<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_03_2042209</id>
	<title>Huge Phishing Attack On Emissions Trade In Europe</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1265188140000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>bratgitarre writes <i>"A targeted <a href="http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,675725,00.html">phishing scam on companies trading with greenhouse gas emission certificates</a> in Europe has reaped millions, Der Spiegel reports. By sending phishing e-mails to companies in Australia and New Zealand purporting to be from the German Ministry for Environmental Protection (<a href="http://www.tagesschau.de/wirtschaft/emissionshandel118.html">German article</a>, <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&amp;prev=\_t&amp;hl=en&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;layout=1&amp;eotf=1&amp;u=http\%3A\%2F\%2Fwww.tagesschau.de\%2Fwirtschaft\%2Femissionshandel118.html&amp;sl=de&amp;tl=en">Google translation</a>) the criminals obtained login credentials for companies owning polluting permissions. They then swiftly sold them to other polluters in various European countries. Damages are probably huge for a single incident, as 'one medium-sized German company alone had lost allowances worth &euro;1.5 million ($2.1 million).' German federal officials, who can trace some of the transactions, claim that out of 2000 certificate sellers, seven responded to the scam."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>bratgitarre writes " A targeted phishing scam on companies trading with greenhouse gas emission certificates in Europe has reaped millions , Der Spiegel reports .
By sending phishing e-mails to companies in Australia and New Zealand purporting to be from the German Ministry for Environmental Protection ( German article , Google translation ) the criminals obtained login credentials for companies owning polluting permissions .
They then swiftly sold them to other polluters in various European countries .
Damages are probably huge for a single incident , as 'one medium-sized German company alone had lost allowances worth    1.5 million ( $ 2.1 million ) .
' German federal officials , who can trace some of the transactions , claim that out of 2000 certificate sellers , seven responded to the scam .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>bratgitarre writes "A targeted phishing scam on companies trading with greenhouse gas emission certificates in Europe has reaped millions, Der Spiegel reports.
By sending phishing e-mails to companies in Australia and New Zealand purporting to be from the German Ministry for Environmental Protection (German article, Google translation) the criminals obtained login credentials for companies owning polluting permissions.
They then swiftly sold them to other polluters in various European countries.
Damages are probably huge for a single incident, as 'one medium-sized German company alone had lost allowances worth €1.5 million ($2.1 million).
' German federal officials, who can trace some of the transactions, claim that out of 2000 certificate sellers, seven responded to the scam.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31015356</id>
	<title>Re:What did they learn?</title>
	<author>DaveGod</author>
	<datestamp>1264935060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, and any company should be doing just that. The company's auditors should be detecting if it's not required, and reporting such weakness to management. Failing to implement such basic controls will cost the company, whether or not there is fraud. The auditor will face much greater audit risk and hence have to increase his workload (and hence fee) to compensate. </p><p>On the other hand, such a control probably would not be very effective against this. For example Person A gets tricked and then gets Person B who probably does not go through the detailed mechanics - if anything he'd go check out the official website and approve it on that basis. </p><p>A more relevant control would be authorised supplier lists combined with set procedures. For example, a company would only allow emissions trading through a specific broker and the payments would always be made to that broker's escrow account. That way you can get fiddled and all you get is a call from your broker wondering why they have your money.</p><p>For what it's worth transactions were a lot better controlled when everything was paid by cheque. Cheques required two signatories. Banks were very good at ensuring authorised signatories were authorised. Now for smaller businesses with internet banking you have a bookkeeper who needs access to print statements and the same login can complete transactions from start to finish - half the time they're using the managing director's login. Well, you can't have the MD's time being used up doing silly things like printing statements can you? And bookkeepers, it's not like they're in a high-risk position and able to hide fraud.... </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , and any company should be doing just that .
The company 's auditors should be detecting if it 's not required , and reporting such weakness to management .
Failing to implement such basic controls will cost the company , whether or not there is fraud .
The auditor will face much greater audit risk and hence have to increase his workload ( and hence fee ) to compensate .
On the other hand , such a control probably would not be very effective against this .
For example Person A gets tricked and then gets Person B who probably does not go through the detailed mechanics - if anything he 'd go check out the official website and approve it on that basis .
A more relevant control would be authorised supplier lists combined with set procedures .
For example , a company would only allow emissions trading through a specific broker and the payments would always be made to that broker 's escrow account .
That way you can get fiddled and all you get is a call from your broker wondering why they have your money.For what it 's worth transactions were a lot better controlled when everything was paid by cheque .
Cheques required two signatories .
Banks were very good at ensuring authorised signatories were authorised .
Now for smaller businesses with internet banking you have a bookkeeper who needs access to print statements and the same login can complete transactions from start to finish - half the time they 're using the managing director 's login .
Well , you ca n't have the MD 's time being used up doing silly things like printing statements can you ?
And bookkeepers , it 's not like they 're in a high-risk position and able to hide fraud... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, and any company should be doing just that.
The company's auditors should be detecting if it's not required, and reporting such weakness to management.
Failing to implement such basic controls will cost the company, whether or not there is fraud.
The auditor will face much greater audit risk and hence have to increase his workload (and hence fee) to compensate.
On the other hand, such a control probably would not be very effective against this.
For example Person A gets tricked and then gets Person B who probably does not go through the detailed mechanics - if anything he'd go check out the official website and approve it on that basis.
A more relevant control would be authorised supplier lists combined with set procedures.
For example, a company would only allow emissions trading through a specific broker and the payments would always be made to that broker's escrow account.
That way you can get fiddled and all you get is a call from your broker wondering why they have your money.For what it's worth transactions were a lot better controlled when everything was paid by cheque.
Cheques required two signatories.
Banks were very good at ensuring authorised signatories were authorised.
Now for smaller businesses with internet banking you have a bookkeeper who needs access to print statements and the same login can complete transactions from start to finish - half the time they're using the managing director's login.
Well, you can't have the MD's time being used up doing silly things like printing statements can you?
And bookkeepers, it's not like they're in a high-risk position and able to hide fraud.... </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31014960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31015270</id>
	<title>Re:Is it only me</title>
	<author>geekmux</author>
	<datestamp>1264934640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>or does anyone else think that the whole idea of trading emission allowances is a huge scam to begin with?</p></div><p>Er, how about taking it one step further and validating Al Gores Nobel Prize proving there's a reason for this to exist in the first place.  Seems there's been a few emails floating around to question the whole damn thing.  I'd research it myself, but powers out and I'm already running on battery power here due to the record-setting blizzard...I never knew global warming could be so fucking cold.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>or does anyone else think that the whole idea of trading emission allowances is a huge scam to begin with ? Er , how about taking it one step further and validating Al Gores Nobel Prize proving there 's a reason for this to exist in the first place .
Seems there 's been a few emails floating around to question the whole damn thing .
I 'd research it myself , but powers out and I 'm already running on battery power here due to the record-setting blizzard...I never knew global warming could be so fucking cold .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>or does anyone else think that the whole idea of trading emission allowances is a huge scam to begin with?Er, how about taking it one step further and validating Al Gores Nobel Prize proving there's a reason for this to exist in the first place.
Seems there's been a few emails floating around to question the whole damn thing.
I'd research it myself, but powers out and I'm already running on battery power here due to the record-setting blizzard...I never knew global warming could be so fucking cold.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31015054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31019480</id>
	<title>Huge phishing attack on emissions trade in Europe</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264966980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The scammers scammed.... Hilarious!</htmltext>
<tokenext>The scammers scammed.... Hilarious !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The scammers scammed.... Hilarious!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31015706</id>
	<title>overphishing</title>
	<author>colonelquesadilla</author>
	<datestamp>1264936380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The latest environmental threat: overphishing</htmltext>
<tokenext>The latest environmental threat : overphishing</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The latest environmental threat: overphishing</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31016884</id>
	<title>Renewable Resource</title>
	<author>zippthorne</author>
	<datestamp>1264942140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I fail to see the big catastrophe here.  Pollution credits are a renewable resource, you can manufacture as many of them as you want by just changing the orientation of the magnetic field in a microscopic quantity of iron oxide.</p><p>I mean, all they need to do is give the companies who got scammed <em>extra credit</em> under some pretense (perhaps they were nice at recess).  It's just numbers on a page.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I fail to see the big catastrophe here .
Pollution credits are a renewable resource , you can manufacture as many of them as you want by just changing the orientation of the magnetic field in a microscopic quantity of iron oxide.I mean , all they need to do is give the companies who got scammed extra credit under some pretense ( perhaps they were nice at recess ) .
It 's just numbers on a page .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I fail to see the big catastrophe here.
Pollution credits are a renewable resource, you can manufacture as many of them as you want by just changing the orientation of the magnetic field in a microscopic quantity of iron oxide.I mean, all they need to do is give the companies who got scammed extra credit under some pretense (perhaps they were nice at recess).
It's just numbers on a page.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31015680</id>
	<title>You Fail It!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264936260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">reso0nd as fitting maintained tWhat too join in. It can be *BSD has steadily</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>reso0nd as fitting maintained tWhat too join in .
It can be * BSD has steadily [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>reso0nd as fitting maintained tWhat too join in.
It can be *BSD has steadily [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31014874</id>
	<title>Russian gas</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264932600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder if this is related to Russian gas and their tricks in selling it to Europe and Eastern Europe. It's a long tradition they always try something in the winter, as they did this year too, and most of Europe depends on it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if this is related to Russian gas and their tricks in selling it to Europe and Eastern Europe .
It 's a long tradition they always try something in the winter , as they did this year too , and most of Europe depends on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if this is related to Russian gas and their tricks in selling it to Europe and Eastern Europe.
It's a long tradition they always try something in the winter, as they did this year too, and most of Europe depends on it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31015348</id>
	<title>Re:Carbon allowance trading is a big scam</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1264935000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Even a global warming partisan activist like James Hansen )NASA) calls this a scam, and favors a simpler "carbon tax"</p></div><p>Who better to scam than a scammer?  What are they going to do, run to the police?  Oh wait, carbon allowance trading is legal...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even a global warming partisan activist like James Hansen ) NASA ) calls this a scam , and favors a simpler " carbon tax " Who better to scam than a scammer ?
What are they going to do , run to the police ?
Oh wait , carbon allowance trading is legal.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even a global warming partisan activist like James Hansen )NASA) calls this a scam, and favors a simpler "carbon tax"Who better to scam than a scammer?
What are they going to do, run to the police?
Oh wait, carbon allowance trading is legal...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31015020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31015134</id>
	<title>Recently disclosed email of what they responded to</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264933920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>POWERBALL ONLINE INT'L JACKPOT/ LOTTERY ASSOCIATION<br>ASIA PACIFIC REGIONAL OFFICE<br>BANGKOK THAILAND</p><p>This is to inform you of the release of the Power ball Online Lottery PRIZE DRAW, held on the 19th January, 2010.<br>Your email was attached to ticket number 085-12876077-09 with serial number 51390-0 that drew the lucky numbers of 03-06-18-10-12-16-27, which consequently won the lottery in the 5th category. You have therefore been approved for a lump sum prize of $1.000, 000.00. (ONE MILLION UNITED STATE DOLLARS ONLY), in cash credited to file with REF: N.EGS/3662367114/13. This is from a total cash prize of 50,020.225.00, shared among the Fifty  international winners in this category.</p><p>You are required to file a letter of claim to the coordinator for further instructions and directives on how to claim your prize.</p><p>All participants were selected through a computer ballot system drawn from 25,000 names, email addresses &amp; official addresses, from Asia, Australia, New Zealand, Europe, North and South America, Middle East and Africa, as part of our International Promotions Program.</p><p>To begin your lottery claims, Please contact our coordinator with your follows details,</p><p>Your Full Name:<br>Your Complete Address :<br>Occupation:<br>Date of Birth (Day/Month/Year):<br>Direct Telephone/Mobile Number:</p><p>NOTE: In order to avoid unnecessary delays and complications, please remember to quote your reference and batch numbers in all correspondences with us, furthermore, should there be any change of address, please do inform our Coordinator as soon possible.</p><p>NAME: MRS. ACHARA PRAKAT.<br>Power ball Towers,45/4 Silom road,<br>Radjamdamrin, 23002 Bangkok, Thailand<br>TEL: +66-8922-76113<br>Email: claimsagent01@mail.am</p><p>CONGRATULATIONS!!!! Once again from all members of our staff and thank you for being a part of our International Promotions program.<br>We wish you continued good fortunes.<br>Sincerely, ,<br>President<br>Power ball Online Int'l Jackpot/Lottery Association<br>Asia Pacific Region</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>POWERBALL ONLINE INT'L JACKPOT/ LOTTERY ASSOCIATIONASIA PACIFIC REGIONAL OFFICEBANGKOK THAILANDThis is to inform you of the release of the Power ball Online Lottery PRIZE DRAW , held on the 19th January , 2010.Your email was attached to ticket number 085-12876077-09 with serial number 51390-0 that drew the lucky numbers of 03-06-18-10-12-16-27 , which consequently won the lottery in the 5th category .
You have therefore been approved for a lump sum prize of $ 1.000 , 000.00 .
( ONE MILLION UNITED STATE DOLLARS ONLY ) , in cash credited to file with REF : N.EGS/3662367114/13 .
This is from a total cash prize of 50,020.225.00 , shared among the Fifty international winners in this category.You are required to file a letter of claim to the coordinator for further instructions and directives on how to claim your prize.All participants were selected through a computer ballot system drawn from 25,000 names , email addresses &amp; official addresses , from Asia , Australia , New Zealand , Europe , North and South America , Middle East and Africa , as part of our International Promotions Program.To begin your lottery claims , Please contact our coordinator with your follows details,Your Full Name : Your Complete Address : Occupation : Date of Birth ( Day/Month/Year ) : Direct Telephone/Mobile Number : NOTE : In order to avoid unnecessary delays and complications , please remember to quote your reference and batch numbers in all correspondences with us , furthermore , should there be any change of address , please do inform our Coordinator as soon possible.NAME : MRS. ACHARA PRAKAT.Power ball Towers,45/4 Silom road,Radjamdamrin , 23002 Bangkok , ThailandTEL : + 66-8922-76113Email : claimsagent01 @ mail.amCONGRATULATIONS ! ! ! !
Once again from all members of our staff and thank you for being a part of our International Promotions program.We wish you continued good fortunes.Sincerely , ,PresidentPower ball Online Int'l Jackpot/Lottery AssociationAsia Pacific Region</tokentext>
<sentencetext>POWERBALL ONLINE INT'L JACKPOT/ LOTTERY ASSOCIATIONASIA PACIFIC REGIONAL OFFICEBANGKOK THAILANDThis is to inform you of the release of the Power ball Online Lottery PRIZE DRAW, held on the 19th January, 2010.Your email was attached to ticket number 085-12876077-09 with serial number 51390-0 that drew the lucky numbers of 03-06-18-10-12-16-27, which consequently won the lottery in the 5th category.
You have therefore been approved for a lump sum prize of $1.000, 000.00.
(ONE MILLION UNITED STATE DOLLARS ONLY), in cash credited to file with REF: N.EGS/3662367114/13.
This is from a total cash prize of 50,020.225.00, shared among the Fifty  international winners in this category.You are required to file a letter of claim to the coordinator for further instructions and directives on how to claim your prize.All participants were selected through a computer ballot system drawn from 25,000 names, email addresses &amp; official addresses, from Asia, Australia, New Zealand, Europe, North and South America, Middle East and Africa, as part of our International Promotions Program.To begin your lottery claims, Please contact our coordinator with your follows details,Your Full Name:Your Complete Address :Occupation:Date of Birth (Day/Month/Year):Direct Telephone/Mobile Number:NOTE: In order to avoid unnecessary delays and complications, please remember to quote your reference and batch numbers in all correspondences with us, furthermore, should there be any change of address, please do inform our Coordinator as soon possible.NAME: MRS. ACHARA PRAKAT.Power ball Towers,45/4 Silom road,Radjamdamrin, 23002 Bangkok, ThailandTEL: +66-8922-76113Email: claimsagent01@mail.amCONGRATULATIONS!!!!
Once again from all members of our staff and thank you for being a part of our International Promotions program.We wish you continued good fortunes.Sincerely, ,PresidentPower ball Online Int'l Jackpot/Lottery AssociationAsia Pacific Region
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31018472</id>
	<title>Even the article photo is a scam!</title>
	<author>ericferris</author>
	<datestamp>1264954380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The photo illustrating the article has a caption saying "Trading in CO2 emissions allowances has been hampered in several European countries as a result of a phishing scam." The image shows cooling towers that reject nothing but water vapor. Unfortunately, 99\% or the population will conclude that cooling towers reject horrible, polluting CO2.</p><p>Scamminess seems highly contagious. Or maybe it's the natural state of most journalists these days.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The photo illustrating the article has a caption saying " Trading in CO2 emissions allowances has been hampered in several European countries as a result of a phishing scam .
" The image shows cooling towers that reject nothing but water vapor .
Unfortunately , 99 \ % or the population will conclude that cooling towers reject horrible , polluting CO2.Scamminess seems highly contagious .
Or maybe it 's the natural state of most journalists these days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The photo illustrating the article has a caption saying "Trading in CO2 emissions allowances has been hampered in several European countries as a result of a phishing scam.
" The image shows cooling towers that reject nothing but water vapor.
Unfortunately, 99\% or the population will conclude that cooling towers reject horrible, polluting CO2.Scamminess seems highly contagious.
Or maybe it's the natural state of most journalists these days.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31015264</id>
	<title>In Receipt of Stolen Goods</title>
	<author>mdsolar</author>
	<datestamp>1264934580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can't see how the companies that bought the stolen property can retain it.  It has to be returned to the owners.  Hopefully, insurance will cover it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't see how the companies that bought the stolen property can retain it .
It has to be returned to the owners .
Hopefully , insurance will cover it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't see how the companies that bought the stolen property can retain it.
It has to be returned to the owners.
Hopefully, insurance will cover it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31019952</id>
	<title>Re:Renewable Resource</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265276520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I fail to see the big catastrophe here.  Pollution credits are a renewable resource, you can manufacture as many of them as you want by just changing the orientation of the magnetic field in a microscopic quantity of iron oxide.</p><p>I mean, all they need to do is give the companies who got scammed <em>extra credit</em> under some pretense (perhaps they were nice at recess).  It's just numbers on a page.</p></div><p>Just like numbers sitting a Bank Account, I suppose?...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I fail to see the big catastrophe here .
Pollution credits are a renewable resource , you can manufacture as many of them as you want by just changing the orientation of the magnetic field in a microscopic quantity of iron oxide.I mean , all they need to do is give the companies who got scammed extra credit under some pretense ( perhaps they were nice at recess ) .
It 's just numbers on a page.Just like numbers sitting a Bank Account , I suppose ? .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I fail to see the big catastrophe here.
Pollution credits are a renewable resource, you can manufacture as many of them as you want by just changing the orientation of the magnetic field in a microscopic quantity of iron oxide.I mean, all they need to do is give the companies who got scammed extra credit under some pretense (perhaps they were nice at recess).
It's just numbers on a page.Just like numbers sitting a Bank Account, I suppose?...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31016884</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31017310</id>
	<title>Re:Is it only me</title>
	<author>Kittenman</author>
	<datestamp>1264944840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I read something that mentioned that Al "Incovenient Truth" Gore had major shareholdings in all companies that dealt in emission tradings, and stood to gain millions as it all got going.
<p>
I read it on a flier passed on by a climate skeptic, so I'm not sure if it's the case.  Anyone know for sure?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I read something that mentioned that Al " Incovenient Truth " Gore had major shareholdings in all companies that dealt in emission tradings , and stood to gain millions as it all got going .
I read it on a flier passed on by a climate skeptic , so I 'm not sure if it 's the case .
Anyone know for sure ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read something that mentioned that Al "Incovenient Truth" Gore had major shareholdings in all companies that dealt in emission tradings, and stood to gain millions as it all got going.
I read it on a flier passed on by a climate skeptic, so I'm not sure if it's the case.
Anyone know for sure?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31015054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31015376</id>
	<title>Re:Is it only me</title>
	<author>vxice</author>
	<datestamp>1264935120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well at first yes, but isn't it a much bigger scam that people get to pollute, obviously they gain other wise they would have to pay to remove their waste pollution is free, rather than pay market value for access to the waste disposal they would use?  You would complain about a company dumping waste on your lawn wouldn't you?  If not then companies would dump everything they could, massively dropping their waste disposal costs.   Unfortunately atmosphere is not easy to control access to, this is basically the classic example of a market failure and one of the few times economists advocate government stepping in and regulating industry by charging them for access to a resource they use but don't pay for.  As long as it is free and there are no limits on what they can put in the atmosphere they will put everything they can to lower costs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well at first yes , but is n't it a much bigger scam that people get to pollute , obviously they gain other wise they would have to pay to remove their waste pollution is free , rather than pay market value for access to the waste disposal they would use ?
You would complain about a company dumping waste on your lawn would n't you ?
If not then companies would dump everything they could , massively dropping their waste disposal costs .
Unfortunately atmosphere is not easy to control access to , this is basically the classic example of a market failure and one of the few times economists advocate government stepping in and regulating industry by charging them for access to a resource they use but do n't pay for .
As long as it is free and there are no limits on what they can put in the atmosphere they will put everything they can to lower costs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well at first yes, but isn't it a much bigger scam that people get to pollute, obviously they gain other wise they would have to pay to remove their waste pollution is free, rather than pay market value for access to the waste disposal they would use?
You would complain about a company dumping waste on your lawn wouldn't you?
If not then companies would dump everything they could, massively dropping their waste disposal costs.
Unfortunately atmosphere is not easy to control access to, this is basically the classic example of a market failure and one of the few times economists advocate government stepping in and regulating industry by charging them for access to a resource they use but don't pay for.
As long as it is free and there are no limits on what they can put in the atmosphere they will put everything they can to lower costs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31015054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31015614</id>
	<title>Re:Is it only me</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1264935960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>or could a better subject have been chosen for the parent post?</htmltext>
<tokenext>or could a better subject have been chosen for the parent post ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>or could a better subject have been chosen for the parent post?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31015054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31014960</id>
	<title>What did they learn?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264933080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is there any reason it would be a bad idea, if someone has control over millions in assets, two people's login credentials should be required to confirm a transaction? It's bad enough to have someone responsible for that much money be foolish enough to fall for a phishing scam, but I should hope there is a low chance two people could run a company successfully but both fall for the same scam.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there any reason it would be a bad idea , if someone has control over millions in assets , two people 's login credentials should be required to confirm a transaction ?
It 's bad enough to have someone responsible for that much money be foolish enough to fall for a phishing scam , but I should hope there is a low chance two people could run a company successfully but both fall for the same scam .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there any reason it would be a bad idea, if someone has control over millions in assets, two people's login credentials should be required to confirm a transaction?
It's bad enough to have someone responsible for that much money be foolish enough to fall for a phishing scam, but I should hope there is a low chance two people could run a company successfully but both fall for the same scam.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31015020</id>
	<title>Carbon allowance trading is a big scam</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264933380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just what we need, another derivative in the energy markets for traders to salivate over ala Enron.<br>That's why the so called cap and trade is advocated by the sausage-makers. It is a big giveaway to the Goldman Sachs crowd.</p><p>And Al gore stands to make hundreds of millions if the trading scheme goes into practice.</p><p>Even a global warming partisan activist like James Hansen )NASA) calls this a scam, and favors a simpler "carbon tax"<br>-Jay</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just what we need , another derivative in the energy markets for traders to salivate over ala Enron.That 's why the so called cap and trade is advocated by the sausage-makers .
It is a big giveaway to the Goldman Sachs crowd.And Al gore stands to make hundreds of millions if the trading scheme goes into practice.Even a global warming partisan activist like James Hansen ) NASA ) calls this a scam , and favors a simpler " carbon tax " -Jay</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just what we need, another derivative in the energy markets for traders to salivate over ala Enron.That's why the so called cap and trade is advocated by the sausage-makers.
It is a big giveaway to the Goldman Sachs crowd.And Al gore stands to make hundreds of millions if the trading scheme goes into practice.Even a global warming partisan activist like James Hansen )NASA) calls this a scam, and favors a simpler "carbon tax"-Jay</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31014874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31020336</id>
	<title>Re:Carbon allowance trading is a big scam</title>
	<author>emilper</author>
	<datestamp>1265282220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Imagine, scammers being scammed by other scammers<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... where the world is going, I ask ? An ethics commission should be investigating this<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Imagine , scammers being scammed by other scammers ... where the world is going , I ask ?
An ethics commission should be investigating this .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Imagine, scammers being scammed by other scammers ... where the world is going, I ask ?
An ethics commission should be investigating this ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31015020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31023860</id>
	<title>Re:Carbon allowance trading is a big scam</title>
	<author>u38cg</author>
	<datestamp>1265306520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A carbon tax is an impossible sell politically.  Cap and trade isn't.  Better an imperfect scheme than none at all, so take your conspiracy theories and shove 'em.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A carbon tax is an impossible sell politically .
Cap and trade is n't .
Better an imperfect scheme than none at all , so take your conspiracy theories and shove 'em .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A carbon tax is an impossible sell politically.
Cap and trade isn't.
Better an imperfect scheme than none at all, so take your conspiracy theories and shove 'em.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31015020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31015286</id>
	<title>Re:Is it only me</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1264934700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Meh... Better than nothing I suppose...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Meh... Better than nothing I suppose.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Meh... Better than nothing I suppose...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31015054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31016312</id>
	<title>Chock one up for...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264938960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...our Hindu friends.</p><p>This has to be proof that karma exists.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...our Hindu friends.This has to be proof that karma exists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...our Hindu friends.This has to be proof that karma exists.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31015686</id>
	<title>Re:Is it only me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264936320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, not anyone else thinks so. Did this satisfy your curiosity?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , not anyone else thinks so .
Did this satisfy your curiosity ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, not anyone else thinks so.
Did this satisfy your curiosity?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31015054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31015608</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264935960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In engrish http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,675725,00.html</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In engrish http : //www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,675725,00.html</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In engrish http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,675725,00.html</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31015054</id>
	<title>Is it only me</title>
	<author>thewils</author>
	<datestamp>1264933620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>or does anyone else think that the whole idea of trading emission allowances is a huge scam to begin with?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>or does anyone else think that the whole idea of trading emission allowances is a huge scam to begin with ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>or does anyone else think that the whole idea of trading emission allowances is a huge scam to begin with?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31015966</id>
	<title>Re:</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1264937400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>No, and any company should be doing just that. The company's auditors should be detecting if it's not required, and reporting such weakness to management. Failing to implement such basic controls will cost the company, whether or not there is fraud. The auditor will face much greater audit risk and hence have to increase his workload (and hence fee) to compensate. On the other hand, such a control probably would not be very effective against this. For example Person A gets tricked and then gets Person B who probably does not go through the detailed mechanics - if anything he'd go check out the official website and approve it on that basis. A more relevant control would be authorised supplier lists combined with set procedures. For example, a company would only allow emissions trading through a specific broker and the payments would always be made to that broker's escrow account. That way you can get fiddled and all you get is a call from your broker wondering why they have your money.For what it's worth transactions were a lot better controlled when everything was paid by cheque. Cheques required two signatories. Banks were very good at ensuring authorised signatories were authorised. Now for smaller businesses with internet banking you have a bookkeeper who needs access to print statements and the same login can complete transactions from start to finish - half the time they're using the managing director's login. Well, you can't have the MD's time being used up doing silly things like printing statements can you? And bookkeepers, it's not like they're in a high-risk position and able to hide fraud....</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , and any company should be doing just that .
The company 's auditors should be detecting if it 's not required , and reporting such weakness to management .
Failing to implement such basic controls will cost the company , whether or not there is fraud .
The auditor will face much greater audit risk and hence have to increase his workload ( and hence fee ) to compensate .
On the other hand , such a control probably would not be very effective against this .
For example Person A gets tricked and then gets Person B who probably does not go through the detailed mechanics - if anything he 'd go check out the official website and approve it on that basis .
A more relevant control would be authorised supplier lists combined with set procedures .
For example , a company would only allow emissions trading through a specific broker and the payments would always be made to that broker 's escrow account .
That way you can get fiddled and all you get is a call from your broker wondering why they have your money.For what it 's worth transactions were a lot better controlled when everything was paid by cheque .
Cheques required two signatories .
Banks were very good at ensuring authorised signatories were authorised .
Now for smaller businesses with internet banking you have a bookkeeper who needs access to print statements and the same login can complete transactions from start to finish - half the time they 're using the managing director 's login .
Well , you ca n't have the MD 's time being used up doing silly things like printing statements can you ?
And bookkeepers , it 's not like they 're in a high-risk position and able to hide fraud... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, and any company should be doing just that.
The company's auditors should be detecting if it's not required, and reporting such weakness to management.
Failing to implement such basic controls will cost the company, whether or not there is fraud.
The auditor will face much greater audit risk and hence have to increase his workload (and hence fee) to compensate.
On the other hand, such a control probably would not be very effective against this.
For example Person A gets tricked and then gets Person B who probably does not go through the detailed mechanics - if anything he'd go check out the official website and approve it on that basis.
A more relevant control would be authorised supplier lists combined with set procedures.
For example, a company would only allow emissions trading through a specific broker and the payments would always be made to that broker's escrow account.
That way you can get fiddled and all you get is a call from your broker wondering why they have your money.For what it's worth transactions were a lot better controlled when everything was paid by cheque.
Cheques required two signatories.
Banks were very good at ensuring authorised signatories were authorised.
Now for smaller businesses with internet banking you have a bookkeeper who needs access to print statements and the same login can complete transactions from start to finish - half the time they're using the managing director's login.
Well, you can't have the MD's time being used up doing silly things like printing statements can you?
And bookkeepers, it's not like they're in a high-risk position and able to hide fraud....
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31014968</id>
	<title>And that is why evil will always win</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264933140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because good is dumb.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because good is dumb .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because good is dumb.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31018500</id>
	<title>Re:Is it only me</title>
	<author>astar</author>
	<datestamp>1264954620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>this is actually an interesting article,  First of all there are some laughs in an intended speculative bubble being meta-scammed.  Then recall the climategate crack.  It seemed unusually timely to me.  With this, it occurs to me that we may be getting some nicely self-counscious asymetrical warfare.  Nothing I will ever know, but fifty years out, it might be generally knowable.</p><p>Looking at all the silly comments, it amusing that about everyone tries to discuss co2 as a pollutant.  I guess plants do not get a vote yet, for which we can be thankful.  Here is that latest, not just on awg,  but just plain global warming.</p><p>New Report Shows 20th Century Global Warming Caused By Data Manipulation</p><p>February 2, 2010 (LPAC)&mdash;Instrumental temperature data from 1850-1980 have been so systematically tampered with as to bring into doubt whether there was any significant global warming in the 20th Century. This is the conclusion of a new 110-page report by meteorologists Joseph D'Aleo and Anthony Watts, published by Science &amp; Public Policy Institute.</p><p>The claimed warming was the result of intentional statistical manipulation by the climate data centers at NOAA, NASA, and the Hadley Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. Among the ruses employed:</p><p>* From 1989 to 1994, the number of temperature stations used in compiling the data was reduced from 12,000 to less than 6,000. Stations showing a temperature increase were favored, while stations reporting temperature decline were dropped from the record. According to D'Aleo and Watts: "It can be shown that they systematically and purposefully, country by country, removed higher latitude, higher-altitude and rural locations, all of which had a tendency to be cooler."</p><p>* The data centers employ corrected, not raw, temperature values in their calculations. But corrections were done in such a way as to systematically reduce the recorded temperatures from earlier periods so as to create an appearance of upward temperature in the recent two decades. Statistical filters were employed which masked the urban heat island effect, while claiming to account for it.</p><p>* Sea surface temperature data was also manipulated. Satellite input was removed by NOAA in 2009 after complaints of a cold bias in the Southern Hemisphere. The immediate result was an increase in reported global ocean surface temperatures of 0.24 degrees C, leading to the nonsensical claim that the 2000s was the warmest decade in a millennium.</p><p>While the new report provides an admirable debunking of the global warming fraud, an even more important question remains unanswered. Global average temperature is a mostly meaningless figure. Earth's biosphere over the past 2 million or more years has been characterized by the successive advance and retreat of the Northern Hemisphere ice sheets. The orbital parameters position us for another ice sheet advance at the present time, or at any time within the next several thousand years. A decrease in summer average temperature at high northern latitudes would be one of the warnings for an advance phase of the ice sheets. This would be especially important to know for northern Canada where the Laurentide ice sheet originates. However, as climatologist Timothy Ball notes in a case study appended to the D'Aleo and Watts report, there is only one thermometer north of latitude 65N in Canada. This is the Eureka station located at a particularly warm, protected spot on Ellesmere Island. Baffin Island, thought by some glaciologists to be the key originating point for ice sheet development, is devoid of weather stations, as are the Northwest and Yukon Territories.</p><p>There was no global warming. Will there be global cooling of a catastrophic sort some time soon? Leaving the genocidalists who organized and ran the global warm hoax in control will assure that we shall not find out. So let's get them out of there.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>this is actually an interesting article , First of all there are some laughs in an intended speculative bubble being meta-scammed .
Then recall the climategate crack .
It seemed unusually timely to me .
With this , it occurs to me that we may be getting some nicely self-counscious asymetrical warfare .
Nothing I will ever know , but fifty years out , it might be generally knowable.Looking at all the silly comments , it amusing that about everyone tries to discuss co2 as a pollutant .
I guess plants do not get a vote yet , for which we can be thankful .
Here is that latest , not just on awg , but just plain global warming.New Report Shows 20th Century Global Warming Caused By Data ManipulationFebruary 2 , 2010 ( LPAC )    Instrumental temperature data from 1850-1980 have been so systematically tampered with as to bring into doubt whether there was any significant global warming in the 20th Century .
This is the conclusion of a new 110-page report by meteorologists Joseph D'Aleo and Anthony Watts , published by Science &amp; Public Policy Institute.The claimed warming was the result of intentional statistical manipulation by the climate data centers at NOAA , NASA , and the Hadley Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia .
Among the ruses employed : * From 1989 to 1994 , the number of temperature stations used in compiling the data was reduced from 12,000 to less than 6,000 .
Stations showing a temperature increase were favored , while stations reporting temperature decline were dropped from the record .
According to D'Aleo and Watts : " It can be shown that they systematically and purposefully , country by country , removed higher latitude , higher-altitude and rural locations , all of which had a tendency to be cooler .
" * The data centers employ corrected , not raw , temperature values in their calculations .
But corrections were done in such a way as to systematically reduce the recorded temperatures from earlier periods so as to create an appearance of upward temperature in the recent two decades .
Statistical filters were employed which masked the urban heat island effect , while claiming to account for it .
* Sea surface temperature data was also manipulated .
Satellite input was removed by NOAA in 2009 after complaints of a cold bias in the Southern Hemisphere .
The immediate result was an increase in reported global ocean surface temperatures of 0.24 degrees C , leading to the nonsensical claim that the 2000s was the warmest decade in a millennium.While the new report provides an admirable debunking of the global warming fraud , an even more important question remains unanswered .
Global average temperature is a mostly meaningless figure .
Earth 's biosphere over the past 2 million or more years has been characterized by the successive advance and retreat of the Northern Hemisphere ice sheets .
The orbital parameters position us for another ice sheet advance at the present time , or at any time within the next several thousand years .
A decrease in summer average temperature at high northern latitudes would be one of the warnings for an advance phase of the ice sheets .
This would be especially important to know for northern Canada where the Laurentide ice sheet originates .
However , as climatologist Timothy Ball notes in a case study appended to the D'Aleo and Watts report , there is only one thermometer north of latitude 65N in Canada .
This is the Eureka station located at a particularly warm , protected spot on Ellesmere Island .
Baffin Island , thought by some glaciologists to be the key originating point for ice sheet development , is devoid of weather stations , as are the Northwest and Yukon Territories.There was no global warming .
Will there be global cooling of a catastrophic sort some time soon ?
Leaving the genocidalists who organized and ran the global warm hoax in control will assure that we shall not find out .
So let 's get them out of there .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>this is actually an interesting article,  First of all there are some laughs in an intended speculative bubble being meta-scammed.
Then recall the climategate crack.
It seemed unusually timely to me.
With this, it occurs to me that we may be getting some nicely self-counscious asymetrical warfare.
Nothing I will ever know, but fifty years out, it might be generally knowable.Looking at all the silly comments, it amusing that about everyone tries to discuss co2 as a pollutant.
I guess plants do not get a vote yet, for which we can be thankful.
Here is that latest, not just on awg,  but just plain global warming.New Report Shows 20th Century Global Warming Caused By Data ManipulationFebruary 2, 2010 (LPAC)—Instrumental temperature data from 1850-1980 have been so systematically tampered with as to bring into doubt whether there was any significant global warming in the 20th Century.
This is the conclusion of a new 110-page report by meteorologists Joseph D'Aleo and Anthony Watts, published by Science &amp; Public Policy Institute.The claimed warming was the result of intentional statistical manipulation by the climate data centers at NOAA, NASA, and the Hadley Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.
Among the ruses employed:* From 1989 to 1994, the number of temperature stations used in compiling the data was reduced from 12,000 to less than 6,000.
Stations showing a temperature increase were favored, while stations reporting temperature decline were dropped from the record.
According to D'Aleo and Watts: "It can be shown that they systematically and purposefully, country by country, removed higher latitude, higher-altitude and rural locations, all of which had a tendency to be cooler.
"* The data centers employ corrected, not raw, temperature values in their calculations.
But corrections were done in such a way as to systematically reduce the recorded temperatures from earlier periods so as to create an appearance of upward temperature in the recent two decades.
Statistical filters were employed which masked the urban heat island effect, while claiming to account for it.
* Sea surface temperature data was also manipulated.
Satellite input was removed by NOAA in 2009 after complaints of a cold bias in the Southern Hemisphere.
The immediate result was an increase in reported global ocean surface temperatures of 0.24 degrees C, leading to the nonsensical claim that the 2000s was the warmest decade in a millennium.While the new report provides an admirable debunking of the global warming fraud, an even more important question remains unanswered.
Global average temperature is a mostly meaningless figure.
Earth's biosphere over the past 2 million or more years has been characterized by the successive advance and retreat of the Northern Hemisphere ice sheets.
The orbital parameters position us for another ice sheet advance at the present time, or at any time within the next several thousand years.
A decrease in summer average temperature at high northern latitudes would be one of the warnings for an advance phase of the ice sheets.
This would be especially important to know for northern Canada where the Laurentide ice sheet originates.
However, as climatologist Timothy Ball notes in a case study appended to the D'Aleo and Watts report, there is only one thermometer north of latitude 65N in Canada.
This is the Eureka station located at a particularly warm, protected spot on Ellesmere Island.
Baffin Island, thought by some glaciologists to be the key originating point for ice sheet development, is devoid of weather stations, as are the Northwest and Yukon Territories.There was no global warming.
Will there be global cooling of a catastrophic sort some time soon?
Leaving the genocidalists who organized and ran the global warm hoax in control will assure that we shall not find out.
So let's get them out of there.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31015054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31015408</id>
	<title>It only feels that way...</title>
	<author>Oxford\_Comma\_Lover</author>
	<datestamp>1264935180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The goal is to reduce emissions.  At least in theory, a market-based system for doing that, with a hard number of credits available, should succeed in limiting (or reducing) emissions.  (Provided that you don't abolish other current regulation limiting emission in any given area.)  Allowing people to buy and sell credits then rewards companies that are efficient (because they can sell credits) and penalizes companies that are inefficient (because they need to buy more credits.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The goal is to reduce emissions .
At least in theory , a market-based system for doing that , with a hard number of credits available , should succeed in limiting ( or reducing ) emissions .
( Provided that you do n't abolish other current regulation limiting emission in any given area .
) Allowing people to buy and sell credits then rewards companies that are efficient ( because they can sell credits ) and penalizes companies that are inefficient ( because they need to buy more credits .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The goal is to reduce emissions.
At least in theory, a market-based system for doing that, with a hard number of credits available, should succeed in limiting (or reducing) emissions.
(Provided that you don't abolish other current regulation limiting emission in any given area.
)  Allowing people to buy and sell credits then rewards companies that are efficient (because they can sell credits) and penalizes companies that are inefficient (because they need to buy more credits.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31015054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31016074</id>
	<title>Amazing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264937880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The really amazing thing about this is that, on the one hand, people in a position of being able to handle hundreds of thousands of Euros and more are still falling for an old chestnuts like phishing  emails (7 out of about 2000 companies involved) and the other that the whole system, at least if TFA (in the German version) is to be believed, doesn't even use the most basic of security measures like even TANs - all needed by the phishers seems to have been the good old user name/pasword combination. If that's true then it makes it look as if utter idiots (on both sides) are running this and I guess there will be a number of guys having to rely their golden parachutes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The really amazing thing about this is that , on the one hand , people in a position of being able to handle hundreds of thousands of Euros and more are still falling for an old chestnuts like phishing emails ( 7 out of about 2000 companies involved ) and the other that the whole system , at least if TFA ( in the German version ) is to be believed , does n't even use the most basic of security measures like even TANs - all needed by the phishers seems to have been the good old user name/pasword combination .
If that 's true then it makes it look as if utter idiots ( on both sides ) are running this and I guess there will be a number of guys having to rely their golden parachutes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The really amazing thing about this is that, on the one hand, people in a position of being able to handle hundreds of thousands of Euros and more are still falling for an old chestnuts like phishing  emails (7 out of about 2000 companies involved) and the other that the whole system, at least if TFA (in the German version) is to be believed, doesn't even use the most basic of security measures like even TANs - all needed by the phishers seems to have been the good old user name/pasword combination.
If that's true then it makes it look as if utter idiots (on both sides) are running this and I guess there will be a number of guys having to rely their golden parachutes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31015488</id>
	<title>Re:Is it only me</title>
	<author>Alinabi</author>
	<datestamp>1264935480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's mostly you. Every other commodity in this world is traded, including your odds of getting sick or having a car accident, so why not this one?</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's mostly you .
Every other commodity in this world is traded , including your odds of getting sick or having a car accident , so why not this one ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's mostly you.
Every other commodity in this world is traded, including your odds of getting sick or having a car accident, so why not this one?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31015054</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31015186</id>
	<title>Re:Is it only me</title>
	<author>CannonballHead</author>
	<datestamp>1264934220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not just you.  Unfortunately, we're not in the government.  They appear to have a different view.  Or maybe they just like scams?</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not just you .
Unfortunately , we 're not in the government .
They appear to have a different view .
Or maybe they just like scams ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not just you.
Unfortunately, we're not in the government.
They appear to have a different view.
Or maybe they just like scams?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31015054</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_2042209_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31015348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31015020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31014874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_2042209_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31015270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31015054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_2042209_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31015488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31015054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_2042209_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31020336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31015020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31014874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_2042209_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31017310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31015054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_2042209_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31018500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31015054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_2042209_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31015286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31015054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_2042209_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31015614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31015054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_2042209_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31015686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31015054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_2042209_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31015376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31015054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_2042209_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31015408
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31015054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_2042209_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31015356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31014960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_2042209_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31023860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31015020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31014874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_2042209_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31015186
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31015054
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_03_2042209_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31019952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31016884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_2042209.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31015264
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_2042209.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31014874
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31015020
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31023860
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31020336
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31015348
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_2042209.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31014960
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31015356
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_2042209.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31016884
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31019952
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_2042209.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31014968
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_03_2042209.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31015054
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31015488
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31017310
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31015614
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31018500
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31015270
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31015186
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31015686
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31015286
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31015408
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_03_2042209.31015376
</commentlist>
</conversation>
