Nuclear reservation. The local terminal moraine is a half-hour north of me, and it's pretty though provoking to stand on it.</p><p>The article is also interesting from the point that global warming has stopped for a decade. Even CRU admits this (off the record, as revealed by the emails) but the glacier watchers say they are still melting. Dust on the ice would reconcile the difference in observations.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" if you do n't believe the earth is heating up , you still have to admit the earth has had historic swings in climate , and that we earthlings will have to intervene at some point , correct ?
" Good point , if for no other reason that no one has claimed the Ice Age cycle of the last 2 million years is over .
So eventually we are going to have to slag some glaciers .
Solid ice from Chicago to Long Island .
Think the economic disruption that would cause .
Not to mention the next Lake Missoula flood blowing over the Hanford Nuclear reservation .
The local terminal moraine is a half-hour north of me , and it 's pretty though provoking to stand on it.The article is also interesting from the point that global warming has stopped for a decade .
Even CRU admits this ( off the record , as revealed by the emails ) but the glacier watchers say they are still melting .
Dust on the ice would reconcile the difference in observations .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>"if you don't believe the earth is heating up, you still have to admit the earth has had historic swings in climate, and that we earthlings will have to intervene at some point, correct?
"Good point, if for no other reason that no one has claimed the Ice Age cycle of the last 2 million years is over.
So eventually we are going to have to slag some glaciers.
Solid ice from Chicago to Long Island.
Think the economic disruption that would cause.
Not to mention the next Lake Missoula flood blowing over the Hanford Nuclear reservation.
The local terminal moraine is a half-hour north of me, and it's pretty though provoking to stand on it.The article is also interesting from the point that global warming has stopped for a decade.
Even CRU admits this (off the record, as revealed by the emails) but the glacier watchers say they are still melting.
Dust on the ice would reconcile the difference in observations.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30512730</id>
	<title>Re:here we have a nugget of scientific observation</title>
	<author>louks</author>
	<datestamp>1261414680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I do have a couple of small problems with your comments, let's begin:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>here we have a nugget of scientific observation</p></div><p>Well, we actually have TWO scientific observations that form a single <i>inference</i>, which if you remember your scientific method, is still capable of being fallible.  I'm not making a statement either way on this one, just reminding you that this article is about an inference, not an observation.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>political recrimination gets us nowhere. its cold in the house because someone left the window open? ok, so you're going to sit there and scream at each other over who opened the window? here's a new idea: how about someone demonstrating actual responsibility and instead actually stand the fuck up, walk over, and close the fucking window: NO MATTER WHO LEFT IT OPEN</p></div><p>OK, there's something here with which I agree, and something that bothers me about the current political climate.  What the recent Copenhagen conference taught us was that, if we are all living in the same house, then it's OK for the "kids" to leave windows open because the "adults" are going to be adjusting the thermostat to compensate.  The adults will also pay the now much higher utility bill, because the kids don't make as much money, and they do get chores done around the house the adults don't have time to get done, or are beneath them.  The problem is, the adults don't like the fact that, because the kids' bedroom window is open, it's raining in the house and the carpet is getting ruined.  But the adults still won't make the kids close their bedroom window, which is causing most of the thermostat problem anyway.  Which leaves the adults going deep into debt to add expensive and complex add-ons to the adults' rooms in order to save on their utility bills...but it'll cost 10 years worth of utility bills to install the add-ons, and only saves 10\% a month.  Did I mention that the kids are complaining about the smell from the carpet, and that they'd like to sleep in the adults' room?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>commence with the retarded partisan bickering anyway. meanwhile, us engineers will roll up our sleeves and will actually go and fix your fucking problem while you political assholes do nothing but bicker</p><p>more action, less "hot air"</p></div><p>Engineers will never be able to truly fix the problem, because a design can only work if it's implemented, and we have to convince the money man <i>who, by the way, is VERY political</i>, to make it happen.  It's why communication is such an important part of the engineering curriculum...we have to be able to talk to various and diverse types of people to solve a problem.  Think about how many "Ask Slashdot" articles involve how to properly provide the "hot air" to get the boss to sign off on an action...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do have a couple of small problems with your comments , let 's begin : here we have a nugget of scientific observationWell , we actually have TWO scientific observations that form a single inference , which if you remember your scientific method , is still capable of being fallible .
I 'm not making a statement either way on this one , just reminding you that this article is about an inference , not an observation.political recrimination gets us nowhere .
its cold in the house because someone left the window open ?
ok , so you 're going to sit there and scream at each other over who opened the window ?
here 's a new idea : how about someone demonstrating actual responsibility and instead actually stand the fuck up , walk over , and close the fucking window : NO MATTER WHO LEFT IT OPENOK , there 's something here with which I agree , and something that bothers me about the current political climate .
What the recent Copenhagen conference taught us was that , if we are all living in the same house , then it 's OK for the " kids " to leave windows open because the " adults " are going to be adjusting the thermostat to compensate .
The adults will also pay the now much higher utility bill , because the kids do n't make as much money , and they do get chores done around the house the adults do n't have time to get done , or are beneath them .
The problem is , the adults do n't like the fact that , because the kids ' bedroom window is open , it 's raining in the house and the carpet is getting ruined .
But the adults still wo n't make the kids close their bedroom window , which is causing most of the thermostat problem anyway .
Which leaves the adults going deep into debt to add expensive and complex add-ons to the adults ' rooms in order to save on their utility bills...but it 'll cost 10 years worth of utility bills to install the add-ons , and only saves 10 \ % a month .
Did I mention that the kids are complaining about the smell from the carpet , and that they 'd like to sleep in the adults ' room ? commence with the retarded partisan bickering anyway .
meanwhile , us engineers will roll up our sleeves and will actually go and fix your fucking problem while you political assholes do nothing but bickermore action , less " hot air " Engineers will never be able to truly fix the problem , because a design can only work if it 's implemented , and we have to convince the money man who , by the way , is VERY political , to make it happen .
It 's why communication is such an important part of the engineering curriculum...we have to be able to talk to various and diverse types of people to solve a problem .
Think about how many " Ask Slashdot " articles involve how to properly provide the " hot air " to get the boss to sign off on an action.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do have a couple of small problems with your comments, let's begin:here we have a nugget of scientific observationWell, we actually have TWO scientific observations that form a single inference, which if you remember your scientific method, is still capable of being fallible.
I'm not making a statement either way on this one, just reminding you that this article is about an inference, not an observation.political recrimination gets us nowhere.
its cold in the house because someone left the window open?
ok, so you're going to sit there and scream at each other over who opened the window?
here's a new idea: how about someone demonstrating actual responsibility and instead actually stand the fuck up, walk over, and close the fucking window: NO MATTER WHO LEFT IT OPENOK, there's something here with which I agree, and something that bothers me about the current political climate.
What the recent Copenhagen conference taught us was that, if we are all living in the same house, then it's OK for the "kids" to leave windows open because the "adults" are going to be adjusting the thermostat to compensate.
The adults will also pay the now much higher utility bill, because the kids don't make as much money, and they do get chores done around the house the adults don't have time to get done, or are beneath them.
The problem is, the adults don't like the fact that, because the kids' bedroom window is open, it's raining in the house and the carpet is getting ruined.
But the adults still won't make the kids close their bedroom window, which is causing most of the thermostat problem anyway.
Which leaves the adults going deep into debt to add expensive and complex add-ons to the adults' rooms in order to save on their utility bills...but it'll cost 10 years worth of utility bills to install the add-ons, and only saves 10\% a month.
Did I mention that the kids are complaining about the smell from the carpet, and that they'd like to sleep in the adults' room?commence with the retarded partisan bickering anyway.
meanwhile, us engineers will roll up our sleeves and will actually go and fix your fucking problem while you political assholes do nothing but bickermore action, less "hot air"Engineers will never be able to truly fix the problem, because a design can only work if it's implemented, and we have to convince the money man who, by the way, is VERY political, to make it happen.
It's why communication is such an important part of the engineering curriculum...we have to be able to talk to various and diverse types of people to solve a problem.
Think about how many "Ask Slashdot" articles involve how to properly provide the "hot air" to get the boss to sign off on an action...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511472</id>
	<title>Re:here we have a nugget of scientific observation</title>
	<author>spafbi</author>
	<datestamp>1261407420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow... here, have some Prozac.

I've often wondered why folks on Slashdot... Nevermind. I was just about to start ranting about how folks here on Slashdot rant as if they're actually going to change someone else's opinion.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow... here , have some Prozac .
I 've often wondered why folks on Slashdot... Nevermind. I was just about to start ranting about how folks here on Slashdot rant as if they 're actually going to change someone else 's opinion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow... here, have some Prozac.
I've often wondered why folks on Slashdot... Nevermind. I was just about to start ranting about how folks here on Slashdot rant as if they're actually going to change someone else's opinion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30514078</id>
	<title>Global Warming may be (less than correct)?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261420380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thoughtful people are slowly, slowly awakening to the idea that the climate alarmists predicting doom for the planet's climate may be less than completely right.  Previously, the melting of the himalayan glaciers was positively, definitely, absolutely, without doubt, guaranteed attributable 100 percent to the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration.  The simple fact is that nothing technical that supports the AGW theory that the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration from "pre-industrial" levels to the current level has caused (or even contributed to) any measurable amount of planetary warming.  Similarly, there is nothing to support the popular idea that some arbitrary co2 concentration is necessary to maintain our current planetary climate conditions. Our current knowledge of the things that might affect the Earth's climate, and the magnitude of their effect, is primitive, and dominated scientifically by the equivalent of 15th-century flat-earthers. Go to the NSIDC (http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/) website and read their 'news and analysis' to see how they spin every little uptick in the arctic ice cover. Would you trust agenda-driven people like that to tell the unvarnished scientific truth about...anything? They are the technical equivalent of eugenics people excavating an african anthropological site. If the Earth's climate continues to cool (as it has for the last two years) they will keep spinning it as validation of their models, right up until their funding dries up and they have to pull the power plug on their computer and website. Anyone (Al Gore comes to mind) who claims to know all, or even any, of the answers to global climate change is being blatantly dishonest.  It was hysterically funny to see record low temperatures and snow visit Copenhagen at the same time that planetary leaders were meeting there to discuss global warming.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thoughtful people are slowly , slowly awakening to the idea that the climate alarmists predicting doom for the planet 's climate may be less than completely right .
Previously , the melting of the himalayan glaciers was positively , definitely , absolutely , without doubt , guaranteed attributable 100 percent to the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration .
The simple fact is that nothing technical that supports the AGW theory that the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration from " pre-industrial " levels to the current level has caused ( or even contributed to ) any measurable amount of planetary warming .
Similarly , there is nothing to support the popular idea that some arbitrary co2 concentration is necessary to maintain our current planetary climate conditions .
Our current knowledge of the things that might affect the Earth 's climate , and the magnitude of their effect , is primitive , and dominated scientifically by the equivalent of 15th-century flat-earthers .
Go to the NSIDC ( http : //nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ ) website and read their 'news and analysis ' to see how they spin every little uptick in the arctic ice cover .
Would you trust agenda-driven people like that to tell the unvarnished scientific truth about...anything ?
They are the technical equivalent of eugenics people excavating an african anthropological site .
If the Earth 's climate continues to cool ( as it has for the last two years ) they will keep spinning it as validation of their models , right up until their funding dries up and they have to pull the power plug on their computer and website .
Anyone ( Al Gore comes to mind ) who claims to know all , or even any , of the answers to global climate change is being blatantly dishonest .
It was hysterically funny to see record low temperatures and snow visit Copenhagen at the same time that planetary leaders were meeting there to discuss global warming .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thoughtful people are slowly, slowly awakening to the idea that the climate alarmists predicting doom for the planet's climate may be less than completely right.
Previously, the melting of the himalayan glaciers was positively, definitely, absolutely, without doubt, guaranteed attributable 100 percent to the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration.
The simple fact is that nothing technical that supports the AGW theory that the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration from "pre-industrial" levels to the current level has caused (or even contributed to) any measurable amount of planetary warming.
Similarly, there is nothing to support the popular idea that some arbitrary co2 concentration is necessary to maintain our current planetary climate conditions.
Our current knowledge of the things that might affect the Earth's climate, and the magnitude of their effect, is primitive, and dominated scientifically by the equivalent of 15th-century flat-earthers.
Go to the NSIDC (http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/) website and read their 'news and analysis' to see how they spin every little uptick in the arctic ice cover.
Would you trust agenda-driven people like that to tell the unvarnished scientific truth about...anything?
They are the technical equivalent of eugenics people excavating an african anthropological site.
If the Earth's climate continues to cool (as it has for the last two years) they will keep spinning it as validation of their models, right up until their funding dries up and they have to pull the power plug on their computer and website.
Anyone (Al Gore comes to mind) who claims to know all, or even any, of the answers to global climate change is being blatantly dishonest.
It was hysterically funny to see record low temperatures and snow visit Copenhagen at the same time that planetary leaders were meeting there to discuss global warming.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30512002</id>
	<title>how many hundreds?</title>
	<author>OrangeTide</author>
	<datestamp>1261410480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>how many hundreds? why are you so imprecise? is it 500 million? 200 million? are we forgetting 300 million due to laziness? that's just appalling.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>how many hundreds ?
why are you so imprecise ?
is it 500 million ?
200 million ?
are we forgetting 300 million due to laziness ?
that 's just appalling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>how many hundreds?
why are you so imprecise?
is it 500 million?
200 million?
are we forgetting 300 million due to laziness?
that's just appalling.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511132</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30520312</id>
	<title>The only solution that makes sense</title>
	<author>cavebison</author>
	<datestamp>1261415340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hear a lot about climate change on science programs - good ones, like the BBC or ABC radio here in Australia, not the daft Discovery Channel. I hear a lot of perspectives on facets of climate change - the various things contributing to it (both natural and artificial) and the various ways it will (and is) affect animals, plants, oceans, atmosphere, insects, migration patterns, human life, etc.</p><p>I liken life on this planet to moss clinging to a rock. "The Earth" isn't the issue - "The Earth" doesn't give a shit about the thin, wispy film of vapour and ooze that, thanks to a noisome magnetic field, hasn't yet been cleaned away by the purifying rays of solar wind.</p><p>And here we reside, for now, clucking proudly at our own existence. Point being, minute changes - of only a few degrees on average - in this vast and complex system we call "the environment" can have catastrophic effects. Point being, it's happened before, will again, and we should not take our to-date comfortable lives for granted. Point being, by talking about "fiddling" with the climate, we're playing with the only card we have.</p><p>So, to me anyway, the only clear, rational course of action is not to come up with crazy schemes to "manage" our environment. That way lies ruin and regret. The only rational course I see is to do our absolute, utter best to get the climate back to what it was - in terms of CO2 content, etc. - at pre-industrial times.</p><p>That will be our "control" environment, if you like. If the Earth still keeps warming, or cooling or turning a nice shade of purple, well then, who could argue it's not a natural phase. The bickering goes away (hopefully).  But in the meantime, climate changes we are seeing are *statistically relevant* and we have *little time* to play with.</p><p>There are two roads. One, keep going as we are and hope to hell that technology will give us comfortable lives, no matter how much coastline, habitat, species and weather predictability are lost. Second road: Return the atmosphere to its pre-industrial condition and hope to hell that prevents more climate change.</p><p>Both clear and logical courses, though neither have guaranteed success. But I imagine it will be *much easier* to protect people from economic fallout from making the necessary changes, that will be protecting them from climatic fallout.</p><p>The economy has always been a tool, a figment of our imagination. Perhaps it's time to grow up as a species, put down our toys and start *thinking like a species*. That's my humble, dumb-ass, non-scientific, observer's take.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hear a lot about climate change on science programs - good ones , like the BBC or ABC radio here in Australia , not the daft Discovery Channel .
I hear a lot of perspectives on facets of climate change - the various things contributing to it ( both natural and artificial ) and the various ways it will ( and is ) affect animals , plants , oceans , atmosphere , insects , migration patterns , human life , etc.I liken life on this planet to moss clinging to a rock .
" The Earth " is n't the issue - " The Earth " does n't give a shit about the thin , wispy film of vapour and ooze that , thanks to a noisome magnetic field , has n't yet been cleaned away by the purifying rays of solar wind.And here we reside , for now , clucking proudly at our own existence .
Point being , minute changes - of only a few degrees on average - in this vast and complex system we call " the environment " can have catastrophic effects .
Point being , it 's happened before , will again , and we should not take our to-date comfortable lives for granted .
Point being , by talking about " fiddling " with the climate , we 're playing with the only card we have.So , to me anyway , the only clear , rational course of action is not to come up with crazy schemes to " manage " our environment .
That way lies ruin and regret .
The only rational course I see is to do our absolute , utter best to get the climate back to what it was - in terms of CO2 content , etc .
- at pre-industrial times.That will be our " control " environment , if you like .
If the Earth still keeps warming , or cooling or turning a nice shade of purple , well then , who could argue it 's not a natural phase .
The bickering goes away ( hopefully ) .
But in the meantime , climate changes we are seeing are * statistically relevant * and we have * little time * to play with.There are two roads .
One , keep going as we are and hope to hell that technology will give us comfortable lives , no matter how much coastline , habitat , species and weather predictability are lost .
Second road : Return the atmosphere to its pre-industrial condition and hope to hell that prevents more climate change.Both clear and logical courses , though neither have guaranteed success .
But I imagine it will be * much easier * to protect people from economic fallout from making the necessary changes , that will be protecting them from climatic fallout.The economy has always been a tool , a figment of our imagination .
Perhaps it 's time to grow up as a species , put down our toys and start * thinking like a species * .
That 's my humble , dumb-ass , non-scientific , observer 's take .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hear a lot about climate change on science programs - good ones, like the BBC or ABC radio here in Australia, not the daft Discovery Channel.
I hear a lot of perspectives on facets of climate change - the various things contributing to it (both natural and artificial) and the various ways it will (and is) affect animals, plants, oceans, atmosphere, insects, migration patterns, human life, etc.I liken life on this planet to moss clinging to a rock.
"The Earth" isn't the issue - "The Earth" doesn't give a shit about the thin, wispy film of vapour and ooze that, thanks to a noisome magnetic field, hasn't yet been cleaned away by the purifying rays of solar wind.And here we reside, for now, clucking proudly at our own existence.
Point being, minute changes - of only a few degrees on average - in this vast and complex system we call "the environment" can have catastrophic effects.
Point being, it's happened before, will again, and we should not take our to-date comfortable lives for granted.
Point being, by talking about "fiddling" with the climate, we're playing with the only card we have.So, to me anyway, the only clear, rational course of action is not to come up with crazy schemes to "manage" our environment.
That way lies ruin and regret.
The only rational course I see is to do our absolute, utter best to get the climate back to what it was - in terms of CO2 content, etc.
- at pre-industrial times.That will be our "control" environment, if you like.
If the Earth still keeps warming, or cooling or turning a nice shade of purple, well then, who could argue it's not a natural phase.
The bickering goes away (hopefully).
But in the meantime, climate changes we are seeing are *statistically relevant* and we have *little time* to play with.There are two roads.
One, keep going as we are and hope to hell that technology will give us comfortable lives, no matter how much coastline, habitat, species and weather predictability are lost.
Second road: Return the atmosphere to its pre-industrial condition and hope to hell that prevents more climate change.Both clear and logical courses, though neither have guaranteed success.
But I imagine it will be *much easier* to protect people from economic fallout from making the necessary changes, that will be protecting them from climatic fallout.The economy has always been a tool, a figment of our imagination.
Perhaps it's time to grow up as a species, put down our toys and start *thinking like a species*.
That's my humble, dumb-ass, non-scientific, observer's take.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30512138</id>
	<title>It doesn't help...</title>
	<author>Thelasko</author>
	<datestamp>1261411380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>that the Chinese put a railway right through the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qingzang\_railway" title="wikipedia.org">middle of Tibet either.</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>that the Chinese put a railway right through the middle of Tibet either .
[ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that the Chinese put a railway right through the middle of Tibet either.
[wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30513468</id>
	<title>Define pollution</title>
	<author>SuperKendall</author>
	<datestamp>1261417800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>No matter what the verdict, fact is: we are putting to much polution into the atmosphere and we need to stop.</i></p><p>Really?  Because I thought we were trying to reduce CO2, which we breathe out and plants like a lot.</p><p>If you really want to stop pollution, then you better get on with changing the AGW people's minds because they are doing nothing to address pollution that's not "CO2 pollution".  Like black soot...</p><p>But that's what happens when you decide the science is settled and don't let people ask questions about what is really the root issue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No matter what the verdict , fact is : we are putting to much polution into the atmosphere and we need to stop.Really ?
Because I thought we were trying to reduce CO2 , which we breathe out and plants like a lot.If you really want to stop pollution , then you better get on with changing the AGW people 's minds because they are doing nothing to address pollution that 's not " CO2 pollution " .
Like black soot...But that 's what happens when you decide the science is settled and do n't let people ask questions about what is really the root issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No matter what the verdict, fact is: we are putting to much polution into the atmosphere and we need to stop.Really?
Because I thought we were trying to reduce CO2, which we breathe out and plants like a lot.If you really want to stop pollution, then you better get on with changing the AGW people's minds because they are doing nothing to address pollution that's not "CO2 pollution".
Like black soot...But that's what happens when you decide the science is settled and don't let people ask questions about what is really the root issue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30512778</id>
	<title>Re:Some nice backpedaling there, bud</title>
	<author>rwa2</author>
	<datestamp>1261414860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Backing you up, bro.</p><p>We do need to try to separate the politics from the science.  I'm an environmentalist and was pretty impressed when I first read of this "Al Gore" character from an old ecology book from the late 80s/early 90s who was also into ecology and was working on a way to translate it into a way politicians and industrialists could give a rats' ass about.</p><p>Yes, what he came up with was an oversimplification, and a brilliant one at that.  It's not often you can target one metric and have it achieve multiple goals: discourage fossil fuel consumption (which we've already been burned on several times in the past), coal consumption, encourage alternative energy development (which otherwise wouldn't be able to compete with dirty energy without factoring in the cost to "clean up" after the cheap stuff), and reduce other pollutants linked to CO2 generation (which would be a pain to go after individually).</p><p>I don't think global warming is that much of a concern compared to all of the other beneficial side effects of CO2 cap-n-trade.  Hell, even Gore's presentation itself said the that even under worse case projections we wouldn't feel anything for at least a century.  But without any kind of policy change, the question is when, not if.  It would be nice if we could institute some kind of policy<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/before/ things get bad, but looking at the history of environmental law, nothing will happen until something bad happens and people start dying.  Industrial pollution wasn't regulated until people started suffocating and dying in the yellow London fogs at the last turn of the century, CFCs weren't eliminated until the ozone hole opened wide, agricultural runoff and oyster dredging in the Chesapeake was not curtailed until red tides suffocated and destroyed prime fishing spots.</p><p>The, um, anti-environmental crowd knows this, and can keep piling on FUD behind the science to keep any new environmental policy from passing until it's too late and damage has been definitively done -- again when, not if.  The only real question is who will take the blame and have to pay to clean up when we do start feeling the effects of climate change.  This "ClimateGate" scandal is pure gold for them, because instead of them saying "yeah, you were right, our greed and laziness are destroying the planet", they can say "we were on the path to destruction and we would have changed course if only you hadn't <i>lied</i> on all the science that could have saved us!".   So they really have nothing to lose and everything to gain through their current denial stance.</p><p>Which again just means we have to separate the science from the politics.  Their are a lot of politically expedient avenues to take, where you are allowed to fight dirty and appeal to people's hearts.  But frankly it annoys me when they try to blend climate science together with political rhetoric...   I don't care about evaluating my lifestyle in terms of a "carbon footprint" and don't care to measure energy efficiency of appliances in terms of carbon emissions!  I just want to live efficiently with minimal waste!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Backing you up , bro.We do need to try to separate the politics from the science .
I 'm an environmentalist and was pretty impressed when I first read of this " Al Gore " character from an old ecology book from the late 80s/early 90s who was also into ecology and was working on a way to translate it into a way politicians and industrialists could give a rats ' ass about.Yes , what he came up with was an oversimplification , and a brilliant one at that .
It 's not often you can target one metric and have it achieve multiple goals : discourage fossil fuel consumption ( which we 've already been burned on several times in the past ) , coal consumption , encourage alternative energy development ( which otherwise would n't be able to compete with dirty energy without factoring in the cost to " clean up " after the cheap stuff ) , and reduce other pollutants linked to CO2 generation ( which would be a pain to go after individually ) .I do n't think global warming is that much of a concern compared to all of the other beneficial side effects of CO2 cap-n-trade .
Hell , even Gore 's presentation itself said the that even under worse case projections we would n't feel anything for at least a century .
But without any kind of policy change , the question is when , not if .
It would be nice if we could institute some kind of policy /before/ things get bad , but looking at the history of environmental law , nothing will happen until something bad happens and people start dying .
Industrial pollution was n't regulated until people started suffocating and dying in the yellow London fogs at the last turn of the century , CFCs were n't eliminated until the ozone hole opened wide , agricultural runoff and oyster dredging in the Chesapeake was not curtailed until red tides suffocated and destroyed prime fishing spots.The , um , anti-environmental crowd knows this , and can keep piling on FUD behind the science to keep any new environmental policy from passing until it 's too late and damage has been definitively done -- again when , not if .
The only real question is who will take the blame and have to pay to clean up when we do start feeling the effects of climate change .
This " ClimateGate " scandal is pure gold for them , because instead of them saying " yeah , you were right , our greed and laziness are destroying the planet " , they can say " we were on the path to destruction and we would have changed course if only you had n't lied on all the science that could have saved us ! " .
So they really have nothing to lose and everything to gain through their current denial stance.Which again just means we have to separate the science from the politics .
Their are a lot of politically expedient avenues to take , where you are allowed to fight dirty and appeal to people 's hearts .
But frankly it annoys me when they try to blend climate science together with political rhetoric... I do n't care about evaluating my lifestyle in terms of a " carbon footprint " and do n't care to measure energy efficiency of appliances in terms of carbon emissions !
I just want to live efficiently with minimal waste !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Backing you up, bro.We do need to try to separate the politics from the science.
I'm an environmentalist and was pretty impressed when I first read of this "Al Gore" character from an old ecology book from the late 80s/early 90s who was also into ecology and was working on a way to translate it into a way politicians and industrialists could give a rats' ass about.Yes, what he came up with was an oversimplification, and a brilliant one at that.
It's not often you can target one metric and have it achieve multiple goals: discourage fossil fuel consumption (which we've already been burned on several times in the past), coal consumption, encourage alternative energy development (which otherwise wouldn't be able to compete with dirty energy without factoring in the cost to "clean up" after the cheap stuff), and reduce other pollutants linked to CO2 generation (which would be a pain to go after individually).I don't think global warming is that much of a concern compared to all of the other beneficial side effects of CO2 cap-n-trade.
Hell, even Gore's presentation itself said the that even under worse case projections we wouldn't feel anything for at least a century.
But without any kind of policy change, the question is when, not if.
It would be nice if we could institute some kind of policy /before/ things get bad, but looking at the history of environmental law, nothing will happen until something bad happens and people start dying.
Industrial pollution wasn't regulated until people started suffocating and dying in the yellow London fogs at the last turn of the century, CFCs weren't eliminated until the ozone hole opened wide, agricultural runoff and oyster dredging in the Chesapeake was not curtailed until red tides suffocated and destroyed prime fishing spots.The, um, anti-environmental crowd knows this, and can keep piling on FUD behind the science to keep any new environmental policy from passing until it's too late and damage has been definitively done -- again when, not if.
The only real question is who will take the blame and have to pay to clean up when we do start feeling the effects of climate change.
This "ClimateGate" scandal is pure gold for them, because instead of them saying "yeah, you were right, our greed and laziness are destroying the planet", they can say "we were on the path to destruction and we would have changed course if only you hadn't lied on all the science that could have saved us!".
So they really have nothing to lose and everything to gain through their current denial stance.Which again just means we have to separate the science from the politics.
Their are a lot of politically expedient avenues to take, where you are allowed to fight dirty and appeal to people's hearts.
But frankly it annoys me when they try to blend climate science together with political rhetoric...   I don't care about evaluating my lifestyle in terms of a "carbon footprint" and don't care to measure energy efficiency of appliances in terms of carbon emissions!
I just want to live efficiently with minimal waste!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511710</id>
	<title>So ... melting in line with GW in the end...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261408920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Horror:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>A rate of warming twice the global average over the past 30 years.</p></div><p>Ah, a reason:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>'Black soot is probably responsible for as much as half of the glacial melt,</p> </div><p>and thus in line with the global average:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>and greenhouse gases are responsible for the rest.'</p></div><p>Wonder how many people will be claiming that this proves GW isn't happening and that it isn't man-made (like black soot from human activities isn't man-made!). Oh well, time to read the comments I guess.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Horror : A rate of warming twice the global average over the past 30 years.Ah , a reason : 'Black soot is probably responsible for as much as half of the glacial melt , and thus in line with the global average : and greenhouse gases are responsible for the rest .
'Wonder how many people will be claiming that this proves GW is n't happening and that it is n't man-made ( like black soot from human activities is n't man-made ! ) .
Oh well , time to read the comments I guess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Horror:A rate of warming twice the global average over the past 30 years.Ah, a reason:'Black soot is probably responsible for as much as half of the glacial melt, and thus in line with the global average:and greenhouse gases are responsible for the rest.
'Wonder how many people will be claiming that this proves GW isn't happening and that it isn't man-made (like black soot from human activities isn't man-made!).
Oh well, time to read the comments I guess.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511550</id>
	<title>Re:ZOMG! Global warming is wrong!</title>
	<author>ArcherB</author>
	<datestamp>1261407840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The right wingers will surely use this as "proof" that global warming is wrong.  Yet... if we started using renewable energy, it would still solve the problem.</p></div><p>It's actually the Libertarians that are pushing much of this.  They are currently allied with the "right wingers" as many of their goals are the same (smaller government, free market, local control).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The right wingers will surely use this as " proof " that global warming is wrong .
Yet... if we started using renewable energy , it would still solve the problem.It 's actually the Libertarians that are pushing much of this .
They are currently allied with the " right wingers " as many of their goals are the same ( smaller government , free market , local control ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The right wingers will surely use this as "proof" that global warming is wrong.
Yet... if we started using renewable energy, it would still solve the problem.It's actually the Libertarians that are pushing much of this.
They are currently allied with the "right wingers" as many of their goals are the same (smaller government, free market, local control).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511286</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30512478</id>
	<title>Re:ZOMG! Global warming is wrong!</title>
	<author>omnichad</author>
	<datestamp>1261413300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>renewable via more direct solar input.  Still more quickly replenished than oil.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>renewable via more direct solar input .
Still more quickly replenished than oil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>renewable via more direct solar input.
Still more quickly replenished than oil.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511732</id>
	<title>Black Soot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261409040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>De-forestation is a signficant cause of glacial melting in the Himalayas.</htmltext>
<tokenext>De-forestation is a signficant cause of glacial melting in the Himalayas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>De-forestation is a signficant cause of glacial melting in the Himalayas.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30512894</id>
	<title>Re:here we have a nugget of scientific observation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261415280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What I think what is trying to be said is that the engineers could get the problems fixed if the political asshats would just give them full control and not make changes to the plan or budgets to the point that any plan will not work.</p><p>In this scenario, asshat politicians would say something like "only close the window a little bit" and "run the AC less" since they have no clue about the problem but must get their stupid ideas included so they feel important.</p><p>Asshat lawyer-based politicians should only get to say "yes" or "no" on a plan unless the experts give them limited options and then they only choose a valid option.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What I think what is trying to be said is that the engineers could get the problems fixed if the political asshats would just give them full control and not make changes to the plan or budgets to the point that any plan will not work.In this scenario , asshat politicians would say something like " only close the window a little bit " and " run the AC less " since they have no clue about the problem but must get their stupid ideas included so they feel important.Asshat lawyer-based politicians should only get to say " yes " or " no " on a plan unless the experts give them limited options and then they only choose a valid option .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I think what is trying to be said is that the engineers could get the problems fixed if the political asshats would just give them full control and not make changes to the plan or budgets to the point that any plan will not work.In this scenario, asshat politicians would say something like "only close the window a little bit" and "run the AC less" since they have no clue about the problem but must get their stupid ideas included so they feel important.Asshat lawyer-based politicians should only get to say "yes" or "no" on a plan unless the experts give them limited options and then they only choose a valid option.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30514316</id>
	<title>Re:here we have a nugget of scientific observation</title>
	<author>Enahs</author>
	<datestamp>1261421460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I may not agree with absolutely everything you said, but it was well said, cts.</p><p>--regeya</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I may not agree with absolutely everything you said , but it was well said , cts.--regeya</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I may not agree with absolutely everything you said, but it was well said, cts.--regeya</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30514092</id>
	<title>Re:here we have a nugget of scientific observation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261420440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>CO2 levels are lower now than they have been many times in Earth's history. It ain't the CO2.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>CO2 levels are lower now than they have been many times in Earth 's history .
It ai n't the CO2 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CO2 levels are lower now than they have been many times in Earth's history.
It ain't the CO2.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511690</id>
	<title>In other Indian News</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261408800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is heaviest snowfall in New York !</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is heaviest snowfall in New York !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is heaviest snowfall in New York !</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30514164</id>
	<title>Re:Acreage?</title>
	<author>onemorechip</author>
	<datestamp>1261420740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary\_of\_American\_football#Y" title="wikipedia.org">yardage</a> [wikipedia.org] is a real word.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , yardage [ wikipedia.org ] is a real word .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, yardage [wikipedia.org] is a real word.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511296</id>
	<title>Seems Familiar</title>
	<author>florescent\_beige</author>
	<datestamp>1261406100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't all apocalypse movies start with ominous scientific discoveries in remote geographical locations?</p><p>I hereby predict that within 4 or 5 years the UN will unveil a scheme to Save Mankind from, ummmmmmm, a passing neutron star. The scheme will feature a 1000 MT hydrogen bomb, spaceships, and short wave radio. Nicolas Cage, some hot babe, and a cute kid will survive...on Mars!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't all apocalypse movies start with ominous scientific discoveries in remote geographical locations ? I hereby predict that within 4 or 5 years the UN will unveil a scheme to Save Mankind from , ummmmmmm , a passing neutron star .
The scheme will feature a 1000 MT hydrogen bomb , spaceships , and short wave radio .
Nicolas Cage , some hot babe , and a cute kid will survive...on Mars !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't all apocalypse movies start with ominous scientific discoveries in remote geographical locations?I hereby predict that within 4 or 5 years the UN will unveil a scheme to Save Mankind from, ummmmmmm, a passing neutron star.
The scheme will feature a 1000 MT hydrogen bomb, spaceships, and short wave radio.
Nicolas Cage, some hot babe, and a cute kid will survive...on Mars!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511666</id>
	<title>Shoddy PR at work</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261408680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The linked diagramm is a dead giveaway that this is more of a PR stunt than usefull scientific research. No matter what the verdict, fact is: we are putting to much polution into the atmosphere and we need to stop. That's a fact, and no lobbying otherwise will change it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The linked diagramm is a dead giveaway that this is more of a PR stunt than usefull scientific research .
No matter what the verdict , fact is : we are putting to much polution into the atmosphere and we need to stop .
That 's a fact , and no lobbying otherwise will change it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The linked diagramm is a dead giveaway that this is more of a PR stunt than usefull scientific research.
No matter what the verdict, fact is: we are putting to much polution into the atmosphere and we need to stop.
That's a fact, and no lobbying otherwise will change it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511448</id>
	<title>Satellite Imagery</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261407300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view\_rec.php?id=2309" title="nasa.gov">Aerosal pollution over India and Bangladesh--2001</a> [nasa.gov]<br><a href="http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view\_rec.php?id=12878" title="nasa.gov">Haze over China--- 2003</a> [nasa.gov]<br><a href="http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view\_rec.php?id=19763" title="nasa.gov">Haze along the Himalaya Front Range --2004</a> [nasa.gov].</p><p><a href="http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view\_rec.php?id=20461" title="nasa.gov">Smog over the bay of Bengal-- 2006</a> [nasa.gov]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Aerosal pollution over India and Bangladesh--2001 [ nasa.gov ] Haze over China--- 2003 [ nasa.gov ] Haze along the Himalaya Front Range --2004 [ nasa.gov ] .Smog over the bay of Bengal-- 2006 [ nasa.gov ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aerosal pollution over India and Bangladesh--2001 [nasa.gov]Haze over China--- 2003 [nasa.gov]Haze along the Himalaya Front Range --2004 [nasa.gov].Smog over the bay of Bengal-- 2006 [nasa.gov]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30515490</id>
	<title>But but but...</title>
	<author>kj\_kabaje</author>
	<datestamp>1261426560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I thought global warming wasn't happening?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought global warming was n't happening ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought global warming wasn't happening?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511998</id>
	<title>Re:here we have a nugget of scientific observation</title>
	<author>NetNinja</author>
	<datestamp>1261410420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Us Engineers?" I am smarter than the rest of the human race because I can fix problems? Or is it the megalomanic attitude that get's us into more trouble?</p><p>I agree with most of your posting and no posting of couse is perfect due to the fact you have people who love to read the surface of a posting and not bother to read in between the lines or make something out of nothing.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Us Engineers ?
" I am smarter than the rest of the human race because I can fix problems ?
Or is it the megalomanic attitude that get 's us into more trouble ? I agree with most of your posting and no posting of couse is perfect due to the fact you have people who love to read the surface of a posting and not bother to read in between the lines or make something out of nothing .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Us Engineers?
" I am smarter than the rest of the human race because I can fix problems?
Or is it the megalomanic attitude that get's us into more trouble?I agree with most of your posting and no posting of couse is perfect due to the fact you have people who love to read the surface of a posting and not bother to read in between the lines or make something out of nothing.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30524900</id>
	<title>Re:Acreage?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261503180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Footage" title="wikipedia.org">footage</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So is footage [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So is footage [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30514164</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511670</id>
	<title>Re:here we have a nugget of scientific observation</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1261408740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You go first. We follow.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You go first .
We follow .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You go first.
We follow.
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30512382</id>
	<title>Re:here we have a nugget of scientific observation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261412880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>as opposed to for instance running the air conditioner in winter</i>.  hey now, that's how my heat pump prevents itself from turning into a giant ball of ice in the winter!  =P</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>as opposed to for instance running the air conditioner in winter .
hey now , that 's how my heat pump prevents itself from turning into a giant ball of ice in the winter !
= P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>as opposed to for instance running the air conditioner in winter.
hey now, that's how my heat pump prevents itself from turning into a giant ball of ice in the winter!
=P</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511150</id>
	<title>Some nice backpedaling there, bud</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261404720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When you ride your ten-speed bike, you can usually spin the pedals backwards without any resistance whatsoever. It doesn't matter how fast you pedal backwards, you never will affect your forward momentum. The course you have already chosen remains unchanged.</p><p>So when we see scientists trying to come up with excuses for why ice packs are melting without a huge increase in global temperatures, we need to question both their motives and their data. Yes, we can see oceanic water levels rising *in certain localized areas*, but we aren't seeing the massive deluge that was predicted.</p><p>Hopefully we can finally put to bed the reality of global warming and focus on the real problem of global pollution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When you ride your ten-speed bike , you can usually spin the pedals backwards without any resistance whatsoever .
It does n't matter how fast you pedal backwards , you never will affect your forward momentum .
The course you have already chosen remains unchanged.So when we see scientists trying to come up with excuses for why ice packs are melting without a huge increase in global temperatures , we need to question both their motives and their data .
Yes , we can see oceanic water levels rising * in certain localized areas * , but we are n't seeing the massive deluge that was predicted.Hopefully we can finally put to bed the reality of global warming and focus on the real problem of global pollution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you ride your ten-speed bike, you can usually spin the pedals backwards without any resistance whatsoever.
It doesn't matter how fast you pedal backwards, you never will affect your forward momentum.
The course you have already chosen remains unchanged.So when we see scientists trying to come up with excuses for why ice packs are melting without a huge increase in global temperatures, we need to question both their motives and their data.
Yes, we can see oceanic water levels rising *in certain localized areas*, but we aren't seeing the massive deluge that was predicted.Hopefully we can finally put to bed the reality of global warming and focus on the real problem of global pollution.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511394</id>
	<title>bad science</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261407000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since this goes against what I want to believe (and, worse yet, what massive corporations want to believe) this clearly must be bad science.</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Glen Beck</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since this goes against what I want to believe ( and , worse yet , what massive corporations want to believe ) this clearly must be bad science.Sincerely,Glen Beck</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since this goes against what I want to believe (and, worse yet, what massive corporations want to believe) this clearly must be bad science.Sincerely,Glen Beck</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511362</id>
	<title>Re:ZOMG! Global warming is wrong!</title>
	<author>Nutria</author>
	<datestamp>1261406760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The right wingers will surely use this as "proof" that global warming is wrong.</i></p><p>AGW skeptics have known about Asian black soot for 2-3 years.  (It's also been found in Arctic pack ice and in the Colorado Rockies.)</p><p>I'm just glad that the "mainstream" has finally "noticed" it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The right wingers will surely use this as " proof " that global warming is wrong.AGW skeptics have known about Asian black soot for 2-3 years .
( It 's also been found in Arctic pack ice and in the Colorado Rockies .
) I 'm just glad that the " mainstream " has finally " noticed " it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The right wingers will surely use this as "proof" that global warming is wrong.AGW skeptics have known about Asian black soot for 2-3 years.
(It's also been found in Arctic pack ice and in the Colorado Rockies.
)I'm just glad that the "mainstream" has finally "noticed" it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511286</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30513246</id>
	<title>Re:here we have a nugget of scientific observation</title>
	<author>(arg!)Styopa</author>
	<datestamp>1261416720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"ok, well what are we supposed to do, just accept rising sea levels, melting glaciers and the sahara desert growing 25\%?"</p><p>Yep.  Like much in real life, you accept it, deal with it, and move on.</p><p>How many problems (environmental, for example) have been made WORSE by someone just trying to do "something" (for dogmatic or political reasons) without understanding the how, the why, or the details?</p><p>Ultimately, no, I really DON'T care.<br>Oh no, the glaciers are melting...does that affect me?  Nope.<br>Oh no, the polar bears have no ice to live on!  Do I care?  Nope, I'd guess they're going to go back to being, well, plain old bears.<br>Oh no, sea levels are rising!  Maybe people shouldn't have gotten terribly comfortable living in marginal habitats (ie below sea level) in the first place?  Here's a tip: extend the timeline far enough, and ALL HUMAN CONSTRUCTS (including cities) have a survival chance of zero.  Get over it.<br>Oh no it's getting warmer/cooler: First, I'm not going to notice a degree or three in my lifetime.  And if the storms get worse or it gets wetter or drier?  Meh, I'll deal with it.  Humans are THE most adaptable creatures on the planet, we'll get through it.</p><p>What I certainly WON'T do is to allow a politically-motivated silver-spoon has-been failed politico  to 'motivate' any of my actions whatsoever.  I will not listen to the crying whines of 'the sky is falling' from a cadre of hippies, ivory-tower academics, and politicians that have been saying the SAME THING* since 1972.  Read the Boy Who Cried Wolf, and get back to me; I'm well aware that eventually, he might be right and there might indeed eventually BE a wolf, but I'm willing to risk it just to be able to tune you out.<br>* replace 'anthropogenic global warming' with other crises as needed: food, land, fresh water, nuclear winter, radiation, overpopulation, extinctions, etc.</p><p>The climate changes.  If it's anthropogenic, I DON'T CARE.  If that's the price we pay to have cell phones, cars, and internet porn, I'm cool with that.</p><p>I swear to god that the first time Caveman A invented cooked meat, whiny Cavegirl B said "don't eat that, you'll get carcinogens!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ok , well what are we supposed to do , just accept rising sea levels , melting glaciers and the sahara desert growing 25 \ % ? " Yep .
Like much in real life , you accept it , deal with it , and move on.How many problems ( environmental , for example ) have been made WORSE by someone just trying to do " something " ( for dogmatic or political reasons ) without understanding the how , the why , or the details ? Ultimately , no , I really DO N'T care.Oh no , the glaciers are melting...does that affect me ?
Nope.Oh no , the polar bears have no ice to live on !
Do I care ?
Nope , I 'd guess they 're going to go back to being , well , plain old bears.Oh no , sea levels are rising !
Maybe people should n't have gotten terribly comfortable living in marginal habitats ( ie below sea level ) in the first place ?
Here 's a tip : extend the timeline far enough , and ALL HUMAN CONSTRUCTS ( including cities ) have a survival chance of zero .
Get over it.Oh no it 's getting warmer/cooler : First , I 'm not going to notice a degree or three in my lifetime .
And if the storms get worse or it gets wetter or drier ?
Meh , I 'll deal with it .
Humans are THE most adaptable creatures on the planet , we 'll get through it.What I certainly WO N'T do is to allow a politically-motivated silver-spoon has-been failed politico to 'motivate ' any of my actions whatsoever .
I will not listen to the crying whines of 'the sky is falling ' from a cadre of hippies , ivory-tower academics , and politicians that have been saying the SAME THING * since 1972 .
Read the Boy Who Cried Wolf , and get back to me ; I 'm well aware that eventually , he might be right and there might indeed eventually BE a wolf , but I 'm willing to risk it just to be able to tune you out .
* replace 'anthropogenic global warming ' with other crises as needed : food , land , fresh water , nuclear winter , radiation , overpopulation , extinctions , etc.The climate changes .
If it 's anthropogenic , I DO N'T CARE .
If that 's the price we pay to have cell phones , cars , and internet porn , I 'm cool with that.I swear to god that the first time Caveman A invented cooked meat , whiny Cavegirl B said " do n't eat that , you 'll get carcinogens !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"ok, well what are we supposed to do, just accept rising sea levels, melting glaciers and the sahara desert growing 25\%?"Yep.
Like much in real life, you accept it, deal with it, and move on.How many problems (environmental, for example) have been made WORSE by someone just trying to do "something" (for dogmatic or political reasons) without understanding the how, the why, or the details?Ultimately, no, I really DON'T care.Oh no, the glaciers are melting...does that affect me?
Nope.Oh no, the polar bears have no ice to live on!
Do I care?
Nope, I'd guess they're going to go back to being, well, plain old bears.Oh no, sea levels are rising!
Maybe people shouldn't have gotten terribly comfortable living in marginal habitats (ie below sea level) in the first place?
Here's a tip: extend the timeline far enough, and ALL HUMAN CONSTRUCTS (including cities) have a survival chance of zero.
Get over it.Oh no it's getting warmer/cooler: First, I'm not going to notice a degree or three in my lifetime.
And if the storms get worse or it gets wetter or drier?
Meh, I'll deal with it.
Humans are THE most adaptable creatures on the planet, we'll get through it.What I certainly WON'T do is to allow a politically-motivated silver-spoon has-been failed politico  to 'motivate' any of my actions whatsoever.
I will not listen to the crying whines of 'the sky is falling' from a cadre of hippies, ivory-tower academics, and politicians that have been saying the SAME THING* since 1972.
Read the Boy Who Cried Wolf, and get back to me; I'm well aware that eventually, he might be right and there might indeed eventually BE a wolf, but I'm willing to risk it just to be able to tune you out.
* replace 'anthropogenic global warming' with other crises as needed: food, land, fresh water, nuclear winter, radiation, overpopulation, extinctions, etc.The climate changes.
If it's anthropogenic, I DON'T CARE.
If that's the price we pay to have cell phones, cars, and internet porn, I'm cool with that.I swear to god that the first time Caveman A invented cooked meat, whiny Cavegirl B said "don't eat that, you'll get carcinogens!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30514162</id>
	<title>hey</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261420740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Aren't you that douchebag troll who thinks you're smarter than everyone else because you refuse to use capital letters and punctuation?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are n't you that douchebag troll who thinks you 're smarter than everyone else because you refuse to use capital letters and punctuation ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aren't you that douchebag troll who thinks you're smarter than everyone else because you refuse to use capital letters and punctuation?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30512620</id>
	<title>Re:Seems Familiar</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1261414020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you can get Michael Bay to direct this UN effort, we at NBC/Universal will fund it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you can get Michael Bay to direct this UN effort , we at NBC/Universal will fund it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you can get Michael Bay to direct this UN effort, we at NBC/Universal will fund it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511816</id>
	<title>More Satellite Imagery!</title>
	<author>Bicx</author>
	<datestamp>1261409460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is more relevant to western society:<br> <br>

<a href="http://www.bitstomp.com/evidence/pollutionmap.jpg" title="bitstomp.com">Pollution Clouds over the U.S.</a> [bitstomp.com] <br> <br>
<a href="http://www.bitstomp.com/evidence/pollutionmap2.jpg" title="bitstomp.com">Glacial Melting in Greenland</a> [bitstomp.com] <br> <br>

We have to act fast! To get started, you can get a great deal on LED lightbulbs through my eBay storefront!</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is more relevant to western society : Pollution Clouds over the U.S. [ bitstomp.com ] Glacial Melting in Greenland [ bitstomp.com ] We have to act fast !
To get started , you can get a great deal on LED lightbulbs through my eBay storefront !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is more relevant to western society: 

Pollution Clouds over the U.S. [bitstomp.com]  
Glacial Melting in Greenland [bitstomp.com]  

We have to act fast!
To get started, you can get a great deal on LED lightbulbs through my eBay storefront!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511192</id>
	<title>Re:Some nice backpedaling there, bud</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261405140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Feeding a lame troll, but the source of soot is the same source as the CO2. So we're still solving the same problem. And they've already noted that the melting in the Himalayas is abnormally fast, but that doesn't change the fact that all the glaciers are melting, if "only" half as fast as the Himalayas.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Feeding a lame troll , but the source of soot is the same source as the CO2 .
So we 're still solving the same problem .
And they 've already noted that the melting in the Himalayas is abnormally fast , but that does n't change the fact that all the glaciers are melting , if " only " half as fast as the Himalayas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Feeding a lame troll, but the source of soot is the same source as the CO2.
So we're still solving the same problem.
And they've already noted that the melting in the Himalayas is abnormally fast, but that doesn't change the fact that all the glaciers are melting, if "only" half as fast as the Himalayas.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511150</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30512144</id>
	<title>Re:Some nice backpedaling there, bud</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261411380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are flat out wrong.  The glaciers around the world are not melting.  That is a blatant disregarding of the facts.  Some are, others are growing.  There has been only a very, very slight increase in glacier melt but it is consistent with solar cycles, and it is reversing now that we are seeing colder temperatures again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are flat out wrong .
The glaciers around the world are not melting .
That is a blatant disregarding of the facts .
Some are , others are growing .
There has been only a very , very slight increase in glacier melt but it is consistent with solar cycles , and it is reversing now that we are seeing colder temperatures again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are flat out wrong.
The glaciers around the world are not melting.
That is a blatant disregarding of the facts.
Some are, others are growing.
There has been only a very, very slight increase in glacier melt but it is consistent with solar cycles, and it is reversing now that we are seeing colder temperatures again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511654</id>
	<title>Re:here we have a nugget of scientific observation</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1261408620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No one is willing to act now because the issue hasn't become significant enough to have a real effect on anyone with a pocketbook. When/if it becomes serious enough to start flooding New York City, you can bet we'll act. And before anyone says "But by then it will be too late," note that it's NEVER too late. Humans are the most adaptive species on the planet. When push comes to shove, we will find a way. Sure, it may be more sensible to act now, but we are also a very conservative species that only adapts when forced to (though, when sufficiently motivated, we can literally move mountains).</p><p>Pointing out that some polar bears are dying or some ice is melting isn't going to motivate politicians who have to answer to voters just trying to find a job and pay their bills. That's the reality, for good or ill.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No one is willing to act now because the issue has n't become significant enough to have a real effect on anyone with a pocketbook .
When/if it becomes serious enough to start flooding New York City , you can bet we 'll act .
And before anyone says " But by then it will be too late , " note that it 's NEVER too late .
Humans are the most adaptive species on the planet .
When push comes to shove , we will find a way .
Sure , it may be more sensible to act now , but we are also a very conservative species that only adapts when forced to ( though , when sufficiently motivated , we can literally move mountains ) .Pointing out that some polar bears are dying or some ice is melting is n't going to motivate politicians who have to answer to voters just trying to find a job and pay their bills .
That 's the reality , for good or ill .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No one is willing to act now because the issue hasn't become significant enough to have a real effect on anyone with a pocketbook.
When/if it becomes serious enough to start flooding New York City, you can bet we'll act.
And before anyone says "But by then it will be too late," note that it's NEVER too late.
Humans are the most adaptive species on the planet.
When push comes to shove, we will find a way.
Sure, it may be more sensible to act now, but we are also a very conservative species that only adapts when forced to (though, when sufficiently motivated, we can literally move mountains).Pointing out that some polar bears are dying or some ice is melting isn't going to motivate politicians who have to answer to voters just trying to find a job and pay their bills.
That's the reality, for good or ill.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511436</id>
	<title>A modest proposal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261407240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Himalayas are obviously being heated by the methane gas produced by the hundreds of millions of vegetarians who live near them. Do you have a "solution" to that problem.</p><p>Seriously though, if CO2 is contributing, then nations that produce a lot of it need to spend their money finding ways to reduce their emissions (nuclear power plants, more efficient transportation, etc). A wealth transfer to poor countries won't help anything. And if solar cycles are the cause, there's not a darn thing humans can do about it except adapt.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Himalayas are obviously being heated by the methane gas produced by the hundreds of millions of vegetarians who live near them .
Do you have a " solution " to that problem.Seriously though , if CO2 is contributing , then nations that produce a lot of it need to spend their money finding ways to reduce their emissions ( nuclear power plants , more efficient transportation , etc ) .
A wealth transfer to poor countries wo n't help anything .
And if solar cycles are the cause , there 's not a darn thing humans can do about it except adapt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Himalayas are obviously being heated by the methane gas produced by the hundreds of millions of vegetarians who live near them.
Do you have a "solution" to that problem.Seriously though, if CO2 is contributing, then nations that produce a lot of it need to spend their money finding ways to reduce their emissions (nuclear power plants, more efficient transportation, etc).
A wealth transfer to poor countries won't help anything.
And if solar cycles are the cause, there's not a darn thing humans can do about it except adapt.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30513060</id>
	<title>Nuclear winter</title>
	<author>mdsolar</author>
	<datestamp>1261416000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Something that was a bit of a surprise about a nuclear war between Pakistan and India seems to be important here as well.  Nuclear war between India an Pakistan would lift quite a lot of soot into the troposphere because of all the combustible material in cities.  It turns out that solar heating of that soot causes the heated air parcels to rise into the stratosphere.  That means that the soot does not fall out right away and is spread over the globe, blocking sunlight and cooling the planet enough to cause crop failure and famine around the world.  <a href="http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/47829/story.htm" title="planetark.com">http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/47829/story.htm</a> [planetark.com] <br> <br>
This same mechanism is playing a similar though smaller role here by causing stronger updrafts.  Interesting confirmation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Something that was a bit of a surprise about a nuclear war between Pakistan and India seems to be important here as well .
Nuclear war between India an Pakistan would lift quite a lot of soot into the troposphere because of all the combustible material in cities .
It turns out that solar heating of that soot causes the heated air parcels to rise into the stratosphere .
That means that the soot does not fall out right away and is spread over the globe , blocking sunlight and cooling the planet enough to cause crop failure and famine around the world .
http : //www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/47829/story.htm [ planetark.com ] This same mechanism is playing a similar though smaller role here by causing stronger updrafts .
Interesting confirmation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Something that was a bit of a surprise about a nuclear war between Pakistan and India seems to be important here as well.
Nuclear war between India an Pakistan would lift quite a lot of soot into the troposphere because of all the combustible material in cities.
It turns out that solar heating of that soot causes the heated air parcels to rise into the stratosphere.
That means that the soot does not fall out right away and is spread over the globe, blocking sunlight and cooling the planet enough to cause crop failure and famine around the world.
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/47829/story.htm [planetark.com]  
This same mechanism is playing a similar though smaller role here by causing stronger updrafts.
Interesting confirmation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511908</id>
	<title>Re:here we have a nugget of scientific observation</title>
	<author>foobsr</author>
	<datestamp>1261410000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Partly, I agree. Interestingly (well, after all, this will be a real big global business), the Institution of Mechanical Engineers has recently come up with a geo-engineering <a href="http://www.imeche.org/about/keythemes/environment/Climate+Change/Geoeng" title="imeche.org"> approach</a> [imeche.org].
<br> <br>
CC.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Partly , I agree .
Interestingly ( well , after all , this will be a real big global business ) , the Institution of Mechanical Engineers has recently come up with a geo-engineering approach [ imeche.org ] .
CC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Partly, I agree.
Interestingly (well, after all, this will be a real big global business), the Institution of Mechanical Engineers has recently come up with a geo-engineering  approach [imeche.org].
CC.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30512932</id>
	<title>Re:Shoddy PR at work</title>
	<author>fatboy</author>
	<datestamp>1261415460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>We are putting to much polution into the atmosphere and we need to stop</i></p><p>We have spent the past 35 years attempting to convert pollution emitters into emitting non-toxic CO2, and now THAT isn't good enough? I don't get it. I must be a completely clueless knuckle dragging mouth breather.<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We are putting to much polution into the atmosphere and we need to stopWe have spent the past 35 years attempting to convert pollution emitters into emitting non-toxic CO2 , and now THAT is n't good enough ?
I do n't get it .
I must be a completely clueless knuckle dragging mouth breather .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>We are putting to much polution into the atmosphere and we need to stopWe have spent the past 35 years attempting to convert pollution emitters into emitting non-toxic CO2, and now THAT isn't good enough?
I don't get it.
I must be a completely clueless knuckle dragging mouth breather.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30516318</id>
	<title>Confussed...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261387380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So your problem is that the worlds leaders were lying before, when they disregarded global warming?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....Or now that they are working towards fixing global warming?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...Or that they are lying politicians and you enjoy making fun of them at every oppertunity?</p><p>(maybe even imagined ones?)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So your problem is that the worlds leaders were lying before , when they disregarded global warming ?
....Or now that they are working towards fixing global warming ?
...Or that they are lying politicians and you enjoy making fun of them at every oppertunity ?
( maybe even imagined ones ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So your problem is that the worlds leaders were lying before, when they disregarded global warming?
....Or now that they are working towards fixing global warming?
...Or that they are lying politicians and you enjoy making fun of them at every oppertunity?
(maybe even imagined ones?
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30514078</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511338</id>
	<title>Re:Some nice backpedaling there, bud</title>
	<author>zz5555</author>
	<datestamp>1261406400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is pretty old news.  I think I've seen reports of this at least as far back as 2003.  But it's estimated that this effect is only 25\% of global warming.  Green house gases are most of the rest.  And, yes, it doesn't necessarily take a huge increase in global temperatures to get the glaciers melting.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is pretty old news .
I think I 've seen reports of this at least as far back as 2003 .
But it 's estimated that this effect is only 25 \ % of global warming .
Green house gases are most of the rest .
And , yes , it does n't necessarily take a huge increase in global temperatures to get the glaciers melting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is pretty old news.
I think I've seen reports of this at least as far back as 2003.
But it's estimated that this effect is only 25\% of global warming.
Green house gases are most of the rest.
And, yes, it doesn't necessarily take a huge increase in global temperatures to get the glaciers melting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511150</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30513244</id>
	<title>Re:ZOMG! Global warming is wrong!</title>
	<author>rickb928</author>
	<datestamp>1261416660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If this was presented as a pollution problem, you could get the right-wingers on board.  After all, Edmund Muskie sponsored the Clean Water Act in 1971, and despite Nixon's veto it was overrriden and became law.  Republican members pretty much have supported it.  When the EPA gets back to pollution control, they will find many right-wingers willing to support these efforts.</p><p>Sadly, they will also find many right- and left-wingers unwilling to pretend that any pollution controls within the U.S. will solve any significant global pollution problems.  The developing countries will resist joining in, as it will raise costs and diminish growth, and China is quite literally a black hole of pollution with no intention of limiting growth or raising costs to even halt the increases, much less reduce.</p><p>In a way, we are entering a perfect storm of globalization, massive industrial development, fossil fuels as a<br>cheap path to industrial prosperity, and the attendant rise in global pollution and genuine climate impact.  CO2 is not so much of a problem as particulates, but it is much easier to sell punishing the developed countries rather than set new standards and prevent the avalance of underdeveloped countries spewing so much more.  China will eclipse the US in this impact, if they haven't already, and we have no prospects of limiting their spew.  Africa is next, and more is the pity, since Africa could be a miraculous eco-economy if they could bear to live a little below their industial potential and stop killing one another so wantonly.  South American is well on its way to completely developing their lands, with the requisite loss of habitat and forest.  We may one day realize that the deforestation of the Amazon did more to ruin Earth than every car and coal power plant ever built.  And there are other forests under attack.</p><p>If were only so simple, but this global problem is not being addressed globally yet.  And I see little hope for it to be so any time soon.  Many developing countries want to 'get theirs', and get it now, figuring they can get the developed countries to either give up theirs, or fix it in technology.  We might be able to, but probably not, unless it is a truly global solution.  And there is no forum to discuss this honestly, so it will continue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If this was presented as a pollution problem , you could get the right-wingers on board .
After all , Edmund Muskie sponsored the Clean Water Act in 1971 , and despite Nixon 's veto it was overrriden and became law .
Republican members pretty much have supported it .
When the EPA gets back to pollution control , they will find many right-wingers willing to support these efforts.Sadly , they will also find many right- and left-wingers unwilling to pretend that any pollution controls within the U.S. will solve any significant global pollution problems .
The developing countries will resist joining in , as it will raise costs and diminish growth , and China is quite literally a black hole of pollution with no intention of limiting growth or raising costs to even halt the increases , much less reduce.In a way , we are entering a perfect storm of globalization , massive industrial development , fossil fuels as acheap path to industrial prosperity , and the attendant rise in global pollution and genuine climate impact .
CO2 is not so much of a problem as particulates , but it is much easier to sell punishing the developed countries rather than set new standards and prevent the avalance of underdeveloped countries spewing so much more .
China will eclipse the US in this impact , if they have n't already , and we have no prospects of limiting their spew .
Africa is next , and more is the pity , since Africa could be a miraculous eco-economy if they could bear to live a little below their industial potential and stop killing one another so wantonly .
South American is well on its way to completely developing their lands , with the requisite loss of habitat and forest .
We may one day realize that the deforestation of the Amazon did more to ruin Earth than every car and coal power plant ever built .
And there are other forests under attack.If were only so simple , but this global problem is not being addressed globally yet .
And I see little hope for it to be so any time soon .
Many developing countries want to 'get theirs ' , and get it now , figuring they can get the developed countries to either give up theirs , or fix it in technology .
We might be able to , but probably not , unless it is a truly global solution .
And there is no forum to discuss this honestly , so it will continue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this was presented as a pollution problem, you could get the right-wingers on board.
After all, Edmund Muskie sponsored the Clean Water Act in 1971, and despite Nixon's veto it was overrriden and became law.
Republican members pretty much have supported it.
When the EPA gets back to pollution control, they will find many right-wingers willing to support these efforts.Sadly, they will also find many right- and left-wingers unwilling to pretend that any pollution controls within the U.S. will solve any significant global pollution problems.
The developing countries will resist joining in, as it will raise costs and diminish growth, and China is quite literally a black hole of pollution with no intention of limiting growth or raising costs to even halt the increases, much less reduce.In a way, we are entering a perfect storm of globalization, massive industrial development, fossil fuels as acheap path to industrial prosperity, and the attendant rise in global pollution and genuine climate impact.
CO2 is not so much of a problem as particulates, but it is much easier to sell punishing the developed countries rather than set new standards and prevent the avalance of underdeveloped countries spewing so much more.
China will eclipse the US in this impact, if they haven't already, and we have no prospects of limiting their spew.
Africa is next, and more is the pity, since Africa could be a miraculous eco-economy if they could bear to live a little below their industial potential and stop killing one another so wantonly.
South American is well on its way to completely developing their lands, with the requisite loss of habitat and forest.
We may one day realize that the deforestation of the Amazon did more to ruin Earth than every car and coal power plant ever built.
And there are other forests under attack.If were only so simple, but this global problem is not being addressed globally yet.
And I see little hope for it to be so any time soon.
Many developing countries want to 'get theirs', and get it now, figuring they can get the developed countries to either give up theirs, or fix it in technology.
We might be able to, but probably not, unless it is a truly global solution.
And there is no forum to discuss this honestly, so it will continue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511286</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511522</id>
	<title>Re:here we have a nugget of scientific observation</title>
	<author>jonadab</author>
	<datestamp>1261407660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; If it gets too cold, do something to turn it up.<br>&gt; If it gets to hot, do something to turn it down.</p><p>That kind of thinking can have unintended consequences.  Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.  The insects are a major nuissance, so you introduce a lizard that eats them.  But the lizards, with no natural predators, start to take over, so you introduce cats.  Now the introduced feral cats are killing off the local birds.  When you mess with a system you don't understand, you can really screw things up.</p><p>If we understood climate change better, we might be better equipped to try to control it, but the fact is we don't understand it very well at all.  For the time being, I think the wisest course of action is to adapt our society to live with whatever climate changes come down the pike (and of course to continue to collect as many data as possible, with a view toward eventually forming a more complete understanding of how stuff works).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; If it gets too cold , do something to turn it up. &gt; If it gets to hot , do something to turn it down.That kind of thinking can have unintended consequences .
Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease .
The insects are a major nuissance , so you introduce a lizard that eats them .
But the lizards , with no natural predators , start to take over , so you introduce cats .
Now the introduced feral cats are killing off the local birds .
When you mess with a system you do n't understand , you can really screw things up.If we understood climate change better , we might be better equipped to try to control it , but the fact is we do n't understand it very well at all .
For the time being , I think the wisest course of action is to adapt our society to live with whatever climate changes come down the pike ( and of course to continue to collect as many data as possible , with a view toward eventually forming a more complete understanding of how stuff works ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; If it gets too cold, do something to turn it up.&gt; If it gets to hot, do something to turn it down.That kind of thinking can have unintended consequences.
Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.
The insects are a major nuissance, so you introduce a lizard that eats them.
But the lizards, with no natural predators, start to take over, so you introduce cats.
Now the introduced feral cats are killing off the local birds.
When you mess with a system you don't understand, you can really screw things up.If we understood climate change better, we might be better equipped to try to control it, but the fact is we don't understand it very well at all.
For the time being, I think the wisest course of action is to adapt our society to live with whatever climate changes come down the pike (and of course to continue to collect as many data as possible, with a view toward eventually forming a more complete understanding of how stuff works).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511814</id>
	<title>Not a new Phenominon</title>
	<author>Breccia</author>
	<datestamp>1261409460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Back in 1970, at Resolute Bay in the Canadian high arctic, I had a discussion with two scientists about global warming -- back then, the Arctic Ocean had increased in temperature by 2.7 degrees over the previous 40 years!!!  One identified mechanism was soot from the atmosphere, a byproduct of combustion and to a lesser extent, volcanic ash.  The amount of energy it takes to raise the temperature of an entire ocean by this amount is staggering... <br>
<br>
This soot reduces the albedo of the snow and ice, resulting in less incident energy being reflected back into space and the unreflected energy raising the local temperature.<br>
<br>
For anyone who cares to look, "global warming" is a function of very many causes creating a frightening synergy, greenhouse gasses though probably being the main culprit.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Back in 1970 , at Resolute Bay in the Canadian high arctic , I had a discussion with two scientists about global warming -- back then , the Arctic Ocean had increased in temperature by 2.7 degrees over the previous 40 years ! ! !
One identified mechanism was soot from the atmosphere , a byproduct of combustion and to a lesser extent , volcanic ash .
The amount of energy it takes to raise the temperature of an entire ocean by this amount is staggering.. . This soot reduces the albedo of the snow and ice , resulting in less incident energy being reflected back into space and the unreflected energy raising the local temperature .
For anyone who cares to look , " global warming " is a function of very many causes creating a frightening synergy , greenhouse gasses though probably being the main culprit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back in 1970, at Resolute Bay in the Canadian high arctic, I had a discussion with two scientists about global warming -- back then, the Arctic Ocean had increased in temperature by 2.7 degrees over the previous 40 years!!!
One identified mechanism was soot from the atmosphere, a byproduct of combustion and to a lesser extent, volcanic ash.
The amount of energy it takes to raise the temperature of an entire ocean by this amount is staggering... 

This soot reduces the albedo of the snow and ice, resulting in less incident energy being reflected back into space and the unreflected energy raising the local temperature.
For anyone who cares to look, "global warming" is a function of very many causes creating a frightening synergy, greenhouse gasses though probably being the main culprit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511444</id>
	<title>Re:here we have a nugget of scientific observation</title>
	<author>Thanshin</author>
	<datestamp>1261407240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>we do not grow fur, we make clothes. we do not enter torpor at midday, we invent air conditioning</p></div><p>You've not been to Spain, I gather.</p><p>We call both solutions "Pecho lobo" and "Siesta"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>we do not grow fur , we make clothes .
we do not enter torpor at midday , we invent air conditioningYou 've not been to Spain , I gather.We call both solutions " Pecho lobo " and " Siesta "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we do not grow fur, we make clothes.
we do not enter torpor at midday, we invent air conditioningYou've not been to Spain, I gather.We call both solutions "Pecho lobo" and "Siesta"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30513292</id>
	<title>Another nugget of scientific observation</title>
	<author>camperdave</author>
	<datestamp>1261416960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Anyone who has lived in a snow prone city in the spring will tell you that the soot covered snow is the last to melt.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone who has lived in a snow prone city in the spring will tell you that the soot covered snow is the last to melt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone who has lived in a snow prone city in the spring will tell you that the soot covered snow is the last to melt.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30512132</id>
	<title>Re:Satellite Imagery</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261411320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Smoke on the water -- 1972 [Deep Purple]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Smoke on the water -- 1972 [ Deep Purple ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Smoke on the water -- 1972 [Deep Purple]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30513014</id>
	<title>Get caught in one lie, make up another, woo, woo!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261415760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Get caught in one lie, make up another, woo, woo!!!!</p><p>These guys are determined to control the world any way they can, who cares how many suffer and die.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Get caught in one lie , make up another , woo , woo ! ! !
! These guys are determined to control the world any way they can , who cares how many suffer and die .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Get caught in one lie, make up another, woo, woo!!!
!These guys are determined to control the world any way they can, who cares how many suffer and die.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30515434</id>
	<title>Re:here we have a nugget of scientific observation</title>
	<author>Troed</author>
	<datestamp>1261426320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>what are we supposed to do, just accept rising sea levels, melting glaciers and the sahara desert growing 25\%?</i></p><p>The Sahara desert was a savannah just a few thousand years ago*. It's currently getting \_greener\_ - not expanding**. A warmer atmosphere leads to increased precipitation, and maybe it changes a few winds around as well which would rectify the current desert-anomaly, if you'd so choose.</p><p><i>if you don't believe the earth is heating up, you still have to admit the earth has had historic swings in climate, and that we earthlings will have to intervene at some point, correct?</i></p><p>Depends. We're currently nowhere near as "hot" as we've been in recent times***, thus, why should we do anything at all?</p><p>IF anything, we should prepare to mitigate the looming ice age.</p><p>Sources:</p><p>*) <a href="http://www.livescience.com/history/060720\_sahara\_rains.html" title="livescience.com">http://www.livescience.com/history/060720\_sahara\_rains.html</a> [livescience.com]<br>**) <a href="http://surveying-mapping-gis.blogspot.com/2006/01/greening-of-sahel.html" title="blogspot.com">http://surveying-mapping-gis.blogspot.com/2006/01/greening-of-sahel.html</a> [blogspot.com]<br>***) <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>what are we supposed to do , just accept rising sea levels , melting glaciers and the sahara desert growing 25 \ % ? The Sahara desert was a savannah just a few thousand years ago * .
It 's currently getting \ _greener \ _ - not expanding * * .
A warmer atmosphere leads to increased precipitation , and maybe it changes a few winds around as well which would rectify the current desert-anomaly , if you 'd so choose.if you do n't believe the earth is heating up , you still have to admit the earth has had historic swings in climate , and that we earthlings will have to intervene at some point , correct ? Depends .
We 're currently nowhere near as " hot " as we 've been in recent times * * * , thus , why should we do anything at all ? IF anything , we should prepare to mitigate the looming ice age.Sources : * ) http : //www.livescience.com/history/060720 \ _sahara \ _rains.html [ livescience.com ] * * ) http : //surveying-mapping-gis.blogspot.com/2006/01/greening-of-sahel.html [ blogspot.com ] * * * ) http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = DFbUVBYIPlI [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what are we supposed to do, just accept rising sea levels, melting glaciers and the sahara desert growing 25\%?The Sahara desert was a savannah just a few thousand years ago*.
It's currently getting \_greener\_ - not expanding**.
A warmer atmosphere leads to increased precipitation, and maybe it changes a few winds around as well which would rectify the current desert-anomaly, if you'd so choose.if you don't believe the earth is heating up, you still have to admit the earth has had historic swings in climate, and that we earthlings will have to intervene at some point, correct?Depends.
We're currently nowhere near as "hot" as we've been in recent times***, thus, why should we do anything at all?IF anything, we should prepare to mitigate the looming ice age.Sources:*) http://www.livescience.com/history/060720\_sahara\_rains.html [livescience.com]**) http://surveying-mapping-gis.blogspot.com/2006/01/greening-of-sahel.html [blogspot.com]***) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFbUVBYIPlI [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511686</id>
	<title>Stupid idiots...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261408800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why don't they just use white soot instead?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do n't they just use white soot instead ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why don't they just use white soot instead?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511312</id>
	<title>here we have a nugget of scientific observation</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1261406160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>underneath we will have a shitstorm of politically biased comments</p><p>so i offer a third option, to climate change doubters and climate change believers:</p><p>1. who fucking cares whose fault it is</p><p>political recrimination gets us nowhere. its cold in the house because someone left the window open? ok, so you're going to sit there and scream at each other over who opened the window? here's a new idea: how about someone demonstrating actual responsibility and instead actually stand the fuck up, walk over, and close the fucking window: NO MATTER WHO LEFT IT OPEN</p><p>2. who fucking cares if we are heating up or cooling down or not changing</p><p>the fact is, we live here, and we are interested in controlling the thermostat. if it gets too cold, do something to turn it up. if it gets to hot, do something to turn it down. we are homo sapiens, this what we do: we do not adapt to our environment, we adapt our environment to us. we do not grow fur, we make clothes. we do not enter torpor at midday, we invent air conditioning</p><p>if you say we shouldn't mess with the weather, you are by extension denying the fact that we already are having an effect on the climate. so we might as well get involved with twiddling with the environment ON PURPOSE, because the notion that 6.5 billion humans can magically have no effect at all is a completely absurd premise on your part</p><p>this environmental attitude is the engineer's approach. fuck all of you capitalists, politicians, activists and hysterical whiners. the engineer will prevail here, because only we have the solution to what the rest of you simply bicker about</p><p>we need scientifically, factually sound well-researched methods for forcing change on our planet on purpose. and then we'll fix your fucking problem. something like seeding the dead zones of the ocean with iron</p><p>lets put it this way: make believe, for the moment, for the sake of argument, regardless of your beliefs, that</p><p>1. the earth is actually heating up<br>2. it is doing so because of nature, not man-made reasons</p><p>ok, well what are we supposed to do, just accept rising sea levels, melting glaciers and the sahara desert growing 25\%?</p><p>no, we artificially introduce methods for cooling the earth down. we do this, #1, for selfish reasons, but also for #2: a preservation of current species and ecosystems, as a side effect. are you going to let the amazon dry up because you don't like the idea of man fiddling with the environment?</p><p>yes, the planet could continue to evolve new species without human intervention. but what is really going to happen is that this planet is going to become a museum, under human supervision, of the current catalog of species and ecosystems that have evolved so far. why? because we want to fucking live here, that's why</p><p>so, for the deniers in opposition to supposition #1 above: if you don't believe the earth is heating up, you still have to admit the earth has had historic swings in climate, and that we earthlings will have to intervene at some point, correct?</p><p>and for the believers in man-made change in opposition to supposition #2 above: you believe that climate change is caused by man, you have to admit that to fix the problem we have to do it PROACTIVELY. please don't try to sell me the moronic bullshit that 6.5 billion humans can live on this planet like ghosts. this is a different kind of denial than those who deny climate change, but no less foolish</p><p>imagine that: no pointless recriminations and blame games, no living in denial and sticking your head in the sand</p><p>commence with the retarded partisan bickering anyway. meanwhile, us engineers will roll up our sleeves and will actually go and fix your fucking problem while you political assholes do nothing but bicker</p><p>more action, less "hot air"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>underneath we will have a shitstorm of politically biased commentsso i offer a third option , to climate change doubters and climate change believers : 1. who fucking cares whose fault it ispolitical recrimination gets us nowhere .
its cold in the house because someone left the window open ?
ok , so you 're going to sit there and scream at each other over who opened the window ?
here 's a new idea : how about someone demonstrating actual responsibility and instead actually stand the fuck up , walk over , and close the fucking window : NO MATTER WHO LEFT IT OPEN2 .
who fucking cares if we are heating up or cooling down or not changingthe fact is , we live here , and we are interested in controlling the thermostat .
if it gets too cold , do something to turn it up .
if it gets to hot , do something to turn it down .
we are homo sapiens , this what we do : we do not adapt to our environment , we adapt our environment to us .
we do not grow fur , we make clothes .
we do not enter torpor at midday , we invent air conditioningif you say we should n't mess with the weather , you are by extension denying the fact that we already are having an effect on the climate .
so we might as well get involved with twiddling with the environment ON PURPOSE , because the notion that 6.5 billion humans can magically have no effect at all is a completely absurd premise on your partthis environmental attitude is the engineer 's approach .
fuck all of you capitalists , politicians , activists and hysterical whiners .
the engineer will prevail here , because only we have the solution to what the rest of you simply bicker aboutwe need scientifically , factually sound well-researched methods for forcing change on our planet on purpose .
and then we 'll fix your fucking problem .
something like seeding the dead zones of the ocean with ironlets put it this way : make believe , for the moment , for the sake of argument , regardless of your beliefs , that1 .
the earth is actually heating up2 .
it is doing so because of nature , not man-made reasonsok , well what are we supposed to do , just accept rising sea levels , melting glaciers and the sahara desert growing 25 \ % ? no , we artificially introduce methods for cooling the earth down .
we do this , # 1 , for selfish reasons , but also for # 2 : a preservation of current species and ecosystems , as a side effect .
are you going to let the amazon dry up because you do n't like the idea of man fiddling with the environment ? yes , the planet could continue to evolve new species without human intervention .
but what is really going to happen is that this planet is going to become a museum , under human supervision , of the current catalog of species and ecosystems that have evolved so far .
why ? because we want to fucking live here , that 's whyso , for the deniers in opposition to supposition # 1 above : if you do n't believe the earth is heating up , you still have to admit the earth has had historic swings in climate , and that we earthlings will have to intervene at some point , correct ? and for the believers in man-made change in opposition to supposition # 2 above : you believe that climate change is caused by man , you have to admit that to fix the problem we have to do it PROACTIVELY .
please do n't try to sell me the moronic bullshit that 6.5 billion humans can live on this planet like ghosts .
this is a different kind of denial than those who deny climate change , but no less foolishimagine that : no pointless recriminations and blame games , no living in denial and sticking your head in the sandcommence with the retarded partisan bickering anyway .
meanwhile , us engineers will roll up our sleeves and will actually go and fix your fucking problem while you political assholes do nothing but bickermore action , less " hot air "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>underneath we will have a shitstorm of politically biased commentsso i offer a third option, to climate change doubters and climate change believers:1. who fucking cares whose fault it ispolitical recrimination gets us nowhere.
its cold in the house because someone left the window open?
ok, so you're going to sit there and scream at each other over who opened the window?
here's a new idea: how about someone demonstrating actual responsibility and instead actually stand the fuck up, walk over, and close the fucking window: NO MATTER WHO LEFT IT OPEN2.
who fucking cares if we are heating up or cooling down or not changingthe fact is, we live here, and we are interested in controlling the thermostat.
if it gets too cold, do something to turn it up.
if it gets to hot, do something to turn it down.
we are homo sapiens, this what we do: we do not adapt to our environment, we adapt our environment to us.
we do not grow fur, we make clothes.
we do not enter torpor at midday, we invent air conditioningif you say we shouldn't mess with the weather, you are by extension denying the fact that we already are having an effect on the climate.
so we might as well get involved with twiddling with the environment ON PURPOSE, because the notion that 6.5 billion humans can magically have no effect at all is a completely absurd premise on your partthis environmental attitude is the engineer's approach.
fuck all of you capitalists, politicians, activists and hysterical whiners.
the engineer will prevail here, because only we have the solution to what the rest of you simply bicker aboutwe need scientifically, factually sound well-researched methods for forcing change on our planet on purpose.
and then we'll fix your fucking problem.
something like seeding the dead zones of the ocean with ironlets put it this way: make believe, for the moment, for the sake of argument, regardless of your beliefs, that1.
the earth is actually heating up2.
it is doing so because of nature, not man-made reasonsok, well what are we supposed to do, just accept rising sea levels, melting glaciers and the sahara desert growing 25\%?no, we artificially introduce methods for cooling the earth down.
we do this, #1, for selfish reasons, but also for #2: a preservation of current species and ecosystems, as a side effect.
are you going to let the amazon dry up because you don't like the idea of man fiddling with the environment?yes, the planet could continue to evolve new species without human intervention.
but what is really going to happen is that this planet is going to become a museum, under human supervision, of the current catalog of species and ecosystems that have evolved so far.
why? because we want to fucking live here, that's whyso, for the deniers in opposition to supposition #1 above: if you don't believe the earth is heating up, you still have to admit the earth has had historic swings in climate, and that we earthlings will have to intervene at some point, correct?and for the believers in man-made change in opposition to supposition #2 above: you believe that climate change is caused by man, you have to admit that to fix the problem we have to do it PROACTIVELY.
please don't try to sell me the moronic bullshit that 6.5 billion humans can live on this planet like ghosts.
this is a different kind of denial than those who deny climate change, but no less foolishimagine that: no pointless recriminations and blame games, no living in denial and sticking your head in the sandcommence with the retarded partisan bickering anyway.
meanwhile, us engineers will roll up our sleeves and will actually go and fix your fucking problem while you political assholes do nothing but bickermore action, less "hot air"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511868</id>
	<title>ID10T error</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261409820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And where do you exactly think the black soot comes from if not from <b>Indian and Chinese coal plants</b>? Oh my...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And where do you exactly think the black soot comes from if not from Indian and Chinese coal plants ?
Oh my.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And where do you exactly think the black soot comes from if not from Indian and Chinese coal plants?
Oh my...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511380</id>
	<title>Re:Prehistoric water reserves?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261406940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Galciers are essentially a water battery. There is very heavy seasonal precipitation high in the mountains. This precipitation becomes glacier ice, which slides downward and melts.<br>The sliding process and melting however happens perennial, and thus turns high seasonal percipitation into a dependable perennial water source. Without glaciers, all the water simply comes gushing downhill - which can be very damaging on its own, and leaves the people without a dependable water source for the rest of the year.</p><p>There are two possibilities how a glacier can "die" - either the yearly precipitation dries up (therefore, melted ice is not replenished), or the temperature gets warmer and the "melting zone" goes up the mountain, ultimately leaving no glacier. We observe the latter across the globe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Galciers are essentially a water battery .
There is very heavy seasonal precipitation high in the mountains .
This precipitation becomes glacier ice , which slides downward and melts.The sliding process and melting however happens perennial , and thus turns high seasonal percipitation into a dependable perennial water source .
Without glaciers , all the water simply comes gushing downhill - which can be very damaging on its own , and leaves the people without a dependable water source for the rest of the year.There are two possibilities how a glacier can " die " - either the yearly precipitation dries up ( therefore , melted ice is not replenished ) , or the temperature gets warmer and the " melting zone " goes up the mountain , ultimately leaving no glacier .
We observe the latter across the globe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Galciers are essentially a water battery.
There is very heavy seasonal precipitation high in the mountains.
This precipitation becomes glacier ice, which slides downward and melts.The sliding process and melting however happens perennial, and thus turns high seasonal percipitation into a dependable perennial water source.
Without glaciers, all the water simply comes gushing downhill - which can be very damaging on its own, and leaves the people without a dependable water source for the rest of the year.There are two possibilities how a glacier can "die" - either the yearly precipitation dries up (therefore, melted ice is not replenished), or the temperature gets warmer and the "melting zone" goes up the mountain, ultimately leaving no glacier.
We observe the latter across the globe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511648</id>
	<title>at last, a climate change scenario with facts</title>
	<author>rubycodez</author>
	<datestamp>1261408620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Global dimming, and this article, are actually based on real facts.  We could have built meaningful case for mankind to change its polluting ways based on this kind of thing.  Too bad the "climatologists" instead went for extrapolation and models based on natural solar maximums, and now are looking like idiots now that deep solar minimum is making the earth cool (temporarily, yes; part of up and down cycle, yes).  And people like Al Gore and the director of CRU who had to step down made the most absurd and unfounded claims about near future events that no thinking person believes they have any credibility at all.  A -ist is not an expert, it is a media label.  A punk with a megaphone inciting riot is an "activist".  A doped out hippie chained to a tree is an "activist".  And a doomsayer alarmist getting grants and making models to please his political benefactors is a "climatologist".  See, no real credentials or training necessary to be an "-ist", even if they have sheepskin scientific method has nothing to do with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Global dimming , and this article , are actually based on real facts .
We could have built meaningful case for mankind to change its polluting ways based on this kind of thing .
Too bad the " climatologists " instead went for extrapolation and models based on natural solar maximums , and now are looking like idiots now that deep solar minimum is making the earth cool ( temporarily , yes ; part of up and down cycle , yes ) .
And people like Al Gore and the director of CRU who had to step down made the most absurd and unfounded claims about near future events that no thinking person believes they have any credibility at all .
A -ist is not an expert , it is a media label .
A punk with a megaphone inciting riot is an " activist " .
A doped out hippie chained to a tree is an " activist " .
And a doomsayer alarmist getting grants and making models to please his political benefactors is a " climatologist " .
See , no real credentials or training necessary to be an " -ist " , even if they have sheepskin scientific method has nothing to do with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Global dimming, and this article, are actually based on real facts.
We could have built meaningful case for mankind to change its polluting ways based on this kind of thing.
Too bad the "climatologists" instead went for extrapolation and models based on natural solar maximums, and now are looking like idiots now that deep solar minimum is making the earth cool (temporarily, yes; part of up and down cycle, yes).
And people like Al Gore and the director of CRU who had to step down made the most absurd and unfounded claims about near future events that no thinking person believes they have any credibility at all.
A -ist is not an expert, it is a media label.
A punk with a megaphone inciting riot is an "activist".
A doped out hippie chained to a tree is an "activist".
And a doomsayer alarmist getting grants and making models to please his political benefactors is a "climatologist".
See, no real credentials or training necessary to be an "-ist", even if they have sheepskin scientific method has nothing to do with it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511466</id>
	<title>Re:here we have a nugget of scientific observation</title>
	<author>vadim\_t</author>
	<datestamp>1261407360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>1. who fucking cares whose fault it is</p><p>political recrimination gets us nowhere. its cold in the house because someone left the window open?</p></div></blockquote><p>Bad example. It's not who left the window open, it's determining that the problem is an open window, as opposed to for instance running the air conditioner in winter. Because fixing the problem the right way (closing the window, or shutting down the AC) is much easier than doing it the wrong way (adding heaters for instance).</p><p>If the problem is too much CO2, then it's very possible the easiest fix is to reduce the amount of CO2 instead of starting some sort of planet-wide engineering project.</p><blockquote><div><p>2. who fucking cares if we are heating up or cooling down or not changing</p></div></blockquote><p>How is your engineer going to fix the problem without knowing what it is? The solutions to "too cold", "too hot", and "not changing when it should" are different. And depending on the amount of change the scale of your engineering project is going to change quite a lot.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1. who fucking cares whose fault it ispolitical recrimination gets us nowhere .
its cold in the house because someone left the window open ? Bad example .
It 's not who left the window open , it 's determining that the problem is an open window , as opposed to for instance running the air conditioner in winter .
Because fixing the problem the right way ( closing the window , or shutting down the AC ) is much easier than doing it the wrong way ( adding heaters for instance ) .If the problem is too much CO2 , then it 's very possible the easiest fix is to reduce the amount of CO2 instead of starting some sort of planet-wide engineering project.2 .
who fucking cares if we are heating up or cooling down or not changingHow is your engineer going to fix the problem without knowing what it is ?
The solutions to " too cold " , " too hot " , and " not changing when it should " are different .
And depending on the amount of change the scale of your engineering project is going to change quite a lot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1. who fucking cares whose fault it ispolitical recrimination gets us nowhere.
its cold in the house because someone left the window open?Bad example.
It's not who left the window open, it's determining that the problem is an open window, as opposed to for instance running the air conditioner in winter.
Because fixing the problem the right way (closing the window, or shutting down the AC) is much easier than doing it the wrong way (adding heaters for instance).If the problem is too much CO2, then it's very possible the easiest fix is to reduce the amount of CO2 instead of starting some sort of planet-wide engineering project.2.
who fucking cares if we are heating up or cooling down or not changingHow is your engineer going to fix the problem without knowing what it is?
The solutions to "too cold", "too hot", and "not changing when it should" are different.
And depending on the amount of change the scale of your engineering project is going to change quite a lot.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30515900</id>
	<title>Re:Some nice backpedaling there, bud</title>
	<author>budgenator</author>
	<datestamp>1261428720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except that the globe is cooling, in fact the big question is whether this cooling is weather or is it climate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except that the globe is cooling , in fact the big question is whether this cooling is weather or is it climate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except that the globe is cooling, in fact the big question is whether this cooling is weather or is it climate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511338</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30512088</id>
	<title>about Black Soot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261410960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have you got any in a different colour please?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you got any in a different colour please ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you got any in a different colour please?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30514180</id>
	<title>Re:Seems Familiar</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1261420860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If it gets Nicolas Cage off the planet, it can't be all bad.</p></div><p>Ahhh, you do realize that they don't shoot those Apocalyptic-Outer-Space-Action-Movies on location, don't you?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If it gets Nicolas Cage off the planet , it ca n't be all bad.Ahhh , you do realize that they do n't shoot those Apocalyptic-Outer-Space-Action-Movies on location , do n't you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it gets Nicolas Cage off the planet, it can't be all bad.Ahhh, you do realize that they don't shoot those Apocalyptic-Outer-Space-Action-Movies on location, don't you?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511132</id>
	<title>!millions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261404540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>continent's mightiest rivers, on which millions of people depend for their water supplies.</i> <br> <br>It is more like hundreds of millions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>continent 's mightiest rivers , on which millions of people depend for their water supplies .
It is more like hundreds of millions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>continent's mightiest rivers, on which millions of people depend for their water supplies.
It is more like hundreds of millions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30515844</id>
	<title>Trolling</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261428420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Troll- when you hit on exactly the essence of what its all about, this is who you be to the keepers of the dogma.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. Moderation is the epitome of exactly this. Fact is, so called science will bob and weave on the AGW topic from here on in, changing it to Climate Change and now Carbon Soot as the new enemy. Soot = Dust and dust reflects sunlight and thus the earth will cool and that is no different than all your nuclear winter scenarios. Dont forget to feed the trolls, they are necessary to the complex ecosystem unlike tool moderators</p><p>Melting Glaciers, see a myriad of other complex interactions more than CO2 or Carbon Soot could ever be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Troll- when you hit on exactly the essence of what its all about , this is who you be to the keepers of the dogma .
/. Moderation is the epitome of exactly this .
Fact is , so called science will bob and weave on the AGW topic from here on in , changing it to Climate Change and now Carbon Soot as the new enemy .
Soot = Dust and dust reflects sunlight and thus the earth will cool and that is no different than all your nuclear winter scenarios .
Dont forget to feed the trolls , they are necessary to the complex ecosystem unlike tool moderatorsMelting Glaciers , see a myriad of other complex interactions more than CO2 or Carbon Soot could ever be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Troll- when you hit on exactly the essence of what its all about, this is who you be to the keepers of the dogma.
/. Moderation is the epitome of exactly this.
Fact is, so called science will bob and weave on the AGW topic from here on in, changing it to Climate Change and now Carbon Soot as the new enemy.
Soot = Dust and dust reflects sunlight and thus the earth will cool and that is no different than all your nuclear winter scenarios.
Dont forget to feed the trolls, they are necessary to the complex ecosystem unlike tool moderatorsMelting Glaciers, see a myriad of other complex interactions more than CO2 or Carbon Soot could ever be.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511736</id>
	<title>Re:here we have a nugget of scientific observation</title>
	<author>dr2chase</author>
	<datestamp>1261409100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Problem is that people believe things for reasons.  These reasons include:
<ul>
<li>Stupid liberals believe in human-caused GW, I hate stupid liberals, therefore I don't believe in HCGW.</li><li>Stupid conservatives are always wrong, I know they're wrong about this, too (equal opportunity politics here).</li><li>You'll take my SUV from me when you pry it from my cold dead fingers.</li><li>Solar panels??!!!?  The condo board/zoning laws/homeowners association Will Not Allow.</li><li>Give up (well, drastically reduce) beef and pork?  Are you kidding?</li><li>Not drop my little darlings off at school?  What, you want them to walk and get hit by a car?</li></ul><p>
Note that generally, though not always, it is the desire to avoid change that motivates a disbelief in human-caused global warming.  I have plenty of sympathy with people who really don't trust the models, and who don't trust temperature readings from urban areas, but the number of people for whom that is the primary motivation is relatively small.  Most people, just don't want to change.  Heck, we could not even get the metric system adopted in this country.  So, whether natural and we should try to control, or unnatural and we should quit causing it, either way you are asking people to change.
</p><p>
There are <em>easy</em> engineering solutions to CO2 production (engineers use the metric system, too).  The difficulties are social and political.
The goofiest part of this is that the same poltical retort works both ways.  "Give up beef/my truck?  What are we, a nation of girly-men?" vs "Can't ride your bike to work/put on a sweater?  What are we, a nation of girly-men?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Problem is that people believe things for reasons .
These reasons include : Stupid liberals believe in human-caused GW , I hate stupid liberals , therefore I do n't believe in HCGW.Stupid conservatives are always wrong , I know they 're wrong about this , too ( equal opportunity politics here ) .You 'll take my SUV from me when you pry it from my cold dead fingers.Solar panels ? ? ! ! ! ?
The condo board/zoning laws/homeowners association Will Not Allow.Give up ( well , drastically reduce ) beef and pork ?
Are you kidding ? Not drop my little darlings off at school ?
What , you want them to walk and get hit by a car ?
Note that generally , though not always , it is the desire to avoid change that motivates a disbelief in human-caused global warming .
I have plenty of sympathy with people who really do n't trust the models , and who do n't trust temperature readings from urban areas , but the number of people for whom that is the primary motivation is relatively small .
Most people , just do n't want to change .
Heck , we could not even get the metric system adopted in this country .
So , whether natural and we should try to control , or unnatural and we should quit causing it , either way you are asking people to change .
There are easy engineering solutions to CO2 production ( engineers use the metric system , too ) .
The difficulties are social and political .
The goofiest part of this is that the same poltical retort works both ways .
" Give up beef/my truck ?
What are we , a nation of girly-men ?
" vs " Ca n't ride your bike to work/put on a sweater ?
What are we , a nation of girly-men ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Problem is that people believe things for reasons.
These reasons include:

Stupid liberals believe in human-caused GW, I hate stupid liberals, therefore I don't believe in HCGW.Stupid conservatives are always wrong, I know they're wrong about this, too (equal opportunity politics here).You'll take my SUV from me when you pry it from my cold dead fingers.Solar panels??!!!?
The condo board/zoning laws/homeowners association Will Not Allow.Give up (well, drastically reduce) beef and pork?
Are you kidding?Not drop my little darlings off at school?
What, you want them to walk and get hit by a car?
Note that generally, though not always, it is the desire to avoid change that motivates a disbelief in human-caused global warming.
I have plenty of sympathy with people who really don't trust the models, and who don't trust temperature readings from urban areas, but the number of people for whom that is the primary motivation is relatively small.
Most people, just don't want to change.
Heck, we could not even get the metric system adopted in this country.
So, whether natural and we should try to control, or unnatural and we should quit causing it, either way you are asking people to change.
There are easy engineering solutions to CO2 production (engineers use the metric system, too).
The difficulties are social and political.
The goofiest part of this is that the same poltical retort works both ways.
"Give up beef/my truck?
What are we, a nation of girly-men?
" vs "Can't ride your bike to work/put on a sweater?
What are we, a nation of girly-men?
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30522876</id>
	<title>Re:here we have a nugget of scientific observation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261492140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Ultimately, no, I really DON'T care.</p></div><p>Not yet you don't. And when the refugees displaced by the rising sea move to your back yard and the damaged and destroyed infrastructure is fixed with your tax money, I'll bet you whine like a baby.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ultimately , no , I really DO N'T care.Not yet you do n't .
And when the refugees displaced by the rising sea move to your back yard and the damaged and destroyed infrastructure is fixed with your tax money , I 'll bet you whine like a baby .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ultimately, no, I really DON'T care.Not yet you don't.
And when the refugees displaced by the rising sea move to your back yard and the damaged and destroyed infrastructure is fixed with your tax money, I'll bet you whine like a baby.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30513246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30515456</id>
	<title>Re:Satellite Imagery</title>
	<author>grumpyman</author>
	<datestamp>1261426440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Global Walmart locations <a href="http://walmartstores.com/sites/sustainabilityreport/2009/images/content/b\_globalReach.png" title="walmartstores.com">http://walmartstores.com/sites/sustainabilityreport/2009/images/content/b\_globalReach.png</a> [walmartstores.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Global Walmart locations http : //walmartstores.com/sites/sustainabilityreport/2009/images/content/b \ _globalReach.png [ walmartstores.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Global Walmart locations http://walmartstores.com/sites/sustainabilityreport/2009/images/content/b\_globalReach.png [walmartstores.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511286</id>
	<title>ZOMG!  Global warming is wrong!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261405980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The right wingers will surely use this as "proof" that global warming is wrong.  Yet... if we started using renewable energy, it would still solve the problem.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The right wingers will surely use this as " proof " that global warming is wrong .
Yet... if we started using renewable energy , it would still solve the problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The right wingers will surely use this as "proof" that global warming is wrong.
Yet... if we started using renewable energy, it would still solve the problem.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30513474</id>
	<title>Re:Seems Familiar</title>
	<author>Krneki</author>
	<datestamp>1261417800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In the movies, in real life we get additional taxes.<br><br>When there is something to be solved we get a new tax. But hey, it's for the good of us all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the movies , in real life we get additional taxes.When there is something to be solved we get a new tax .
But hey , it 's for the good of us all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the movies, in real life we get additional taxes.When there is something to be solved we get a new tax.
But hey, it's for the good of us all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30512294</id>
	<title>Re:at last, a climate change scenario with facts</title>
	<author>al.caughey</author>
	<datestamp>1261412280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We have to stop the silly bickering about 'Global Warming/Climate Change'.</p><p>I think that most people are willing to<br>1) accept that our current consumption and development patterns are largely rooted in the availability of cheap oil and/or coal, and<br>2) agree that burning these fuels (indiscriminately) is both wasteful and polluting.</p><p>I'm going out on a limb here but also I think that few people truly understand the benefits/significance of carbon-trading.</p><p>IMHO, we need to first focus on making small changes that reduce our utter dependence upon fossil fuels.  And then tackle the larger issues.</p><p>In the meantime, I fear that, collectively, we've got our heads in the sand and, in the absence of a 'global' solution, will risk doing nothing at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We have to stop the silly bickering about 'Global Warming/Climate Change'.I think that most people are willing to1 ) accept that our current consumption and development patterns are largely rooted in the availability of cheap oil and/or coal , and2 ) agree that burning these fuels ( indiscriminately ) is both wasteful and polluting.I 'm going out on a limb here but also I think that few people truly understand the benefits/significance of carbon-trading.IMHO , we need to first focus on making small changes that reduce our utter dependence upon fossil fuels .
And then tackle the larger issues.In the meantime , I fear that , collectively , we 've got our heads in the sand and , in the absence of a 'global ' solution , will risk doing nothing at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have to stop the silly bickering about 'Global Warming/Climate Change'.I think that most people are willing to1) accept that our current consumption and development patterns are largely rooted in the availability of cheap oil and/or coal, and2) agree that burning these fuels (indiscriminately) is both wasteful and polluting.I'm going out on a limb here but also I think that few people truly understand the benefits/significance of carbon-trading.IMHO, we need to first focus on making small changes that reduce our utter dependence upon fossil fuels.
And then tackle the larger issues.In the meantime, I fear that, collectively, we've got our heads in the sand and, in the absence of a 'global' solution, will risk doing nothing at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511684</id>
	<title>Acreage?</title>
	<author>Gorath99</author>
	<datestamp>1261408800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>the acreage covered by Himalayan glaciers</p></div></blockquote><p>"Acreage"? Really? What's wrong with "surface area"? Should we now call length "footage", and volume "gallonage"?</p><p>At the very least use SI square meterage.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the acreage covered by Himalayan glaciers " Acreage " ?
Really ? What 's wrong with " surface area " ?
Should we now call length " footage " , and volume " gallonage " ? At the very least use SI square meterage .
; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the acreage covered by Himalayan glaciers"Acreage"?
Really? What's wrong with "surface area"?
Should we now call length "footage", and volume "gallonage"?At the very least use SI square meterage.
;-)
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511310</id>
	<title>Prehistoric water reserves?</title>
	<author>confu2000</author>
	<datestamp>1261406160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll admit I didn't read the article, but I don't understand how this is supposed to work.<br>If glaciers are responsible for the water supply, then if they don't melt, would these regions end up with no water at all?<br>Shouldn't these areas be depending on current precipitation for their water?</p><p>Or to put it another way, if these regions are depending on glacier melt from water accumulated hundreds of thousands of years ago, aren't they going to be screwed sooner or later?  Either the melt isn't high enough and they don't have enough water, or the melt is too high and they'll run out later.</p><p>It would seem like the only sustainable situation would be if the melt equals new formation due to precipitation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll admit I did n't read the article , but I do n't understand how this is supposed to work.If glaciers are responsible for the water supply , then if they do n't melt , would these regions end up with no water at all ? Should n't these areas be depending on current precipitation for their water ? Or to put it another way , if these regions are depending on glacier melt from water accumulated hundreds of thousands of years ago , are n't they going to be screwed sooner or later ?
Either the melt is n't high enough and they do n't have enough water , or the melt is too high and they 'll run out later.It would seem like the only sustainable situation would be if the melt equals new formation due to precipitation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll admit I didn't read the article, but I don't understand how this is supposed to work.If glaciers are responsible for the water supply, then if they don't melt, would these regions end up with no water at all?Shouldn't these areas be depending on current precipitation for their water?Or to put it another way, if these regions are depending on glacier melt from water accumulated hundreds of thousands of years ago, aren't they going to be screwed sooner or later?
Either the melt isn't high enough and they don't have enough water, or the melt is too high and they'll run out later.It would seem like the only sustainable situation would be if the melt equals new formation due to precipitation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511428</id>
	<title>ha a aha aha ahha ha ha aha</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261407180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Now Live Science reports that tiny particles of pollution known as 'black carbon' -- and not heat-trapping greenhouse gases -- may be causing much of the rapid melting of glaciers in the Himalayas."..haha aha aha aha ahaha aha aha aha aha aha ahaha aha aha ahaa ahaahah haha ahahaha aha aha ahaha haa aha haa ha aha ha cough cough hack...ha aha aha aha aha ha aha haha aha aha aha ahaha aha aha aha aha aha ahaha aha aha ahaa ahaahah haha ahahaha aha aha ahaha haa aha haa ha aha ha.... cough cough hack...aha aha ha aha</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Now Live Science reports that tiny particles of pollution known as 'black carbon ' -- and not heat-trapping greenhouse gases -- may be causing much of the rapid melting of glaciers in the Himalayas .
" ..haha aha aha aha ahaha aha aha aha aha aha ahaha aha aha ahaa ahaahah haha ahahaha aha aha ahaha haa aha haa ha aha ha cough cough hack...ha aha aha aha aha ha aha haha aha aha aha ahaha aha aha aha aha aha ahaha aha aha ahaa ahaahah haha ahahaha aha aha ahaha haa aha haa ha aha ha.... cough cough hack...aha aha ha aha</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Now Live Science reports that tiny particles of pollution known as 'black carbon' -- and not heat-trapping greenhouse gases -- may be causing much of the rapid melting of glaciers in the Himalayas.
"..haha aha aha aha ahaha aha aha aha aha aha ahaha aha aha ahaa ahaahah haha ahahaha aha aha ahaha haa aha haa ha aha ha cough cough hack...ha aha aha aha aha ha aha haha aha aha aha ahaha aha aha aha aha aha ahaha aha aha ahaa ahaahah haha ahahaha aha aha ahaha haa aha haa ha aha ha.... cough cough hack...aha aha ha aha</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30512260</id>
	<title>Re:Satellite Imagery</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261412160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>But wait.  I thought the problem was solely the responsibility of the US.  Now I'm confused.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But wait .
I thought the problem was solely the responsibility of the US .
Now I 'm confused .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But wait.
I thought the problem was solely the responsibility of the US.
Now I'm confused.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30512162</id>
	<title>No it's cold and getting colder</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261411500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know nor care about those living anywhere that has no winter and I'm not including to those in the south that wear parka's because it dips below 20c. Those people have no idea what winter is. For those that are again experiencing a real hard winter may have noticed how fackin unseasonably cold it is again this year. Once again the northern hemisphere is getting it up the ass again because that's the only warm place left. All this after another unseasonably cold summer. When will this cooling going to stop, before large numbers of the northern population have to move south, because they can't afford to live in the cold and pay the cost of heating.</p><p>Counter to the fudged numbers obtained by removing any weather stations reporting this cold from the data stream simply because it doesn't fit the preconceived model. Those in the north should just submit their heating bills showing the fuel consumption as data. This would likely be a more reliable method of plotting temperature the last several years.  Oh and time is running out for the sea level to rise and flood us all. Each year that the sea level doesn't go up, means that in subsequent years the level has to rise by that much more in order to reach the target world flood. But I digress. All I see is snow and feel the cold, along with more and more arctic sea ice building up. Where is that ice free northwest passage? I want to book a cruise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know nor care about those living anywhere that has no winter and I 'm not including to those in the south that wear parka 's because it dips below 20c .
Those people have no idea what winter is .
For those that are again experiencing a real hard winter may have noticed how fackin unseasonably cold it is again this year .
Once again the northern hemisphere is getting it up the ass again because that 's the only warm place left .
All this after another unseasonably cold summer .
When will this cooling going to stop , before large numbers of the northern population have to move south , because they ca n't afford to live in the cold and pay the cost of heating.Counter to the fudged numbers obtained by removing any weather stations reporting this cold from the data stream simply because it does n't fit the preconceived model .
Those in the north should just submit their heating bills showing the fuel consumption as data .
This would likely be a more reliable method of plotting temperature the last several years .
Oh and time is running out for the sea level to rise and flood us all .
Each year that the sea level does n't go up , means that in subsequent years the level has to rise by that much more in order to reach the target world flood .
But I digress .
All I see is snow and feel the cold , along with more and more arctic sea ice building up .
Where is that ice free northwest passage ?
I want to book a cruise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know nor care about those living anywhere that has no winter and I'm not including to those in the south that wear parka's because it dips below 20c.
Those people have no idea what winter is.
For those that are again experiencing a real hard winter may have noticed how fackin unseasonably cold it is again this year.
Once again the northern hemisphere is getting it up the ass again because that's the only warm place left.
All this after another unseasonably cold summer.
When will this cooling going to stop, before large numbers of the northern population have to move south, because they can't afford to live in the cold and pay the cost of heating.Counter to the fudged numbers obtained by removing any weather stations reporting this cold from the data stream simply because it doesn't fit the preconceived model.
Those in the north should just submit their heating bills showing the fuel consumption as data.
This would likely be a more reliable method of plotting temperature the last several years.
Oh and time is running out for the sea level to rise and flood us all.
Each year that the sea level doesn't go up, means that in subsequent years the level has to rise by that much more in order to reach the target world flood.
But I digress.
All I see is snow and feel the cold, along with more and more arctic sea ice building up.
Where is that ice free northwest passage?
I want to book a cruise.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30514960</id>
	<title>Re:Some nice backpedaling there, bud</title>
	<author>Curunir\_wolf</author>
	<datestamp>1261424340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't think global warming is that much of a concern compared to all of the other beneficial side effects of CO2 cap-n-trade.  </p></div><p>I <b>know</b>, right?  Al Gore will make millions, even billions.  And Maurice Strong will rule the world and Edward De Rothschild will control all the money.  Woohoo!  Global despotism FTW!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/p</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think global warming is that much of a concern compared to all of the other beneficial side effects of CO2 cap-n-trade .
I know , right ?
Al Gore will make millions , even billions .
And Maurice Strong will rule the world and Edward De Rothschild will control all the money .
Woohoo ! Global despotism FTW !
/p</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think global warming is that much of a concern compared to all of the other beneficial side effects of CO2 cap-n-trade.
I know, right?
Al Gore will make millions, even billions.
And Maurice Strong will rule the world and Edward De Rothschild will control all the money.
Woohoo!  Global despotism FTW!
/p
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30512778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511478</id>
	<title>Just isn't natural.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261407480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"...half of melting can be attributed...to soot with the other half being caused by global warming"</p><p>So glaciers don't melt naturally?  Seriously?  Don't get me wrong, pollution clouds visible from space is a problem but comments like these that always manage to link to anthropological global warming only serve to continue to discredit actual problems.</p><p>If the premise here is true, then I vote that we continue to spew CO2 (i.e. breathing) in order to save humanity and all of the forest critters from the next ice age.</p><p>Oh yeah, and if rising temperatures are so harmful to species on Earth, does this mean that all of the species on the planet have come into existence over the past thousand years or so?  I was under the impression that every creature that we know of has been around for millions of years, but since the Earth's temperature has varied greatly over that time (tropical, ice-ages)and any subtle change in temperature would kill life as we know it, I guess the bible must be right and the animals (and humans) must have been "created" in the past few thousand years.  I mean, there's no other way right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...half of melting can be attributed...to soot with the other half being caused by global warming " So glaciers do n't melt naturally ?
Seriously ? Do n't get me wrong , pollution clouds visible from space is a problem but comments like these that always manage to link to anthropological global warming only serve to continue to discredit actual problems.If the premise here is true , then I vote that we continue to spew CO2 ( i.e .
breathing ) in order to save humanity and all of the forest critters from the next ice age.Oh yeah , and if rising temperatures are so harmful to species on Earth , does this mean that all of the species on the planet have come into existence over the past thousand years or so ?
I was under the impression that every creature that we know of has been around for millions of years , but since the Earth 's temperature has varied greatly over that time ( tropical , ice-ages ) and any subtle change in temperature would kill life as we know it , I guess the bible must be right and the animals ( and humans ) must have been " created " in the past few thousand years .
I mean , there 's no other way right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...half of melting can be attributed...to soot with the other half being caused by global warming"So glaciers don't melt naturally?
Seriously?  Don't get me wrong, pollution clouds visible from space is a problem but comments like these that always manage to link to anthropological global warming only serve to continue to discredit actual problems.If the premise here is true, then I vote that we continue to spew CO2 (i.e.
breathing) in order to save humanity and all of the forest critters from the next ice age.Oh yeah, and if rising temperatures are so harmful to species on Earth, does this mean that all of the species on the planet have come into existence over the past thousand years or so?
I was under the impression that every creature that we know of has been around for millions of years, but since the Earth's temperature has varied greatly over that time (tropical, ice-ages)and any subtle change in temperature would kill life as we know it, I guess the bible must be right and the animals (and humans) must have been "created" in the past few thousand years.
I mean, there's no other way right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_0210227_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30515434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_0210227_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_0210227_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511310
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_0210227_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30516318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30514078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_0210227_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_0210227_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_0210227_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_0210227_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30512132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_0210227_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30512002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511132
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_0210227_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30512620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_0210227_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30512730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_0210227_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30514092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_0210227_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30513244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511286
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_0210227_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30512478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511286
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_0210227_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511998
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_0210227_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_0210227_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30515456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_0210227_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30515900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_0210227_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30541428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30514078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_0210227_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30513168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_0210227_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30513292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_0210227_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_0210227_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30512802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_0210227_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30512894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_0210227_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_0210227_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30513468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511666
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_0210227_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30512144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_0210227_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30512932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511666
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_0210227_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30522876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30513246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_0210227_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511286
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_0210227_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30512294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_0210227_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30524900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30514164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_0210227_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30512382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_0210227_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30512260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_0210227_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30514162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_0210227_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30514180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_0210227_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511362
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511286
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_0210227_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_0210227_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30513474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_0210227_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30515652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_0210227_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30514316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_0210227_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511736
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_0210227_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30514960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30512778
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_0210227.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511684
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30514164
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30524900
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_0210227.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511648
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30512294
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_0210227.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511132
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30512002
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_0210227.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511394
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_0210227.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511296
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30513474
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30514180
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511454
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30512620
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_0210227.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30513060
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_0210227.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511286
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30513244
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511806
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30512478
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511550
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511362
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_0210227.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511150
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511192
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30515652
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30512778
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30514960
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30512144
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511338
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30515900
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_0210227.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511666
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30513468
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30512932
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_0210227.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511448
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30515456
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30512132
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30512260
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_0210227.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511312
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30512802
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511670
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30514162
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511654
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30513292
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511522
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511998
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511472
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30513168
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511466
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30512894
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30512382
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30514092
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511436
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30514316
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30515434
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511444
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30513246
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30522876
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30512730
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511736
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511908
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_0210227.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30514078
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30516318
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30541428
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_0210227.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511816
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_0210227.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511310
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_0210227.30511380
</commentlist>
</conversation>
