<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_05_2044229</id>
	<title>India Ditches UN Climate Change Group</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1265363640000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Several readers have told us that the Indian Government is moving to <a href="http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/20100205/india-ipcc-un-climate-change-global-warming.htm">establish its own group to address the science of climate change</a> since it "cannot rely" on the official United Nations panel.  <i>"The move is a severe blow to the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) following the revelation parts of its 3000 page 2007 report on climate science was not subjected to peer review.  A primary claim of the report was the Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035, but the claim was not repeated in any peer-reviewed studies and rebuffed by scientists.  India's environment minister Jairam Ramesh announced that the Indian government will established a separate National Institute of Himalayan Glaciology to monitor climate change in the region.  'There is a fine line between climate science and climate evangelism,' Ramesh said. 'I am for climate science.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Several readers have told us that the Indian Government is moving to establish its own group to address the science of climate change since it " can not rely " on the official United Nations panel .
" The move is a severe blow to the UN 's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC ) following the revelation parts of its 3000 page 2007 report on climate science was not subjected to peer review .
A primary claim of the report was the Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035 , but the claim was not repeated in any peer-reviewed studies and rebuffed by scientists .
India 's environment minister Jairam Ramesh announced that the Indian government will established a separate National Institute of Himalayan Glaciology to monitor climate change in the region .
'There is a fine line between climate science and climate evangelism, ' Ramesh said .
'I am for climate science .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Several readers have told us that the Indian Government is moving to establish its own group to address the science of climate change since it "cannot rely" on the official United Nations panel.
"The move is a severe blow to the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) following the revelation parts of its 3000 page 2007 report on climate science was not subjected to peer review.
A primary claim of the report was the Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035, but the claim was not repeated in any peer-reviewed studies and rebuffed by scientists.
India's environment minister Jairam Ramesh announced that the Indian government will established a separate National Institute of Himalayan Glaciology to monitor climate change in the region.
'There is a fine line between climate science and climate evangelism,' Ramesh said.
'I am for climate science.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31047950</id>
	<title>Re:Inconclusiveness</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265451420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whose records?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whose records ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whose records?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31041314</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31041930</id>
	<title>Re:Inconclusiveness</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1265379240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Besides, even if prevention is conclusively proven to be more cost efficient, I'm not sure that we have a choice anymore. Most climate scientists say that the Earth is headed for a 4 C rise in temperature, regardless of what humans do at this point.</p></div><p>Oceanic overacidification is ample reason to bring human carbon emissions to a negative. If we don't, we might end up with an ocean which can support nothing but subaquatic algae, brittle stars, and giant squid.</p><p>WTF am I talking about: Atmospheric conditions are causing algaes to not be able to live on the ocean's surface. Most of the algae is now submerged a foot, where it cannot respirate efficiently. If oceanic acidification proceeds apace, then it's going to be difficult for most of our favorite marine life to survive. That has severe repercussions for human life, and my enjoyment of same; I just had a lovely Corvina dinner, and would like to keep doing this for some time.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Besides , even if prevention is conclusively proven to be more cost efficient , I 'm not sure that we have a choice anymore .
Most climate scientists say that the Earth is headed for a 4 C rise in temperature , regardless of what humans do at this point.Oceanic overacidification is ample reason to bring human carbon emissions to a negative .
If we do n't , we might end up with an ocean which can support nothing but subaquatic algae , brittle stars , and giant squid.WTF am I talking about : Atmospheric conditions are causing algaes to not be able to live on the ocean 's surface .
Most of the algae is now submerged a foot , where it can not respirate efficiently .
If oceanic acidification proceeds apace , then it 's going to be difficult for most of our favorite marine life to survive .
That has severe repercussions for human life , and my enjoyment of same ; I just had a lovely Corvina dinner , and would like to keep doing this for some time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Besides, even if prevention is conclusively proven to be more cost efficient, I'm not sure that we have a choice anymore.
Most climate scientists say that the Earth is headed for a 4 C rise in temperature, regardless of what humans do at this point.Oceanic overacidification is ample reason to bring human carbon emissions to a negative.
If we don't, we might end up with an ocean which can support nothing but subaquatic algae, brittle stars, and giant squid.WTF am I talking about: Atmospheric conditions are causing algaes to not be able to live on the ocean's surface.
Most of the algae is now submerged a foot, where it cannot respirate efficiently.
If oceanic acidification proceeds apace, then it's going to be difficult for most of our favorite marine life to survive.
That has severe repercussions for human life, and my enjoyment of same; I just had a lovely Corvina dinner, and would like to keep doing this for some time.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31041766</id>
	<title>Re:Good! The UN is nothing but a scam.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265377740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You hope more people use non peer reviewed papers to hide from the truth? While the quote shouldn't have been in the IPCC, no science was based on that quote.</p><p>They were not fake pandemics. They were actual pandemics. Are you use using TV and Movies as an example of what a pandemic is? if so STOP IT.</p><p>It was real, there where risks. remember , in the first couple of months of H1N1 the mortality rate was 45\%. With that data of course they wanted to stop it, and they wante people to prepare. Fortunately the mortality rate turned out to be much lower. What would you have them do when a highly contagious virus is killing 45 out of every 100 people that get it? There reaction is just what you want. If they waited a month and the mortality rate was that high, there would be a couple of billion people dead.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You hope more people use non peer reviewed papers to hide from the truth ?
While the quote should n't have been in the IPCC , no science was based on that quote.They were not fake pandemics .
They were actual pandemics .
Are you use using TV and Movies as an example of what a pandemic is ?
if so STOP IT.It was real , there where risks .
remember , in the first couple of months of H1N1 the mortality rate was 45 \ % .
With that data of course they wanted to stop it , and they wante people to prepare .
Fortunately the mortality rate turned out to be much lower .
What would you have them do when a highly contagious virus is killing 45 out of every 100 people that get it ?
There reaction is just what you want .
If they waited a month and the mortality rate was that high , there would be a couple of billion people dead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You hope more people use non peer reviewed papers to hide from the truth?
While the quote shouldn't have been in the IPCC, no science was based on that quote.They were not fake pandemics.
They were actual pandemics.
Are you use using TV and Movies as an example of what a pandemic is?
if so STOP IT.It was real, there where risks.
remember , in the first couple of months of H1N1 the mortality rate was 45\%.
With that data of course they wanted to stop it, and they wante people to prepare.
Fortunately the mortality rate turned out to be much lower.
What would you have them do when a highly contagious virus is killing 45 out of every 100 people that get it?
There reaction is just what you want.
If they waited a month and the mortality rate was that high, there would be a couple of billion people dead.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31045884</id>
	<title>Re:Inconclusiveness</title>
	<author>TheTurtlesMoves</author>
	<datestamp>1265475600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Relax, overfishing will/has beaten acidification by a long shot.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Relax , overfishing will/has beaten acidification by a long shot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Relax, overfishing will/has beaten acidification by a long shot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31041930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040262</id>
	<title>cold and ironic</title>
	<author>oxide7</author>
	<datestamp>1265368320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This doesnt mean they are saying global warming is bad, or desirable. It just means they dont trust the UN panel. Whats funny though, is that they say they dont trust the IPCC because it doesnt do its own science, but they turn around and set up their own IPCC to review science themselves. And speaking of global warming, isn't this this <a href="http://www.fairinvestment.co.uk/News/cut\_your\_bills-news-Energy-bills-up-20percent-during-coldest-winter-for-30-years-18470402.html" title="fairinvestment.co.uk" rel="nofollow">coldest winter on record?</a> [fairinvestment.co.uk]</htmltext>
<tokenext>This doesnt mean they are saying global warming is bad , or desirable .
It just means they dont trust the UN panel .
Whats funny though , is that they say they dont trust the IPCC because it doesnt do its own science , but they turn around and set up their own IPCC to review science themselves .
And speaking of global warming , is n't this this coldest winter on record ?
[ fairinvestment.co.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This doesnt mean they are saying global warming is bad, or desirable.
It just means they dont trust the UN panel.
Whats funny though, is that they say they dont trust the IPCC because it doesnt do its own science, but they turn around and set up their own IPCC to review science themselves.
And speaking of global warming, isn't this this coldest winter on record?
[fairinvestment.co.uk]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040304</id>
	<title>Re:A couple errors in a 3,000 page document</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265368500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>... written by hundreds of individuals = "climate evangelism".  Apparently.</p></div><p>The best way to reduce human impact on the environment is to have less humans.  Either kill them off or control future breeding; take your pick.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... written by hundreds of individuals = " climate evangelism " .
Apparently.The best way to reduce human impact on the environment is to have less humans .
Either kill them off or control future breeding ; take your pick .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... written by hundreds of individuals = "climate evangelism".
Apparently.The best way to reduce human impact on the environment is to have less humans.
Either kill them off or control future breeding; take your pick.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31045664</id>
	<title>I'm an Indian</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265473320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And i've got your job.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And i 've got your job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And i've got your job.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31041976</id>
	<title>Re:Inconclusiveness</title>
	<author>pipingguy</author>
	<datestamp>1265379660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Questioning global warming / climate change is a near sure way to get modded down.</i> <br> <br>

I think you're right. It's also a way to get seriously maligned, fired, ostracized or ignored in certain circles.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Questioning global warming / climate change is a near sure way to get modded down .
I think you 're right .
It 's also a way to get seriously maligned , fired , ostracized or ignored in certain circles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Questioning global warming / climate change is a near sure way to get modded down.
I think you're right.
It's also a way to get seriously maligned, fired, ostracized or ignored in certain circles.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040476</id>
	<title>It isn't a fine line</title>
	<author>thethibs</author>
	<datestamp>1265369280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's a fat, bold, impossible to miss, line between climate science and climate evangelism; the IPCC clambered over it a long time ago.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a fat , bold , impossible to miss , line between climate science and climate evangelism ; the IPCC clambered over it a long time ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a fat, bold, impossible to miss, line between climate science and climate evangelism; the IPCC clambered over it a long time ago.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31042706</id>
	<title>Re:Good! The UN is nothing but a scam.</title>
	<author>inthealpine</author>
	<datestamp>1265385720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Swine flu is not a good example..
Swine flu was hyped up, government took long time to act (thus rationed vaccines), hyped passed as flu was not that bad, now my work place can't give away free vaccines.  (We have a nurse/medical staff because we have a lot of engineers making pointy stuff for terrorists.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Swine flu is not a good example. . Swine flu was hyped up , government took long time to act ( thus rationed vaccines ) , hyped passed as flu was not that bad , now my work place ca n't give away free vaccines .
( We have a nurse/medical staff because we have a lot of engineers making pointy stuff for terrorists .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Swine flu is not a good example..
Swine flu was hyped up, government took long time to act (thus rationed vaccines), hyped passed as flu was not that bad, now my work place can't give away free vaccines.
(We have a nurse/medical staff because we have a lot of engineers making pointy stuff for terrorists.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31045802</id>
	<title>Re:Good! The UN is nothing but a scam.</title>
	<author>Arthur Grumbine</author>
	<datestamp>1265474640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><b>David Caruso:</b> I'll believe that this man was killed by swine flu... *puts on sunglasses*<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...when pigs fly...<br>
<b>The WHO:</b> YEEEAAAAAAAAHH!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>David Caruso : I 'll believe that this man was killed by swine flu... * puts on sunglasses * ...when pigs fly.. . The WHO : YEEEAAAAAAAAHH !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>David Caruso: I'll believe that this man was killed by swine flu... *puts on sunglasses* ...when pigs fly...
The WHO: YEEEAAAAAAAAHH!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31044032</id>
	<title>Re:Inconclusiveness</title>
	<author>Shotgun</author>
	<datestamp>1265446980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Occam's razor shows that we should go with #2 until you can support your opposition to 50 years of climate research with something more substantial than the latest easily debunked [realclimate.org] talking point.</p></div><p>It has been shown that large subsets of the the base data is bogus, that leading 'scientist' have manipulated their data, and intimidated competing scientist.  A motive has been shown for those pushing the warming movement.  You claim 50 years of research, but 30 years ago the big scare was global cooling.</p><p>How do you debunk that a large subset of the data is based on bullocks (http://surfacestations.org).  There is no way to "correct" corrupted primary data.  Attempting to do so will have to involve the hubris that you knew what the reading were supposed to be in the first place.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Occam 's razor shows that we should go with # 2 until you can support your opposition to 50 years of climate research with something more substantial than the latest easily debunked [ realclimate.org ] talking point.It has been shown that large subsets of the the base data is bogus , that leading 'scientist ' have manipulated their data , and intimidated competing scientist .
A motive has been shown for those pushing the warming movement .
You claim 50 years of research , but 30 years ago the big scare was global cooling.How do you debunk that a large subset of the data is based on bullocks ( http : //surfacestations.org ) .
There is no way to " correct " corrupted primary data .
Attempting to do so will have to involve the hubris that you knew what the reading were supposed to be in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Occam's razor shows that we should go with #2 until you can support your opposition to 50 years of climate research with something more substantial than the latest easily debunked [realclimate.org] talking point.It has been shown that large subsets of the the base data is bogus, that leading 'scientist' have manipulated their data, and intimidated competing scientist.
A motive has been shown for those pushing the warming movement.
You claim 50 years of research, but 30 years ago the big scare was global cooling.How do you debunk that a large subset of the data is based on bullocks (http://surfacestations.org).
There is no way to "correct" corrupted primary data.
Attempting to do so will have to involve the hubris that you knew what the reading were supposed to be in the first place.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31041326</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31043428</id>
	<title>Re:cold and ironic</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1265393220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>And speaking of global warming, isn't this this coldest winter on record?</i> </p><p>Maybe in the UK but not where I am.  It's warmer than usual here.  Historically the average temperature on this date is 25F however today, and yesterday, it was 29.4F.  Last weekend it was warm enough for the ice and snow on the sidewalks to melt.  Actually the decade between 2000 and 2009 was the <a href="http://climateprogress.org/2010/01/23/nasa-makes-it-official-2000s-were-the-hottest-decade-on-record-2009-tied-for-second-warmest-year/" title="climateprogress.org">hottest on record</a> [climateprogress.org].</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And speaking of global warming , is n't this this coldest winter on record ?
Maybe in the UK but not where I am .
It 's warmer than usual here .
Historically the average temperature on this date is 25F however today , and yesterday , it was 29.4F .
Last weekend it was warm enough for the ice and snow on the sidewalks to melt .
Actually the decade between 2000 and 2009 was the hottest on record [ climateprogress.org ] .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And speaking of global warming, isn't this this coldest winter on record?
Maybe in the UK but not where I am.
It's warmer than usual here.
Historically the average temperature on this date is 25F however today, and yesterday, it was 29.4F.
Last weekend it was warm enough for the ice and snow on the sidewalks to melt.
Actually the decade between 2000 and 2009 was the hottest on record [climateprogress.org].
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040500</id>
	<title>Re:Inconclusiveness</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265369460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There was a time when the data was inconclusive, but that time has passed. We have amassed so much data in favor of man-made global warming that to deny it as this point just doesn't make sense. Could it be wrong? Of course. Is it likely to be wrong? No.<br>It is extremely likely that global warming is man-made and the dangers of ignoring that probability are much higher than the potential consequences of acting on it. Now, I actually see a lot of direct benefit to "green" technology, the primary one is reducing our dependence on foreign energy. Of course, it's also going to hurt domestic coal, so companies providing coal-based power need to be at the forefront of new energy technologies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There was a time when the data was inconclusive , but that time has passed .
We have amassed so much data in favor of man-made global warming that to deny it as this point just does n't make sense .
Could it be wrong ?
Of course .
Is it likely to be wrong ?
No.It is extremely likely that global warming is man-made and the dangers of ignoring that probability are much higher than the potential consequences of acting on it .
Now , I actually see a lot of direct benefit to " green " technology , the primary one is reducing our dependence on foreign energy .
Of course , it 's also going to hurt domestic coal , so companies providing coal-based power need to be at the forefront of new energy technologies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was a time when the data was inconclusive, but that time has passed.
We have amassed so much data in favor of man-made global warming that to deny it as this point just doesn't make sense.
Could it be wrong?
Of course.
Is it likely to be wrong?
No.It is extremely likely that global warming is man-made and the dangers of ignoring that probability are much higher than the potential consequences of acting on it.
Now, I actually see a lot of direct benefit to "green" technology, the primary one is reducing our dependence on foreign energy.
Of course, it's also going to hurt domestic coal, so companies providing coal-based power need to be at the forefront of new energy technologies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040126</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040996</id>
	<title>Re:Inconclusiveness</title>
	<author>Kral\_Blbec</author>
	<datestamp>1265372520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, its very easy to be preachy when the data remains inconclusive. You just change the data. <br>See Al Gore.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , its very easy to be preachy when the data remains inconclusive .
You just change the data .
See Al Gore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, its very easy to be preachy when the data remains inconclusive.
You just change the data.
See Al Gore.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040126</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040694</id>
	<title>Re:Inconclusiveness</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265370660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gee, why don't you call NASA and let them know they forgot about the Sun? I'm sure they'll thank you for pointing it out. If the Sun was the main force at work, then the Earth should be cooling, which it is not. The climate on Mars is not driven by the same factors as the Earth. It's minimal atmosphere and lack of large bodies of water means that it's temperature is mainly controlled by it's color. Large storms on Mars kick up dirt which makes the ground lighter or darker and it is this darker dirt that is responsible for the warming on Mars. We have ruled out all the factors that normally influence the climate of the Earth. Please put your logical fallacies to rest and check out the actual science.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gee , why do n't you call NASA and let them know they forgot about the Sun ?
I 'm sure they 'll thank you for pointing it out .
If the Sun was the main force at work , then the Earth should be cooling , which it is not .
The climate on Mars is not driven by the same factors as the Earth .
It 's minimal atmosphere and lack of large bodies of water means that it 's temperature is mainly controlled by it 's color .
Large storms on Mars kick up dirt which makes the ground lighter or darker and it is this darker dirt that is responsible for the warming on Mars .
We have ruled out all the factors that normally influence the climate of the Earth .
Please put your logical fallacies to rest and check out the actual science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gee, why don't you call NASA and let them know they forgot about the Sun?
I'm sure they'll thank you for pointing it out.
If the Sun was the main force at work, then the Earth should be cooling, which it is not.
The climate on Mars is not driven by the same factors as the Earth.
It's minimal atmosphere and lack of large bodies of water means that it's temperature is mainly controlled by it's color.
Large storms on Mars kick up dirt which makes the ground lighter or darker and it is this darker dirt that is responsible for the warming on Mars.
We have ruled out all the factors that normally influence the climate of the Earth.
Please put your logical fallacies to rest and check out the actual science.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040402</id>
	<title>Re:Inconclusiveness</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1265369040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But the paper he based this on isn't per reviewed.</p><p>The data isn't inconclusive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But the paper he based this on is n't per reviewed.The data is n't inconclusive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But the paper he based this on isn't per reviewed.The data isn't inconclusive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040126</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31044766</id>
	<title>Re:Good! The UN is nothing but a scam.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265460660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Hi, I'm a proud American who is too stupid to think for myself, and therefore gladly eat shit out of the hands of Rupert Murdoch my beloved Faux News."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Hi , I 'm a proud American who is too stupid to think for myself , and therefore gladly eat shit out of the hands of Rupert Murdoch my beloved Faux News .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Hi, I'm a proud American who is too stupid to think for myself, and therefore gladly eat shit out of the hands of Rupert Murdoch my beloved Faux News.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040036</id>
	<title>Sounds like a smart man.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265367300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wish we had more people like that in government in the US.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wish we had more people like that in government in the US .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wish we had more people like that in government in the US.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31050264</id>
	<title>Re:Inconclusiveness</title>
	<author>riverat1</author>
	<datestamp>1265476380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Holocene climate optimum occurred during a period when the axial tilt was 24 degrees (23.44 degrees now) and perihelion was during the northern hemisphere summer.  That amounts to about 8\% more solar radiation during the northern summer.  Areas in the tropics and the southern hemisphere were colder and the overall temperature was probably lower than present day temperatures.  The 4 C increase for the HCO was for the North Pole, not the globe as a whole.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Holocene climate optimum occurred during a period when the axial tilt was 24 degrees ( 23.44 degrees now ) and perihelion was during the northern hemisphere summer .
That amounts to about 8 \ % more solar radiation during the northern summer .
Areas in the tropics and the southern hemisphere were colder and the overall temperature was probably lower than present day temperatures .
The 4 C increase for the HCO was for the North Pole , not the globe as a whole .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Holocene climate optimum occurred during a period when the axial tilt was 24 degrees (23.44 degrees now) and perihelion was during the northern hemisphere summer.
That amounts to about 8\% more solar radiation during the northern summer.
Areas in the tropics and the southern hemisphere were colder and the overall temperature was probably lower than present day temperatures.
The 4 C increase for the HCO was for the North Pole, not the globe as a whole.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31044920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31042550</id>
	<title>Re:Good! The UN is nothing but a scam.</title>
	<author>Xest</author>
	<datestamp>1265384100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"In general, the UN is nothing but a scam. It has no accountability"</p><p>Er, you mean apart from to every country in the world, bar the only 2 that aren't?</p><p>"and due to how it panders to politicians and their whims"</p><p>Well yeah, that's generally the idea- an organisation that allows politicians from every country world wide to work together and find solutions that suit everyone, rather than people just going off on conflicting unilateral tangents. Who do you think the UN is supposed to pander to? some grand dictator? or the people? Oh wait, the people are represented by politicians... If your concern is that politicians in your country don't serve the people, then focus on that, because that's a national problem for your country, if your nations population aren't happy with their leadership then they must seek to replace it.</p><p>"Frankly, people are fed up with these supranational organizations that do nothing but cause problems."</p><p>Yeah, the fucking bastards, damn the International Civil Aviation Organization for ensuring aircraft can communicate in the countries they travel between and don't collide, curse the International Maritime Organization for allowing the same benefits to ships and assisting navigation at sea, screw the Universal Postal Union for ensuring that post can be sent between countries and reach it's destination okay and fuck the International Telecommunication Union for assigning things like country codes so that people in different countries don't have different numbers making international phone systems incompatible.</p><p>Wait what's that? You didn't realise it does these things, or simply chose to conveniently ignore them?</p><p>I'm first to criticise some UN departments, particularly the likes of the WHO, but tarring the whole of the UN with the same old brush is shows a stunning display of ignorance. The UN has a massive remit, and you don't hear about large parts of it precisely because it does do those things that don't make it into the news so damn well- it runs important global systems and standards transparently enough that people don't even notice it's doing the job just fine. The UN provides a massive benefit to the world despite it's flaws.</p><p>I sincerely believe the UN needs major overhauls in some areas- WIPO, WTO, WHO certainly (the head of the WHO, Chan, needs to be sacked ASAP for her incompetence over swine flu), but the idea of getting rid of the UN as a whole including the above departments and the likes of UNESCO is really dumb. Sure you could say disband the UN and continue to run these organisations separately, but that's really just wasteful- why have countries require separate signups to the likes of the postal, aviation, telecomms, maritime and so forth when they need to be part of them all anyway and they work just fine under the UN?</p><p>Clearly the UN isn't a scam and is a fundamental organisation for an increasingly connected world, the real solution is to simply fix the UN, rather than shoot it down altogether. Hold up departments that work as examples of how it should be done, and reform those that don't work, sacking he people responsible for such failings.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" In general , the UN is nothing but a scam .
It has no accountability " Er , you mean apart from to every country in the world , bar the only 2 that are n't ?
" and due to how it panders to politicians and their whims " Well yeah , that 's generally the idea- an organisation that allows politicians from every country world wide to work together and find solutions that suit everyone , rather than people just going off on conflicting unilateral tangents .
Who do you think the UN is supposed to pander to ?
some grand dictator ?
or the people ?
Oh wait , the people are represented by politicians... If your concern is that politicians in your country do n't serve the people , then focus on that , because that 's a national problem for your country , if your nations population are n't happy with their leadership then they must seek to replace it .
" Frankly , people are fed up with these supranational organizations that do nothing but cause problems .
" Yeah , the fucking bastards , damn the International Civil Aviation Organization for ensuring aircraft can communicate in the countries they travel between and do n't collide , curse the International Maritime Organization for allowing the same benefits to ships and assisting navigation at sea , screw the Universal Postal Union for ensuring that post can be sent between countries and reach it 's destination okay and fuck the International Telecommunication Union for assigning things like country codes so that people in different countries do n't have different numbers making international phone systems incompatible.Wait what 's that ?
You did n't realise it does these things , or simply chose to conveniently ignore them ? I 'm first to criticise some UN departments , particularly the likes of the WHO , but tarring the whole of the UN with the same old brush is shows a stunning display of ignorance .
The UN has a massive remit , and you do n't hear about large parts of it precisely because it does do those things that do n't make it into the news so damn well- it runs important global systems and standards transparently enough that people do n't even notice it 's doing the job just fine .
The UN provides a massive benefit to the world despite it 's flaws.I sincerely believe the UN needs major overhauls in some areas- WIPO , WTO , WHO certainly ( the head of the WHO , Chan , needs to be sacked ASAP for her incompetence over swine flu ) , but the idea of getting rid of the UN as a whole including the above departments and the likes of UNESCO is really dumb .
Sure you could say disband the UN and continue to run these organisations separately , but that 's really just wasteful- why have countries require separate signups to the likes of the postal , aviation , telecomms , maritime and so forth when they need to be part of them all anyway and they work just fine under the UN ? Clearly the UN is n't a scam and is a fundamental organisation for an increasingly connected world , the real solution is to simply fix the UN , rather than shoot it down altogether .
Hold up departments that work as examples of how it should be done , and reform those that do n't work , sacking he people responsible for such failings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"In general, the UN is nothing but a scam.
It has no accountability"Er, you mean apart from to every country in the world, bar the only 2 that aren't?
"and due to how it panders to politicians and their whims"Well yeah, that's generally the idea- an organisation that allows politicians from every country world wide to work together and find solutions that suit everyone, rather than people just going off on conflicting unilateral tangents.
Who do you think the UN is supposed to pander to?
some grand dictator?
or the people?
Oh wait, the people are represented by politicians... If your concern is that politicians in your country don't serve the people, then focus on that, because that's a national problem for your country, if your nations population aren't happy with their leadership then they must seek to replace it.
"Frankly, people are fed up with these supranational organizations that do nothing but cause problems.
"Yeah, the fucking bastards, damn the International Civil Aviation Organization for ensuring aircraft can communicate in the countries they travel between and don't collide, curse the International Maritime Organization for allowing the same benefits to ships and assisting navigation at sea, screw the Universal Postal Union for ensuring that post can be sent between countries and reach it's destination okay and fuck the International Telecommunication Union for assigning things like country codes so that people in different countries don't have different numbers making international phone systems incompatible.Wait what's that?
You didn't realise it does these things, or simply chose to conveniently ignore them?I'm first to criticise some UN departments, particularly the likes of the WHO, but tarring the whole of the UN with the same old brush is shows a stunning display of ignorance.
The UN has a massive remit, and you don't hear about large parts of it precisely because it does do those things that don't make it into the news so damn well- it runs important global systems and standards transparently enough that people don't even notice it's doing the job just fine.
The UN provides a massive benefit to the world despite it's flaws.I sincerely believe the UN needs major overhauls in some areas- WIPO, WTO, WHO certainly (the head of the WHO, Chan, needs to be sacked ASAP for her incompetence over swine flu), but the idea of getting rid of the UN as a whole including the above departments and the likes of UNESCO is really dumb.
Sure you could say disband the UN and continue to run these organisations separately, but that's really just wasteful- why have countries require separate signups to the likes of the postal, aviation, telecomms, maritime and so forth when they need to be part of them all anyway and they work just fine under the UN?Clearly the UN isn't a scam and is a fundamental organisation for an increasingly connected world, the real solution is to simply fix the UN, rather than shoot it down altogether.
Hold up departments that work as examples of how it should be done, and reform those that don't work, sacking he people responsible for such failings.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040438</id>
	<title>Re:cold and ironic</title>
	<author>ColdWetDog</author>
	<datestamp>1265369160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>And speaking of global warming, isn't this this coldest winter on record?</p></div></blockquote><p>
Let's try to get this one out of the way early:  <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=weather+is+not+climate" title="google.com">Weather is not climate</a> [google.com].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And speaking of global warming , is n't this this coldest winter on record ?
Let 's try to get this one out of the way early : Weather is not climate [ google.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And speaking of global warming, isn't this this coldest winter on record?
Let's try to get this one out of the way early:  Weather is not climate [google.com].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31043324</id>
	<title>Re:Good! The UN is nothing but a scam.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265391660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>thank the ferrets who interfered with their plans...<br><a href="http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2009/02/27/8560781.html" title="torontosun.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2009/02/27/8560781.html</a> [torontosun.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>thank the ferrets who interfered with their plans...http : //www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2009/02/27/8560781.html [ torontosun.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>thank the ferrets who interfered with their plans...http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2009/02/27/8560781.html [torontosun.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040162</id>
	<title>How is this news?</title>
	<author>zero\_out</author>
	<datestamp>1265367900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm sure that most countries, at least most relatively developed ones (and I consider India as such), already have their own group investigating climate change.  Besides, I don't see any mention from the article that India is actually "ditching" the UN group.  It's just establishing its own group, rather than relying 100\% on the UN group to base their national policies and laws upon.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure that most countries , at least most relatively developed ones ( and I consider India as such ) , already have their own group investigating climate change .
Besides , I do n't see any mention from the article that India is actually " ditching " the UN group .
It 's just establishing its own group , rather than relying 100 \ % on the UN group to base their national policies and laws upon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure that most countries, at least most relatively developed ones (and I consider India as such), already have their own group investigating climate change.
Besides, I don't see any mention from the article that India is actually "ditching" the UN group.
It's just establishing its own group, rather than relying 100\% on the UN group to base their national policies and laws upon.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040274</id>
	<title>Before poeple freak out, her is a couple of points</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1265368380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1) Publishing is usually the beginning of peer review. SO finding a discrepency isn't uncommon<br>2) The person who made that statement was an Indian Scientist. SO the irony of thise story is rich.<br>3) is doesn't invalidate the peer reviewed papers, or the overall conclusion.</p><p>Here is a good write up:<br><a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527434.300-debate-heats-up-over-ipcc-melting-glaciers-claim.html" title="newscientist.com">http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527434.300-debate-heats-up-over-ipcc-melting-glaciers-claim.html</a> [newscientist.com]</p><p>Be sure to follow the read more link.</p><p>Yes, yes, most people want some sort of black and white answer. There isn't one, and if you are truly interested you will<br>read about this is reputable journal. That way you have a chance to see all the facts that lead up to this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) Publishing is usually the beginning of peer review .
SO finding a discrepency is n't uncommon2 ) The person who made that statement was an Indian Scientist .
SO the irony of thise story is rich.3 ) is does n't invalidate the peer reviewed papers , or the overall conclusion.Here is a good write up : http : //www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527434.300-debate-heats-up-over-ipcc-melting-glaciers-claim.html [ newscientist.com ] Be sure to follow the read more link.Yes , yes , most people want some sort of black and white answer .
There is n't one , and if you are truly interested you willread about this is reputable journal .
That way you have a chance to see all the facts that lead up to this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) Publishing is usually the beginning of peer review.
SO finding a discrepency isn't uncommon2) The person who made that statement was an Indian Scientist.
SO the irony of thise story is rich.3) is doesn't invalidate the peer reviewed papers, or the overall conclusion.Here is a good write up:http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527434.300-debate-heats-up-over-ipcc-melting-glaciers-claim.html [newscientist.com]Be sure to follow the read more link.Yes, yes, most people want some sort of black and white answer.
There isn't one, and if you are truly interested you willread about this is reputable journal.
That way you have a chance to see all the facts that lead up to this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31047642</id>
	<title>Here comes Al Gore dipshit bragade</title>
	<author>phigmeta</author>
	<datestamp>1265448180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here it comes folks!!!

IPCC fanboy in 5.4.3.2.1


Behind every GLOBAL WARMING truther (no you can't change the name you phucktard) you find a closet socialist.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here it comes folks ! ! !
IPCC fanboy in 5.4.3.2.1 Behind every GLOBAL WARMING truther ( no you ca n't change the name you phucktard ) you find a closet socialist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here it comes folks!!!
IPCC fanboy in 5.4.3.2.1


Behind every GLOBAL WARMING truther (no you can't change the name you phucktard) you find a closet socialist.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040714</id>
	<title>Re:Inconclusiveness</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265370780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't forget volcanoes.  One major volcanic eruption would affect global climate more than any variance in solar activity, and much more than any supposed "man-made climate change" with drastic amounts of particulate matter being expelled into the atmosphere that utterly dwarf the impact of all of us.  A supervolcano eruption would also hasten the massive annihilation of life that the socialist-turned-environmentalists are so desperately wanting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't forget volcanoes .
One major volcanic eruption would affect global climate more than any variance in solar activity , and much more than any supposed " man-made climate change " with drastic amounts of particulate matter being expelled into the atmosphere that utterly dwarf the impact of all of us .
A supervolcano eruption would also hasten the massive annihilation of life that the socialist-turned-environmentalists are so desperately wanting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't forget volcanoes.
One major volcanic eruption would affect global climate more than any variance in solar activity, and much more than any supposed "man-made climate change" with drastic amounts of particulate matter being expelled into the atmosphere that utterly dwarf the impact of all of us.
A supervolcano eruption would also hasten the massive annihilation of life that the socialist-turned-environmentalists are so desperately wanting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040522</id>
	<title>Re:Inconclusiveness</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265369700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It certainty of the data depends on the question you're trying to answer.  Is the earth warming?  Absolutely.  We have numerous bits of evidence from ice cores, tree rings, and soil samples that confirm that the earth's climate is warmer now than it was before.  Is mankind causing this warming?  There is more uncertainty here, but signs are increasingly pointing towards the affirmative.</p><p>The real question is, "Does the cost of adaptation outweigh the cost of going carbon free?"  Humanity is the most adaptable species on the planet.  It may very well be the case that the cost of adapting to climate change outweighs the cost of stopping climate change. </p><p>Besides, even if prevention is conclusively proven to be more cost efficient, I'm not sure that we have a choice anymore.  Most climate scientists say that the Earth is headed for a 4 C rise in temperature, regardless of what humans do at this point.  To put that into context, 4 C was the worst case scenario being considered during the 1990s.  So, even while the scientists argue about what's causing global warming, I think its worthwhile that we as a nation figure out how to deal with global warming.  There will be significant changes in rainfall and temperature patterns.  If we do some advance planning now (like not subsidizing building in low lying areas, or encouraging agriculture in places that are going to dry out), we can make the future significantly more comfortable, regardless of whether global warming is our fault or not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It certainty of the data depends on the question you 're trying to answer .
Is the earth warming ?
Absolutely. We have numerous bits of evidence from ice cores , tree rings , and soil samples that confirm that the earth 's climate is warmer now than it was before .
Is mankind causing this warming ?
There is more uncertainty here , but signs are increasingly pointing towards the affirmative.The real question is , " Does the cost of adaptation outweigh the cost of going carbon free ?
" Humanity is the most adaptable species on the planet .
It may very well be the case that the cost of adapting to climate change outweighs the cost of stopping climate change .
Besides , even if prevention is conclusively proven to be more cost efficient , I 'm not sure that we have a choice anymore .
Most climate scientists say that the Earth is headed for a 4 C rise in temperature , regardless of what humans do at this point .
To put that into context , 4 C was the worst case scenario being considered during the 1990s .
So , even while the scientists argue about what 's causing global warming , I think its worthwhile that we as a nation figure out how to deal with global warming .
There will be significant changes in rainfall and temperature patterns .
If we do some advance planning now ( like not subsidizing building in low lying areas , or encouraging agriculture in places that are going to dry out ) , we can make the future significantly more comfortable , regardless of whether global warming is our fault or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It certainty of the data depends on the question you're trying to answer.
Is the earth warming?
Absolutely.  We have numerous bits of evidence from ice cores, tree rings, and soil samples that confirm that the earth's climate is warmer now than it was before.
Is mankind causing this warming?
There is more uncertainty here, but signs are increasingly pointing towards the affirmative.The real question is, "Does the cost of adaptation outweigh the cost of going carbon free?
"  Humanity is the most adaptable species on the planet.
It may very well be the case that the cost of adapting to climate change outweighs the cost of stopping climate change.
Besides, even if prevention is conclusively proven to be more cost efficient, I'm not sure that we have a choice anymore.
Most climate scientists say that the Earth is headed for a 4 C rise in temperature, regardless of what humans do at this point.
To put that into context, 4 C was the worst case scenario being considered during the 1990s.
So, even while the scientists argue about what's causing global warming, I think its worthwhile that we as a nation figure out how to deal with global warming.
There will be significant changes in rainfall and temperature patterns.
If we do some advance planning now (like not subsidizing building in low lying areas, or encouraging agriculture in places that are going to dry out), we can make the future significantly more comfortable, regardless of whether global warming is our fault or not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040126</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31041698</id>
	<title>Re:cold and ironic</title>
	<author>Muros</author>
	<datestamp>1265377320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And speaking of global warming, isn't this this <a href="http://www.fairinvestment.co.uk/News/cut\_your\_bills-news-Energy-bills-up-20percent-during-coldest-winter-for-30-years-18470402.html" title="fairinvestment.co.uk" rel="nofollow">coldest winter on record?</a> [fairinvestment.co.uk]</p> </div><p>No its not. Its actually one of the warmest. Local weather patterns and global climate can not be equated. Eastern america and north west europe had a short cold snap; that is a fairly small percentage of the world surface. if you look at <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter\_of\_2009\%E2\%80\%932010\_in\_Europe" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">this</a> [wikipedia.org] article on wikipedia, it suggests that El Nino is to blame: 

<i>"Metereologists suggest that the event was caused by the El Nino phenomena, which reverses south Pacific air and ocean currents. This had global knock-on effects causing a disruption in the normal path of the jet stream across the North Atlantic oscillation, reducing warm air flow into Europe."</i></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And speaking of global warming , is n't this this coldest winter on record ?
[ fairinvestment.co.uk ] No its not .
Its actually one of the warmest .
Local weather patterns and global climate can not be equated .
Eastern america and north west europe had a short cold snap ; that is a fairly small percentage of the world surface .
if you look at this [ wikipedia.org ] article on wikipedia , it suggests that El Nino is to blame : " Metereologists suggest that the event was caused by the El Nino phenomena , which reverses south Pacific air and ocean currents .
This had global knock-on effects causing a disruption in the normal path of the jet stream across the North Atlantic oscillation , reducing warm air flow into Europe .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And speaking of global warming, isn't this this coldest winter on record?
[fairinvestment.co.uk] No its not.
Its actually one of the warmest.
Local weather patterns and global climate can not be equated.
Eastern america and north west europe had a short cold snap; that is a fairly small percentage of the world surface.
if you look at this [wikipedia.org] article on wikipedia, it suggests that El Nino is to blame: 

"Metereologists suggest that the event was caused by the El Nino phenomena, which reverses south Pacific air and ocean currents.
This had global knock-on effects causing a disruption in the normal path of the jet stream across the North Atlantic oscillation, reducing warm air flow into Europe.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040262</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040348</id>
	<title>Re:A couple errors in a 3,000 page document</title>
	<author>e2d2</author>
	<datestamp>1265368740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah a couple of errors in a scientific document that happens to impact everyone on the planet along with emails implicating some of those scientists were "massaging" the results to prove their hypothesis.</p><p>Kind of important to ensure accuracy. They haven't grasped that. Their too busy building their own unquestionable institution with grandiose threats.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah a couple of errors in a scientific document that happens to impact everyone on the planet along with emails implicating some of those scientists were " massaging " the results to prove their hypothesis.Kind of important to ensure accuracy .
They have n't grasped that .
Their too busy building their own unquestionable institution with grandiose threats .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah a couple of errors in a scientific document that happens to impact everyone on the planet along with emails implicating some of those scientists were "massaging" the results to prove their hypothesis.Kind of important to ensure accuracy.
They haven't grasped that.
Their too busy building their own unquestionable institution with grandiose threats.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040610</id>
	<title>Re:Inconclusiveness</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265370180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You mean <i>questioning</i> like this:<blockquote><div><p>Because that's exactly what the CRU data is: mystical mumbo-jumbo.</p></div></blockquote><blockquote><div><p>In general, the UN is nothing but a scam.</p></div></blockquote><blockquote><div><p>There's a fat, bold, impossible to miss, line between climate science and climate evangelism; the IPCC clambered over it a long time ago.</p></div></blockquote><p>
I might be dense, but where exactly is this <i>questioning</i>? These are some of the comments from posts that have *not* been modded down. If you like, I can provide samples of the stuff that did get modded down. They get even more outrageous and abusive. Why wouldn't they be modded down as trolls and flamebait?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean questioning like this : Because that 's exactly what the CRU data is : mystical mumbo-jumbo.In general , the UN is nothing but a scam.There 's a fat , bold , impossible to miss , line between climate science and climate evangelism ; the IPCC clambered over it a long time ago .
I might be dense , but where exactly is this questioning ?
These are some of the comments from posts that have * not * been modded down .
If you like , I can provide samples of the stuff that did get modded down .
They get even more outrageous and abusive .
Why would n't they be modded down as trolls and flamebait ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean questioning like this:Because that's exactly what the CRU data is: mystical mumbo-jumbo.In general, the UN is nothing but a scam.There's a fat, bold, impossible to miss, line between climate science and climate evangelism; the IPCC clambered over it a long time ago.
I might be dense, but where exactly is this questioning?
These are some of the comments from posts that have *not* been modded down.
If you like, I can provide samples of the stuff that did get modded down.
They get even more outrageous and abusive.
Why wouldn't they be modded down as trolls and flamebait?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31050086</id>
	<title>Re:Inconclusiveness</title>
	<author>riverat1</author>
	<datestamp>1265473920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What is the cost of not going carbon free? What is the cost if global warming reduces the wheat harvest in Kansas by 25\%?  What is the cost if sea level is up 3 feet in 2100?  What is the cost if ocean acidification reduces the seafood harvest by 50\%?  Unless you take into account the natural systems that sustain our civilization you cost calculations are bogus.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What is the cost of not going carbon free ?
What is the cost if global warming reduces the wheat harvest in Kansas by 25 \ % ?
What is the cost if sea level is up 3 feet in 2100 ?
What is the cost if ocean acidification reduces the seafood harvest by 50 \ % ?
Unless you take into account the natural systems that sustain our civilization you cost calculations are bogus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is the cost of not going carbon free?
What is the cost if global warming reduces the wheat harvest in Kansas by 25\%?
What is the cost if sea level is up 3 feet in 2100?
What is the cost if ocean acidification reduces the seafood harvest by 50\%?
Unless you take into account the natural systems that sustain our civilization you cost calculations are bogus.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31043510</id>
	<title>Re:Inconclusiveness</title>
	<author>MacDork</author>
	<datestamp>1265394420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Is mankind causing this warming? There is more uncertainty here, but signs are increasingly pointing towards the affirmative.</p></div><p>What signs? The IPCC's signs?  Those aren't worth the paper they're printed on. Climategate has proven conclusively that those people are working in an echo chamber.  All they have are computer models loaded with junk data.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The real question is, "Does the cost of adaptation outweigh the cost of going carbon free?"</p></div><p>As AC already pointed out, that presumes going 'carbon free' would change anything.  It wouldn't make any difference at all.  To suggest that it would based on 'the signs' is just evangelical preaching.  According to the cult of climate change's own estimates, Man is adding 4-8 additional gigatons of CO2 to the atmosphere each year.  Yet, they can't even account for what happens to <a href="http://www.eoearth.org/article/Carbon\_cycle#The\_.E2.80.9Cmissing.E2.80.9D\_carbon" title="eoearth.org" rel="nofollow">3 gigatons of CO2 annually.</a> [eoearth.org] </p><p>Furthermore, if we burned every single ounce of known fossil fuels on the planet tomorrow, that would approximately double the atmospheric CO2 to about 720ppm.  During the Carboniferous period, this planet witnessed an ice age with atmospheric CO2 levels on the order of 4200ppm.  That is very strong evidence that CO2 is a bit player in the climate game.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Most climate scientists say that the Earth is headed for a 4 C rise in temperature, regardless of what humans do at this point.</p></div><p>And yet, they can provide no evidence that warming would be a bad thing.  They are pretty empty handed when you ask for evidence of any sort.  Here's a nice little factoid for the Cult of Climate Change: 70000 years ago, mankind nearly went extinct... DURING AN ICE AGE.  Honestly, what do you think is going to be more hospitable to man?  Icy barren tundra or lush tropical forests?</p><p>Seriously? CO2?  They want to scare us into doing something good for the environment, and THAT is their boogeyman?  They could've gone for the mercury in coal fired plant emissions that is poisoning our seafood in the pacific.  They could have gone with the fact that <a href="http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html" title="ornl.gov" rel="nofollow">coal emissions are radioactive</a> [ornl.gov] as all fuck.</p><p>No, they go with the clear odorless gas that makes plants happy.  What a bunch of complete fucking morons... and they couldn't even get that right.  What happens to the planet when we RUN OUT of CO2?  What happens when all the little phytoplankton have entombed our precious CO2 as limestone at the bottom of the ocean. We're DOOMED without it, and CO2 is at the lowest levels seen in hundreds of millions of years. We should be HAPPY it is rising.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is mankind causing this warming ?
There is more uncertainty here , but signs are increasingly pointing towards the affirmative.What signs ?
The IPCC 's signs ?
Those are n't worth the paper they 're printed on .
Climategate has proven conclusively that those people are working in an echo chamber .
All they have are computer models loaded with junk data.The real question is , " Does the cost of adaptation outweigh the cost of going carbon free ?
" As AC already pointed out , that presumes going 'carbon free ' would change anything .
It would n't make any difference at all .
To suggest that it would based on 'the signs ' is just evangelical preaching .
According to the cult of climate change 's own estimates , Man is adding 4-8 additional gigatons of CO2 to the atmosphere each year .
Yet , they ca n't even account for what happens to 3 gigatons of CO2 annually .
[ eoearth.org ] Furthermore , if we burned every single ounce of known fossil fuels on the planet tomorrow , that would approximately double the atmospheric CO2 to about 720ppm .
During the Carboniferous period , this planet witnessed an ice age with atmospheric CO2 levels on the order of 4200ppm .
That is very strong evidence that CO2 is a bit player in the climate game.Most climate scientists say that the Earth is headed for a 4 C rise in temperature , regardless of what humans do at this point.And yet , they can provide no evidence that warming would be a bad thing .
They are pretty empty handed when you ask for evidence of any sort .
Here 's a nice little factoid for the Cult of Climate Change : 70000 years ago , mankind nearly went extinct... DURING AN ICE AGE .
Honestly , what do you think is going to be more hospitable to man ?
Icy barren tundra or lush tropical forests ? Seriously ?
CO2 ? They want to scare us into doing something good for the environment , and THAT is their boogeyman ?
They could 've gone for the mercury in coal fired plant emissions that is poisoning our seafood in the pacific .
They could have gone with the fact that coal emissions are radioactive [ ornl.gov ] as all fuck.No , they go with the clear odorless gas that makes plants happy .
What a bunch of complete fucking morons... and they could n't even get that right .
What happens to the planet when we RUN OUT of CO2 ?
What happens when all the little phytoplankton have entombed our precious CO2 as limestone at the bottom of the ocean .
We 're DOOMED without it , and CO2 is at the lowest levels seen in hundreds of millions of years .
We should be HAPPY it is rising .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is mankind causing this warming?
There is more uncertainty here, but signs are increasingly pointing towards the affirmative.What signs?
The IPCC's signs?
Those aren't worth the paper they're printed on.
Climategate has proven conclusively that those people are working in an echo chamber.
All they have are computer models loaded with junk data.The real question is, "Does the cost of adaptation outweigh the cost of going carbon free?
"As AC already pointed out, that presumes going 'carbon free' would change anything.
It wouldn't make any difference at all.
To suggest that it would based on 'the signs' is just evangelical preaching.
According to the cult of climate change's own estimates, Man is adding 4-8 additional gigatons of CO2 to the atmosphere each year.
Yet, they can't even account for what happens to 3 gigatons of CO2 annually.
[eoearth.org] Furthermore, if we burned every single ounce of known fossil fuels on the planet tomorrow, that would approximately double the atmospheric CO2 to about 720ppm.
During the Carboniferous period, this planet witnessed an ice age with atmospheric CO2 levels on the order of 4200ppm.
That is very strong evidence that CO2 is a bit player in the climate game.Most climate scientists say that the Earth is headed for a 4 C rise in temperature, regardless of what humans do at this point.And yet, they can provide no evidence that warming would be a bad thing.
They are pretty empty handed when you ask for evidence of any sort.
Here's a nice little factoid for the Cult of Climate Change: 70000 years ago, mankind nearly went extinct... DURING AN ICE AGE.
Honestly, what do you think is going to be more hospitable to man?
Icy barren tundra or lush tropical forests?Seriously?
CO2?  They want to scare us into doing something good for the environment, and THAT is their boogeyman?
They could've gone for the mercury in coal fired plant emissions that is poisoning our seafood in the pacific.
They could have gone with the fact that coal emissions are radioactive [ornl.gov] as all fuck.No, they go with the clear odorless gas that makes plants happy.
What a bunch of complete fucking morons... and they couldn't even get that right.
What happens to the planet when we RUN OUT of CO2?
What happens when all the little phytoplankton have entombed our precious CO2 as limestone at the bottom of the ocean.
We're DOOMED without it, and CO2 is at the lowest levels seen in hundreds of millions of years.
We should be HAPPY it is rising.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040324</id>
	<title>This will be devastating</title>
	<author>nohumor</author>
	<datestamp>1265368620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If India is out of IPCC, where are people going to call for tech support?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If India is out of IPCC , where are people going to call for tech support ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If India is out of IPCC, where are people going to call for tech support?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31043926</id>
	<title>Re:Inconclusiveness</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265487660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>How do you know there were warming and cooling periods before civilization?<br><br>Oh, right, science.&nbsp; But now science is telling you something else and you use what they told&nbsp; you about earlier as a refutation.&nbsp; Nice.<br><br>Mars is not getting warmer.&nbsp; "Some reports" were your own words.<br><br>It's&nbsp; not the sun.<br><br>The difference between now and before is how unbelievably fast it is happening.<br><br>Even the UN says we are only 90\% certain that we are the cause.&nbsp; But that is pretty good odds.</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>How do you know there were warming and cooling periods before civilization ? Oh , right , science.   But now science is telling you something else and you use what they told   you about earlier as a refutation.   Nice.Mars is not getting warmer.   " Some reports " were your own words.It 's   not the sun.The difference between now and before is how unbelievably fast it is happening.Even the UN says we are only 90 \ % certain that we are the cause.   But that is pretty good odds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do you know there were warming and cooling periods before civilization?Oh, right, science.  But now science is telling you something else and you use what they told  you about earlier as a refutation.  Nice.Mars is not getting warmer.  "Some reports" were your own words.It's  not the sun.The difference between now and before is how unbelievably fast it is happening.Even the UN says we are only 90\% certain that we are the cause.  But that is pretty good odds.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040300</id>
	<title>Re:A couple errors in a 3,000 page document</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265368500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>&lt;quote&gt;&lt;p&gt;... written by hundreds of individuals = "climate evangelism".  Apparently.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/quote&gt;<br><br>No, putting in primary claims which are known to be suspect from a non-peer-reviewed journal with an agenda, for the ADMITTED purpose of 'influencing policymakers'... THAT is evangelism.</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... written by hundreds of individuals = " climate evangelism " .
Apparently.No , putting in primary claims which are known to be suspect from a non-peer-reviewed journal with an agenda , for the ADMITTED purpose of 'influencing policymakers'... THAT is evangelism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... written by hundreds of individuals = "climate evangelism".
Apparently.No, putting in primary claims which are known to be suspect from a non-peer-reviewed journal with an agenda, for the ADMITTED purpose of 'influencing policymakers'... THAT is evangelism.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31041012</id>
	<title>Re:Good! The UN is nothing but a scam.</title>
	<author>Toonol</author>
	<datestamp>1265372700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>The WHO hyped up a potential pandemic to stop it becoming a pandemic. </i> <br> <br>

Much like politicians hype up the threat from Child Pornography and Terrorism.  (I think slashdotters are roundly condemning that fearmongering in another thread right now.)  Why does all our hard-learned cynicism go out the window when climate change is mentioned?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The WHO hyped up a potential pandemic to stop it becoming a pandemic .
Much like politicians hype up the threat from Child Pornography and Terrorism .
( I think slashdotters are roundly condemning that fearmongering in another thread right now .
) Why does all our hard-learned cynicism go out the window when climate change is mentioned ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The WHO hyped up a potential pandemic to stop it becoming a pandemic.
Much like politicians hype up the threat from Child Pornography and Terrorism.
(I think slashdotters are roundly condemning that fearmongering in another thread right now.
)  Why does all our hard-learned cynicism go out the window when climate change is mentioned?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31041726</id>
	<title>Re:Inconclusiveness</title>
	<author>Daniel Dvorkin</author>
	<datestamp>1265377440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Questioning global warming / climate change is a near sure way to get modded down.</i></p><p>He says, in a comment modded to +5.</p><p>Taking the pose of the Bold Rebel Speaking Truth To Power is in fact a sure way to get modded <b>up</b>, on just about any topic.  Of course it doesn't matter if it has any relation to reality.  Just start your comment out with "I'll get modded down for this, but<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..." or "This may not be politically correct of me, but<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..." and a bunch of Rugged Individualists Exactly Like You will be there to reward you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Questioning global warming / climate change is a near sure way to get modded down.He says , in a comment modded to + 5.Taking the pose of the Bold Rebel Speaking Truth To Power is in fact a sure way to get modded up , on just about any topic .
Of course it does n't matter if it has any relation to reality .
Just start your comment out with " I 'll get modded down for this , but ... " or " This may not be politically correct of me , but ... " and a bunch of Rugged Individualists Exactly Like You will be there to reward you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Questioning global warming / climate change is a near sure way to get modded down.He says, in a comment modded to +5.Taking the pose of the Bold Rebel Speaking Truth To Power is in fact a sure way to get modded up, on just about any topic.
Of course it doesn't matter if it has any relation to reality.
Just start your comment out with "I'll get modded down for this, but ..." or "This may not be politically correct of me, but ..." and a bunch of Rugged Individualists Exactly Like You will be there to reward you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040946</id>
	<title>You think like a ReThuglican Jew</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265372160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You think like a ReThuglican Jew</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You think like a ReThuglican Jew</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You think like a ReThuglican Jew</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040412</id>
	<title>Re:Good! The UN is nothing but a scam.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265369040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The WHO hyped up a potential pandemic to stop it <i>becoming</i> a pandemic. If you're informed about something (i.e. a disease) you can deal with it, inform others, get help etc. If you're in the dark, have zero information and have no idea what's afoot, the chances are you'll ignore any problems, unintentionally assist the spread of the disease and... bang. You have a catalyst. Keeping it hyped kept people vigilant</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The WHO hyped up a potential pandemic to stop it becoming a pandemic .
If you 're informed about something ( i.e .
a disease ) you can deal with it , inform others , get help etc .
If you 're in the dark , have zero information and have no idea what 's afoot , the chances are you 'll ignore any problems , unintentionally assist the spread of the disease and... bang. You have a catalyst .
Keeping it hyped kept people vigilant</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The WHO hyped up a potential pandemic to stop it becoming a pandemic.
If you're informed about something (i.e.
a disease) you can deal with it, inform others, get help etc.
If you're in the dark, have zero information and have no idea what's afoot, the chances are you'll ignore any problems, unintentionally assist the spread of the disease and... bang. You have a catalyst.
Keeping it hyped kept people vigilant</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31050016</id>
	<title>Re:Inconclusiveness</title>
	<author>riverat1</author>
	<datestamp>1265473260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have to laugh every time you guys bring up the 1970's global cooling scare.  A study of papers relevant to the subject from 1967 to 1979 found over 40 papers supportive of global warming and fewer than 10 about cooling.  And a couple of those were projecting what could happen if the levels of SO2 and other industrial aerosols continued to rise which they didn't.  The 70's global cooling scare is a story that got sensationalized by Time and Newsweek but it was not a leading idea in the scientific community.</p><p>Please see my previous <a href="http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1539286&amp;cid=31047616" title="slashdot.org">post</a> [slashdot.org] on surfacestations.org.  An analysis based on surfacestations ratings showed a slight negative bias on temperature trends in records from poorly sited weather stations.  It is perfectly acceptable to correct "primary data" if you know of quantifiable systemic errors or changes in instruments that can also be quantified.  Those are the sorts of reasons data is corrected, not because it doesn't match some predetermined conclusion.  Do you really think correcting for known errors is wrong?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to laugh every time you guys bring up the 1970 's global cooling scare .
A study of papers relevant to the subject from 1967 to 1979 found over 40 papers supportive of global warming and fewer than 10 about cooling .
And a couple of those were projecting what could happen if the levels of SO2 and other industrial aerosols continued to rise which they did n't .
The 70 's global cooling scare is a story that got sensationalized by Time and Newsweek but it was not a leading idea in the scientific community.Please see my previous post [ slashdot.org ] on surfacestations.org .
An analysis based on surfacestations ratings showed a slight negative bias on temperature trends in records from poorly sited weather stations .
It is perfectly acceptable to correct " primary data " if you know of quantifiable systemic errors or changes in instruments that can also be quantified .
Those are the sorts of reasons data is corrected , not because it does n't match some predetermined conclusion .
Do you really think correcting for known errors is wrong ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to laugh every time you guys bring up the 1970's global cooling scare.
A study of papers relevant to the subject from 1967 to 1979 found over 40 papers supportive of global warming and fewer than 10 about cooling.
And a couple of those were projecting what could happen if the levels of SO2 and other industrial aerosols continued to rise which they didn't.
The 70's global cooling scare is a story that got sensationalized by Time and Newsweek but it was not a leading idea in the scientific community.Please see my previous post [slashdot.org] on surfacestations.org.
An analysis based on surfacestations ratings showed a slight negative bias on temperature trends in records from poorly sited weather stations.
It is perfectly acceptable to correct "primary data" if you know of quantifiable systemic errors or changes in instruments that can also be quantified.
Those are the sorts of reasons data is corrected, not because it doesn't match some predetermined conclusion.
Do you really think correcting for known errors is wrong?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31044032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040376</id>
	<title>Re:Inconclusiveness</title>
	<author>Ron Bennett</author>
	<datestamp>1265368920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Speaking of "climate evangelist", there are many on Slashdot.</p><p>Questioning global warming / climate change is a near sure way to get modded down.</p><p>Many don't want to believe that the environment is far bigger than us - not to say humans don't influence it, because we do, but much of the effect is from outside forces outside of human control, in particular, the Sun.</p><p>How else does one explain global warming / cooling periods in the past long before modern civilization?</p><p>Or more immediate, how come, according to some reports, Mars may getting warmer!</p><p>How could that be<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... unless it's likely the Sun doing it - and if so, that would likely explain much of the warming* here on Earth.</p><p>* there's scientific debate on what the extent of warming there is, if any; could be staying about the same or even getting colder.</p><p>Ron</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Speaking of " climate evangelist " , there are many on Slashdot.Questioning global warming / climate change is a near sure way to get modded down.Many do n't want to believe that the environment is far bigger than us - not to say humans do n't influence it , because we do , but much of the effect is from outside forces outside of human control , in particular , the Sun.How else does one explain global warming / cooling periods in the past long before modern civilization ? Or more immediate , how come , according to some reports , Mars may getting warmer ! How could that be ... unless it 's likely the Sun doing it - and if so , that would likely explain much of the warming * here on Earth .
* there 's scientific debate on what the extent of warming there is , if any ; could be staying about the same or even getting colder.Ron</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Speaking of "climate evangelist", there are many on Slashdot.Questioning global warming / climate change is a near sure way to get modded down.Many don't want to believe that the environment is far bigger than us - not to say humans don't influence it, because we do, but much of the effect is from outside forces outside of human control, in particular, the Sun.How else does one explain global warming / cooling periods in the past long before modern civilization?Or more immediate, how come, according to some reports, Mars may getting warmer!How could that be ... unless it's likely the Sun doing it - and if so, that would likely explain much of the warming* here on Earth.
* there's scientific debate on what the extent of warming there is, if any; could be staying about the same or even getting colder.Ron</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040126</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31042166</id>
	<title>Re:A couple errors in a 3,000 page document</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265381040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nobody uses proper exception handling anymore. Le Sigh.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nobody uses proper exception handling anymore .
Le Sigh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nobody uses proper exception handling anymore.
Le Sigh.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040652</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040926</id>
	<title>Re:It isn't a fine line</title>
	<author>CorporateSuit</author>
	<datestamp>1265372040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>To give them the benefit of the doubt, it's a much finer line when you don't know the difference between a scientist and a fortune teller.</htmltext>
<tokenext>To give them the benefit of the doubt , it 's a much finer line when you do n't know the difference between a scientist and a fortune teller .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To give them the benefit of the doubt, it's a much finer line when you don't know the difference between a scientist and a fortune teller.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040824</id>
	<title>Re:Inconclusiveness</title>
	<author>SnarfQuest</author>
	<datestamp>1265371500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd like to base my decisions on information from someone who doesn't plan on making huge sums of money on the outcome. Like when Algore buys carbon credits from himself to prove how green he is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd like to base my decisions on information from someone who does n't plan on making huge sums of money on the outcome .
Like when Algore buys carbon credits from himself to prove how green he is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd like to base my decisions on information from someone who doesn't plan on making huge sums of money on the outcome.
Like when Algore buys carbon credits from himself to prove how green he is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040126</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040542</id>
	<title>Re:Inconclusiveness</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1265369820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But you do a serious disservice to your cause when you quote opinions from a single, unreliable, non-peer reviews source, or when you throw out original source data and only publish your "massaged" results. In fact, it makes it look like you have started out with a preconceived notion of what the results should be, then cherry-picked the data to match your predicted results. Although the scientific method does involve making a hypothesis and then testing it, it requires the tests be fair (and reproducible). In short, these cowboys straying from rigorous scientific method have done a lot of harm to the very cause they were trying to promote!</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But you do a serious disservice to your cause when you quote opinions from a single , unreliable , non-peer reviews source , or when you throw out original source data and only publish your " massaged " results .
In fact , it makes it look like you have started out with a preconceived notion of what the results should be , then cherry-picked the data to match your predicted results .
Although the scientific method does involve making a hypothesis and then testing it , it requires the tests be fair ( and reproducible ) .
In short , these cowboys straying from rigorous scientific method have done a lot of harm to the very cause they were trying to promote !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But you do a serious disservice to your cause when you quote opinions from a single, unreliable, non-peer reviews source, or when you throw out original source data and only publish your "massaged" results.
In fact, it makes it look like you have started out with a preconceived notion of what the results should be, then cherry-picked the data to match your predicted results.
Although the scientific method does involve making a hypothesis and then testing it, it requires the tests be fair (and reproducible).
In short, these cowboys straying from rigorous scientific method have done a lot of harm to the very cause they were trying to promote!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040126</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31044900</id>
	<title>Re:Obligatory</title>
	<author>(arg!)Styopa</author>
	<datestamp>1265463180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you just described Congress.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you just described Congress .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you just described Congress.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040098</id>
	<title>Good! The UN is nothing but a scam.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265367600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is good news. I hope more countries follow their approach.</p><p>In general, the UN is nothing but a scam. It has no accountability, and due to how it panders to politicians and their whims, it should have absolutely no involvement in science.</p><p>Frankly, people are fed up with these supranational organizations that do nothing but cause problems. In this case, you have the UN hyping what is perhaps the biggest scientific fraud of all time. Then you have other organizations, like the WHO, hyping false "pandemics" again and again. Then there are all the copyright and IP shenanigans with the WTO. Plus the crap the IMF and World Bank pull.</p><p>To hell with those organizations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is good news .
I hope more countries follow their approach.In general , the UN is nothing but a scam .
It has no accountability , and due to how it panders to politicians and their whims , it should have absolutely no involvement in science.Frankly , people are fed up with these supranational organizations that do nothing but cause problems .
In this case , you have the UN hyping what is perhaps the biggest scientific fraud of all time .
Then you have other organizations , like the WHO , hyping false " pandemics " again and again .
Then there are all the copyright and IP shenanigans with the WTO .
Plus the crap the IMF and World Bank pull.To hell with those organizations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is good news.
I hope more countries follow their approach.In general, the UN is nothing but a scam.
It has no accountability, and due to how it panders to politicians and their whims, it should have absolutely no involvement in science.Frankly, people are fed up with these supranational organizations that do nothing but cause problems.
In this case, you have the UN hyping what is perhaps the biggest scientific fraud of all time.
Then you have other organizations, like the WHO, hyping false "pandemics" again and again.
Then there are all the copyright and IP shenanigans with the WTO.
Plus the crap the IMF and World Bank pull.To hell with those organizations.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31041886</id>
	<title>Re:Inconclusiveness</title>
	<author>z-j-y</author>
	<datestamp>1265378820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I want to understand why this is modded "insightful"? It's basically "you are wrong and stupid" without providing any further explanation. Name calling isn't "insight".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I want to understand why this is modded " insightful " ?
It 's basically " you are wrong and stupid " without providing any further explanation .
Name calling is n't " insight " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I want to understand why this is modded "insightful"?
It's basically "you are wrong and stupid" without providing any further explanation.
Name calling isn't "insight".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040976</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040042</id>
	<title>A couple errors in a 3,000 page document</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265367360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... written by hundreds of individuals = "climate evangelism".  Apparently.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... written by hundreds of individuals = " climate evangelism " .
Apparently .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... written by hundreds of individuals = "climate evangelism".
Apparently.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31043644</id>
	<title>Re:Inconclusiveness</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265396520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>[quote]not to say humans don't influence it, because we do, but much of the effect is from outside forces outside of human control, in particular, the Sun.[/quote}</p><p>Nice to see this on a modded up post. Years ago I was attacked with no prejeduce for the fact that the sun influnces climate. the arguement was that the effect of the sun is minimal.</p><p>Of course the sun is the #1 contributor of our climate.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ quote ] not to say humans do n't influence it , because we do , but much of the effect is from outside forces outside of human control , in particular , the Sun .
[ /quote } Nice to see this on a modded up post .
Years ago I was attacked with no prejeduce for the fact that the sun influnces climate .
the arguement was that the effect of the sun is minimal.Of course the sun is the # 1 contributor of our climate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[quote]not to say humans don't influence it, because we do, but much of the effect is from outside forces outside of human control, in particular, the Sun.
[/quote}Nice to see this on a modded up post.
Years ago I was attacked with no prejeduce for the fact that the sun influnces climate.
the arguement was that the effect of the sun is minimal.Of course the sun is the #1 contributor of our climate.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040982</id>
	<title>Re:Good! The UN is nothing but a scam.</title>
	<author>Kral\_Blbec</author>
	<datestamp>1265372460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Other than a few posters in a few public restrooms, I don't know anyone that took any additional precautions during the swine flu scare. It was something that a small \% of the population panicked about and bought masks, and everyone else went along just washing their hands like they usually do.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Other than a few posters in a few public restrooms , I do n't know anyone that took any additional precautions during the swine flu scare .
It was something that a small \ % of the population panicked about and bought masks , and everyone else went along just washing their hands like they usually do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Other than a few posters in a few public restrooms, I don't know anyone that took any additional precautions during the swine flu scare.
It was something that a small \% of the population panicked about and bought masks, and everyone else went along just washing their hands like they usually do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31042020</id>
	<title>Re:Inconclusiveness</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265380020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok, you are just so full of shit.  I had to stop reading.</p><p>"Humanity is the most adaptable species on the planet."<br>Humans don't adapt.  We change our environment to suit us.</p><p>"The real question is, 'Does the cost of adaptation outweigh the cost of going carbon free?'"<br>This question mandates "going carbon free" would fix anything.</p><p>How exactly do you explain the Little Ice Age (google it) in the 1700s?  Were we too "carbon free" so the Earth had to freeze us?  But now we are too dependent on "carbon" so it's going to burn us up?</p><p>You, sir, need to get a fucking clue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , you are just so full of shit .
I had to stop reading .
" Humanity is the most adaptable species on the planet .
" Humans do n't adapt .
We change our environment to suit us .
" The real question is , 'Does the cost of adaptation outweigh the cost of going carbon free ?
' " This question mandates " going carbon free " would fix anything.How exactly do you explain the Little Ice Age ( google it ) in the 1700s ?
Were we too " carbon free " so the Earth had to freeze us ?
But now we are too dependent on " carbon " so it 's going to burn us up ? You , sir , need to get a fucking clue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, you are just so full of shit.
I had to stop reading.
"Humanity is the most adaptable species on the planet.
"Humans don't adapt.
We change our environment to suit us.
"The real question is, 'Does the cost of adaptation outweigh the cost of going carbon free?
'"This question mandates "going carbon free" would fix anything.How exactly do you explain the Little Ice Age (google it) in the 1700s?
Were we too "carbon free" so the Earth had to freeze us?
But now we are too dependent on "carbon" so it's going to burn us up?You, sir, need to get a fucking clue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31041326</id>
	<title>Re:Inconclusiveness</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265374680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's examine two hypothesis:</p><ol> <li>We mod you down because we've been indoctrinated into a vast left-wing conspiracy to cripple the economy on the pretext of saving the environment; or</li><li>we mod you down because you're wrong, and every reputable scientist disagrees with you</li></ol><p>Occam's razor shows that we should go with #2 until you can support your opposition to 50 years of climate research with something more substantial than the latest <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/10/global-warming-on-mars/" title="realclimate.org" rel="nofollow">easily debunked</a> [realclimate.org] talking point.</p><p>You're not entitled to your own interpretation of the facts. Climate change is real. Tax cuts aren't an economic panacea. Obama's health care plan will not kill people. The Great Depression was not prolonged by the New Deal. Evolution by natural selection, not intelligent design, explains the complexity of life.</p><p>If you differ about policy choices within the framework of well-established facts, great. We can talk about that. But if instead, you obstinately deny any facet of reality that's hostile to your theory, then there no choice left but to moderate you into oblivion and make room for people mature enough to face the world as it is, not as they think it ought to be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's examine two hypothesis : We mod you down because we 've been indoctrinated into a vast left-wing conspiracy to cripple the economy on the pretext of saving the environment ; orwe mod you down because you 're wrong , and every reputable scientist disagrees with youOccam 's razor shows that we should go with # 2 until you can support your opposition to 50 years of climate research with something more substantial than the latest easily debunked [ realclimate.org ] talking point.You 're not entitled to your own interpretation of the facts .
Climate change is real .
Tax cuts are n't an economic panacea .
Obama 's health care plan will not kill people .
The Great Depression was not prolonged by the New Deal .
Evolution by natural selection , not intelligent design , explains the complexity of life.If you differ about policy choices within the framework of well-established facts , great .
We can talk about that .
But if instead , you obstinately deny any facet of reality that 's hostile to your theory , then there no choice left but to moderate you into oblivion and make room for people mature enough to face the world as it is , not as they think it ought to be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's examine two hypothesis: We mod you down because we've been indoctrinated into a vast left-wing conspiracy to cripple the economy on the pretext of saving the environment; orwe mod you down because you're wrong, and every reputable scientist disagrees with youOccam's razor shows that we should go with #2 until you can support your opposition to 50 years of climate research with something more substantial than the latest easily debunked [realclimate.org] talking point.You're not entitled to your own interpretation of the facts.
Climate change is real.
Tax cuts aren't an economic panacea.
Obama's health care plan will not kill people.
The Great Depression was not prolonged by the New Deal.
Evolution by natural selection, not intelligent design, explains the complexity of life.If you differ about policy choices within the framework of well-established facts, great.
We can talk about that.
But if instead, you obstinately deny any facet of reality that's hostile to your theory, then there no choice left but to moderate you into oblivion and make room for people mature enough to face the world as it is, not as they think it ought to be.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040078</id>
	<title>Don't be fooled</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265367540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>India can not keep developing the way it has, and reduce impact on the Climate.<br>How about the can complain when the water most people beth.sime and drink isn't dangerous.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>India can not keep developing the way it has , and reduce impact on the Climate.How about the can complain when the water most people beth.sime and drink is n't dangerous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>India can not keep developing the way it has, and reduce impact on the Climate.How about the can complain when the water most people beth.sime and drink isn't dangerous.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040112</id>
	<title>Obligatory</title>
	<author>emudoug42</author>
	<datestamp>1265367660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, well I'm gonna make my own climate change group! With blackjack! And hookers! Actually, forget the climate change group...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , well I 'm gon na make my own climate change group !
With blackjack !
And hookers !
Actually , forget the climate change group.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, well I'm gonna make my own climate change group!
With blackjack!
And hookers!
Actually, forget the climate change group...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31041700</id>
	<title>Re:Inconclusiveness</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265377380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The glaciers have been receding for the past 20K years.  Ancient man must have had some really good BBQs to create all that CO2.</p><p>Me naive, I fully believe that "Carbon emissions" and "Air pollution" are one in the same and the battles have been going on for a least the hundred years.  You should have seen the oil slick on the Ohio River in the 1950's.  LOF baby.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The glaciers have been receding for the past 20K years .
Ancient man must have had some really good BBQs to create all that CO2.Me naive , I fully believe that " Carbon emissions " and " Air pollution " are one in the same and the battles have been going on for a least the hundred years .
You should have seen the oil slick on the Ohio River in the 1950 's .
LOF baby .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The glaciers have been receding for the past 20K years.
Ancient man must have had some really good BBQs to create all that CO2.Me naive, I fully believe that "Carbon emissions" and "Air pollution" are one in the same and the battles have been going on for a least the hundred years.
You should have seen the oil slick on the Ohio River in the 1950's.
LOF baby.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040976</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040374</id>
	<title>Re:Obligatory</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265368860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i'm in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i 'm in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i'm in.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040126</id>
	<title>Inconclusiveness</title>
	<author>swanzilla</author>
	<datestamp>1265367720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>'There is a fine line between climate science and climate evangelism,' Ramesh said. 'I am for climate science.'</p></div><p>That was nicely worded.  The line is not very fine in many cases, however.  The biggest difference between a climate evangelist (read: Al Gore) and a scientist is the presence of uncertainty in reporting the state of the climate.  It is hard to be preachy when data remains inconclusive.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>'There is a fine line between climate science and climate evangelism, ' Ramesh said .
'I am for climate science .
'That was nicely worded .
The line is not very fine in many cases , however .
The biggest difference between a climate evangelist ( read : Al Gore ) and a scientist is the presence of uncertainty in reporting the state of the climate .
It is hard to be preachy when data remains inconclusive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'There is a fine line between climate science and climate evangelism,' Ramesh said.
'I am for climate science.
'That was nicely worded.
The line is not very fine in many cases, however.
The biggest difference between a climate evangelist (read: Al Gore) and a scientist is the presence of uncertainty in reporting the state of the climate.
It is hard to be preachy when data remains inconclusive.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31042602</id>
	<title>Re:Good! The UN is nothing but a scam.</title>
	<author>Xest</author>
	<datestamp>1265384640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The head of the WHO, Margaret Chan, claimed with regards to Swine flu:</p><p>"After all it really is all of humanity that is under threat during a pandemic."</p><p>There's hyping it up, then there's sheer idiocy like this. It's clear that swine flu wasn't a threat to the whole of humanity however you cut it, because only a small proportion of people were dying to it even when she said this before we had vaccines etc. It wasn't even the case that the whole of humanity was going to catch it if that's what she meant also.</p><p>I'm all for awareness, but come on, this level of scaremongering is horrendous to the point she should've stepped down or been sacked over it. I agree informing is good, I even agree that some degree of hyping up of problems isn't necessarily a bad thing if it isn't abused and makes people pay attention, but this? really?</p><p>The reaction by the WHO regarding swine flu wasn't just that of an organisation trying to manage the situation sensibly and with a level head, it was that of a bunch of beuracrats getting hard-ons over the idea that finally it was their department in the spotlight and they just got carried away with it and came out with ludicrous verbal turd like the above quote by Chan.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The head of the WHO , Margaret Chan , claimed with regards to Swine flu : " After all it really is all of humanity that is under threat during a pandemic .
" There 's hyping it up , then there 's sheer idiocy like this .
It 's clear that swine flu was n't a threat to the whole of humanity however you cut it , because only a small proportion of people were dying to it even when she said this before we had vaccines etc .
It was n't even the case that the whole of humanity was going to catch it if that 's what she meant also.I 'm all for awareness , but come on , this level of scaremongering is horrendous to the point she should 've stepped down or been sacked over it .
I agree informing is good , I even agree that some degree of hyping up of problems is n't necessarily a bad thing if it is n't abused and makes people pay attention , but this ?
really ? The reaction by the WHO regarding swine flu was n't just that of an organisation trying to manage the situation sensibly and with a level head , it was that of a bunch of beuracrats getting hard-ons over the idea that finally it was their department in the spotlight and they just got carried away with it and came out with ludicrous verbal turd like the above quote by Chan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The head of the WHO, Margaret Chan, claimed with regards to Swine flu:"After all it really is all of humanity that is under threat during a pandemic.
"There's hyping it up, then there's sheer idiocy like this.
It's clear that swine flu wasn't a threat to the whole of humanity however you cut it, because only a small proportion of people were dying to it even when she said this before we had vaccines etc.
It wasn't even the case that the whole of humanity was going to catch it if that's what she meant also.I'm all for awareness, but come on, this level of scaremongering is horrendous to the point she should've stepped down or been sacked over it.
I agree informing is good, I even agree that some degree of hyping up of problems isn't necessarily a bad thing if it isn't abused and makes people pay attention, but this?
really?The reaction by the WHO regarding swine flu wasn't just that of an organisation trying to manage the situation sensibly and with a level head, it was that of a bunch of beuracrats getting hard-ons over the idea that finally it was their department in the spotlight and they just got carried away with it and came out with ludicrous verbal turd like the above quote by Chan.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31062830</id>
	<title>Re:A couple errors in a 3,000 page document</title>
	<author>e2d2</author>
	<datestamp>1265656860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>See this brings up the whole point - though doth protest too much sir. One would think that science impacting us all could be discussed and not shoved down our throats. But go ahead and continue, you're helping your cause I'm sure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>See this brings up the whole point - though doth protest too much sir .
One would think that science impacting us all could be discussed and not shoved down our throats .
But go ahead and continue , you 're helping your cause I 'm sure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See this brings up the whole point - though doth protest too much sir.
One would think that science impacting us all could be discussed and not shoved down our throats.
But go ahead and continue, you're helping your cause I'm sure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31041568</id>
	<title>Re:Good! The UN is nothing but a scam.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265376480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wait... isn't that what Bush did with terrorism?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait... is n't that what Bush did with terrorism ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait... isn't that what Bush did with terrorism?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31042776</id>
	<title>math error</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1265386380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>You could have a billion line program that is perfect except for one = having been mistyped as a ! and despite having everything right but that one character the program could be completely useless.</i></p><p>No, no, no, it's a math error.  That was supposed to be a 1 + X not 1 - X.  So now the sun will not burst into a supernova.</p><p>Sent from the SPL</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You could have a billion line program that is perfect except for one = having been mistyped as a !
and despite having everything right but that one character the program could be completely useless.No , no , no , it 's a math error .
That was supposed to be a 1 + X not 1 - X. So now the sun will not burst into a supernova.Sent from the SPL Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You could have a billion line program that is perfect except for one = having been mistyped as a !
and despite having everything right but that one character the program could be completely useless.No, no, no, it's a math error.
That was supposed to be a 1 + X not 1 - X.  So now the sun will not burst into a supernova.Sent from the SPL

Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040652</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31044684</id>
	<title>Re:Inconclusiveness</title>
	<author>Lars512</author>
	<datestamp>1265459280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It certainty of the data depends on the question you're trying to answer.  Is the earth warming?  Absolutely.  We have numerous bits of evidence from ice cores, tree rings, and soil samples that confirm that the earth's climate is warmer now than it was before.  Is mankind causing this warming?  There is more uncertainty here, but signs are increasingly pointing towards the affirmative.</p><p>The real question is, "Does the cost of adaptation outweigh the cost of going carbon free?"  Humanity is the most adaptable species on the planet.  It may very well be the case that the cost of adapting to climate change outweighs the cost of stopping climate change. </p></div><p>I don't doubt that humans will survive no matter the climate change which occurs. When you talk about comparing cost, we should be clear that there's no monetary value we can put on the possible outcomes. On the one hand, if changing climate patterns mean that species become extinct, arable land is lost, millions don't escape poverty, suffering increases, many die. If we halt climate change, but in doing so slightly increase suffering in first-world countries, reduce resources in third-world countries, millions don't escape poverty, suffering still increases, many die. Let's compare. The third world, hard to say which is better. The first world would probably be better off doing nothing, in terms of limiting suffering and keeping people's standard of living. As for species dying? What price do we assign? It's a question of ideology, of philosophy, the price we put on such things, and thus which is the better course. Let's not pretend otherwise.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It certainty of the data depends on the question you 're trying to answer .
Is the earth warming ?
Absolutely. We have numerous bits of evidence from ice cores , tree rings , and soil samples that confirm that the earth 's climate is warmer now than it was before .
Is mankind causing this warming ?
There is more uncertainty here , but signs are increasingly pointing towards the affirmative.The real question is , " Does the cost of adaptation outweigh the cost of going carbon free ?
" Humanity is the most adaptable species on the planet .
It may very well be the case that the cost of adapting to climate change outweighs the cost of stopping climate change .
I do n't doubt that humans will survive no matter the climate change which occurs .
When you talk about comparing cost , we should be clear that there 's no monetary value we can put on the possible outcomes .
On the one hand , if changing climate patterns mean that species become extinct , arable land is lost , millions do n't escape poverty , suffering increases , many die .
If we halt climate change , but in doing so slightly increase suffering in first-world countries , reduce resources in third-world countries , millions do n't escape poverty , suffering still increases , many die .
Let 's compare .
The third world , hard to say which is better .
The first world would probably be better off doing nothing , in terms of limiting suffering and keeping people 's standard of living .
As for species dying ?
What price do we assign ?
It 's a question of ideology , of philosophy , the price we put on such things , and thus which is the better course .
Let 's not pretend otherwise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It certainty of the data depends on the question you're trying to answer.
Is the earth warming?
Absolutely.  We have numerous bits of evidence from ice cores, tree rings, and soil samples that confirm that the earth's climate is warmer now than it was before.
Is mankind causing this warming?
There is more uncertainty here, but signs are increasingly pointing towards the affirmative.The real question is, "Does the cost of adaptation outweigh the cost of going carbon free?
"  Humanity is the most adaptable species on the planet.
It may very well be the case that the cost of adapting to climate change outweighs the cost of stopping climate change.
I don't doubt that humans will survive no matter the climate change which occurs.
When you talk about comparing cost, we should be clear that there's no monetary value we can put on the possible outcomes.
On the one hand, if changing climate patterns mean that species become extinct, arable land is lost, millions don't escape poverty, suffering increases, many die.
If we halt climate change, but in doing so slightly increase suffering in first-world countries, reduce resources in third-world countries, millions don't escape poverty, suffering still increases, many die.
Let's compare.
The third world, hard to say which is better.
The first world would probably be better off doing nothing, in terms of limiting suffering and keeping people's standard of living.
As for species dying?
What price do we assign?
It's a question of ideology, of philosophy, the price we put on such things, and thus which is the better course.
Let's not pretend otherwise.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040812</id>
	<title>Re:Inconclusiveness</title>
	<author>stms</author>
	<datestamp>1265371380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> It is hard to be preachy when data remains inconclusive.</p></div><p>What's hard about it, religion has been doing it since the dawn of known time.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is hard to be preachy when data remains inconclusive.What 's hard about it , religion has been doing it since the dawn of known time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> It is hard to be preachy when data remains inconclusive.What's hard about it, religion has been doing it since the dawn of known time.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040126</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040976</id>
	<title>Re:Inconclusiveness</title>
	<author>Jah-Wren Ryel</author>
	<datestamp>1265372400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How else does one explain global warming / cooling periods in the past long before modern civilization?</p></div><p>Are you seriously trying to use the "climates change through the natural course of events therefor man's activities can not change the climate" argument?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Or more immediate, how come, according to some reports, Mars may getting warmer!</p></div><p>Wow.  Mars is getting warmer and there are no men on Mars.  Ergo, the full extent of global warming on Earth has nothing to do with man.</p><p>Apparently you really are that naive.  And then you whine about getting modded down - have you ever considered that you aren't being modded down for heresy but rather just for failing logic 101?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How else does one explain global warming / cooling periods in the past long before modern civilization ? Are you seriously trying to use the " climates change through the natural course of events therefor man 's activities can not change the climate " argument ? Or more immediate , how come , according to some reports , Mars may getting warmer ! Wow .
Mars is getting warmer and there are no men on Mars .
Ergo , the full extent of global warming on Earth has nothing to do with man.Apparently you really are that naive .
And then you whine about getting modded down - have you ever considered that you are n't being modded down for heresy but rather just for failing logic 101 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How else does one explain global warming / cooling periods in the past long before modern civilization?Are you seriously trying to use the "climates change through the natural course of events therefor man's activities can not change the climate" argument?Or more immediate, how come, according to some reports, Mars may getting warmer!Wow.
Mars is getting warmer and there are no men on Mars.
Ergo, the full extent of global warming on Earth has nothing to do with man.Apparently you really are that naive.
And then you whine about getting modded down - have you ever considered that you aren't being modded down for heresy but rather just for failing logic 101?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31043358</id>
	<title>Re:Inconclusiveness</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1265392080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The real question is, "Does the cost of adaptation outweigh the cost of going carbon free?" Humanity is the most adaptable species on the planet. It may very well be the case that the cost of adapting to climate change outweighs the cost of stopping climate change.</i></p><p>No, the real question is does one group of people have the right to force others to change their life style?  And right now if climate change is real then that's exactly what the population of the US is telling everyone else to do.  Of course China and Europe can also be blamed.  China because it became the largest emitter of Greenhouse Gases in 2008 or 2009 and the EU because Malaysia became the third largest emitter.  Now some may ask why blame Europeans for that.  That's because Malaysians have been burning and cutting down their rainforest so they can plant palm oil plantations which they then use to make biofuels which is sold to Europe.  All Europe did was shift where GHGs were produced.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The real question is , " Does the cost of adaptation outweigh the cost of going carbon free ?
" Humanity is the most adaptable species on the planet .
It may very well be the case that the cost of adapting to climate change outweighs the cost of stopping climate change.No , the real question is does one group of people have the right to force others to change their life style ?
And right now if climate change is real then that 's exactly what the population of the US is telling everyone else to do .
Of course China and Europe can also be blamed .
China because it became the largest emitter of Greenhouse Gases in 2008 or 2009 and the EU because Malaysia became the third largest emitter .
Now some may ask why blame Europeans for that .
That 's because Malaysians have been burning and cutting down their rainforest so they can plant palm oil plantations which they then use to make biofuels which is sold to Europe .
All Europe did was shift where GHGs were produced .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real question is, "Does the cost of adaptation outweigh the cost of going carbon free?
" Humanity is the most adaptable species on the planet.
It may very well be the case that the cost of adapting to climate change outweighs the cost of stopping climate change.No, the real question is does one group of people have the right to force others to change their life style?
And right now if climate change is real then that's exactly what the population of the US is telling everyone else to do.
Of course China and Europe can also be blamed.
China because it became the largest emitter of Greenhouse Gases in 2008 or 2009 and the EU because Malaysia became the third largest emitter.
Now some may ask why blame Europeans for that.
That's because Malaysians have been burning and cutting down their rainforest so they can plant palm oil plantations which they then use to make biofuels which is sold to Europe.
All Europe did was shift where GHGs were produced.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31041182</id>
	<title>Re:Inconclusiveness</title>
	<author>Rei</author>
	<datestamp>1265373720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>One major volcanic eruption would affect global climate more than any variance in solar activity, and much more than any supposed "man-made climate change" with drastic amounts of particulate matter being expelled into the atmosphere that utterly dwarf the impact of all of us.</i></p><p>If by that you mean supervolcanic eruption, yes.<br>If by that you mean major but ordinary volcanic eruption, no.  Not even close.  Even the worst conventional eruptions cause a couple year blip.  And it's only temporary masking of the greenhouse effect, not actual reduction of the greenhouse effect.</p><p>Oh, and for the record: volcanoes primarily cool by ejecting SOx into the upper atmosphere, not PM.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One major volcanic eruption would affect global climate more than any variance in solar activity , and much more than any supposed " man-made climate change " with drastic amounts of particulate matter being expelled into the atmosphere that utterly dwarf the impact of all of us.If by that you mean supervolcanic eruption , yes.If by that you mean major but ordinary volcanic eruption , no .
Not even close .
Even the worst conventional eruptions cause a couple year blip .
And it 's only temporary masking of the greenhouse effect , not actual reduction of the greenhouse effect.Oh , and for the record : volcanoes primarily cool by ejecting SOx into the upper atmosphere , not PM .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One major volcanic eruption would affect global climate more than any variance in solar activity, and much more than any supposed "man-made climate change" with drastic amounts of particulate matter being expelled into the atmosphere that utterly dwarf the impact of all of us.If by that you mean supervolcanic eruption, yes.If by that you mean major but ordinary volcanic eruption, no.
Not even close.
Even the worst conventional eruptions cause a couple year blip.
And it's only temporary masking of the greenhouse effect, not actual reduction of the greenhouse effect.Oh, and for the record: volcanoes primarily cool by ejecting SOx into the upper atmosphere, not PM.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040456</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds like a smart man.</title>
	<author>interkin3tic</author>
	<datestamp>1265369220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I wish we had more people like that in government in the US.</p></div><p>I think we have plenty of whores willing to ignore scientific advice and general interest to cater to powerful economic interests in the US government.</p><p>In fact, we have a name for them: politicians.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wish we had more people like that in government in the US.I think we have plenty of whores willing to ignore scientific advice and general interest to cater to powerful economic interests in the US government.In fact , we have a name for them : politicians .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wish we had more people like that in government in the US.I think we have plenty of whores willing to ignore scientific advice and general interest to cater to powerful economic interests in the US government.In fact, we have a name for them: politicians.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31041046</id>
	<title>Worst case</title>
	<author>garyisabusyguy</author>
	<datestamp>1265372820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>US acquires Canada, lets Mexico manage the 'former' US states of the southwest</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>US acquires Canada , lets Mexico manage the 'former ' US states of the southwest</tokentext>
<sentencetext>US acquires Canada, lets Mexico manage the 'former' US states of the southwest</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31041314</id>
	<title>Re:Inconclusiveness</title>
	<author>Cyberax</author>
	<datestamp>1265374620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"How could that be<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... unless it's likely the Sun doing it - and if so, that would likely explain much of the warming* here on Earth."</p><p>How come the current year is tied for the warmest on records while we're in a deep solar minimum?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" How could that be ... unless it 's likely the Sun doing it - and if so , that would likely explain much of the warming * here on Earth .
" How come the current year is tied for the warmest on records while we 're in a deep solar minimum ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"How could that be ... unless it's likely the Sun doing it - and if so, that would likely explain much of the warming* here on Earth.
"How come the current year is tied for the warmest on records while we're in a deep solar minimum?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040376</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31042380</id>
	<title>Re:Inconclusiveness</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265382480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Ergo, the full extent of global warming on Earth has nothing to do with man.</p></div><p>he specifically said that man *does* affect the climate.  you are deliberately ignoring an important part of the GP.  this is exactly why we cannot have honest discussions on this topic today.  it is clearly apparent that at least some portion of the warming on earth is outside of human control, and when anyone brings that up someone like you has to jump in and point out how wrong it is to assume that we have no effect at all, even though nobody has assumed that or even argued that within the discussion you are sabotaging.</p><p>if you are going to call someone else out on 'failing logic 101' you would be better served by not basing your entire statement on a blatantly obvious straw man argument.  if you're going to refute someone, stick to refuting things they actually said.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ergo , the full extent of global warming on Earth has nothing to do with man.he specifically said that man * does * affect the climate .
you are deliberately ignoring an important part of the GP .
this is exactly why we can not have honest discussions on this topic today .
it is clearly apparent that at least some portion of the warming on earth is outside of human control , and when anyone brings that up someone like you has to jump in and point out how wrong it is to assume that we have no effect at all , even though nobody has assumed that or even argued that within the discussion you are sabotaging.if you are going to call someone else out on 'failing logic 101 ' you would be better served by not basing your entire statement on a blatantly obvious straw man argument .
if you 're going to refute someone , stick to refuting things they actually said .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ergo, the full extent of global warming on Earth has nothing to do with man.he specifically said that man *does* affect the climate.
you are deliberately ignoring an important part of the GP.
this is exactly why we cannot have honest discussions on this topic today.
it is clearly apparent that at least some portion of the warming on earth is outside of human control, and when anyone brings that up someone like you has to jump in and point out how wrong it is to assume that we have no effect at all, even though nobody has assumed that or even argued that within the discussion you are sabotaging.if you are going to call someone else out on 'failing logic 101' you would be better served by not basing your entire statement on a blatantly obvious straw man argument.
if you're going to refute someone, stick to refuting things they actually said.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040976</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31044920</id>
	<title>Re:Inconclusiveness</title>
	<author>mpe</author>
	<datestamp>1265463720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>It certainty of the data depends on the question you're trying to answer. Is the earth warming? Absolutely. We have numerous bits of evidence from ice cores, tree rings, and soil samples that confirm that the earth's climate is warmer now than it was before.</i> <br> <br>Depending which "before" you choose... A different choice and you can state that "The Earth's climate is cooler now than it was before."<br> <br> <i>Most climate scientists say that the Earth is headed for a 4 C rise in temperature, regardless of what humans do at this point. To put that into context, 4 C was the worst case scenario being considered during the 1990s.</i> <br> <br>In a different context this would be about the temperature of a period known as "The Holocene climatic optimum"</htmltext>
<tokenext>It certainty of the data depends on the question you 're trying to answer .
Is the earth warming ?
Absolutely. We have numerous bits of evidence from ice cores , tree rings , and soil samples that confirm that the earth 's climate is warmer now than it was before .
Depending which " before " you choose... A different choice and you can state that " The Earth 's climate is cooler now than it was before .
" Most climate scientists say that the Earth is headed for a 4 C rise in temperature , regardless of what humans do at this point .
To put that into context , 4 C was the worst case scenario being considered during the 1990s .
In a different context this would be about the temperature of a period known as " The Holocene climatic optimum "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It certainty of the data depends on the question you're trying to answer.
Is the earth warming?
Absolutely. We have numerous bits of evidence from ice cores, tree rings, and soil samples that confirm that the earth's climate is warmer now than it was before.
Depending which "before" you choose... A different choice and you can state that "The Earth's climate is cooler now than it was before.
"  Most climate scientists say that the Earth is headed for a 4 C rise in temperature, regardless of what humans do at this point.
To put that into context, 4 C was the worst case scenario being considered during the 1990s.
In a different context this would be about the temperature of a period known as "The Holocene climatic optimum"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040652</id>
	<title>Re:A couple errors in a 3,000 page document</title>
	<author>Duradin</author>
	<datestamp>1265370360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You could have a billion line program that is perfect except for one = having been mistyped as a ! and despite having everything right but that one character the program could be completely useless.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You could have a billion line program that is perfect except for one = having been mistyped as a !
and despite having everything right but that one character the program could be completely useless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You could have a billion line program that is perfect except for one = having been mistyped as a !
and despite having everything right but that one character the program could be completely useless.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31042974</id>
	<title>Re:A couple errors in a 3,000 page document</title>
	<author>Skidborg</author>
	<datestamp>1265388240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Correction: A couple <b>detected</b> errors in a 3000 page document.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Correction : A couple detected errors in a 3000 page document .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Correction: A couple detected errors in a 3000 page document.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040488</id>
	<title>Re:A couple errors in a 3,000 page document</title>
	<author>Rei</author>
	<datestamp>1265369340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Yeah a couple of errors in a scientific document that happens to impact everyone on the planet</i></p><p>0.2 pages erroneous.<br>2999.8 pages not erroneous.</p><p>What a travesty!</p><p>And yes, some science does affect the entire planet, there's no getting around that.  But saying "I need complete perfection or we never act on anything", you'll never act on anything.</p><p><i>along with emails implicating some of those scientists were "massaging" the results to prove their hypothesis.</i></p><p>Oh please.  The decade-old emails involving two scientists, one quoted wildly out of context (the "decline" issue mentioned by Mann -- the paper the data came from *explicitly stated* that the data was invalid after that point, and what idiot would think that dendrochronology data trumps thermometer data anyway?) and the other trying to avoid having to hand over data to a bunch of amateurs who he viewed as deliberately trying to waste his time by filing spurious requests, and one of whom had previously tried to get his partner arrested?</p><p>You're not even barking up the wrong tree; you're barking up a paper cutout of a tree.</p><p><i>Kind of important to ensure accuracy.</i></p><p>I can thus only assume that if you wrote a 3,000 page document, there wouldn't be a single error in it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah a couple of errors in a scientific document that happens to impact everyone on the planet0.2 pages erroneous.2999.8 pages not erroneous.What a travesty ! And yes , some science does affect the entire planet , there 's no getting around that .
But saying " I need complete perfection or we never act on anything " , you 'll never act on anything.along with emails implicating some of those scientists were " massaging " the results to prove their hypothesis.Oh please .
The decade-old emails involving two scientists , one quoted wildly out of context ( the " decline " issue mentioned by Mann -- the paper the data came from * explicitly stated * that the data was invalid after that point , and what idiot would think that dendrochronology data trumps thermometer data anyway ?
) and the other trying to avoid having to hand over data to a bunch of amateurs who he viewed as deliberately trying to waste his time by filing spurious requests , and one of whom had previously tried to get his partner arrested ? You 're not even barking up the wrong tree ; you 're barking up a paper cutout of a tree.Kind of important to ensure accuracy.I can thus only assume that if you wrote a 3,000 page document , there would n't be a single error in it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah a couple of errors in a scientific document that happens to impact everyone on the planet0.2 pages erroneous.2999.8 pages not erroneous.What a travesty!And yes, some science does affect the entire planet, there's no getting around that.
But saying "I need complete perfection or we never act on anything", you'll never act on anything.along with emails implicating some of those scientists were "massaging" the results to prove their hypothesis.Oh please.
The decade-old emails involving two scientists, one quoted wildly out of context (the "decline" issue mentioned by Mann -- the paper the data came from *explicitly stated* that the data was invalid after that point, and what idiot would think that dendrochronology data trumps thermometer data anyway?
) and the other trying to avoid having to hand over data to a bunch of amateurs who he viewed as deliberately trying to waste his time by filing spurious requests, and one of whom had previously tried to get his partner arrested?You're not even barking up the wrong tree; you're barking up a paper cutout of a tree.Kind of important to ensure accuracy.I can thus only assume that if you wrote a 3,000 page document, there wouldn't be a single error in it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31043178</id>
	<title>You should already know that the UN is....</title>
	<author>ub3r n3u7r4l1st</author>
	<datestamp>1265390100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>a front organization for the Illuminati.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>a front organization for the Illuminati .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a front organization for the Illuminati.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040198</id>
	<title>Inaccurate</title>
	<author>Gudeldar</author>
	<datestamp>1265368020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It doesn't appear as though India is pulling out of the IPCC at all. They are just sending a representative (or "minder" depending on how you look at it).</p><p>

<a href="http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/Story/82542/India/India's+IPCC+'tracker'+soon.html" title="intoday.in">http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/Story/82542/India/India's+IPCC+'tracker'+soon.html</a> [intoday.in] <br>
<a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/PM-expresses-confidence-in-IPCCs-work-lauds-Pachauris-leadership/articleshow/5540596.cms" title="indiatimes.com">http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/PM-expresses-confidence-in-IPCCs-work-lauds-Pachauris-leadership/articleshow/5540596.cms</a> [indiatimes.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It does n't appear as though India is pulling out of the IPCC at all .
They are just sending a representative ( or " minder " depending on how you look at it ) .
http : //indiatoday.intoday.in/site/Story/82542/India/India 's + IPCC + 'tracker ' + soon.html [ intoday.in ] http : //timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/PM-expresses-confidence-in-IPCCs-work-lauds-Pachauris-leadership/articleshow/5540596.cms [ indiatimes.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It doesn't appear as though India is pulling out of the IPCC at all.
They are just sending a representative (or "minder" depending on how you look at it).
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/Story/82542/India/India's+IPCC+'tracker'+soon.html [intoday.in] 
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/PM-expresses-confidence-in-IPCCs-work-lauds-Pachauris-leadership/articleshow/5540596.cms [indiatimes.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31041242</id>
	<title>Re:Good! The UN is nothing but a scam.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265374080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Then you have other organizations, like the WHO, hyping false "pandemics" again and again.</p></div></blockquote><p>If you mean swine flu, it DID become a pandemic.  It was a lot less virulent than originally thought, but it's pandemic because of its spread.  If you're going to bash WHO, at least do it for the right reasons.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Then you have other organizations , like the WHO , hyping false " pandemics " again and again.If you mean swine flu , it DID become a pandemic .
It was a lot less virulent than originally thought , but it 's pandemic because of its spread .
If you 're going to bash WHO , at least do it for the right reasons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then you have other organizations, like the WHO, hyping false "pandemics" again and again.If you mean swine flu, it DID become a pandemic.
It was a lot less virulent than originally thought, but it's pandemic because of its spread.
If you're going to bash WHO, at least do it for the right reasons.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31042078</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds like a smart man.</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1265380320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I wish we had more people like that in government in the US.</i></p><p>Like whom?  India's environment minister Jairam Ramesh or the current chairman of the UN's IPCC Dr. RK Pachauri?  I hope more of the first and less of the later.  After fighting against science for 8 years it's about tyme the US supported science.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wish we had more people like that in government in the US.Like whom ?
India 's environment minister Jairam Ramesh or the current chairman of the UN 's IPCC Dr. RK Pachauri ?
I hope more of the first and less of the later .
After fighting against science for 8 years it 's about tyme the US supported science .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wish we had more people like that in government in the US.Like whom?
India's environment minister Jairam Ramesh or the current chairman of the UN's IPCC Dr. RK Pachauri?
I hope more of the first and less of the later.
After fighting against science for 8 years it's about tyme the US supported science.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31045656</id>
	<title>Himalaya Gate proof how low "Sceptics" will go</title>
	<author>Lars T.</author>
	<datestamp>1265473260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Pachauri was pushed as the head of the IPCC by none other than Dubya and his cronies, so he could discredit the IPCC. Why do you think one of the many Climategate Emails that never gets quoted is this little gem? <a href="http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=270" title="eastangliaemails.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=270</a> [eastangliaemails.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Pachauri was pushed as the head of the IPCC by none other than Dubya and his cronies , so he could discredit the IPCC .
Why do you think one of the many Climategate Emails that never gets quoted is this little gem ?
http : //www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php ? eid = 270 [ eastangliaemails.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pachauri was pushed as the head of the IPCC by none other than Dubya and his cronies, so he could discredit the IPCC.
Why do you think one of the many Climategate Emails that never gets quoted is this little gem?
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=270 [eastangliaemails.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31043254</id>
	<title>Re:Inconclusiveness</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265390880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>referring to "logic 101", ever, means im not listening to you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>referring to " logic 101 " , ever , means im not listening to you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>referring to "logic 101", ever, means im not listening to you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040976</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040440</id>
	<title>"fine line"?</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1265369160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...fine line between climate science and climate evangelism...</p><p>More of an enormous gulf, IMHO.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; ...fine line between climate science and climate evangelism...More of an enormous gulf , IMHO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; ...fine line between climate science and climate evangelism...More of an enormous gulf, IMHO.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2044229_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31041886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2044229_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2044229_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2044229_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31042706
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2044229_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31041012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2044229_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31043926
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2044229_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31050086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2044229_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2044229_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31042602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2044229_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31041182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040714
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2044229_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31041726
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2044229_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040926
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2044229_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31041046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2044229_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31041976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2044229_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31045802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2044229_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31042020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2044229_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040036
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2044229_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2044229_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2044229_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31044766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2044229_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31047950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31041314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2044229_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31050016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31044032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31041326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2044229_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31044684
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2044229_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2044229_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31043358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2044229_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2044229_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31041242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2044229_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31043178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2044229_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2044229_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2044229_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31044900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2044229_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31042776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2044229_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31050264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31044920
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2044229_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31042078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040036
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2044229_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2044229_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2044229_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31043324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2044229_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31043254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2044229_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31042166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2044229_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31042380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2044229_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31041766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2044229_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31062830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2044229_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31043510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2044229_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31043644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2044229_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31041698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2044229_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31041568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2044229_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31042974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2044229_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040438
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2044229_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2044229_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2044229_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31041700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2044229_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31042550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2044229_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31043428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_05_2044229_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31045884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31041930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040522
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_2044229.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040112
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040374
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31044900
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_2044229.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040036
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31042078
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040456
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_2044229.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040126
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040812
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040824
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040402
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040500
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040376
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040714
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31041182
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040610
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31041326
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31044032
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31050016
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31043926
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31041314
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31047950
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040694
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31043644
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040946
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31041726
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040976
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31043254
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31041886
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31041700
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31042380
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31041976
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040996
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040522
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31043510
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31041930
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31045884
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31042020
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31044920
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31050264
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31041046
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31043358
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31044684
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31050086
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040542
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_2044229.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040274
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_2044229.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040476
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040926
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_2044229.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040042
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31042974
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040300
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040348
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040488
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31062830
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040652
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31042776
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31042166
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040304
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_2044229.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040262
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31041698
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040438
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31043428
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_2044229.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040078
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_05_2044229.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040098
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31041766
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040412
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31040982
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31041568
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31045802
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31042706
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31042602
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31041012
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31043324
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31043178
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31044766
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31041242
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_05_2044229.31042550
</commentlist>
</conversation>
