<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_27_1455220</id>
	<title>UN To Create Independent Panel To Review IPCC</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1267287480000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://hughpickens.com/" rel="nofollow">Hugh Pickens</a> writes <i>"The NY Times reports that an independent board of scientists will be appointed to <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/27/science/earth/27climate.html">review the workings of the world's top climate science panel</a>, which has faced recriminations over inaccuracies in a 2007 report that <a href="http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/01/23/2211222/Claims-of-Himalayan-Glacier-Disaster-Melt-Away?art\_pos=27">included a prediction that Himalayan glaciers would vanish by 2035</a>, although there is no scientific consensus to that effect. That brief citation &mdash; drawn from a magazine interview with a glaciologist who says he was misquoted &mdash; and sporadic criticism of the panel's leader have fueled skepticism in some quarters about the science underlying climate change. Nick Nuttall, a spokesman for the United Nations Environment Program, said the review body would be made up of 'senior scientific figures' who could perhaps produce a report by late summer for consideration at a meeting of the climate panel in October in South Korea. 'I think we are bringing some level of closure to this issue,' says Nuttall. One area to be examined is <a href="http://www.csulb.edu/library/subj/gray\_literature/">whether the panel should incorporate so-called gray literature</a>, a term to describe nonpeer-reviewed science, in its reports. Many scientists say that such material, ranging from reports by government agencies to respected research not published in scientific journals, is crucial to seeking a complete picture of the state of climate science."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hugh Pickens writes " The NY Times reports that an independent board of scientists will be appointed to review the workings of the world 's top climate science panel , which has faced recriminations over inaccuracies in a 2007 report that included a prediction that Himalayan glaciers would vanish by 2035 , although there is no scientific consensus to that effect .
That brief citation    drawn from a magazine interview with a glaciologist who says he was misquoted    and sporadic criticism of the panel 's leader have fueled skepticism in some quarters about the science underlying climate change .
Nick Nuttall , a spokesman for the United Nations Environment Program , said the review body would be made up of 'senior scientific figures ' who could perhaps produce a report by late summer for consideration at a meeting of the climate panel in October in South Korea .
'I think we are bringing some level of closure to this issue, ' says Nuttall .
One area to be examined is whether the panel should incorporate so-called gray literature , a term to describe nonpeer-reviewed science , in its reports .
Many scientists say that such material , ranging from reports by government agencies to respected research not published in scientific journals , is crucial to seeking a complete picture of the state of climate science .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hugh Pickens writes "The NY Times reports that an independent board of scientists will be appointed to review the workings of the world's top climate science panel, which has faced recriminations over inaccuracies in a 2007 report that included a prediction that Himalayan glaciers would vanish by 2035, although there is no scientific consensus to that effect.
That brief citation — drawn from a magazine interview with a glaciologist who says he was misquoted — and sporadic criticism of the panel's leader have fueled skepticism in some quarters about the science underlying climate change.
Nick Nuttall, a spokesman for the United Nations Environment Program, said the review body would be made up of 'senior scientific figures' who could perhaps produce a report by late summer for consideration at a meeting of the climate panel in October in South Korea.
'I think we are bringing some level of closure to this issue,' says Nuttall.
One area to be examined is whether the panel should incorporate so-called gray literature, a term to describe nonpeer-reviewed science, in its reports.
Many scientists say that such material, ranging from reports by government agencies to respected research not published in scientific journals, is crucial to seeking a complete picture of the state of climate science.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297952</id>
	<title>Re:Debate the Solution, not the Problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267297140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Last winter we had 2 inch of snow, this we had 20. that means we'll have 200 inches of snow the next winter and 2000 after that. This is clearly a true and well determined problem, we can't afford to wait until next winter before we implement a multi billion$ anti-snow policy. We also should not waste any more money on any further studies of the predicted snow depth because I already have a consensus that it's a real problem. <br> <br>
If you disagree with me you don't understand the science or hold stock in snow-removal services. And those are the only possibilities, there's no one that cares about truth anymore, there's only monetarily motivated people and stupid people in this world.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Last winter we had 2 inch of snow , this we had 20. that means we 'll have 200 inches of snow the next winter and 2000 after that .
This is clearly a true and well determined problem , we ca n't afford to wait until next winter before we implement a multi billion $ anti-snow policy .
We also should not waste any more money on any further studies of the predicted snow depth because I already have a consensus that it 's a real problem .
If you disagree with me you do n't understand the science or hold stock in snow-removal services .
And those are the only possibilities , there 's no one that cares about truth anymore , there 's only monetarily motivated people and stupid people in this world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Last winter we had 2 inch of snow, this we had 20. that means we'll have 200 inches of snow the next winter and 2000 after that.
This is clearly a true and well determined problem, we can't afford to wait until next winter before we implement a multi billion$ anti-snow policy.
We also should not waste any more money on any further studies of the predicted snow depth because I already have a consensus that it's a real problem.
If you disagree with me you don't understand the science or hold stock in snow-removal services.
And those are the only possibilities, there's no one that cares about truth anymore, there's only monetarily motivated people and stupid people in this world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31298576</id>
	<title>So let's see here...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267300680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The panel concludes that there were only minor errors with the IPCC, and AGW is still an issue. AGW proponents cheer, saying "I told you so!" AGW detractors claim conspiracy, it's politics, and AGW is still not a problem, or that throwing money at it won't solve it.</p><p>The panel concludes that there are serious problems with the IPCC and that AGW really isn't an issue. AGW detractors cheer, saying that's what they thought all along. AGW proponents claim there is a conspiracy, it's politics, and the problem is still real.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The panel concludes that there were only minor errors with the IPCC , and AGW is still an issue .
AGW proponents cheer , saying " I told you so !
" AGW detractors claim conspiracy , it 's politics , and AGW is still not a problem , or that throwing money at it wo n't solve it.The panel concludes that there are serious problems with the IPCC and that AGW really is n't an issue .
AGW detractors cheer , saying that 's what they thought all along .
AGW proponents claim there is a conspiracy , it 's politics , and the problem is still real .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The panel concludes that there were only minor errors with the IPCC, and AGW is still an issue.
AGW proponents cheer, saying "I told you so!
" AGW detractors claim conspiracy, it's politics, and AGW is still not a problem, or that throwing money at it won't solve it.The panel concludes that there are serious problems with the IPCC and that AGW really isn't an issue.
AGW detractors cheer, saying that's what they thought all along.
AGW proponents claim there is a conspiracy, it's politics, and the problem is still real.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31300754</id>
	<title>Re:Yay planet</title>
	<author>hkmwbz</author>
	<datestamp>1267276140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well yes, the science is "settled", in that scientists know that the planet is warming, and that human emissions are causing it. These are observed facts. So they have moved on from that to investigating the actual details.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well yes , the science is " settled " , in that scientists know that the planet is warming , and that human emissions are causing it .
These are observed facts .
So they have moved on from that to investigating the actual details .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well yes, the science is "settled", in that scientists know that the planet is warming, and that human emissions are causing it.
These are observed facts.
So they have moved on from that to investigating the actual details.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31302712</id>
	<title>Re:Asking the fox to guard the hen house</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267293000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>(b) The field is not as politically charged</p></div><p>What difference does that make? How is the science more correct in another field because fewer people have alternative reasons to disagree with it?</p></div><p>When you have statements like:</p><p>"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?" --Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environmental Program - Opening speech, Rio Earth Summit, 1992</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The predictions that we would experience warming due to CO2 dates back to the 30s. Guess what? Their predictions have proven correct.</p></div><p> <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFbUVBYIPlI" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFbUVBYIPlI</a> [youtube.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( b ) The field is not as politically chargedWhat difference does that make ?
How is the science more correct in another field because fewer people have alternative reasons to disagree with it ? When you have statements like : " Is n't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse ?
Is n't it our responsibility to bring that about ?
" --Maurice Strong , founder of the UN Environmental Program - Opening speech , Rio Earth Summit , 1992The predictions that we would experience warming due to CO2 dates back to the 30s .
Guess what ?
Their predictions have proven correct .
http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = DFbUVBYIPlI [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(b) The field is not as politically chargedWhat difference does that make?
How is the science more correct in another field because fewer people have alternative reasons to disagree with it?When you have statements like:"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?
" --Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environmental Program - Opening speech, Rio Earth Summit, 1992The predictions that we would experience warming due to CO2 dates back to the 30s.
Guess what?
Their predictions have proven correct.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFbUVBYIPlI [youtube.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31298518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31299138</id>
	<title>Re:Asking the fox to guard the hen house</title>
	<author>CheshireCatCO</author>
	<datestamp>1267304280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>(a) There is not such a huge difference in the amount of money scientists receive for one result versus the opposite result; or<br>(b) The field is not as politically charged; or<br>(c) The ultimate accuracy of a theory is seen more decisively in a shorter period of time.</p></div><p>(a) is a pretty bold claim.  Got any evidence, any what-so-ever, showing that climate scientists who don't argue for climate change aren't getting funding?  That they're systematically being denied grants?</p><p>(b) is nonsense, there are many politically charged fields in science.  Evolutionary biology?  Vaccine research lately (thanks to people like Jenny "Oops, it wasn't autism" McCarthy)?</p><p>(c) is always just silly.  Quite a lot of science isn't decided on short timescales.  Decades is more of than not how long you have to wait to find out how accurate a theory really is.  (That's how long it takes for better tests to get developed.)  Even medical testing often takes years to decades to pan out.  That's why we don't really know what makes for a healthier diet (butter or margarine?  how much salt is OK?   does wine really help with cholesterol?)</p><p><div class="quote"><p>However, with climate scientists, just like with economists, they can always claim their theories are correct throughout their entire lifetimes regardless of the outcomes.</p></div><p>Again, that's the norm for most areas of science.  Most of us go a lifetime without seeing most of our work being shown to be wrong, even when it turns out to be way off.  (Weak evidence often exists, but the really decisive evidence generally takes decades to emerge.  The old joke about science is that new theories aren't so much accepted as the old theories' adherents just die off.  That's because science, unlike the simple model you're taught in school, seldom moves forward from single, definitive experiments.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>note that "ClimateGate" was the result of hacking rather than systematic review or investigation.</p></div><p>In as much as there was nothing in those emails that was incriminating, all of the innuendo and out of context quoting by FOX and others not withstanding, it's difficult to see what your point is.</p><p>Climate research isn't really any different from any other area of science, except that there's a lot of money being thrown <em>against</em> it by various lobbying groups who don't like where it's pointing.  (Which makes it a lot more like evolutionary biology than anything.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( a ) There is not such a huge difference in the amount of money scientists receive for one result versus the opposite result ; or ( b ) The field is not as politically charged ; or ( c ) The ultimate accuracy of a theory is seen more decisively in a shorter period of time .
( a ) is a pretty bold claim .
Got any evidence , any what-so-ever , showing that climate scientists who do n't argue for climate change are n't getting funding ?
That they 're systematically being denied grants ?
( b ) is nonsense , there are many politically charged fields in science .
Evolutionary biology ?
Vaccine research lately ( thanks to people like Jenny " Oops , it was n't autism " McCarthy ) ?
( c ) is always just silly .
Quite a lot of science is n't decided on short timescales .
Decades is more of than not how long you have to wait to find out how accurate a theory really is .
( That 's how long it takes for better tests to get developed .
) Even medical testing often takes years to decades to pan out .
That 's why we do n't really know what makes for a healthier diet ( butter or margarine ?
how much salt is OK ?
does wine really help with cholesterol ?
) However , with climate scientists , just like with economists , they can always claim their theories are correct throughout their entire lifetimes regardless of the outcomes.Again , that 's the norm for most areas of science .
Most of us go a lifetime without seeing most of our work being shown to be wrong , even when it turns out to be way off .
( Weak evidence often exists , but the really decisive evidence generally takes decades to emerge .
The old joke about science is that new theories are n't so much accepted as the old theories ' adherents just die off .
That 's because science , unlike the simple model you 're taught in school , seldom moves forward from single , definitive experiments.note that " ClimateGate " was the result of hacking rather than systematic review or investigation.In as much as there was nothing in those emails that was incriminating , all of the innuendo and out of context quoting by FOX and others not withstanding , it 's difficult to see what your point is.Climate research is n't really any different from any other area of science , except that there 's a lot of money being thrown against it by various lobbying groups who do n't like where it 's pointing .
( Which makes it a lot more like evolutionary biology than anything .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(a) There is not such a huge difference in the amount of money scientists receive for one result versus the opposite result; or(b) The field is not as politically charged; or(c) The ultimate accuracy of a theory is seen more decisively in a shorter period of time.
(a) is a pretty bold claim.
Got any evidence, any what-so-ever, showing that climate scientists who don't argue for climate change aren't getting funding?
That they're systematically being denied grants?
(b) is nonsense, there are many politically charged fields in science.
Evolutionary biology?
Vaccine research lately (thanks to people like Jenny "Oops, it wasn't autism" McCarthy)?
(c) is always just silly.
Quite a lot of science isn't decided on short timescales.
Decades is more of than not how long you have to wait to find out how accurate a theory really is.
(That's how long it takes for better tests to get developed.
)  Even medical testing often takes years to decades to pan out.
That's why we don't really know what makes for a healthier diet (butter or margarine?
how much salt is OK?
does wine really help with cholesterol?
)However, with climate scientists, just like with economists, they can always claim their theories are correct throughout their entire lifetimes regardless of the outcomes.Again, that's the norm for most areas of science.
Most of us go a lifetime without seeing most of our work being shown to be wrong, even when it turns out to be way off.
(Weak evidence often exists, but the really decisive evidence generally takes decades to emerge.
The old joke about science is that new theories aren't so much accepted as the old theories' adherents just die off.
That's because science, unlike the simple model you're taught in school, seldom moves forward from single, definitive experiments.note that "ClimateGate" was the result of hacking rather than systematic review or investigation.In as much as there was nothing in those emails that was incriminating, all of the innuendo and out of context quoting by FOX and others not withstanding, it's difficult to see what your point is.Climate research isn't really any different from any other area of science, except that there's a lot of money being thrown against it by various lobbying groups who don't like where it's pointing.
(Which makes it a lot more like evolutionary biology than anything.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31300532</id>
	<title>I was labeled a Troll and insulted</title>
	<author>novae\_res</author>
	<datestamp>1267274100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>On this very site for suggesting CO2 might not be the only driving factor, like it was some kind of blasphemy to question the "consensus". I don't see any of those same people showing intolerant zealotry now. This scandal has now become a case of alice and how far the rabbit hole truly goes. And now we are expected to believe the same UN which brought us all those embellished warnings of destruction is going to conduct a non-partisan investigation of itself? Pull the other one. These people should be sacked and publically denounced, but all we get is a whitewash.

I've noticed recently that a lot of these same scientists, who rely on the opulent grants afforded them by taxpayers, have debased their arguments and unabashedly claimed the underlying science is right and further debate is still forbidden in a fashion befitting that of the most morally self-righteous twelfth century crusader.</htmltext>
<tokenext>On this very site for suggesting CO2 might not be the only driving factor , like it was some kind of blasphemy to question the " consensus " .
I do n't see any of those same people showing intolerant zealotry now .
This scandal has now become a case of alice and how far the rabbit hole truly goes .
And now we are expected to believe the same UN which brought us all those embellished warnings of destruction is going to conduct a non-partisan investigation of itself ?
Pull the other one .
These people should be sacked and publically denounced , but all we get is a whitewash .
I 've noticed recently that a lot of these same scientists , who rely on the opulent grants afforded them by taxpayers , have debased their arguments and unabashedly claimed the underlying science is right and further debate is still forbidden in a fashion befitting that of the most morally self-righteous twelfth century crusader .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On this very site for suggesting CO2 might not be the only driving factor, like it was some kind of blasphemy to question the "consensus".
I don't see any of those same people showing intolerant zealotry now.
This scandal has now become a case of alice and how far the rabbit hole truly goes.
And now we are expected to believe the same UN which brought us all those embellished warnings of destruction is going to conduct a non-partisan investigation of itself?
Pull the other one.
These people should be sacked and publically denounced, but all we get is a whitewash.
I've noticed recently that a lot of these same scientists, who rely on the opulent grants afforded them by taxpayers, have debased their arguments and unabashedly claimed the underlying science is right and further debate is still forbidden in a fashion befitting that of the most morally self-righteous twelfth century crusader.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31306296</id>
	<title>Glaciers Melting</title>
	<author>hackus</author>
	<datestamp>1267376940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"which has faced recriminations over inaccuracies in a 2007 report...."</p><p>Inaccuracies?</p><p>You've got to be kidding me.</p><p>The data was downright FRAUDULENT.</p><p>Inaccuracies my a**.</p><p>-Hack</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" which has faced recriminations over inaccuracies in a 2007 report.... " Inaccuracies ? You 've got to be kidding me.The data was downright FRAUDULENT.Inaccuracies my a * * .-Hack</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"which has faced recriminations over inaccuracies in a 2007 report...."Inaccuracies?You've got to be kidding me.The data was downright FRAUDULENT.Inaccuracies my a**.-Hack</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31300704</id>
	<title>Re:Change the name of the panel</title>
	<author>hkmwbz</author>
	<datestamp>1267275600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The climate has been changing for hundreds of thousands of years. But to me the name suggests there is some kind of unprecedented change to the climate that we are now tasked to study. Doesn't that prejudice the findings?</p></div></blockquote><p>
No, the findings were there before the panel was formed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The climate has been changing for hundreds of thousands of years .
But to me the name suggests there is some kind of unprecedented change to the climate that we are now tasked to study .
Does n't that prejudice the findings ?
No , the findings were there before the panel was formed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The climate has been changing for hundreds of thousands of years.
But to me the name suggests there is some kind of unprecedented change to the climate that we are now tasked to study.
Doesn't that prejudice the findings?
No, the findings were there before the panel was formed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297918</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31298842</id>
	<title>Re:Asking the fox to guard the hen house</title>
	<author>IICV</author>
	<datestamp>1267302420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah you know why they were disparaged? Because their paper was crap. The journal only published the paper because it was controversial; the actual science contained therein was useless.</p><p>Yes, the guys at the CRU were trying to keep that paper from being published because it went against the current scientific consensus - but the reason why it went against the current consensus is because the authors were wrong in the first place. The journal chose to publish a controversial and scientifically flawed paper, just because it was controversial.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah you know why they were disparaged ?
Because their paper was crap .
The journal only published the paper because it was controversial ; the actual science contained therein was useless.Yes , the guys at the CRU were trying to keep that paper from being published because it went against the current scientific consensus - but the reason why it went against the current consensus is because the authors were wrong in the first place .
The journal chose to publish a controversial and scientifically flawed paper , just because it was controversial .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah you know why they were disparaged?
Because their paper was crap.
The journal only published the paper because it was controversial; the actual science contained therein was useless.Yes, the guys at the CRU were trying to keep that paper from being published because it went against the current scientific consensus - but the reason why it went against the current consensus is because the authors were wrong in the first place.
The journal chose to publish a controversial and scientifically flawed paper, just because it was controversial.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31298420</id>
	<title>Re:Asking the fox to guard the hen house</title>
	<author>10101001 10101001</author>
	<datestamp>1267299660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Are there no independant botanists either? Are they all involved with some big conspiracy to hide the fact that all the leaders of the world are actually vegetables?</p></div></blockquote><p>The real question is, are there no independent meteorologists?  It's funny, actually.  As much as there are those who point at how bad weather forecasting is and use it is a proof of our feeble understanding of the weather, there's very few people who would ignore a "weather winter advisory".  Perhaps because the threat is life or death?  Perhaps because an ounce of prevent is worth a pound of cure?  It's funny how that mindset is ignored when it comes to the climate.  But, then, I guess it's the point that group, long-term change is resisted more than independent, short-term change.  If anything, the grand conspiracy would seem to be with the general populace, not the scientists.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are there no independant botanists either ?
Are they all involved with some big conspiracy to hide the fact that all the leaders of the world are actually vegetables ? The real question is , are there no independent meteorologists ?
It 's funny , actually .
As much as there are those who point at how bad weather forecasting is and use it is a proof of our feeble understanding of the weather , there 's very few people who would ignore a " weather winter advisory " .
Perhaps because the threat is life or death ?
Perhaps because an ounce of prevent is worth a pound of cure ?
It 's funny how that mindset is ignored when it comes to the climate .
But , then , I guess it 's the point that group , long-term change is resisted more than independent , short-term change .
If anything , the grand conspiracy would seem to be with the general populace , not the scientists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are there no independant botanists either?
Are they all involved with some big conspiracy to hide the fact that all the leaders of the world are actually vegetables?The real question is, are there no independent meteorologists?
It's funny, actually.
As much as there are those who point at how bad weather forecasting is and use it is a proof of our feeble understanding of the weather, there's very few people who would ignore a "weather winter advisory".
Perhaps because the threat is life or death?
Perhaps because an ounce of prevent is worth a pound of cure?
It's funny how that mindset is ignored when it comes to the climate.
But, then, I guess it's the point that group, long-term change is resisted more than independent, short-term change.
If anything, the grand conspiracy would seem to be with the general populace, not the scientists.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31310070</id>
	<title>Re:Asking the fox to guard the hen house</title>
	<author>hkmwbz</author>
	<datestamp>1267360980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>In such a case, asserting that the science is settled is only an appeal to authority (since the theory will not be verified to a reasonable extent within the time to debate) and is agitative.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Actually, this is wrong. The theory has been verified. That's why it's called a theory and not a hypothesis.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In such a case , asserting that the science is settled is only an appeal to authority ( since the theory will not be verified to a reasonable extent within the time to debate ) and is agitative .
Actually , this is wrong .
The theory has been verified .
That 's why it 's called a theory and not a hypothesis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In such a case, asserting that the science is settled is only an appeal to authority (since the theory will not be verified to a reasonable extent within the time to debate) and is agitative.
Actually, this is wrong.
The theory has been verified.
That's why it's called a theory and not a hypothesis.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31301148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297918</id>
	<title>Change the name of the panel</title>
	<author>benjto</author>
	<datestamp>1267296960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IPCC = Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

</p><p>The climate has been changing for hundreds of thousands of years.  But to me the name suggests there is some kind of unprecedented change to the climate that we are now tasked to study.  Doesn't that prejudice the findings?  What if (just a hypothesis) the data shows that the climate is not going through any kind of change that is out of line with historical patterns of change.  The conclusion would be that the current dynamics of that climate to not represent a "macro" change in the climates behavior.

</p><p>Why not name the panel the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Monitoring?  Let the data suggest the conclusion, not the panel name.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IPCC = Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change The climate has been changing for hundreds of thousands of years .
But to me the name suggests there is some kind of unprecedented change to the climate that we are now tasked to study .
Does n't that prejudice the findings ?
What if ( just a hypothesis ) the data shows that the climate is not going through any kind of change that is out of line with historical patterns of change .
The conclusion would be that the current dynamics of that climate to not represent a " macro " change in the climates behavior .
Why not name the panel the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Monitoring ?
Let the data suggest the conclusion , not the panel name .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IPCC = Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

The climate has been changing for hundreds of thousands of years.
But to me the name suggests there is some kind of unprecedented change to the climate that we are now tasked to study.
Doesn't that prejudice the findings?
What if (just a hypothesis) the data shows that the climate is not going through any kind of change that is out of line with historical patterns of change.
The conclusion would be that the current dynamics of that climate to not represent a "macro" change in the climates behavior.
Why not name the panel the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Monitoring?
Let the data suggest the conclusion, not the panel name.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297444</id>
	<title>you're giving it too much creditibility</title>
	<author>Trailer Trash</author>
	<datestamp>1267294080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>although there is no scientific consensus to that effect.</p></div></blockquote><p>It has nothing to do with "concensus", there's no <em>belief</em> that the Himalayas are going to melt in the next 25 years.  It was a misquote by someone which ended up being quoted as fact through an obnoxious game of "telephone".</p><p>That tells you how much credibility to give to the rest of it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>although there is no scientific consensus to that effect.It has nothing to do with " concensus " , there 's no belief that the Himalayas are going to melt in the next 25 years .
It was a misquote by someone which ended up being quoted as fact through an obnoxious game of " telephone " .That tells you how much credibility to give to the rest of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>although there is no scientific consensus to that effect.It has nothing to do with "concensus", there's no belief that the Himalayas are going to melt in the next 25 years.
It was a misquote by someone which ended up being quoted as fact through an obnoxious game of "telephone".That tells you how much credibility to give to the rest of it.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31299916</id>
	<title>Re:"will be appointed"</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1267268040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The scary part is that they are even considering the idea that 'grey literature' might be acceptable.  The answer is no, and we already have examples of why not: they are not held to the same standards and are often wrong.<br> <br>
Seriously, if you need grey literature, what it really means is you need to do more research.  That is all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The scary part is that they are even considering the idea that 'grey literature ' might be acceptable .
The answer is no , and we already have examples of why not : they are not held to the same standards and are often wrong .
Seriously , if you need grey literature , what it really means is you need to do more research .
That is all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The scary part is that they are even considering the idea that 'grey literature' might be acceptable.
The answer is no, and we already have examples of why not: they are not held to the same standards and are often wrong.
Seriously, if you need grey literature, what it really means is you need to do more research.
That is all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297458</id>
	<title>Debate the Solution, not the Problem</title>
	<author>dwguenther</author>
	<datestamp>1267294260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>  It's good that another review has been announced in order to offset the political hype, but it's discouraging that there was political attacks on the science to begin with. As the article points out, the controversy has essentially been about a single wrong number in the IPCC report, which itself is a summary of over 10,000 peer-reviewed papers published over the last three or four decades. Criticism of this single error has only gained traction because of pointless repetition by critics who stand to make some profit over creating controversy. <br>
  The discussions and debate should be focused on policy, not on the science. We have already made our best effort at determining whether there is a problem. Now we need to determine what to do about it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's good that another review has been announced in order to offset the political hype , but it 's discouraging that there was political attacks on the science to begin with .
As the article points out , the controversy has essentially been about a single wrong number in the IPCC report , which itself is a summary of over 10,000 peer-reviewed papers published over the last three or four decades .
Criticism of this single error has only gained traction because of pointless repetition by critics who stand to make some profit over creating controversy .
The discussions and debate should be focused on policy , not on the science .
We have already made our best effort at determining whether there is a problem .
Now we need to determine what to do about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  It's good that another review has been announced in order to offset the political hype, but it's discouraging that there was political attacks on the science to begin with.
As the article points out, the controversy has essentially been about a single wrong number in the IPCC report, which itself is a summary of over 10,000 peer-reviewed papers published over the last three or four decades.
Criticism of this single error has only gained traction because of pointless repetition by critics who stand to make some profit over creating controversy.
The discussions and debate should be focused on policy, not on the science.
We have already made our best effort at determining whether there is a problem.
Now we need to determine what to do about it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297260</id>
	<title>Science vs. Government</title>
	<author>Pete Venkman</author>
	<datestamp>1267292460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The main problem with this issue is that science and government operate very differently.  When are people going to realize that governmental panels on climate change will not work as science.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The main problem with this issue is that science and government operate very differently .
When are people going to realize that governmental panels on climate change will not work as science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The main problem with this issue is that science and government operate very differently.
When are people going to realize that governmental panels on climate change will not work as science.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297216</id>
	<title>Let's just invade</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267292100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can anyone prove that IPCC doesn't have some WMDs?  I know I'd like to make sure they don't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can anyone prove that IPCC does n't have some WMDs ?
I know I 'd like to make sure they do n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can anyone prove that IPCC doesn't have some WMDs?
I know I'd like to make sure they don't.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31299688</id>
	<title>Re:Wrong response</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267265640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What the scientific community needs is better PR and stating that essentially those who think AGW is not happening are gullible, misguided people, whackjobs and paid ex-tobacco lobbyists.</p></div><p>Ah, propaganda! Is there anything you can't do?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What the scientific community needs is better PR and stating that essentially those who think AGW is not happening are gullible , misguided people , whackjobs and paid ex-tobacco lobbyists.Ah , propaganda !
Is there anything you ca n't do ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the scientific community needs is better PR and stating that essentially those who think AGW is not happening are gullible, misguided people, whackjobs and paid ex-tobacco lobbyists.Ah, propaganda!
Is there anything you can't do?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297474</id>
	<title>Re:Asking the fox to guard the hen house</title>
	<author>LockeOnLogic</author>
	<datestamp>1267294500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why don't you open your eyes? Botanists have been conspiring for decades to push a pro-plant agenda. The "nutritional value" and "oxygen" they talk about is nothing but a front of bad data. All so plants can spread across this globe, making botanists rich and powerful. They don't care that the cost of doing business will skyrocket due to increasing landscaping costs. So long as they get their juicy tomato grants they will continue to lie for grant money.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do n't you open your eyes ?
Botanists have been conspiring for decades to push a pro-plant agenda .
The " nutritional value " and " oxygen " they talk about is nothing but a front of bad data .
All so plants can spread across this globe , making botanists rich and powerful .
They do n't care that the cost of doing business will skyrocket due to increasing landscaping costs .
So long as they get their juicy tomato grants they will continue to lie for grant money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why don't you open your eyes?
Botanists have been conspiring for decades to push a pro-plant agenda.
The "nutritional value" and "oxygen" they talk about is nothing but a front of bad data.
All so plants can spread across this globe, making botanists rich and powerful.
They don't care that the cost of doing business will skyrocket due to increasing landscaping costs.
So long as they get their juicy tomato grants they will continue to lie for grant money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297750</id>
	<title>Wrong response</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267296000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There should be no panel to investigate stuff, as there was nothing wrong with the report that covers the physical science and there were only a small number of minor mistakes in WG3's document (that is not about the science basis for AGW).<br> <br>
Setting up a panel is exactly the wrong response, because it lends credibility to the whackjobs. What the scientific community needs is better PR and stating that essentially those who think AGW is not happening are gullible, misguided people, whackjobs and paid ex-tobacco lobbyists.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There should be no panel to investigate stuff , as there was nothing wrong with the report that covers the physical science and there were only a small number of minor mistakes in WG3 's document ( that is not about the science basis for AGW ) .
Setting up a panel is exactly the wrong response , because it lends credibility to the whackjobs .
What the scientific community needs is better PR and stating that essentially those who think AGW is not happening are gullible , misguided people , whackjobs and paid ex-tobacco lobbyists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There should be no panel to investigate stuff, as there was nothing wrong with the report that covers the physical science and there were only a small number of minor mistakes in WG3's document (that is not about the science basis for AGW).
Setting up a panel is exactly the wrong response, because it lends credibility to the whackjobs.
What the scientific community needs is better PR and stating that essentially those who think AGW is not happening are gullible, misguided people, whackjobs and paid ex-tobacco lobbyists.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31298436</id>
	<title>Re:Asking the fox to guard the hen house</title>
	<author>UltraAyla</author>
	<datestamp>1267299720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>There actually are independent scientists, and as the CRU emails show, they have been disparaged and shut up at every possible point.</p></div></blockquote><p>Yes, because as we all know, a single case study always generalizes to the whole. I think it's ridiculous that people who are criticizing science are being so unscientific themselves.</p><p>As someone who has worked a great deal on climate change issues, I want to respect skepticism in the scientific process because it *usually* is very healthy. In this case though, so much of the skepticism is fueled by political bias that I believe it's become, for the most part, unhealthy for the science. That said, I understand your criticism of the CRU emails. It made me mad too, but it has been blown out of proportion. If you look at the IPCC reports, many of the studies the CRU scientists were criticizing were actually included. These guys had some power in the discourse, but not as much as people attribute to them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There actually are independent scientists , and as the CRU emails show , they have been disparaged and shut up at every possible point.Yes , because as we all know , a single case study always generalizes to the whole .
I think it 's ridiculous that people who are criticizing science are being so unscientific themselves.As someone who has worked a great deal on climate change issues , I want to respect skepticism in the scientific process because it * usually * is very healthy .
In this case though , so much of the skepticism is fueled by political bias that I believe it 's become , for the most part , unhealthy for the science .
That said , I understand your criticism of the CRU emails .
It made me mad too , but it has been blown out of proportion .
If you look at the IPCC reports , many of the studies the CRU scientists were criticizing were actually included .
These guys had some power in the discourse , but not as much as people attribute to them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There actually are independent scientists, and as the CRU emails show, they have been disparaged and shut up at every possible point.Yes, because as we all know, a single case study always generalizes to the whole.
I think it's ridiculous that people who are criticizing science are being so unscientific themselves.As someone who has worked a great deal on climate change issues, I want to respect skepticism in the scientific process because it *usually* is very healthy.
In this case though, so much of the skepticism is fueled by political bias that I believe it's become, for the most part, unhealthy for the science.
That said, I understand your criticism of the CRU emails.
It made me mad too, but it has been blown out of proportion.
If you look at the IPCC reports, many of the studies the CRU scientists were criticizing were actually included.
These guys had some power in the discourse, but not as much as people attribute to them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31300838</id>
	<title>Re:Asking the fox to guard the hen house</title>
	<author>TapeCutter</author>
	<datestamp>1267276920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"as the CRU emails show, they have been disparaged and shut up at every possible point."</i>
<br> <br>
Bullshit, what the emails show is private scientific discorse and frustration at a well funded campaign to politically discredit and obfuscate their work. Do you not find it curious that only one or two emails over a <b>ten year period</b> can be twisted to suit your claim?</htmltext>
<tokenext>" as the CRU emails show , they have been disparaged and shut up at every possible point .
" Bullshit , what the emails show is private scientific discorse and frustration at a well funded campaign to politically discredit and obfuscate their work .
Do you not find it curious that only one or two emails over a ten year period can be twisted to suit your claim ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"as the CRU emails show, they have been disparaged and shut up at every possible point.
"
 
Bullshit, what the emails show is private scientific discorse and frustration at a well funded campaign to politically discredit and obfuscate their work.
Do you not find it curious that only one or two emails over a ten year period can be twisted to suit your claim?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297740</id>
	<title>Re:Extra, Extra!</title>
	<author>Moryath</author>
	<datestamp>1267296000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The UN doesn't really do anything very well<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and this won't be any different. </i></p><p>What do you expect of a "democratic" body made up of representatives from almost entirely undemocratic/fascist/theocratic/monarchic and abusive regimes?</p><p>After all, this is the same body that makes a yearly game of putting countries like Cuba, Libya, Syria, and Zimbabwe on "human rights" panels so that they can issue reports bitching and moaning about how bad "human rights abuses" are in places like Europe, Canada, and the US. Also the same body that cheerfully broke the shit out of its own charter, ejecting a charter member and installing to the seat instead the illegitimate militarist/communist regime now running "mainland china."</p><p>Also the same body whose "chief nuclear inspector" is ineffective people like Hans Blix and Mohammed Elbaradei - they wouldn't even fire Elbaradei after he admitted, right on camera, that he was just running interference so that Iran could finish their nuclear weapon research.</p><p>Heh. Parker &amp; Stone had it right:<br>"Hans Blix: Then let me look around, so I can ease the UN's collective mind. I'm sorry, but the UN must be firm with you. Let me in, or else.<br>Kim Jong Il: Or else what?<br>Hans Blix: Or else we will be very angry with you... <b>and we will write you a letter, telling you how angry we are.</b>"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The UN does n't really do anything very well ... and this wo n't be any different .
What do you expect of a " democratic " body made up of representatives from almost entirely undemocratic/fascist/theocratic/monarchic and abusive regimes ? After all , this is the same body that makes a yearly game of putting countries like Cuba , Libya , Syria , and Zimbabwe on " human rights " panels so that they can issue reports bitching and moaning about how bad " human rights abuses " are in places like Europe , Canada , and the US .
Also the same body that cheerfully broke the shit out of its own charter , ejecting a charter member and installing to the seat instead the illegitimate militarist/communist regime now running " mainland china .
" Also the same body whose " chief nuclear inspector " is ineffective people like Hans Blix and Mohammed Elbaradei - they would n't even fire Elbaradei after he admitted , right on camera , that he was just running interference so that Iran could finish their nuclear weapon research.Heh .
Parker &amp; Stone had it right : " Hans Blix : Then let me look around , so I can ease the UN 's collective mind .
I 'm sorry , but the UN must be firm with you .
Let me in , or else.Kim Jong Il : Or else what ? Hans Blix : Or else we will be very angry with you... and we will write you a letter , telling you how angry we are .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The UN doesn't really do anything very well ... and this won't be any different.
What do you expect of a "democratic" body made up of representatives from almost entirely undemocratic/fascist/theocratic/monarchic and abusive regimes?After all, this is the same body that makes a yearly game of putting countries like Cuba, Libya, Syria, and Zimbabwe on "human rights" panels so that they can issue reports bitching and moaning about how bad "human rights abuses" are in places like Europe, Canada, and the US.
Also the same body that cheerfully broke the shit out of its own charter, ejecting a charter member and installing to the seat instead the illegitimate militarist/communist regime now running "mainland china.
"Also the same body whose "chief nuclear inspector" is ineffective people like Hans Blix and Mohammed Elbaradei - they wouldn't even fire Elbaradei after he admitted, right on camera, that he was just running interference so that Iran could finish their nuclear weapon research.Heh.
Parker &amp; Stone had it right:"Hans Blix: Then let me look around, so I can ease the UN's collective mind.
I'm sorry, but the UN must be firm with you.
Let me in, or else.Kim Jong Il: Or else what?Hans Blix: Or else we will be very angry with you... and we will write you a letter, telling you how angry we are.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297150</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297380</id>
	<title>Sure, but...</title>
	<author>srussia</author>
	<datestamp>1267293420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>IPRIPCC would be such a badass acronym!</htmltext>
<tokenext>IPRIPCC would be such a badass acronym !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IPRIPCC would be such a badass acronym!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31301478</id>
	<title>Interesting Youtube Overview</title>
	<author>ashelton</author>
	<datestamp>1267282260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
<p>
In the end it doesn't really matter too much. Any solution would involve some negative economic effects and many of the governments have no intention of doing any such thing. China which considers economic advancement the key to social stability and the US which considers itself already losing a trade war with china. So the attack on the science is more about providing a distraction / excuse for why nothing substantial will be done at the political level.
</p><p>
The discussion of the science, and how it is mis-represented, is very interesting though. I found this <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/c/A4F0994AFB057BB8" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">youtube video series</a> [youtube.com] by potholer54 to be a pretty fascinating introduction to the subject, with good coverage of issues and links back to actual papers.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the end it does n't really matter too much .
Any solution would involve some negative economic effects and many of the governments have no intention of doing any such thing .
China which considers economic advancement the key to social stability and the US which considers itself already losing a trade war with china .
So the attack on the science is more about providing a distraction / excuse for why nothing substantial will be done at the political level .
The discussion of the science , and how it is mis-represented , is very interesting though .
I found this youtube video series [ youtube.com ] by potholer54 to be a pretty fascinating introduction to the subject , with good coverage of issues and links back to actual papers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>

In the end it doesn't really matter too much.
Any solution would involve some negative economic effects and many of the governments have no intention of doing any such thing.
China which considers economic advancement the key to social stability and the US which considers itself already losing a trade war with china.
So the attack on the science is more about providing a distraction / excuse for why nothing substantial will be done at the political level.
The discussion of the science, and how it is mis-represented, is very interesting though.
I found this youtube video series [youtube.com] by potholer54 to be a pretty fascinating introduction to the subject, with good coverage of issues and links back to actual papers.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31299988</id>
	<title>Re:Debate the Solution, not the Problem</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1267268640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As the article points out, the controversy has essentially been about a single wrong number in the IPCC report, which itself is a summary of over 10,000 peer-reviewed papers published over the last three or four decades.</p> </div><p>It wasn't one number.  It was several numbers in the section, and the conclusion.  You can read it in the IPCC report (and it's not hard to find if you go to their website). <br> <br>
But that wasn't what made people upset, the scary thing was <i>it wasn't a conclusion from a peer reviewed paper</i>.  You call the IPCC report a summary of over 10,000 peer-reviewed papers, but it turns out, they've been citing non-peer reviewed papers all over the place (mainly in WGII, actually).  You can verify this for yourself, easily, by opening any chapter in WGII and doing a search for WWF.  This won't find all of them, but it will find a lot.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The discussions and debate should be focused on policy, not on the science.</p></div><p>How about we start with the policy of only including peer reviewed articles in the IPCC report?  Is that too much to ask?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As the article points out , the controversy has essentially been about a single wrong number in the IPCC report , which itself is a summary of over 10,000 peer-reviewed papers published over the last three or four decades .
It was n't one number .
It was several numbers in the section , and the conclusion .
You can read it in the IPCC report ( and it 's not hard to find if you go to their website ) .
But that was n't what made people upset , the scary thing was it was n't a conclusion from a peer reviewed paper .
You call the IPCC report a summary of over 10,000 peer-reviewed papers , but it turns out , they 've been citing non-peer reviewed papers all over the place ( mainly in WGII , actually ) .
You can verify this for yourself , easily , by opening any chapter in WGII and doing a search for WWF .
This wo n't find all of them , but it will find a lot.The discussions and debate should be focused on policy , not on the science.How about we start with the policy of only including peer reviewed articles in the IPCC report ?
Is that too much to ask ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As the article points out, the controversy has essentially been about a single wrong number in the IPCC report, which itself is a summary of over 10,000 peer-reviewed papers published over the last three or four decades.
It wasn't one number.
It was several numbers in the section, and the conclusion.
You can read it in the IPCC report (and it's not hard to find if you go to their website).
But that wasn't what made people upset, the scary thing was it wasn't a conclusion from a peer reviewed paper.
You call the IPCC report a summary of over 10,000 peer-reviewed papers, but it turns out, they've been citing non-peer reviewed papers all over the place (mainly in WGII, actually).
You can verify this for yourself, easily, by opening any chapter in WGII and doing a search for WWF.
This won't find all of them, but it will find a lot.The discussions and debate should be focused on policy, not on the science.How about we start with the policy of only including peer reviewed articles in the IPCC report?
Is that too much to ask?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31299436</id>
	<title>The CRU emails show show no such thing.</title>
	<author>microbox</author>
	<datestamp>1267263360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>There actually are independent scientists, and as the CRU emails show, they have been disparaged and shut up at every possible point</i> <br>
<br>
The CRU emails <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P70SlEqX7oY" title="youtube.com">show show no such</a> [youtube.com] <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJFZ88EH6i4" title="youtube.com">thing</a> [youtube.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>There actually are independent scientists , and as the CRU emails show , they have been disparaged and shut up at every possible point The CRU emails show show no such [ youtube.com ] thing [ youtube.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There actually are independent scientists, and as the CRU emails show, they have been disparaged and shut up at every possible point 

The CRU emails show show no such [youtube.com] thing [youtube.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297426</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297272</id>
	<title>Can't imagine what they hope to achieve</title>
	<author>jfengel</author>
	<datestamp>1267292520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The report is going to conclude that a bunch of minor errors were made, and does not alter the fundamental conclusions.  This is what has been said all along.</p><p>The climate change deniers, who believe it's all part of a massive conspiracy against them, will simply see that as more evidence of the conspiracy.  They did not understand the science in the first place, which is why they were able to seize on small errors and blow them out of proportion.</p><p>I suppose it's intended to demonstrate integrity, to develop another report confirming that the errors did indeed exist (and possibly even uncover others).  They should even go in with the full intent of finding serious errors, should they exist.  But failing to find those errors will not convince anybody who needs convincing.  Nor can I imagine what would.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The report is going to conclude that a bunch of minor errors were made , and does not alter the fundamental conclusions .
This is what has been said all along.The climate change deniers , who believe it 's all part of a massive conspiracy against them , will simply see that as more evidence of the conspiracy .
They did not understand the science in the first place , which is why they were able to seize on small errors and blow them out of proportion.I suppose it 's intended to demonstrate integrity , to develop another report confirming that the errors did indeed exist ( and possibly even uncover others ) .
They should even go in with the full intent of finding serious errors , should they exist .
But failing to find those errors will not convince anybody who needs convincing .
Nor can I imagine what would .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The report is going to conclude that a bunch of minor errors were made, and does not alter the fundamental conclusions.
This is what has been said all along.The climate change deniers, who believe it's all part of a massive conspiracy against them, will simply see that as more evidence of the conspiracy.
They did not understand the science in the first place, which is why they were able to seize on small errors and blow them out of proportion.I suppose it's intended to demonstrate integrity, to develop another report confirming that the errors did indeed exist (and possibly even uncover others).
They should even go in with the full intent of finding serious errors, should they exist.
But failing to find those errors will not convince anybody who needs convincing.
Nor can I imagine what would.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297640</id>
	<title>As Independent as Philip Campbell?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267295520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Philip Campbell was one of the "scientists" selected to join the "independent" review panel for the UEA leaks.  He later had to step down when it was revealed that he had already made up his mind before any review:</p><p><a href="http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/science\_technology/aposclimategateapos+review+member+resigns/3536642" title="channel4.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/science\_technology/aposclimategateapos+review+member+resigns/3536642</a> [channel4.com]</p><p>I'm sure he was replaced by somebody equally independent and impartial and that we can expect the same level of impartiality from the UN's review of the IPCC.  This is nothing but a waste of taxpayer's money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Philip Campbell was one of the " scientists " selected to join the " independent " review panel for the UEA leaks .
He later had to step down when it was revealed that he had already made up his mind before any review : http : //www.channel4.com/news/articles/science \ _technology/aposclimategateapos + review + member + resigns/3536642 [ channel4.com ] I 'm sure he was replaced by somebody equally independent and impartial and that we can expect the same level of impartiality from the UN 's review of the IPCC .
This is nothing but a waste of taxpayer 's money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Philip Campbell was one of the "scientists" selected to join the "independent" review panel for the UEA leaks.
He later had to step down when it was revealed that he had already made up his mind before any review:http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/science\_technology/aposclimategateapos+review+member+resigns/3536642 [channel4.com]I'm sure he was replaced by somebody equally independent and impartial and that we can expect the same level of impartiality from the UN's review of the IPCC.
This is nothing but a waste of taxpayer's money.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31299200</id>
	<title>The Main Problem with these dang Climatologists...</title>
	<author>Vitriol+Angst</author>
	<datestamp>1267261620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... if they want people to take their science seriously, they've got to quit getting misquoted in Oil Company backed blogs and media. I mean, that stupid nonsense about their article on the world freezing over from that magazine they had nothing to do with, is a great example of why this controversy still exists. Even when people point out that it's a bogus and that science can always change -- it gets repeated over and over again. What's up with that, Climatologists? Your opinions are only like a few thousand, and there are many more non-climatologists getting quoted on this controversy -- you can't even beat out a Russian Economic Think tank that gets money from US oil concerns.</p><p>Heck, the LOL-Cat has more press savvy than you guys.</p><p>Instead of 100\% of you Climate Scientists lying for that $10,000 grant, and your Grad Students being in on this huge global conspiracy -- you should go out and earn 10 times more with your math skills on Day Trading, get a lot of money, and learn how to rent-to-own press outlets. Maybe some of your grant money would be better spent on advertisements on CNN rather than all this blinking electronic equipment.</p><p>Stupid scientists!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... if they want people to take their science seriously , they 've got to quit getting misquoted in Oil Company backed blogs and media .
I mean , that stupid nonsense about their article on the world freezing over from that magazine they had nothing to do with , is a great example of why this controversy still exists .
Even when people point out that it 's a bogus and that science can always change -- it gets repeated over and over again .
What 's up with that , Climatologists ?
Your opinions are only like a few thousand , and there are many more non-climatologists getting quoted on this controversy -- you ca n't even beat out a Russian Economic Think tank that gets money from US oil concerns.Heck , the LOL-Cat has more press savvy than you guys.Instead of 100 \ % of you Climate Scientists lying for that $ 10,000 grant , and your Grad Students being in on this huge global conspiracy -- you should go out and earn 10 times more with your math skills on Day Trading , get a lot of money , and learn how to rent-to-own press outlets .
Maybe some of your grant money would be better spent on advertisements on CNN rather than all this blinking electronic equipment.Stupid scientists !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... if they want people to take their science seriously, they've got to quit getting misquoted in Oil Company backed blogs and media.
I mean, that stupid nonsense about their article on the world freezing over from that magazine they had nothing to do with, is a great example of why this controversy still exists.
Even when people point out that it's a bogus and that science can always change -- it gets repeated over and over again.
What's up with that, Climatologists?
Your opinions are only like a few thousand, and there are many more non-climatologists getting quoted on this controversy -- you can't even beat out a Russian Economic Think tank that gets money from US oil concerns.Heck, the LOL-Cat has more press savvy than you guys.Instead of 100\% of you Climate Scientists lying for that $10,000 grant, and your Grad Students being in on this huge global conspiracy -- you should go out and earn 10 times more with your math skills on Day Trading, get a lot of money, and learn how to rent-to-own press outlets.
Maybe some of your grant money would be better spent on advertisements on CNN rather than all this blinking electronic equipment.Stupid scientists!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31298320</id>
	<title>I am for this if...</title>
	<author>Gonoff</author>
	<datestamp>1267299000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This panel needs to take in all information that has not been tainted by any of the following.<ul>
<li>experts in other fields (economics, law, journalism etc)</li><li>Big business (banks, oil companies etc)</li><li>Politicians (left, liberal or right wing)</li><li>Paid pressure groups and individuals.</li><li>The seriously ignorant who have irrelevant axes to grind</li></ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>This panel needs to take in all information that has not been tainted by any of the following .
experts in other fields ( economics , law , journalism etc ) Big business ( banks , oil companies etc ) Politicians ( left , liberal or right wing ) Paid pressure groups and individuals.The seriously ignorant who have irrelevant axes to grind</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This panel needs to take in all information that has not been tainted by any of the following.
experts in other fields (economics, law, journalism etc)Big business (banks, oil companies etc)Politicians (left, liberal or right wing)Paid pressure groups and individuals.The seriously ignorant who have irrelevant axes to grind</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31298974</id>
	<title>Re:Asking the fox to guard the hen house</title>
	<author>moderatorrater</author>
	<datestamp>1267303320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How many botanists have been unable to get funding because they didn't support a controversial theory?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How many botanists have been unable to get funding because they did n't support a controversial theory ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many botanists have been unable to get funding because they didn't support a controversial theory?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297428</id>
	<title>Re:Can't imagine what they hope to achieve</title>
	<author>JDmetro</author>
	<datestamp>1267293900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>They did not understand the science in the first place, which is why they were able to seize on small errors and blow them out of proportion.</i> <br> The climate change supporters always say "they just don't understand the science" so then why don't the climate scientists explain things very nice and clearly instead of making wild claims and picking on the minors and ignoring the majors and all the while refusing to show anyone their raw data. <br> It is kind of like not showing your work in math class then whining that the teacher is unfair for accusing you of cheating. You can't prove you did any calculation right if you don't show your work.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They did not understand the science in the first place , which is why they were able to seize on small errors and blow them out of proportion .
The climate change supporters always say " they just do n't understand the science " so then why do n't the climate scientists explain things very nice and clearly instead of making wild claims and picking on the minors and ignoring the majors and all the while refusing to show anyone their raw data .
It is kind of like not showing your work in math class then whining that the teacher is unfair for accusing you of cheating .
You ca n't prove you did any calculation right if you do n't show your work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They did not understand the science in the first place, which is why they were able to seize on small errors and blow them out of proportion.
The climate change supporters always say "they just don't understand the science" so then why don't the climate scientists explain things very nice and clearly instead of making wild claims and picking on the minors and ignoring the majors and all the while refusing to show anyone their raw data.
It is kind of like not showing your work in math class then whining that the teacher is unfair for accusing you of cheating.
You can't prove you did any calculation right if you don't show your work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297246</id>
	<title>Re:My particular facts.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267292340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Here's how I see it:  Something is causing the environment to change.  It may not be all us but it is very likely that we are contributing in a significant amount.  Individually we need to be responsible to the environment and that means that the one thing in our direct control, our car, is the place to start.  Cars are necessary, we don't know what we would do without them.  That doesn't mean we can't point to them as an issue.  The effect of climate change is that people who do not matter will die.  Here in the first world we have technology and more importantly infrastructure to deal with the changes that are happening.  In the third world millions of people who are already on the edge will be pushed over by drought.  But in the end, they don't contribute to the bottom line anyway and its much easier to drive the SUV and make it someone elses problem.</p></div><p>You make numerous claims and have no evidence to back up any of them. Maybe you should be on the review panel!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's how I see it : Something is causing the environment to change .
It may not be all us but it is very likely that we are contributing in a significant amount .
Individually we need to be responsible to the environment and that means that the one thing in our direct control , our car , is the place to start .
Cars are necessary , we do n't know what we would do without them .
That does n't mean we ca n't point to them as an issue .
The effect of climate change is that people who do not matter will die .
Here in the first world we have technology and more importantly infrastructure to deal with the changes that are happening .
In the third world millions of people who are already on the edge will be pushed over by drought .
But in the end , they do n't contribute to the bottom line anyway and its much easier to drive the SUV and make it someone elses problem.You make numerous claims and have no evidence to back up any of them .
Maybe you should be on the review panel !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's how I see it:  Something is causing the environment to change.
It may not be all us but it is very likely that we are contributing in a significant amount.
Individually we need to be responsible to the environment and that means that the one thing in our direct control, our car, is the place to start.
Cars are necessary, we don't know what we would do without them.
That doesn't mean we can't point to them as an issue.
The effect of climate change is that people who do not matter will die.
Here in the first world we have technology and more importantly infrastructure to deal with the changes that are happening.
In the third world millions of people who are already on the edge will be pushed over by drought.
But in the end, they don't contribute to the bottom line anyway and its much easier to drive the SUV and make it someone elses problem.You make numerous claims and have no evidence to back up any of them.
Maybe you should be on the review panel!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297172</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31301098</id>
	<title>'Gray" Material?</title>
	<author>Hasai</author>
	<datestamp>1267279440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"Many scientists say that such material, ranging from reports by government agencies to respected research not published in scientific journals, is crucial to seeking a complete picture of the state of climate science."</p></div><p>Or, to support a predetermined conclusion.</p><p>'Nuff said.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Many scientists say that such material , ranging from reports by government agencies to respected research not published in scientific journals , is crucial to seeking a complete picture of the state of climate science .
" Or , to support a predetermined conclusion .
'Nuff said .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Many scientists say that such material, ranging from reports by government agencies to respected research not published in scientific journals, is crucial to seeking a complete picture of the state of climate science.
"Or, to support a predetermined conclusion.
'Nuff said.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297698</id>
	<title>Re:Asking the fox to guard the hen house</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267295820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In other news, Fox to launch investigation into Hen-House raid.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In other news , Fox to launch investigation into Hen-House raid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other news, Fox to launch investigation into Hen-House raid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31301148</id>
	<title>Re:Asking the fox to guard the hen house</title>
	<author>gox</author>
	<datestamp>1267279920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>(a) There is not such a huge difference in the amount of money scientists receive for one result versus the opposite result; or<br>(b) The field is not as politically charged; or<br>(c) The ultimate accuracy of a theory is seen more decisively in a shorter period of time.</p></div><p>(c) is always just silly.  Quite a lot of science isn't decided on short timescales.  Decades is more of than not how long you have to wait to find out how accurate a theory really is.  (That's how long it takes for better tests to get developed.)  Even medical testing often takes years to decades to pan out.  That's why we don't really know what makes for a healthier diet (butter or margarine?  how much salt is OK?   does wine really help with cholesterol?)</p></div><p>Sure, but isn't it exactly why we take unverified theories with a grain of salt? But in this case, which I'm sure is not unique among all science, there is a risk in waiting. Hence, a more philosophical and interdisciplinary debate ensues. In such a case, asserting that the science is settled is only an appeal to authority (since the theory will not be verified to a reasonable extent within the time to debate) and is agitative.</p><p>There is no easy way out for scientists and policy makers here and the ennui argument is making everything worse, IMHO. There isn't an easy way out for the evolutionary biologists either.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-) Even though its foundations are infinitely more elegant, older and much more concrete.</p><p>There is also truth in (b). Although I agree that it's not unique to this problem, solutions presented pose a huge burden to the public. Conclusions of evolutionary biology don't require people to pay a huge sum in advance. I find it extremely normal when a person sees a stranded polar bear photo on an AGW information site and thinks it's all a scam. A picture says more than a thousand words. People don't like to be fooled into believing something they don't understand.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( a ) There is not such a huge difference in the amount of money scientists receive for one result versus the opposite result ; or ( b ) The field is not as politically charged ; or ( c ) The ultimate accuracy of a theory is seen more decisively in a shorter period of time .
( c ) is always just silly .
Quite a lot of science is n't decided on short timescales .
Decades is more of than not how long you have to wait to find out how accurate a theory really is .
( That 's how long it takes for better tests to get developed .
) Even medical testing often takes years to decades to pan out .
That 's why we do n't really know what makes for a healthier diet ( butter or margarine ?
how much salt is OK ?
does wine really help with cholesterol ?
) Sure , but is n't it exactly why we take unverified theories with a grain of salt ?
But in this case , which I 'm sure is not unique among all science , there is a risk in waiting .
Hence , a more philosophical and interdisciplinary debate ensues .
In such a case , asserting that the science is settled is only an appeal to authority ( since the theory will not be verified to a reasonable extent within the time to debate ) and is agitative.There is no easy way out for scientists and policy makers here and the ennui argument is making everything worse , IMHO .
There is n't an easy way out for the evolutionary biologists either .
: - ) Even though its foundations are infinitely more elegant , older and much more concrete.There is also truth in ( b ) .
Although I agree that it 's not unique to this problem , solutions presented pose a huge burden to the public .
Conclusions of evolutionary biology do n't require people to pay a huge sum in advance .
I find it extremely normal when a person sees a stranded polar bear photo on an AGW information site and thinks it 's all a scam .
A picture says more than a thousand words .
People do n't like to be fooled into believing something they do n't understand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(a) There is not such a huge difference in the amount of money scientists receive for one result versus the opposite result; or(b) The field is not as politically charged; or(c) The ultimate accuracy of a theory is seen more decisively in a shorter period of time.
(c) is always just silly.
Quite a lot of science isn't decided on short timescales.
Decades is more of than not how long you have to wait to find out how accurate a theory really is.
(That's how long it takes for better tests to get developed.
)  Even medical testing often takes years to decades to pan out.
That's why we don't really know what makes for a healthier diet (butter or margarine?
how much salt is OK?
does wine really help with cholesterol?
)Sure, but isn't it exactly why we take unverified theories with a grain of salt?
But in this case, which I'm sure is not unique among all science, there is a risk in waiting.
Hence, a more philosophical and interdisciplinary debate ensues.
In such a case, asserting that the science is settled is only an appeal to authority (since the theory will not be verified to a reasonable extent within the time to debate) and is agitative.There is no easy way out for scientists and policy makers here and the ennui argument is making everything worse, IMHO.
There isn't an easy way out for the evolutionary biologists either.
:-) Even though its foundations are infinitely more elegant, older and much more concrete.There is also truth in (b).
Although I agree that it's not unique to this problem, solutions presented pose a huge burden to the public.
Conclusions of evolutionary biology don't require people to pay a huge sum in advance.
I find it extremely normal when a person sees a stranded polar bear photo on an AGW information site and thinks it's all a scam.
A picture says more than a thousand words.
People don't like to be fooled into believing something they don't understand.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31299138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297728</id>
	<title>Re:Can't imagine what they hope to achieve</title>
	<author>inthealpine</author>
	<datestamp>1267295940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As soon as I hear the term "climate change deniers", or the more common "climate deniers", I know I'm listening to a climate evangelist.  The cultist mentality that is coming out of the climate evangelism movement is a huge turn off.  I think if the money, power and politics was taken out of climate science it might get better response from masses.  Before someone says that 'most' of the masses agree on climate change and it's just a few nut job right wing morons that don't understand science, but somehow at the same time are corporate fat cats with endless bank accounts pushing their addenda...wait...wait...Climate change has been losing steam with the masses for years now.  More and more people realize that it is not the end of the world and that it has been cooling not warming in near history.  Now if anyone would like to tell me how I'm ignorant, stupid, uninformed, right wing, red neck, republican, Rush Limbaugh, climate denier or whatever insult works best to satisfy you so that you needn't consider my point of view relevant and go on your marry way preaching how carbon is the devil and we will all burn one day for weak indulgences...I need to finish shoveling snow, have at it.
**Oh, please point out any spelling or grammatical errors as well, that will show me!  If I use the wrong their, there or they're that will definitely show me that I can't have an opinion on 'global-warming-climate-change'.  Thanks.**</htmltext>
<tokenext>As soon as I hear the term " climate change deniers " , or the more common " climate deniers " , I know I 'm listening to a climate evangelist .
The cultist mentality that is coming out of the climate evangelism movement is a huge turn off .
I think if the money , power and politics was taken out of climate science it might get better response from masses .
Before someone says that 'most ' of the masses agree on climate change and it 's just a few nut job right wing morons that do n't understand science , but somehow at the same time are corporate fat cats with endless bank accounts pushing their addenda...wait...wait...Climate change has been losing steam with the masses for years now .
More and more people realize that it is not the end of the world and that it has been cooling not warming in near history .
Now if anyone would like to tell me how I 'm ignorant , stupid , uninformed , right wing , red neck , republican , Rush Limbaugh , climate denier or whatever insult works best to satisfy you so that you need n't consider my point of view relevant and go on your marry way preaching how carbon is the devil and we will all burn one day for weak indulgences...I need to finish shoveling snow , have at it .
* * Oh , please point out any spelling or grammatical errors as well , that will show me !
If I use the wrong their , there or they 're that will definitely show me that I ca n't have an opinion on 'global-warming-climate-change' .
Thanks. * *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As soon as I hear the term "climate change deniers", or the more common "climate deniers", I know I'm listening to a climate evangelist.
The cultist mentality that is coming out of the climate evangelism movement is a huge turn off.
I think if the money, power and politics was taken out of climate science it might get better response from masses.
Before someone says that 'most' of the masses agree on climate change and it's just a few nut job right wing morons that don't understand science, but somehow at the same time are corporate fat cats with endless bank accounts pushing their addenda...wait...wait...Climate change has been losing steam with the masses for years now.
More and more people realize that it is not the end of the world and that it has been cooling not warming in near history.
Now if anyone would like to tell me how I'm ignorant, stupid, uninformed, right wing, red neck, republican, Rush Limbaugh, climate denier or whatever insult works best to satisfy you so that you needn't consider my point of view relevant and go on your marry way preaching how carbon is the devil and we will all burn one day for weak indulgences...I need to finish shoveling snow, have at it.
**Oh, please point out any spelling or grammatical errors as well, that will show me!
If I use the wrong their, there or they're that will definitely show me that I can't have an opinion on 'global-warming-climate-change'.
Thanks.**</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297136</id>
	<title>Asking the fox to guard the hen house</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267291320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nothing could be sillier than some fake UN panel investigating itself.</p><p>Whatever anyone thinks of AGW or GW or CC or anything else, this has to be seen for the nonsense that it is.</p><p>There are no "independent" climate scientists and haven't been for decades, if ever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nothing could be sillier than some fake UN panel investigating itself.Whatever anyone thinks of AGW or GW or CC or anything else , this has to be seen for the nonsense that it is.There are no " independent " climate scientists and have n't been for decades , if ever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nothing could be sillier than some fake UN panel investigating itself.Whatever anyone thinks of AGW or GW or CC or anything else, this has to be seen for the nonsense that it is.There are no "independent" climate scientists and haven't been for decades, if ever.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31299768</id>
	<title>Re:Can't imagine what they hope to achieve</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267266540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know, whining that you're being insulted with the term "climate deniers" while, scant words later, calling the speakers "cultists" and "climate evangelists" seems hypocritical and makes me take you about as seriously as you take others.</p><p>Just saying: you're not helping what you're decrying.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , whining that you 're being insulted with the term " climate deniers " while , scant words later , calling the speakers " cultists " and " climate evangelists " seems hypocritical and makes me take you about as seriously as you take others.Just saying : you 're not helping what you 're decrying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, whining that you're being insulted with the term "climate deniers" while, scant words later, calling the speakers "cultists" and "climate evangelists" seems hypocritical and makes me take you about as seriously as you take others.Just saying: you're not helping what you're decrying.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31300658</id>
	<title>Re:Asking the fox to guard the hen house</title>
	<author>TapeCutter</author>
	<datestamp>1267275240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"There is not such a huge difference in the amount of money scientists receive for one result versus the opposite result"</i>
<br> <br>
Some people have very strange ideas of what constitutes a get rich quick scheme. The IPCC has less than 10 paid staff and operates on a budget of $5-6M/yr sourced from a large number of politically diverse nations. Virtually all of that money is spent on airfares and conference facilities. No scientist has ever recieved a dime for the tedious review work they do putting the repots together.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" There is not such a huge difference in the amount of money scientists receive for one result versus the opposite result " Some people have very strange ideas of what constitutes a get rich quick scheme .
The IPCC has less than 10 paid staff and operates on a budget of $ 5-6M/yr sourced from a large number of politically diverse nations .
Virtually all of that money is spent on airfares and conference facilities .
No scientist has ever recieved a dime for the tedious review work they do putting the repots together .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"There is not such a huge difference in the amount of money scientists receive for one result versus the opposite result"
 
Some people have very strange ideas of what constitutes a get rich quick scheme.
The IPCC has less than 10 paid staff and operates on a budget of $5-6M/yr sourced from a large number of politically diverse nations.
Virtually all of that money is spent on airfares and conference facilities.
No scientist has ever recieved a dime for the tedious review work they do putting the repots together.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297900</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31310472</id>
	<title>Re:Can't imagine what they hope to achieve</title>
	<author>hkmwbz</author>
	<datestamp>1267363860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The problem is that there is a massive conspiracy trying to use climate change as a lever to promote a social agenda.</p></div></blockquote><p>
So what? Just because someone is using scientific facts for something you don't like doesn't mean that said scientific facts are wrong.</p><blockquote><div><p>There are a lot of thumbs leaning on the scales, and it's made it more challenging to separate the nuggets of truth from the nodules of crap that have been surreptitiously dumped into this "perfect storm" of conflicting interests.</p></div></blockquote><p>
No, it's not challenging at all. Just look at the science.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that there is a massive conspiracy trying to use climate change as a lever to promote a social agenda .
So what ?
Just because someone is using scientific facts for something you do n't like does n't mean that said scientific facts are wrong.There are a lot of thumbs leaning on the scales , and it 's made it more challenging to separate the nuggets of truth from the nodules of crap that have been surreptitiously dumped into this " perfect storm " of conflicting interests .
No , it 's not challenging at all .
Just look at the science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that there is a massive conspiracy trying to use climate change as a lever to promote a social agenda.
So what?
Just because someone is using scientific facts for something you don't like doesn't mean that said scientific facts are wrong.There are a lot of thumbs leaning on the scales, and it's made it more challenging to separate the nuggets of truth from the nodules of crap that have been surreptitiously dumped into this "perfect storm" of conflicting interests.
No, it's not challenging at all.
Just look at the science.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31298142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31298364</id>
	<title>UN should create panel to review skeptic funding</title>
	<author>presidenteloco</author>
	<datestamp>1267299240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the name of balance, it would be good also if a financial audit panel were created to<br>review and disclose in a public report the funding sources and amounts which<br>prominent climate change skeptics and denier-advocates have received.</p><p>I'm not accusing anyone. I just think it is fair that, as part of the vitally important public debate,<br>
&nbsp; we should know who is behind the various positions we are hearing on this issue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the name of balance , it would be good also if a financial audit panel were created toreview and disclose in a public report the funding sources and amounts whichprominent climate change skeptics and denier-advocates have received.I 'm not accusing anyone .
I just think it is fair that , as part of the vitally important public debate ,   we should know who is behind the various positions we are hearing on this issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the name of balance, it would be good also if a financial audit panel were created toreview and disclose in a public report the funding sources and amounts whichprominent climate change skeptics and denier-advocates have received.I'm not accusing anyone.
I just think it is fair that, as part of the vitally important public debate,
  we should know who is behind the various positions we are hearing on this issue.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31298332</id>
	<title>Re:Asking the fox to guard the hen house</title>
	<author>AmberBlackCat</author>
	<datestamp>1267299060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why do we care about this? What is the consequence if somebody thinks the earth is getting warmer or cooler?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do we care about this ?
What is the consequence if somebody thinks the earth is getting warmer or cooler ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do we care about this?
What is the consequence if somebody thinks the earth is getting warmer or cooler?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297426</id>
	<title>Re:Asking the fox to guard the hen house</title>
	<author>Trailer Trash</author>
	<datestamp>1267293840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>There are no "independent" climate scientists and haven't been for decades, if ever.</p></div><p>That's a pretty bold claim. Do you also think it is the same with sciences? Are there no independant botanists either? Are they all involved with some big conspiracy to hide the fact that all the leaders of the world are actually vegetables?</p><p>Hmm, maybe not. I does sound a tad silly. Perhaps the conspiracy just involves those scientists who claim something that you don't want to believe.</p></div><p>There actually are independent scientists, and as the CRU emails show, they have been disparaged and shut up at every possible point.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are no " independent " climate scientists and have n't been for decades , if ever.That 's a pretty bold claim .
Do you also think it is the same with sciences ?
Are there no independant botanists either ?
Are they all involved with some big conspiracy to hide the fact that all the leaders of the world are actually vegetables ? Hmm , maybe not .
I does sound a tad silly .
Perhaps the conspiracy just involves those scientists who claim something that you do n't want to believe.There actually are independent scientists , and as the CRU emails show , they have been disparaged and shut up at every possible point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are no "independent" climate scientists and haven't been for decades, if ever.That's a pretty bold claim.
Do you also think it is the same with sciences?
Are there no independant botanists either?
Are they all involved with some big conspiracy to hide the fact that all the leaders of the world are actually vegetables?Hmm, maybe not.
I does sound a tad silly.
Perhaps the conspiracy just involves those scientists who claim something that you don't want to believe.There actually are independent scientists, and as the CRU emails show, they have been disparaged and shut up at every possible point.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31302956</id>
	<title>a physicists view on it</title>
	<author>drolli</author>
	<datestamp>1267294860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A disclaimer: i am a physicist (phd) working in an area unrelated to climate research. I am personally convinced that putting the ecosystem out of balance so far as we are doing it now is a terrible idea.

To the question of gray literature.

a) politically: excluding gray literature would hit the skeptics harsh. So yes, you are welcome to ask for that. At the same time we should ask to review the talks which are given by industry-payed lobbyists in backrooms in Washington (and other capitals) for references to such gray literature and track this. The politics has to decide if they want to base their decisions on Science or Lobbyist money. Excluding gray literature reduces Lombards pseudo-arguments in his book to shambles. BTW: in that case also kiss Creationism good bye.


b) empirically about non-peer reviewed publications: The overwhelming majority of scientists/persons who circumvent peer review know why they do so. The overwhelming majority of non-peer reviewed papers strongly opposing a common scientific viewpoint is proven to be utterly wrong later. Half of what climate skecptics cite can be debunked by anybody with elementary physics knowlegde (e.g. a bachelor).

c) observation of conspiracy theories: the Skeptics generate some conpiracy theories. Statistically most conspiracy theories are bullshit. But we in science compiracies blocking publications have been rumored about from time to time. Empirically i think they are small. Science has shown that it adopts new ideas quickly (e.g. theory of relativity, quantum physics took only a few years - and for sure against quite some establishment)

d) Scientific misconduct in the climate community: Yes. It exists. As it does in any other field in the science. And yes, people have buddies and discuss with them to skip one or the other data point. Sadly. In comparison to how much was lied in the beginning of nuclear technology, the misconduct which i have seen published are small. In gray publications there is no code at all for scientific misconduct.

e) IPCC boards: The more scientific working groups had no problems. The real problems where the working groups who should estimate the consequences (non-scientists). Ironically instead of asking the scientist in the IPCC they copied non-peer reviewed material (written by non-scientists).</htmltext>
<tokenext>A disclaimer : i am a physicist ( phd ) working in an area unrelated to climate research .
I am personally convinced that putting the ecosystem out of balance so far as we are doing it now is a terrible idea .
To the question of gray literature .
a ) politically : excluding gray literature would hit the skeptics harsh .
So yes , you are welcome to ask for that .
At the same time we should ask to review the talks which are given by industry-payed lobbyists in backrooms in Washington ( and other capitals ) for references to such gray literature and track this .
The politics has to decide if they want to base their decisions on Science or Lobbyist money .
Excluding gray literature reduces Lombards pseudo-arguments in his book to shambles .
BTW : in that case also kiss Creationism good bye .
b ) empirically about non-peer reviewed publications : The overwhelming majority of scientists/persons who circumvent peer review know why they do so .
The overwhelming majority of non-peer reviewed papers strongly opposing a common scientific viewpoint is proven to be utterly wrong later .
Half of what climate skecptics cite can be debunked by anybody with elementary physics knowlegde ( e.g .
a bachelor ) .
c ) observation of conspiracy theories : the Skeptics generate some conpiracy theories .
Statistically most conspiracy theories are bullshit .
But we in science compiracies blocking publications have been rumored about from time to time .
Empirically i think they are small .
Science has shown that it adopts new ideas quickly ( e.g .
theory of relativity , quantum physics took only a few years - and for sure against quite some establishment ) d ) Scientific misconduct in the climate community : Yes .
It exists .
As it does in any other field in the science .
And yes , people have buddies and discuss with them to skip one or the other data point .
Sadly. In comparison to how much was lied in the beginning of nuclear technology , the misconduct which i have seen published are small .
In gray publications there is no code at all for scientific misconduct .
e ) IPCC boards : The more scientific working groups had no problems .
The real problems where the working groups who should estimate the consequences ( non-scientists ) .
Ironically instead of asking the scientist in the IPCC they copied non-peer reviewed material ( written by non-scientists ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A disclaimer: i am a physicist (phd) working in an area unrelated to climate research.
I am personally convinced that putting the ecosystem out of balance so far as we are doing it now is a terrible idea.
To the question of gray literature.
a) politically: excluding gray literature would hit the skeptics harsh.
So yes, you are welcome to ask for that.
At the same time we should ask to review the talks which are given by industry-payed lobbyists in backrooms in Washington (and other capitals) for references to such gray literature and track this.
The politics has to decide if they want to base their decisions on Science or Lobbyist money.
Excluding gray literature reduces Lombards pseudo-arguments in his book to shambles.
BTW: in that case also kiss Creationism good bye.
b) empirically about non-peer reviewed publications: The overwhelming majority of scientists/persons who circumvent peer review know why they do so.
The overwhelming majority of non-peer reviewed papers strongly opposing a common scientific viewpoint is proven to be utterly wrong later.
Half of what climate skecptics cite can be debunked by anybody with elementary physics knowlegde (e.g.
a bachelor).
c) observation of conspiracy theories: the Skeptics generate some conpiracy theories.
Statistically most conspiracy theories are bullshit.
But we in science compiracies blocking publications have been rumored about from time to time.
Empirically i think they are small.
Science has shown that it adopts new ideas quickly (e.g.
theory of relativity, quantum physics took only a few years - and for sure against quite some establishment)

d) Scientific misconduct in the climate community: Yes.
It exists.
As it does in any other field in the science.
And yes, people have buddies and discuss with them to skip one or the other data point.
Sadly. In comparison to how much was lied in the beginning of nuclear technology, the misconduct which i have seen published are small.
In gray publications there is no code at all for scientific misconduct.
e) IPCC boards: The more scientific working groups had no problems.
The real problems where the working groups who should estimate the consequences (non-scientists).
Ironically instead of asking the scientist in the IPCC they copied non-peer reviewed material (written by non-scientists).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31300728</id>
	<title>Pachauri article in the Guardian</title>
	<author>fritsd</author>
	<datestamp>1267275840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>What the scientific community needs is better PR and stating that essentially those who think AGW is not happening are gullible, misguided people, whackjobs and paid ex-tobacco lobbyists.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
You mean something like <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/jan/04/climate-change-delay-denial" title="guardian.co.uk">this</a> [guardian.co.uk] I presume.
<br>
This was actually difficult to find:
<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Woodward\_\%26\_McDowell" title="sourcewatch.org">Woodward &amp; McDowell lobbying firm</a> [sourcewatch.org],
<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=AB\_32\_Implementation\_Group" title="sourcewatch.org">AB 32 Implementation Group</a> [sourcewatch.org].
<br>
Other maybe interesting links:<a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2009/06/legislators-opposed-to-climate.html" title="opensecrets.org">here</a> [opensecrets.org], or
this slightly more activist <a href="http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Portal:Climate\_Change" title="sourcewatch.org">website</a> [sourcewatch.org].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What the scientific community needs is better PR and stating that essentially those who think AGW is not happening are gullible , misguided people , whackjobs and paid ex-tobacco lobbyists .
You mean something like this [ guardian.co.uk ] I presume .
This was actually difficult to find : Woodward &amp; McDowell lobbying firm [ sourcewatch.org ] , AB 32 Implementation Group [ sourcewatch.org ] .
Other maybe interesting links : here [ opensecrets.org ] , or this slightly more activist website [ sourcewatch.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the scientific community needs is better PR and stating that essentially those who think AGW is not happening are gullible, misguided people, whackjobs and paid ex-tobacco lobbyists.
You mean something like this [guardian.co.uk] I presume.
This was actually difficult to find:
Woodward &amp; McDowell lobbying firm [sourcewatch.org],
AB 32 Implementation Group [sourcewatch.org].
Other maybe interesting links:here [opensecrets.org], or
this slightly more activist website [sourcewatch.org].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297750</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31317130</id>
	<title>We all know what causes global warming</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267462740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/" title="venganza.org" rel="nofollow">Clearly it's the decrease in the number of pirates</a> [venganza.org] So says our the great noodle in the sky.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Clearly it 's the decrease in the number of pirates [ venganza.org ] So says our the great noodle in the sky .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clearly it's the decrease in the number of pirates [venganza.org] So says our the great noodle in the sky.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31298598</id>
	<title>Re:Asking the fox to guard the hen house</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1267300800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>some big conspiracy to hide the fact that all the leaders of the world are actually vegetables?</p></div></blockquote><p>I wasn't aware that it was a secret.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>some big conspiracy to hide the fact that all the leaders of the world are actually vegetables ? I was n't aware that it was a secret .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>some big conspiracy to hide the fact that all the leaders of the world are actually vegetables?I wasn't aware that it was a secret.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297396</id>
	<title>Re:"will be appointed"</title>
	<author>PolygamousRanchKid </author>
	<datestamp>1267293540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where's Richard Feynman when you need him?
</p><p>Seriously I think that one of the most important lessons from his role on the NASA Challenger commission, is what an outside can accomplish.  He did this by asking questions that the insiders never thought of, and took as "givens."
</p><p>I would like to see a panel of experts that are not outspoken about global warming, in one way or another.  Even if they are not weather experts, they may provide some insight to the scientific methods used.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where 's Richard Feynman when you need him ?
Seriously I think that one of the most important lessons from his role on the NASA Challenger commission , is what an outside can accomplish .
He did this by asking questions that the insiders never thought of , and took as " givens .
" I would like to see a panel of experts that are not outspoken about global warming , in one way or another .
Even if they are not weather experts , they may provide some insight to the scientific methods used .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where's Richard Feynman when you need him?
Seriously I think that one of the most important lessons from his role on the NASA Challenger commission, is what an outside can accomplish.
He did this by asking questions that the insiders never thought of, and took as "givens.
"
I would like to see a panel of experts that are not outspoken about global warming, in one way or another.
Even if they are not weather experts, they may provide some insight to the scientific methods used.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297222</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31302994</id>
	<title>Re:Extra, Extra!</title>
	<author>jhol13</author>
	<datestamp>1267295220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>According to the news I have read they will make everything, including raw data (and metadata) open nad freely available to everyone.</p><p>How the fuck this can be bad? Because "UN"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>According to the news I have read they will make everything , including raw data ( and metadata ) open nad freely available to everyone.How the fuck this can be bad ?
Because " UN " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to the news I have read they will make everything, including raw data (and metadata) open nad freely available to everyone.How the fuck this can be bad?
Because "UN"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297150</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297222</id>
	<title>"will be appointed"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267292160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>By who?</htmltext>
<tokenext>By who ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By who?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297150</id>
	<title>Extra, Extra!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267291500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>UN agrees to let scientists disagree<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... <br> <br>
The UN doesn't really do anything very well<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and this won't be any different. Their contribution will most likely be just another thumb on the political scale of this controversial topic.</htmltext>
<tokenext>UN agrees to let scientists disagree .. . The UN does n't really do anything very well ... and this wo n't be any different .
Their contribution will most likely be just another thumb on the political scale of this controversial topic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>UN agrees to let scientists disagree ...  
The UN doesn't really do anything very well ... and this won't be any different.
Their contribution will most likely be just another thumb on the political scale of this controversial topic.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297172</id>
	<title>My particular facts.</title>
	<author>headkase</author>
	<datestamp>1267291620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here's how I see it:  Something is causing the environment to change.  It may not be all us but it is very likely that we are contributing in a significant amount.  Individually we need to be responsible to the environment and that means that the one thing in our direct control, our car, is the place to start.  Cars are necessary, we don't know what we would do without them.  That doesn't mean we can't point to them as an issue.  The effect of climate change is that people who do not matter will die.  Here in the first world we have technology and more importantly infrastructure to deal with the changes that are happening.  In the third world millions of people who are already on the edge will be pushed over by drought.  But in the end, they don't contribute to the bottom line anyway and its much easier to drive the SUV and make it someone elses problem.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's how I see it : Something is causing the environment to change .
It may not be all us but it is very likely that we are contributing in a significant amount .
Individually we need to be responsible to the environment and that means that the one thing in our direct control , our car , is the place to start .
Cars are necessary , we do n't know what we would do without them .
That does n't mean we ca n't point to them as an issue .
The effect of climate change is that people who do not matter will die .
Here in the first world we have technology and more importantly infrastructure to deal with the changes that are happening .
In the third world millions of people who are already on the edge will be pushed over by drought .
But in the end , they do n't contribute to the bottom line anyway and its much easier to drive the SUV and make it someone elses problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's how I see it:  Something is causing the environment to change.
It may not be all us but it is very likely that we are contributing in a significant amount.
Individually we need to be responsible to the environment and that means that the one thing in our direct control, our car, is the place to start.
Cars are necessary, we don't know what we would do without them.
That doesn't mean we can't point to them as an issue.
The effect of climate change is that people who do not matter will die.
Here in the first world we have technology and more importantly infrastructure to deal with the changes that are happening.
In the third world millions of people who are already on the edge will be pushed over by drought.
But in the end, they don't contribute to the bottom line anyway and its much easier to drive the SUV and make it someone elses problem.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297212</id>
	<title>Yay planet</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267292040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why would the U.N. need to do this?  THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED according to Al Gore.  Man-made global warming is destroying the planet and the only way to fix it is to be heavily taxed for all use of carbon and give that money to the international banksters.  I'm not too clear on how giving trillions to criminals will fix the planet, but if I was smart I probably wouldn't believe the global warming scam at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would the U.N. need to do this ?
THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED according to Al Gore .
Man-made global warming is destroying the planet and the only way to fix it is to be heavily taxed for all use of carbon and give that money to the international banksters .
I 'm not too clear on how giving trillions to criminals will fix the planet , but if I was smart I probably would n't believe the global warming scam at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would the U.N. need to do this?
THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED according to Al Gore.
Man-made global warming is destroying the planet and the only way to fix it is to be heavily taxed for all use of carbon and give that money to the international banksters.
I'm not too clear on how giving trillions to criminals will fix the planet, but if I was smart I probably wouldn't believe the global warming scam at all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297362</id>
	<title>Gray literature</title>
	<author>s-whs</author>
	<datestamp>1267293180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>One area to be examined is whether the panel should incorporate so-called gray literature, a term to describe nonpeer-reviewed science, in its reports. Many scientists say that such material, ranging from reports by government agencies to respected research not published in scientific journals,</p></div><p>The whole point of peer reviewed literature is that you can accept it as being probably well researched, having assumptions that are probably correct. If you want to include non-peer reviewed research you cannot scan the article, and especially not its conclusions, but you will have to check everything! So you start doing your own peer-reviewing turning them in peer-reviewed articles. If that's not done by someone qualified, having some non-peer reviewed 'respected research' included is dangerous in that it may contaminate good research with crappy stuff.
<br> <br>
And if this 'respected research' is worth something, it's probably already used/cited in peer reviewed articles I would imagine.
<br> <br>
In any event, the non-believers have a small success. From mistakes in a report (everyone makes mistakes), results a scan of more literature. Will that change anything? Almost certainly not. The uncertainties in climate models are known, but what's not in doubt (by real scientists) is that there is change (at least partially man-made) and besides the crackpots or people who just don't give a damn [ I remember an interview in a dutch TV programme ca. 2004 IIRC with someone senior in the US government who simply said: If other countries want to clean up the air, fine, we're not going to do it because it would hurt our economy ], this seems to serve no-one. I.e. it's more like politics.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One area to be examined is whether the panel should incorporate so-called gray literature , a term to describe nonpeer-reviewed science , in its reports .
Many scientists say that such material , ranging from reports by government agencies to respected research not published in scientific journals,The whole point of peer reviewed literature is that you can accept it as being probably well researched , having assumptions that are probably correct .
If you want to include non-peer reviewed research you can not scan the article , and especially not its conclusions , but you will have to check everything !
So you start doing your own peer-reviewing turning them in peer-reviewed articles .
If that 's not done by someone qualified , having some non-peer reviewed 'respected research ' included is dangerous in that it may contaminate good research with crappy stuff .
And if this 'respected research ' is worth something , it 's probably already used/cited in peer reviewed articles I would imagine .
In any event , the non-believers have a small success .
From mistakes in a report ( everyone makes mistakes ) , results a scan of more literature .
Will that change anything ?
Almost certainly not .
The uncertainties in climate models are known , but what 's not in doubt ( by real scientists ) is that there is change ( at least partially man-made ) and besides the crackpots or people who just do n't give a damn [ I remember an interview in a dutch TV programme ca .
2004 IIRC with someone senior in the US government who simply said : If other countries want to clean up the air , fine , we 're not going to do it because it would hurt our economy ] , this seems to serve no-one .
I.e. it 's more like politics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One area to be examined is whether the panel should incorporate so-called gray literature, a term to describe nonpeer-reviewed science, in its reports.
Many scientists say that such material, ranging from reports by government agencies to respected research not published in scientific journals,The whole point of peer reviewed literature is that you can accept it as being probably well researched, having assumptions that are probably correct.
If you want to include non-peer reviewed research you cannot scan the article, and especially not its conclusions, but you will have to check everything!
So you start doing your own peer-reviewing turning them in peer-reviewed articles.
If that's not done by someone qualified, having some non-peer reviewed 'respected research' included is dangerous in that it may contaminate good research with crappy stuff.
And if this 'respected research' is worth something, it's probably already used/cited in peer reviewed articles I would imagine.
In any event, the non-believers have a small success.
From mistakes in a report (everyone makes mistakes), results a scan of more literature.
Will that change anything?
Almost certainly not.
The uncertainties in climate models are known, but what's not in doubt (by real scientists) is that there is change (at least partially man-made) and besides the crackpots or people who just don't give a damn [ I remember an interview in a dutch TV programme ca.
2004 IIRC with someone senior in the US government who simply said: If other countries want to clean up the air, fine, we're not going to do it because it would hurt our economy ], this seems to serve no-one.
I.e. it's more like politics.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297140</id>
	<title>An independent panel -</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267291380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>- to review the work of another independent panel?</htmltext>
<tokenext>- to review the work of another independent panel ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>- to review the work of another independent panel?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297448</id>
	<title>Novel concept</title>
	<author>andoman2000</author>
	<datestamp>1267294140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow an independent panel to investigate a independent panel that's a novel concept</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow an independent panel to investigate a independent panel that 's a novel concept</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow an independent panel to investigate a independent panel that's a novel concept</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31299980</id>
	<title>I hope this conspiracy gets  blown wide open...</title>
	<author>florescent\_beige</author>
	<datestamp>1267268640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The one where somebody broke into a computer and stole a bunch of stuff then released it a way that just happened to give maximum benefit to some of the richest people on the planet.</p><p>Google and the NSA found out who wrote the code behind their break-in. They found out what <i>buildings</i> the attack came from. Where is the equivalent law enforcement action here? And where is the news coverage of the real actual crime?</p><p>Of course I'm being rhetorical, I know it can't and won't happen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The one where somebody broke into a computer and stole a bunch of stuff then released it a way that just happened to give maximum benefit to some of the richest people on the planet.Google and the NSA found out who wrote the code behind their break-in .
They found out what buildings the attack came from .
Where is the equivalent law enforcement action here ?
And where is the news coverage of the real actual crime ? Of course I 'm being rhetorical , I know it ca n't and wo n't happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The one where somebody broke into a computer and stole a bunch of stuff then released it a way that just happened to give maximum benefit to some of the richest people on the planet.Google and the NSA found out who wrote the code behind their break-in.
They found out what buildings the attack came from.
Where is the equivalent law enforcement action here?
And where is the news coverage of the real actual crime?Of course I'm being rhetorical, I know it can't and won't happen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297288</id>
	<title>Re:Asking the fox to guard the hen house</title>
	<author>Gadget\_Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1267292640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There are no "independent" climate scientists and haven't been for decades, if ever.</p></div><p>That's a pretty bold claim. Do you also think it is the same with sciences? Are there no independant botanists either? Are they all involved with some big conspiracy to hide the fact that all the leaders of the world are actually vegetables?</p><p>Hmm, maybe not. I does sound a tad silly. Perhaps the conspiracy just involves those scientists who claim something that you don't want to believe.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are no " independent " climate scientists and have n't been for decades , if ever.That 's a pretty bold claim .
Do you also think it is the same with sciences ?
Are there no independant botanists either ?
Are they all involved with some big conspiracy to hide the fact that all the leaders of the world are actually vegetables ? Hmm , maybe not .
I does sound a tad silly .
Perhaps the conspiracy just involves those scientists who claim something that you do n't want to believe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are no "independent" climate scientists and haven't been for decades, if ever.That's a pretty bold claim.
Do you also think it is the same with sciences?
Are there no independant botanists either?
Are they all involved with some big conspiracy to hide the fact that all the leaders of the world are actually vegetables?Hmm, maybe not.
I does sound a tad silly.
Perhaps the conspiracy just involves those scientists who claim something that you don't want to believe.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31310354</id>
	<title>Re:Can't imagine what they hope to achieve</title>
	<author>hkmwbz</author>
	<datestamp>1267363020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>As soon as I hear the term "climate change deniers", or the more common "climate deniers", I know I'm listening to a climate evangelist. The cultist mentality that is coming out of the climate evangelism movement is a huge turn off.</p></div></blockquote><p>
But you <b>are</b> a denier, so what's wrong with being called a denier?</p><blockquote><div><p>I think if the money, power and politics was taken out of climate science it might get better response from masses.</p></div></blockquote><p>
I agree. Tell your right-wing friends to stop spending millions of dollars to spread FUD and lies about the research. Problem solved.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As soon as I hear the term " climate change deniers " , or the more common " climate deniers " , I know I 'm listening to a climate evangelist .
The cultist mentality that is coming out of the climate evangelism movement is a huge turn off .
But you are a denier , so what 's wrong with being called a denier ? I think if the money , power and politics was taken out of climate science it might get better response from masses .
I agree .
Tell your right-wing friends to stop spending millions of dollars to spread FUD and lies about the research .
Problem solved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As soon as I hear the term "climate change deniers", or the more common "climate deniers", I know I'm listening to a climate evangelist.
The cultist mentality that is coming out of the climate evangelism movement is a huge turn off.
But you are a denier, so what's wrong with being called a denier?I think if the money, power and politics was taken out of climate science it might get better response from masses.
I agree.
Tell your right-wing friends to stop spending millions of dollars to spread FUD and lies about the research.
Problem solved.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31298142</id>
	<title>Re:Can't imagine what they hope to achieve</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267298100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is that there <em>is</em> a massive conspiracy trying to use climate change as a lever to promote a social agenda.  They have insinuated themselves into the process and have tainted <b>some</b> of the research.</p><p>There is also a loose gathering of industrialists trying to use the same thing as a bullet point to help separate you from your dollars.  From the greenwashing of GE using their mouthpiece of <em> <b>every</b> show on NBC</em>, to the auto companies with their claims of 200+ mpg hybrids (which, of course, get a "small" portion of their motive energy out-of-band...), to the electric utilities with their "we need you to approve another rate hike because those windmills we haven't installed yet cost twice as much per kW as conventional fuels" plans.</p><p>There are a lot of thumbs leaning on the scales, and it's made it more challenging to separate the nuggets of truth from the nodules of crap that have been surreptitiously dumped into this "perfect storm" of conflicting interests.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that there is a massive conspiracy trying to use climate change as a lever to promote a social agenda .
They have insinuated themselves into the process and have tainted some of the research.There is also a loose gathering of industrialists trying to use the same thing as a bullet point to help separate you from your dollars .
From the greenwashing of GE using their mouthpiece of every show on NBC , to the auto companies with their claims of 200 + mpg hybrids ( which , of course , get a " small " portion of their motive energy out-of-band... ) , to the electric utilities with their " we need you to approve another rate hike because those windmills we have n't installed yet cost twice as much per kW as conventional fuels " plans.There are a lot of thumbs leaning on the scales , and it 's made it more challenging to separate the nuggets of truth from the nodules of crap that have been surreptitiously dumped into this " perfect storm " of conflicting interests .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that there is a massive conspiracy trying to use climate change as a lever to promote a social agenda.
They have insinuated themselves into the process and have tainted some of the research.There is also a loose gathering of industrialists trying to use the same thing as a bullet point to help separate you from your dollars.
From the greenwashing of GE using their mouthpiece of  every show on NBC, to the auto companies with their claims of 200+ mpg hybrids (which, of course, get a "small" portion of their motive energy out-of-band...), to the electric utilities with their "we need you to approve another rate hike because those windmills we haven't installed yet cost twice as much per kW as conventional fuels" plans.There are a lot of thumbs leaning on the scales, and it's made it more challenging to separate the nuggets of truth from the nodules of crap that have been surreptitiously dumped into this "perfect storm" of conflicting interests.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31304920</id>
	<title>Gray Literature, Change without Hope, etc</title>
	<author>hicksw</author>
	<datestamp>1267366260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One would expect the data behind any worthwhile gray literature to be incorporated in peer-reviewed literature.  Perhaps it remains gray is because the data isn't worthwhile.</p><p>It is not unreasonable to suspect that the effects on climate of the last three hundred years cannot be reversed in a decade or two, no matter how much effort we expend.  In that case our efforts would be better aimed at survival in the new circumstances rather than trying and failing to restore the previous circumstances.</p><p>I am a real denier.  I know that things, including the climate, change.  I deny humans can reverse the process.<br>--<br>If you can't be a good example, you have an obligation to be a horrible warning.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One would expect the data behind any worthwhile gray literature to be incorporated in peer-reviewed literature .
Perhaps it remains gray is because the data is n't worthwhile.It is not unreasonable to suspect that the effects on climate of the last three hundred years can not be reversed in a decade or two , no matter how much effort we expend .
In that case our efforts would be better aimed at survival in the new circumstances rather than trying and failing to restore the previous circumstances.I am a real denier .
I know that things , including the climate , change .
I deny humans can reverse the process.--If you ca n't be a good example , you have an obligation to be a horrible warning .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One would expect the data behind any worthwhile gray literature to be incorporated in peer-reviewed literature.
Perhaps it remains gray is because the data isn't worthwhile.It is not unreasonable to suspect that the effects on climate of the last three hundred years cannot be reversed in a decade or two, no matter how much effort we expend.
In that case our efforts would be better aimed at survival in the new circumstances rather than trying and failing to restore the previous circumstances.I am a real denier.
I know that things, including the climate, change.
I deny humans can reverse the process.--If you can't be a good example, you have an obligation to be a horrible warning.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31303272</id>
	<title>Re:Asking the fox to guard the hen house</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267298400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Got plenty of evidence myself, friend of mine changed his research from being a completely independent study to one specifically aimed at proving global warming (he could not afford to be independent). He went from impossible to get a grant to funding coming out of his butthole in under a month.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Got plenty of evidence myself , friend of mine changed his research from being a completely independent study to one specifically aimed at proving global warming ( he could not afford to be independent ) .
He went from impossible to get a grant to funding coming out of his butthole in under a month .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Got plenty of evidence myself, friend of mine changed his research from being a completely independent study to one specifically aimed at proving global warming (he could not afford to be independent).
He went from impossible to get a grant to funding coming out of his butthole in under a month.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31299138</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31303426</id>
	<title>Who Cares? Focus on the solution.</title>
	<author>stastuffis</author>
	<datestamp>1267300020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whether or not I believe we are spelling our quick demise is really none of my concern. Many publications on the topic have claimed much of the damage is irreversible. Some seem to inappropriately model the data (read: make accurate predictions). Inability to make such predictions isn't proof of incorrectness, but instead, it makes me ponder the usefulness. However, while I do I have my reservations on these findings, I do have a strong opinion on energy. With our current plans, it's quite finite.</p><p>In short, I'd rather have more money being poured into renewable technologies, even at the expense of climate change research (not cutting it). If we know the proposed solution is a future-bound inevitability (regardless of the validity of climate change theory), what's all the fuss for? I'd just suggest to look at how much money and power the industry of energy holds. That's why it's political.</p><p>I will add that I believe what bothers me about some "Global Warmists" is the animosity and push for dramatic overnight change. Some people even discard nuclear energy, dubbing it too dirty. Sure, it's not perfect but it's a farcry away from coal and a good stepping stone as we search for better answers.</p><p>Infrastructures have to be rebuilt. New technologies must be found. Limitations must be overcome (wind, etc.) Resources must be considered every step of the way. Money is also required. Focus on the solution. It will be needed no matter the issue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whether or not I believe we are spelling our quick demise is really none of my concern .
Many publications on the topic have claimed much of the damage is irreversible .
Some seem to inappropriately model the data ( read : make accurate predictions ) .
Inability to make such predictions is n't proof of incorrectness , but instead , it makes me ponder the usefulness .
However , while I do I have my reservations on these findings , I do have a strong opinion on energy .
With our current plans , it 's quite finite.In short , I 'd rather have more money being poured into renewable technologies , even at the expense of climate change research ( not cutting it ) .
If we know the proposed solution is a future-bound inevitability ( regardless of the validity of climate change theory ) , what 's all the fuss for ?
I 'd just suggest to look at how much money and power the industry of energy holds .
That 's why it 's political.I will add that I believe what bothers me about some " Global Warmists " is the animosity and push for dramatic overnight change .
Some people even discard nuclear energy , dubbing it too dirty .
Sure , it 's not perfect but it 's a farcry away from coal and a good stepping stone as we search for better answers.Infrastructures have to be rebuilt .
New technologies must be found .
Limitations must be overcome ( wind , etc .
) Resources must be considered every step of the way .
Money is also required .
Focus on the solution .
It will be needed no matter the issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whether or not I believe we are spelling our quick demise is really none of my concern.
Many publications on the topic have claimed much of the damage is irreversible.
Some seem to inappropriately model the data (read: make accurate predictions).
Inability to make such predictions isn't proof of incorrectness, but instead, it makes me ponder the usefulness.
However, while I do I have my reservations on these findings, I do have a strong opinion on energy.
With our current plans, it's quite finite.In short, I'd rather have more money being poured into renewable technologies, even at the expense of climate change research (not cutting it).
If we know the proposed solution is a future-bound inevitability (regardless of the validity of climate change theory), what's all the fuss for?
I'd just suggest to look at how much money and power the industry of energy holds.
That's why it's political.I will add that I believe what bothers me about some "Global Warmists" is the animosity and push for dramatic overnight change.
Some people even discard nuclear energy, dubbing it too dirty.
Sure, it's not perfect but it's a farcry away from coal and a good stepping stone as we search for better answers.Infrastructures have to be rebuilt.
New technologies must be found.
Limitations must be overcome (wind, etc.
) Resources must be considered every step of the way.
Money is also required.
Focus on the solution.
It will be needed no matter the issue.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297900</id>
	<title>Re:Asking the fox to guard the hen house</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267296900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Do you also think it is the same with sciences?</i></p><p>In other scientific fields, the problem is not nearly as severe because:<br>(a) There is not such a huge difference in the amount of money scientists receive for one result versus the opposite result; or<br>(b) The field is not as politically charged; or<br>(c) The ultimate accuracy of a theory is seen more decisively in a shorter period of time.</p><p>Even with other money-charged scientific fields, like medicine, the results ultimately play out in clinical trials and then general availability. The truth will reveal itself relatively soon, serious investigations will follow any serious problem, and the consequences to anyone who violates the rules are severe.</p><p>However, with climate scientists, just like with economists, they can always claim their theories are correct throughout their entire lifetimes regardless of the outcomes. They just say that some "other, unforeseen factor" changed the outcome without contradicting their theory. And serious investigations are much less likely -- note that "ClimateGate" was the result of hacking rather than systematic review or investigation.</p><p>None of this means that the climate isn't changing. But it does mean that we will have a major problem getting accurate information, making useful predictions, and crafting effective policy regarding climate change (that is, if policy is the correct approach at all).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you also think it is the same with sciences ? In other scientific fields , the problem is not nearly as severe because : ( a ) There is not such a huge difference in the amount of money scientists receive for one result versus the opposite result ; or ( b ) The field is not as politically charged ; or ( c ) The ultimate accuracy of a theory is seen more decisively in a shorter period of time.Even with other money-charged scientific fields , like medicine , the results ultimately play out in clinical trials and then general availability .
The truth will reveal itself relatively soon , serious investigations will follow any serious problem , and the consequences to anyone who violates the rules are severe.However , with climate scientists , just like with economists , they can always claim their theories are correct throughout their entire lifetimes regardless of the outcomes .
They just say that some " other , unforeseen factor " changed the outcome without contradicting their theory .
And serious investigations are much less likely -- note that " ClimateGate " was the result of hacking rather than systematic review or investigation.None of this means that the climate is n't changing .
But it does mean that we will have a major problem getting accurate information , making useful predictions , and crafting effective policy regarding climate change ( that is , if policy is the correct approach at all ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you also think it is the same with sciences?In other scientific fields, the problem is not nearly as severe because:(a) There is not such a huge difference in the amount of money scientists receive for one result versus the opposite result; or(b) The field is not as politically charged; or(c) The ultimate accuracy of a theory is seen more decisively in a shorter period of time.Even with other money-charged scientific fields, like medicine, the results ultimately play out in clinical trials and then general availability.
The truth will reveal itself relatively soon, serious investigations will follow any serious problem, and the consequences to anyone who violates the rules are severe.However, with climate scientists, just like with economists, they can always claim their theories are correct throughout their entire lifetimes regardless of the outcomes.
They just say that some "other, unforeseen factor" changed the outcome without contradicting their theory.
And serious investigations are much less likely -- note that "ClimateGate" was the result of hacking rather than systematic review or investigation.None of this means that the climate isn't changing.
But it does mean that we will have a major problem getting accurate information, making useful predictions, and crafting effective policy regarding climate change (that is, if policy is the correct approach at all).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297288</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31299476</id>
	<title>Re:Can't imagine what they hope to achieve</title>
	<author>Cymurgh</author>
	<datestamp>1267263660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess they're trying to seem responsive because the IPCC head didn't when this first came up. And because there's a media feeding frenzy over this (well, in the UK at least) where any bogus claim of a global warming science error can get an airing.</p><p>Next time they just have to remind all their Working Group II and III authors and editors that those guidelines they've got on how to use 'gray' literature are actually meant to be followed. And they could use some routines to make sure that, say, a glacier expert looks over everything that is said about glaciers in those 3,000 pages, and not just in the glacier chapter. But it's an open, volunteer-based process, so I guess there are limits to how tight a ship they can run.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess they 're trying to seem responsive because the IPCC head did n't when this first came up .
And because there 's a media feeding frenzy over this ( well , in the UK at least ) where any bogus claim of a global warming science error can get an airing.Next time they just have to remind all their Working Group II and III authors and editors that those guidelines they 've got on how to use 'gray ' literature are actually meant to be followed .
And they could use some routines to make sure that , say , a glacier expert looks over everything that is said about glaciers in those 3,000 pages , and not just in the glacier chapter .
But it 's an open , volunteer-based process , so I guess there are limits to how tight a ship they can run .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess they're trying to seem responsive because the IPCC head didn't when this first came up.
And because there's a media feeding frenzy over this (well, in the UK at least) where any bogus claim of a global warming science error can get an airing.Next time they just have to remind all their Working Group II and III authors and editors that those guidelines they've got on how to use 'gray' literature are actually meant to be followed.
And they could use some routines to make sure that, say, a glacier expert looks over everything that is said about glaciers in those 3,000 pages, and not just in the glacier chapter.
But it's an open, volunteer-based process, so I guess there are limits to how tight a ship they can run.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297368</id>
	<title>Faux News headline translator</title>
	<author>LockeOnLogic</author>
	<datestamp>1267293300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can already see how the other side is going to spin this:<br> <br>"The UN creates special climate change audit to question the validity of global warming so-called experts!"<p> "UN global warming fact check panel to reassess climate change"</p><p>And when the panel comes back supporting the massive amount of good data, they will comb through the report and take lines out of context to attempt to discredit the panel.</p><p>

"The UN is conspiring with a bunch of liberal elites to STEAL YOUR FREEDOM."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can already see how the other side is going to spin this : " The UN creates special climate change audit to question the validity of global warming so-called experts !
" " UN global warming fact check panel to reassess climate change " And when the panel comes back supporting the massive amount of good data , they will comb through the report and take lines out of context to attempt to discredit the panel .
" The UN is conspiring with a bunch of liberal elites to STEAL YOUR FREEDOM .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can already see how the other side is going to spin this: "The UN creates special climate change audit to question the validity of global warming so-called experts!
" "UN global warming fact check panel to reassess climate change"And when the panel comes back supporting the massive amount of good data, they will comb through the report and take lines out of context to attempt to discredit the panel.
"The UN is conspiring with a bunch of liberal elites to STEAL YOUR FREEDOM.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31298518</id>
	<title>Re:Asking the fox to guard the hen house</title>
	<author>Gadget\_Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1267300380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In other scientific fields, the problem is not nearly as severe because:<br>
(a) There is not such a huge difference in the amount of money scientists receive for one result versus the opposite result</p></div><p>Where is your proof of this. I have never seen one single shred of evidence for this outlandish claim.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>(b) The field is not as politically charged</p></div><p>What difference does that make? How is the science more correct in another field because fewer people have alternative reasons to disagree with it? And this wasn't always a political debate. President George Bush Snr publicly stated that the world needed to act to prevent the problems of global warming. Up until the mid 90s this had bipartisan support.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The ultimate accuracy of a theory is seen more decisively in a shorter period of time</p></div><p>The predictions that we would experience warming due to CO2 dates back to the 30s. Guess what? Their predictions have proven correct.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In other scientific fields , the problem is not nearly as severe because : ( a ) There is not such a huge difference in the amount of money scientists receive for one result versus the opposite resultWhere is your proof of this .
I have never seen one single shred of evidence for this outlandish claim .
( b ) The field is not as politically chargedWhat difference does that make ?
How is the science more correct in another field because fewer people have alternative reasons to disagree with it ?
And this was n't always a political debate .
President George Bush Snr publicly stated that the world needed to act to prevent the problems of global warming .
Up until the mid 90s this had bipartisan support.The ultimate accuracy of a theory is seen more decisively in a shorter period of timeThe predictions that we would experience warming due to CO2 dates back to the 30s .
Guess what ?
Their predictions have proven correct .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other scientific fields, the problem is not nearly as severe because:
(a) There is not such a huge difference in the amount of money scientists receive for one result versus the opposite resultWhere is your proof of this.
I have never seen one single shred of evidence for this outlandish claim.
(b) The field is not as politically chargedWhat difference does that make?
How is the science more correct in another field because fewer people have alternative reasons to disagree with it?
And this wasn't always a political debate.
President George Bush Snr publicly stated that the world needed to act to prevent the problems of global warming.
Up until the mid 90s this had bipartisan support.The ultimate accuracy of a theory is seen more decisively in a shorter period of timeThe predictions that we would experience warming due to CO2 dates back to the 30s.
Guess what?
Their predictions have proven correct.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297900</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1455220_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1455220_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31300838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1455220_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31299916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297222
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1455220_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31298332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1455220_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31299436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1455220_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1455220_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31303272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31299138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1455220_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31299476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1455220_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31298842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1455220_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1455220_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31299688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1455220_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31298420
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1455220_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31310070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31301148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31299138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1455220_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31310354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1455220_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31298436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297426
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1455220_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1455220_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297172
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1455220_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31310472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31298142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1455220_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31300658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1455220_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31299768
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1455220_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297698
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1455220_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31302994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1455220_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1455220_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31302712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31298518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297900
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1455220_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31298974
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1455220_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31299988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1455220_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31298598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1455220_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31300704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297918
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1455220_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31300728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_27_1455220_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31300754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_1455220.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297136
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297698
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297288
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297474
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297426
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31300838
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31298842
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31298436
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31299436
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31298332
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31298598
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31298974
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297900
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31299138
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31301148
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31310070
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31303272
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31300658
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31298518
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31302712
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31298420
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297380
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_1455220.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297260
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_1455220.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297172
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297246
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_1455220.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297750
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31299688
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31300728
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_1455220.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297640
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_1455220.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31300532
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_1455220.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297222
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297396
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31299916
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_1455220.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297150
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297740
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31302994
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_1455220.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297272
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297728
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31310354
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31299768
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297428
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31299476
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31298142
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31310472
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_1455220.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297212
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31300754
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_1455220.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31299200
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_1455220.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297216
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_1455220.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297918
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31300704
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_27_1455220.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297458
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31297952
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_27_1455220.31299988
</commentlist>
</conversation>
