<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_18_1728218</id>
	<title>Carnegie Researchers Say Geotech Can't Cure Ocean Acidification</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1245346440000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://twitter.com/carnegiescience" rel="nofollow">CarnegieScience</a> writes <i>"Plans to stop global warming by 'geoengineering' the planet by putting aerosols in the atmosphere to block sunlight are controversial, to say the least. Scientists are now pointing out that even if it keeps the planet cool, it will do  <a href="http://www.ciw.edu/news/global\_sunscreen\_won\_t\_save\_corals">almost nothing to stop another major problem &mdash; ocean acidification</a>. The ocean will keep on absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere (making carbonic acid) and the water's pH will get too low for corals and other marine life to secrete skeletons. So this is another strike against a quick fix of our climate problems."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>CarnegieScience writes " Plans to stop global warming by 'geoengineering ' the planet by putting aerosols in the atmosphere to block sunlight are controversial , to say the least .
Scientists are now pointing out that even if it keeps the planet cool , it will do almost nothing to stop another major problem    ocean acidification .
The ocean will keep on absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere ( making carbonic acid ) and the water 's pH will get too low for corals and other marine life to secrete skeletons .
So this is another strike against a quick fix of our climate problems .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CarnegieScience writes "Plans to stop global warming by 'geoengineering' the planet by putting aerosols in the atmosphere to block sunlight are controversial, to say the least.
Scientists are now pointing out that even if it keeps the planet cool, it will do  almost nothing to stop another major problem — ocean acidification.
The ocean will keep on absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere (making carbonic acid) and the water's pH will get too low for corals and other marine life to secrete skeletons.
So this is another strike against a quick fix of our climate problems.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28380545</id>
	<title>Re:What Climate Problem?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245319200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are only about 1.3 billion cattle in the world today...you must be British, or just misinformed....</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattle</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are only about 1.3 billion cattle in the world today...you must be British , or just misinformed....http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattle</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are only about 1.3 billion cattle in the world today...you must be British, or just misinformed....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattle</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377497</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377685</id>
	<title>Re:Global experiments with us as guinea pigs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245353880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I prefer this question......</p><p>Should the ultimate goal of an advanced civilization be to coexist 'naturally' with the planet? Meaning, should the purpose be to minimize, or exterminate negative impact to any and all ecosystems and life while progressing technologically?</p><p>Unfortunately, I find this idea to be implemented only after a catastrophic manmade event occurs that leaves only a small minority of the human population left.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I prefer this question......Should the ultimate goal of an advanced civilization be to coexist 'naturally ' with the planet ?
Meaning , should the purpose be to minimize , or exterminate negative impact to any and all ecosystems and life while progressing technologically ? Unfortunately , I find this idea to be implemented only after a catastrophic manmade event occurs that leaves only a small minority of the human population left .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I prefer this question......Should the ultimate goal of an advanced civilization be to coexist 'naturally' with the planet?
Meaning, should the purpose be to minimize, or exterminate negative impact to any and all ecosystems and life while progressing technologically?Unfortunately, I find this idea to be implemented only after a catastrophic manmade event occurs that leaves only a small minority of the human population left.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376831</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28380467</id>
	<title>Re:straw man argument</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245318840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Geo-engineering may make people think that we can carry on as now with no sacrifices."  That's the point of the article, that there's more to the climate than temperature.  To borrow your analogy, it's more like saying "I just cleaned the floor with a vacuum cleaner!  Why do I have to paint the garage?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Geo-engineering may make people think that we can carry on as now with no sacrifices .
" That 's the point of the article , that there 's more to the climate than temperature .
To borrow your analogy , it 's more like saying " I just cleaned the floor with a vacuum cleaner !
Why do I have to paint the garage ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Geo-engineering may make people think that we can carry on as now with no sacrifices.
"  That's the point of the article, that there's more to the climate than temperature.
To borrow your analogy, it's more like saying "I just cleaned the floor with a vacuum cleaner!
Why do I have to paint the garage?
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376669</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28378799</id>
	<title>I do My Part</title>
	<author>sycodon</author>
	<datestamp>1245356700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>By consuming copious amounts of beef, much to the consternation of my Dr.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>By consuming copious amounts of beef , much to the consternation of my Dr .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By consuming copious amounts of beef, much to the consternation of my Dr.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377497</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28389607</id>
	<title>Re:Leave my world alone!!!</title>
	<author>Evil Pete</author>
	<datestamp>1245424860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the greatest danger is that we will degrade our foodbase and the biodiversity at the same time we run out of cheap energy. And we will have a big population at the same time. A triple whammy. If we don't think way ahead and start acting now I don't think our civilisation will survive. It will go under. Humans will survive. The world will get hot, after a millennium cool, perhaps over shoot into a new glacial period. Eventually, we will come out of it, hopefully smarter but in a resource poor world. We will get to a renaissance level but not much more. Fail again. Lather, rinse, repeat. Maybe eventually we will have evolved to be much smarter, smart enough to create a technical civilisation without the abundant energy and minerals we have. Or else we will just quietly go extinct.</p><p>That is what I fear is our fate if we don't plan as we should. It would be an appropriate irony if Homo Sapiens, the wise man, were to fail because of its foolishness.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the greatest danger is that we will degrade our foodbase and the biodiversity at the same time we run out of cheap energy .
And we will have a big population at the same time .
A triple whammy .
If we do n't think way ahead and start acting now I do n't think our civilisation will survive .
It will go under .
Humans will survive .
The world will get hot , after a millennium cool , perhaps over shoot into a new glacial period .
Eventually , we will come out of it , hopefully smarter but in a resource poor world .
We will get to a renaissance level but not much more .
Fail again .
Lather , rinse , repeat .
Maybe eventually we will have evolved to be much smarter , smart enough to create a technical civilisation without the abundant energy and minerals we have .
Or else we will just quietly go extinct.That is what I fear is our fate if we do n't plan as we should .
It would be an appropriate irony if Homo Sapiens , the wise man , were to fail because of its foolishness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the greatest danger is that we will degrade our foodbase and the biodiversity at the same time we run out of cheap energy.
And we will have a big population at the same time.
A triple whammy.
If we don't think way ahead and start acting now I don't think our civilisation will survive.
It will go under.
Humans will survive.
The world will get hot, after a millennium cool, perhaps over shoot into a new glacial period.
Eventually, we will come out of it, hopefully smarter but in a resource poor world.
We will get to a renaissance level but not much more.
Fail again.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
Maybe eventually we will have evolved to be much smarter, smart enough to create a technical civilisation without the abundant energy and minerals we have.
Or else we will just quietly go extinct.That is what I fear is our fate if we don't plan as we should.
It would be an appropriate irony if Homo Sapiens, the wise man, were to fail because of its foolishness.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28378525</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376911</id>
	<title>Back then...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245351360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hmm. Carbion dioxide levels were higher some 130 thousand years ago if you believe in ice core data. What happened back then? Did all the sea life die? Obviously not since there's fish in the lakes and oceans (and in my frying pan).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmm .
Carbion dioxide levels were higher some 130 thousand years ago if you believe in ice core data .
What happened back then ?
Did all the sea life die ?
Obviously not since there 's fish in the lakes and oceans ( and in my frying pan ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmm.
Carbion dioxide levels were higher some 130 thousand years ago if you believe in ice core data.
What happened back then?
Did all the sea life die?
Obviously not since there's fish in the lakes and oceans (and in my frying pan).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376965</id>
	<title>Here's An Idea</title>
	<author>spoonboy42</author>
	<datestamp>1245351600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We could dump a bunch of sodium bicarbonate (baking soda) into the ocean. It'll neutralize the acid and release... carbon dioxide. Crap! We're doomed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We could dump a bunch of sodium bicarbonate ( baking soda ) into the ocean .
It 'll neutralize the acid and release... carbon dioxide .
Crap ! We 're doomed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We could dump a bunch of sodium bicarbonate (baking soda) into the ocean.
It'll neutralize the acid and release... carbon dioxide.
Crap! We're doomed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28384809</id>
	<title>Re:Global experiments with us as guinea pigs</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1245340620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The best solution is to reduce our foot-print as rapidly as we can. And make sure it stays that way.</p></div><p>That's an interesting opinion. Do you have a reason you believe that?<br> <br>

As I see it, we do stuff with that footprint (eg, grow a high tech, industrial civilization, increase the standard of living, do science, etc). And to be blunt, a high CO2 world with say an orbital sunshade is similar to environmental conditions in our past (I believe when trees first evolved, CO2 concentrations were far above present while sunlight significantly below current levels). So we may be experimenting with the environment but not to an extent never seen before. So in my view, there's a reason for that footprint and I'm not going to advocate letting go of it without a better reason than some weak, vague environmental worry.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The best solution is to reduce our foot-print as rapidly as we can .
And make sure it stays that way.That 's an interesting opinion .
Do you have a reason you believe that ?
As I see it , we do stuff with that footprint ( eg , grow a high tech , industrial civilization , increase the standard of living , do science , etc ) .
And to be blunt , a high CO2 world with say an orbital sunshade is similar to environmental conditions in our past ( I believe when trees first evolved , CO2 concentrations were far above present while sunlight significantly below current levels ) .
So we may be experimenting with the environment but not to an extent never seen before .
So in my view , there 's a reason for that footprint and I 'm not going to advocate letting go of it without a better reason than some weak , vague environmental worry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The best solution is to reduce our foot-print as rapidly as we can.
And make sure it stays that way.That's an interesting opinion.
Do you have a reason you believe that?
As I see it, we do stuff with that footprint (eg, grow a high tech, industrial civilization, increase the standard of living, do science, etc).
And to be blunt, a high CO2 world with say an orbital sunshade is similar to environmental conditions in our past (I believe when trees first evolved, CO2 concentrations were far above present while sunlight significantly below current levels).
So we may be experimenting with the environment but not to an extent never seen before.
So in my view, there's a reason for that footprint and I'm not going to advocate letting go of it without a better reason than some weak, vague environmental worry.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376831</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377187</id>
	<title>Re:if i remember well from high school chemistry</title>
	<author>Red Flayer</author>
	<datestamp>1245352440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hey, why not go back and re-examine your textbooks from high school chemistry?  It seems you slept through the second part of that lecture.<br> <br>Remember the lab where you had to determine the concentration of a buffer in solution that had pH-sensitive dyes in it?<br> <br>And how you could pipette huge amounts of an acid (or base) into the solution without a notable change in pH?  But then you add one more drop and *presto* your solution was now purple (or orange, etc)?  And with each drop added after that, there was no buffering effect?<br> <br>Buffer systems in the ocean are like that, though more complex.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , why not go back and re-examine your textbooks from high school chemistry ?
It seems you slept through the second part of that lecture .
Remember the lab where you had to determine the concentration of a buffer in solution that had pH-sensitive dyes in it ?
And how you could pipette huge amounts of an acid ( or base ) into the solution without a notable change in pH ?
But then you add one more drop and * presto * your solution was now purple ( or orange , etc ) ?
And with each drop added after that , there was no buffering effect ?
Buffer systems in the ocean are like that , though more complex .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, why not go back and re-examine your textbooks from high school chemistry?
It seems you slept through the second part of that lecture.
Remember the lab where you had to determine the concentration of a buffer in solution that had pH-sensitive dyes in it?
And how you could pipette huge amounts of an acid (or base) into the solution without a notable change in pH?
But then you add one more drop and *presto* your solution was now purple (or orange, etc)?
And with each drop added after that, there was no buffering effect?
Buffer systems in the ocean are like that, though more complex.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376643</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28378367</id>
	<title>It's a computer model, not real world research.</title>
	<author>psnyder</author>
	<datestamp>1245355560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>From the article:<p><div class="quote"><p>Until the current study, <b>which used a computer model</b> of the Earth's climate system and biosphere to simulate the effect of geoengineering on climate and the ocean's chemistry, the potential impact of such a scheme on ocean acidification had never been calculated.</p></div><p>This is a computer model.  The people who wrote it may very well be correct, but they are the ones that wrote the variables and input the numbers.  <b>This should not be thought of on the same level as experimentation or direct observations in the real world.  This is not evidence, and there are no new concrete findings.</b>
<br> <br> <br>

I believe <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctRvtxnNqU8" title="youtube.com">this guy says it pretty well in the beginning of his video</a> [youtube.com]:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I have built computer models, dynamic systems, and other complex processes for over 20 years, and I can tell you that it is extraordinarily easy to create computer models that spew out meaningless results.  And the more complex the model, the easier it is to get such a mess.</p></div><p>Everything on Earth (and much in space) affects the oceans which cover 70\% of it.  The complexity is enormous.<br> <br>

Computer models (when done well) can be useful tools to guide us to where we should be doing the actual research.  Ocean acidification is a real issue, and I applaud the people at Carnegie Melon's Dept. of Ecology for attempting to tackle this.  But we should stop giving computer models the same emphasis as findings in the real world.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the article : Until the current study , which used a computer model of the Earth 's climate system and biosphere to simulate the effect of geoengineering on climate and the ocean 's chemistry , the potential impact of such a scheme on ocean acidification had never been calculated.This is a computer model .
The people who wrote it may very well be correct , but they are the ones that wrote the variables and input the numbers .
This should not be thought of on the same level as experimentation or direct observations in the real world .
This is not evidence , and there are no new concrete findings .
I believe this guy says it pretty well in the beginning of his video [ youtube.com ] : I have built computer models , dynamic systems , and other complex processes for over 20 years , and I can tell you that it is extraordinarily easy to create computer models that spew out meaningless results .
And the more complex the model , the easier it is to get such a mess.Everything on Earth ( and much in space ) affects the oceans which cover 70 \ % of it .
The complexity is enormous .
Computer models ( when done well ) can be useful tools to guide us to where we should be doing the actual research .
Ocean acidification is a real issue , and I applaud the people at Carnegie Melon 's Dept .
of Ecology for attempting to tackle this .
But we should stop giving computer models the same emphasis as findings in the real world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the article:Until the current study, which used a computer model of the Earth's climate system and biosphere to simulate the effect of geoengineering on climate and the ocean's chemistry, the potential impact of such a scheme on ocean acidification had never been calculated.This is a computer model.
The people who wrote it may very well be correct, but they are the ones that wrote the variables and input the numbers.
This should not be thought of on the same level as experimentation or direct observations in the real world.
This is not evidence, and there are no new concrete findings.
I believe this guy says it pretty well in the beginning of his video [youtube.com]:I have built computer models, dynamic systems, and other complex processes for over 20 years, and I can tell you that it is extraordinarily easy to create computer models that spew out meaningless results.
And the more complex the model, the easier it is to get such a mess.Everything on Earth (and much in space) affects the oceans which cover 70\% of it.
The complexity is enormous.
Computer models (when done well) can be useful tools to guide us to where we should be doing the actual research.
Ocean acidification is a real issue, and I applaud the people at Carnegie Melon's Dept.
of Ecology for attempting to tackle this.
But we should stop giving computer models the same emphasis as findings in the real world.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28391307</id>
	<title>Re:What Climate Problem?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245432060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Quote: There are approximately 1 trillion cattle worldwide.</p><p>The number I can find is ~1.5 billion in 2007. Let's try a simple bullshit check of your number, though, shall we? The area covered by a cow is, conservatively, 2 feet by 6 feet? That would be about 12 trillion square feet of shadow cast by cattle, using your population estimate  and my observation that the damned things don't stack well<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) What's the surface area of the planet that is not water, since they don't seem to swim well, either? I get that number as approximately 488648294706 square feet. Since I'm not sitting on a cow as I write this...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Quote : There are approximately 1 trillion cattle worldwide.The number I can find is ~ 1.5 billion in 2007 .
Let 's try a simple bullshit check of your number , though , shall we ?
The area covered by a cow is , conservatively , 2 feet by 6 feet ?
That would be about 12 trillion square feet of shadow cast by cattle , using your population estimate and my observation that the damned things do n't stack well : ) What 's the surface area of the planet that is not water , since they do n't seem to swim well , either ?
I get that number as approximately 488648294706 square feet .
Since I 'm not sitting on a cow as I write this.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quote: There are approximately 1 trillion cattle worldwide.The number I can find is ~1.5 billion in 2007.
Let's try a simple bullshit check of your number, though, shall we?
The area covered by a cow is, conservatively, 2 feet by 6 feet?
That would be about 12 trillion square feet of shadow cast by cattle, using your population estimate  and my observation that the damned things don't stack well :) What's the surface area of the planet that is not water, since they don't seem to swim well, either?
I get that number as approximately 488648294706 square feet.
Since I'm not sitting on a cow as I write this...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377497</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28378525</id>
	<title>Re:Leave my world alone!!!</title>
	<author>EvilToiletPaper</author>
	<datestamp>1245355980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I seriously doubt if we can destroy the Earth, I doubt if we can even wipe out all life on it. Destroy our own species, destroy a large majority of lifeforms : absolutely. <br>All these experiments are desperate attempts to keep our own species going for a few more millenia.<br> <br>
To paraphrase the late George Carlin: The Earth doesn't give a shit!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I seriously doubt if we can destroy the Earth , I doubt if we can even wipe out all life on it .
Destroy our own species , destroy a large majority of lifeforms : absolutely .
All these experiments are desperate attempts to keep our own species going for a few more millenia .
To paraphrase the late George Carlin : The Earth does n't give a shit !
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I seriously doubt if we can destroy the Earth, I doubt if we can even wipe out all life on it.
Destroy our own species, destroy a large majority of lifeforms : absolutely.
All these experiments are desperate attempts to keep our own species going for a few more millenia.
To paraphrase the late George Carlin: The Earth doesn't give a shit!
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377537</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28385251</id>
	<title>Re:Volcanoes</title>
	<author>TapeCutter</author>
	<datestamp>1245345660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"Do these climate models take into account the fact that Volcanoes erupt from time to time"</i>
<br> <br>
<a href="http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&amp;ei=TA07SpWkKNCHkAWuyYypDg&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=spell&amp;resnum=0&amp;ct=result&amp;cd=1&amp;q=\%22Mt+Pinatubo\%22+\%22climate+model\%22&amp;spell=1" title="google.com.au">YES</a> [google.com.au]. Look carefully and you will find that models usually assume one large eruption per decade. The predicted cooling from the models assumptions was remarkably acurate in the case of observations from Mt Pinatubo, furthermore those predictions came from a model created 20yrs ago!</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Do these climate models take into account the fact that Volcanoes erupt from time to time " YES [ google.com.au ] .
Look carefully and you will find that models usually assume one large eruption per decade .
The predicted cooling from the models assumptions was remarkably acurate in the case of observations from Mt Pinatubo , furthermore those predictions came from a model created 20yrs ago !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Do these climate models take into account the fact that Volcanoes erupt from time to time"
 
YES [google.com.au].
Look carefully and you will find that models usually assume one large eruption per decade.
The predicted cooling from the models assumptions was remarkably acurate in the case of observations from Mt Pinatubo, furthermore those predictions came from a model created 20yrs ago!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376615</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28379361</id>
	<title>Re:Pffft! Who are you going to believe?</title>
	<author>rgviza</author>
	<datestamp>1245358440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>how about the NASA PhD's who say the earth is already cooling again and CO2 concentrations lag 6 months behind temperature change, indicating the temperature change is causing the rise in CO2, not the other way around?</p><p>or the veritable explosion of dissenting climate scientists?</p><p>Go ahead, believe a self promoting politician<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;) Of course the cooling is an even bigger problem than the warming because we won't be able to grow enough food within 20 years.</p><p>from <a href="http://www.drroyspencer.com/" title="drroyspencer.com">http://www.drroyspencer.com/</a> [drroyspencer.com] </p><p>"The Central Question of Causation</p><p>I believe that the interpretation of the Vostok ice core record of temperature and CO2 variations has the same problem that the interpretation of warming and CO2 increase in the last century has: CAUSATION. In both cases, Hansen&#226;(TM)s (and others&#226;(TM)) inference of high climate sensitivity (which would translate into lots of future manmade warming) depends critically on there not being another mechanism causing most of the temperature variations. If most of the warming in the last 100 years was due to CO2, then that (arguably) implies a moderately sensitive climate. If it caused the temperature variations in the ice core record, it implies a catastrophically sensitive climate.</p><p>But the implicit assumption that science knows what the forcings were of past climate change even 50 years ago, let alone 100,000 years ago, strikes me as hubris. In contrast to the &#226;oeconsensus view&#226; of the IPCC that only &#226;oeexternal&#226; forcing events like volcanoes, changes in solar output, and human pollution can cause climate change, forcing of temperature change can also be generated internally. I believe this largely explains what we have seen for climate variability on all time scales. A change in atmospheric and oceanic circulation patterns could easily accomplish this with a small change in low cloud cover over the ocean. In simple terms, global warming might well be mostly the result of a natural cycle."</p><p>which coupled with this article, is pretty convincing.</p><p> <a href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html" title="nationalgeographic.com">http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html</a> [nationalgeographic.com] </p><p>Since this is a cause which has nothing to do with man, and is also cyclical it's breaks most of the "theories" of man made climate change.<br>Inconvenient truth? How about convenient mass stupidity? Al Gore has played ya'll and it went like this:</p><p>1. cause hysteria<br>2. create environmental companies<br>3. profit!</p><p>The results of a survey of climate scientists, conducted by the US Senate Committee on the Environment &amp; Public Works revealed that less than half of climate scientists believe that the climate change has primarily anthropogenic cause any more and that number is shrinking very quickly.</p><p> <a href="http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&amp;ContentRecord\_id=10fe77b0-802a-23ad-4df1-fc38ed4f85e3" title="senate.gov">http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&amp;ContentRecord\_id=10fe77b0-802a-23ad-4df1-fc38ed4f85e3</a> [senate.gov] </p><p>"<br>Israel: Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has authored almost 70 peer-reviewed studies and won several awards. &#226;oeFirst, temperature changes, as well as rates of temperature changes (both increase and decrease) of magnitudes similar to that reported by IPCC to have occurred since the Industrial revolution (about 0.8C in 150 years or even 0.4C in the last 35 years) have occurred in Earth's climatic history. There's nothing special about the recent rise!&#226;</p><p>Russia: Russian scientist Dr. Oleg Sorochtin of the Institute of Oceanology at the Russian Academy of Sciences has authored more than 300 studies, nine books, and a 2006 paper titled &#226;oeThe Evolution and the Prediction of Global Climate Changes on Earth.&#226; &#226;oeEven if the concentration of &#226;greenhouse gases&#226;(TM) d</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>how about the NASA PhD 's who say the earth is already cooling again and CO2 concentrations lag 6 months behind temperature change , indicating the temperature change is causing the rise in CO2 , not the other way around ? or the veritable explosion of dissenting climate scientists ? Go ahead , believe a self promoting politician ; ) Of course the cooling is an even bigger problem than the warming because we wo n't be able to grow enough food within 20 years.from http : //www.drroyspencer.com/ [ drroyspencer.com ] " The Central Question of CausationI believe that the interpretation of the Vostok ice core record of temperature and CO2 variations has the same problem that the interpretation of warming and CO2 increase in the last century has : CAUSATION .
In both cases , Hansen   ( TM ) s ( and others   ( TM ) ) inference of high climate sensitivity ( which would translate into lots of future manmade warming ) depends critically on there not being another mechanism causing most of the temperature variations .
If most of the warming in the last 100 years was due to CO2 , then that ( arguably ) implies a moderately sensitive climate .
If it caused the temperature variations in the ice core record , it implies a catastrophically sensitive climate.But the implicit assumption that science knows what the forcings were of past climate change even 50 years ago , let alone 100,000 years ago , strikes me as hubris .
In contrast to the   oeconsensus view   of the IPCC that only   oeexternal   forcing events like volcanoes , changes in solar output , and human pollution can cause climate change , forcing of temperature change can also be generated internally .
I believe this largely explains what we have seen for climate variability on all time scales .
A change in atmospheric and oceanic circulation patterns could easily accomplish this with a small change in low cloud cover over the ocean .
In simple terms , global warming might well be mostly the result of a natural cycle .
" which coupled with this article , is pretty convincing .
http : //news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html [ nationalgeographic.com ] Since this is a cause which has nothing to do with man , and is also cyclical it 's breaks most of the " theories " of man made climate change.Inconvenient truth ?
How about convenient mass stupidity ?
Al Gore has played ya 'll and it went like this : 1. cause hysteria2 .
create environmental companies3 .
profit ! The results of a survey of climate scientists , conducted by the US Senate Committee on the Environment &amp; Public Works revealed that less than half of climate scientists believe that the climate change has primarily anthropogenic cause any more and that number is shrinking very quickly .
http : //www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm ? FuseAction = Minority.Blogs&amp;ContentRecord \ _id = 10fe77b0-802a-23ad-4df1-fc38ed4f85e3 [ senate.gov ] " Israel : Dr. Nathan Paldor , Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has authored almost 70 peer-reviewed studies and won several awards .
  oeFirst , temperature changes , as well as rates of temperature changes ( both increase and decrease ) of magnitudes similar to that reported by IPCC to have occurred since the Industrial revolution ( about 0.8C in 150 years or even 0.4C in the last 35 years ) have occurred in Earth 's climatic history .
There 's nothing special about the recent rise !   Russia : Russian scientist Dr. Oleg Sorochtin of the Institute of Oceanology at the Russian Academy of Sciences has authored more than 300 studies , nine books , and a 2006 paper titled   oeThe Evolution and the Prediction of Global Climate Changes on Earth.     oeEven if the concentration of   greenhouse gases   ( TM ) d</tokentext>
<sentencetext>how about the NASA PhD's who say the earth is already cooling again and CO2 concentrations lag 6 months behind temperature change, indicating the temperature change is causing the rise in CO2, not the other way around?or the veritable explosion of dissenting climate scientists?Go ahead, believe a self promoting politician ;) Of course the cooling is an even bigger problem than the warming because we won't be able to grow enough food within 20 years.from http://www.drroyspencer.com/ [drroyspencer.com] "The Central Question of CausationI believe that the interpretation of the Vostok ice core record of temperature and CO2 variations has the same problem that the interpretation of warming and CO2 increase in the last century has: CAUSATION.
In both cases, Hansenâ(TM)s (and othersâ(TM)) inference of high climate sensitivity (which would translate into lots of future manmade warming) depends critically on there not being another mechanism causing most of the temperature variations.
If most of the warming in the last 100 years was due to CO2, then that (arguably) implies a moderately sensitive climate.
If it caused the temperature variations in the ice core record, it implies a catastrophically sensitive climate.But the implicit assumption that science knows what the forcings were of past climate change even 50 years ago, let alone 100,000 years ago, strikes me as hubris.
In contrast to the âoeconsensus viewâ of the IPCC that only âoeexternalâ forcing events like volcanoes, changes in solar output, and human pollution can cause climate change, forcing of temperature change can also be generated internally.
I believe this largely explains what we have seen for climate variability on all time scales.
A change in atmospheric and oceanic circulation patterns could easily accomplish this with a small change in low cloud cover over the ocean.
In simple terms, global warming might well be mostly the result of a natural cycle.
"which coupled with this article, is pretty convincing.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html [nationalgeographic.com] Since this is a cause which has nothing to do with man, and is also cyclical it's breaks most of the "theories" of man made climate change.Inconvenient truth?
How about convenient mass stupidity?
Al Gore has played ya'll and it went like this:1. cause hysteria2.
create environmental companies3.
profit!The results of a survey of climate scientists, conducted by the US Senate Committee on the Environment &amp; Public Works revealed that less than half of climate scientists believe that the climate change has primarily anthropogenic cause any more and that number is shrinking very quickly.
http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&amp;ContentRecord\_id=10fe77b0-802a-23ad-4df1-fc38ed4f85e3 [senate.gov] "Israel: Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has authored almost 70 peer-reviewed studies and won several awards.
âoeFirst, temperature changes, as well as rates of temperature changes (both increase and decrease) of magnitudes similar to that reported by IPCC to have occurred since the Industrial revolution (about 0.8C in 150 years or even 0.4C in the last 35 years) have occurred in Earth's climatic history.
There's nothing special about the recent rise!âRussia: Russian scientist Dr. Oleg Sorochtin of the Institute of Oceanology at the Russian Academy of Sciences has authored more than 300 studies, nine books, and a 2006 paper titled âoeThe Evolution and the Prediction of Global Climate Changes on Earth.â âoeEven if the concentration of âgreenhouse gasesâ(TM) d</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377035</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377125</id>
	<title>Re:if i remember well from high school chemistry</title>
	<author>interkin3tic</author>
	<datestamp>1245352260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the ocean is a sort of buffer solution</p></div><p>If there's one thing I've learned about buffers, it's that they have limits and will not keep the pH the same if you dump in too much acid.</p><p>If you'll excuse me, the stumps where my hands used to be are needing new bandages after all this typing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the ocean is a sort of buffer solutionIf there 's one thing I 've learned about buffers , it 's that they have limits and will not keep the pH the same if you dump in too much acid.If you 'll excuse me , the stumps where my hands used to be are needing new bandages after all this typing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the ocean is a sort of buffer solutionIf there's one thing I've learned about buffers, it's that they have limits and will not keep the pH the same if you dump in too much acid.If you'll excuse me, the stumps where my hands used to be are needing new bandages after all this typing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376643</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376749</id>
	<title>It's the humans, stupid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245350760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Get rid of (a whole lot of) humans, and most of the problems will solve themselves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Get rid of ( a whole lot of ) humans , and most of the problems will solve themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Get rid of (a whole lot of) humans, and most of the problems will solve themselves.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376613</id>
	<title>What Climate Problem?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245350220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm still using my will to suppress your evidence that global warming is a problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm still using my will to suppress your evidence that global warming is a problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm still using my will to suppress your evidence that global warming is a problem.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377963</id>
	<title>Re:straw man argument</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245354540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>In the climate change debate, there are no places for sanity anymore. For years scientists have tried to warn politicians that *maybe* we ought to be *careful* about some *possible* consequences of our wastes and pollution. Every one dismissed them. Then, for right or wrong (I think for right but who knows), comes the IPCC and Al Gore. They put the scientific argument in the closet, took a deep breath and shouted PAAAAAANIIIIIICC ! And finally got some politicians to take actions. In the 70s you were a irresponsible hippy if you studied sea level rises or the downfall of biodiversity, now you are a irresponsible lackey of oil interest if you examine the various cataclysmic claims and propose to refine a model in the way that seems to minimize the IPCC conclusions.<br> <br>
Big financial and political interests have now come into play, rational public debate is out.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the climate change debate , there are no places for sanity anymore .
For years scientists have tried to warn politicians that * maybe * we ought to be * careful * about some * possible * consequences of our wastes and pollution .
Every one dismissed them .
Then , for right or wrong ( I think for right but who knows ) , comes the IPCC and Al Gore .
They put the scientific argument in the closet , took a deep breath and shouted PAAAAAANIIIIIICC !
And finally got some politicians to take actions .
In the 70s you were a irresponsible hippy if you studied sea level rises or the downfall of biodiversity , now you are a irresponsible lackey of oil interest if you examine the various cataclysmic claims and propose to refine a model in the way that seems to minimize the IPCC conclusions .
Big financial and political interests have now come into play , rational public debate is out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the climate change debate, there are no places for sanity anymore.
For years scientists have tried to warn politicians that *maybe* we ought to be *careful* about some *possible* consequences of our wastes and pollution.
Every one dismissed them.
Then, for right or wrong (I think for right but who knows), comes the IPCC and Al Gore.
They put the scientific argument in the closet, took a deep breath and shouted PAAAAAANIIIIIICC !
And finally got some politicians to take actions.
In the 70s you were a irresponsible hippy if you studied sea level rises or the downfall of biodiversity, now you are a irresponsible lackey of oil interest if you examine the various cataclysmic claims and propose to refine a model in the way that seems to minimize the IPCC conclusions.
Big financial and political interests have now come into play, rational public debate is out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376669</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28382939</id>
	<title>Re:Stop global warming?</title>
	<author>Lars T.</author>
	<datestamp>1245329400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow, imagine that, it's cold in <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&amp;sl=pt&amp;u=http://www.rankbrasil.com.br/Recordes/Materias/\%3FCidade\_mais\_fria\_do\_Brasil\%2B102\%26Grupo\%3D3&amp;ei=U9E6SpCHFtTJ\_gbwuZSoCw&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=translate&amp;resnum=1&amp;ct=result&amp;prev=/search\%3Fq\%3Dhttp://www.rankbrasil.com.br/Recordes/Materias/\%253FCidade\_mais\_fria\_do\_Brasil\%252B102\%2526Grupo\%253D3\%26hl\%3Den\%26safe\%3Doff\%26client\%3Dsafari\%26rls\%3Dde-de" title="google.com">coldest city of Brazil</a> [google.com]. Quite recently they started making wine there, because, well, could it be - Global Warming made it possible?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , imagine that , it 's cold in coldest city of Brazil [ google.com ] .
Quite recently they started making wine there , because , well , could it be - Global Warming made it possible ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, imagine that, it's cold in coldest city of Brazil [google.com].
Quite recently they started making wine there, because, well, could it be - Global Warming made it possible?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376687</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28380081</id>
	<title>Modern Day Science Fair Projekt!</title>
	<author>jameskojiro</author>
	<datestamp>1245317400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I say we put a bunch of highly acidic sea water into an old dormant volcano and then fly over it with a thousand helicopters filled to the brim with Baking Soda and then we dump it all into the dormant volcano that was filled with carbonic acid!!!</p><p>It would make Krakatoa look like a firecracker and maybe we would win 1st prize in the Intergalactic Middle School science fair!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I say we put a bunch of highly acidic sea water into an old dormant volcano and then fly over it with a thousand helicopters filled to the brim with Baking Soda and then we dump it all into the dormant volcano that was filled with carbonic acid ! !
! It would make Krakatoa look like a firecracker and maybe we would win 1st prize in the Intergalactic Middle School science fair !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I say we put a bunch of highly acidic sea water into an old dormant volcano and then fly over it with a thousand helicopters filled to the brim with Baking Soda and then we dump it all into the dormant volcano that was filled with carbonic acid!!
!It would make Krakatoa look like a firecracker and maybe we would win 1st prize in the Intergalactic Middle School science fair!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377035</id>
	<title>Pffft! Who are you going to believe?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245351840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Micheal Crichton, whose best-selling techno-thriller disproved global warming hysteria with copious footnotes . . . or so called "scientists" working for a "university" producing "peer reviewed research?"</p><p>I tell you, these "facts" and "evidence" are trouble.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Micheal Crichton , whose best-selling techno-thriller disproved global warming hysteria with copious footnotes .
. .
or so called " scientists " working for a " university " producing " peer reviewed research ?
" I tell you , these " facts " and " evidence " are trouble .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Micheal Crichton, whose best-selling techno-thriller disproved global warming hysteria with copious footnotes .
. .
or so called "scientists" working for a "university" producing "peer reviewed research?
"I tell you, these "facts" and "evidence" are trouble.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28378035</id>
	<title>Fish tripping their balls off?</title>
	<author>PolygamousRanchKid </author>
	<datestamp>1245354720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, I'm glad I misunderstood that title.  I thought that all those fish in the ocean would get spaced out, and then start eating each other at an alarming rate.  Then when they had depleted their own reserves, they would evolve and climb out onto land, looking for alternative food sources, like us!
</p><p>I was also concerned that I'd better not enjoy a FishMac on my way back from work on my bicycle in Basel, Switzerland.  The ride might have turned out to look like something out of "Yellow Submarine," being that FishMac ingredients are all acidificated, and all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , I 'm glad I misunderstood that title .
I thought that all those fish in the ocean would get spaced out , and then start eating each other at an alarming rate .
Then when they had depleted their own reserves , they would evolve and climb out onto land , looking for alternative food sources , like us !
I was also concerned that I 'd better not enjoy a FishMac on my way back from work on my bicycle in Basel , Switzerland .
The ride might have turned out to look like something out of " Yellow Submarine , " being that FishMac ingredients are all acidificated , and all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, I'm glad I misunderstood that title.
I thought that all those fish in the ocean would get spaced out, and then start eating each other at an alarming rate.
Then when they had depleted their own reserves, they would evolve and climb out onto land, looking for alternative food sources, like us!
I was also concerned that I'd better not enjoy a FishMac on my way back from work on my bicycle in Basel, Switzerland.
The ride might have turned out to look like something out of "Yellow Submarine," being that FishMac ingredients are all acidificated, and all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376767</id>
	<title>Re:if i remember well from high school chemistry</title>
	<author>wjousts</author>
	<datestamp>1245350760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Clearly you don't remember well from high school chemistry. Le Chatelier's principle only reduces the effect of a perturbation to an equilibrium, it does not remove it. Buffering will only slow down acidification, not stop it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Clearly you do n't remember well from high school chemistry .
Le Chatelier 's principle only reduces the effect of a perturbation to an equilibrium , it does not remove it .
Buffering will only slow down acidification , not stop it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clearly you don't remember well from high school chemistry.
Le Chatelier's principle only reduces the effect of a perturbation to an equilibrium, it does not remove it.
Buffering will only slow down acidification, not stop it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376643</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377133</id>
	<title>Re:Stop driving or die</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1245352260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It's going to take a mass shift to telecommuting by any company that has people sitting in chairs most of the time</i></p><p>Most people don't do their jobs sitting in a chair. It would be pretty hard for a construction worker, barber, sales clerk, chef, mechanic, etc to telecommute.</p><p>What we need isn't to stop traveling, we need to develop technologies that allow travel without ruining the environment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's going to take a mass shift to telecommuting by any company that has people sitting in chairs most of the timeMost people do n't do their jobs sitting in a chair .
It would be pretty hard for a construction worker , barber , sales clerk , chef , mechanic , etc to telecommute.What we need is n't to stop traveling , we need to develop technologies that allow travel without ruining the environment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's going to take a mass shift to telecommuting by any company that has people sitting in chairs most of the timeMost people don't do their jobs sitting in a chair.
It would be pretty hard for a construction worker, barber, sales clerk, chef, mechanic, etc to telecommute.What we need isn't to stop traveling, we need to develop technologies that allow travel without ruining the environment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376673</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28388861</id>
	<title>Just like Exalted</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245421920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bottomless Depths Defense still costs you 1 aggrivated health level</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bottomless Depths Defense still costs you 1 aggrivated health level</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bottomless Depths Defense still costs you 1 aggrivated health level</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377765</id>
	<title>Time to dump alcali metals into the ocean?</title>
	<author>Phizzle</author>
	<datestamp>1245354120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><b>That will raise the PH level, wouldn't it? What can possibly go wrong?!</b></htmltext>
<tokenext>That will raise the PH level , would n't it ?
What can possibly go wrong ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That will raise the PH level, wouldn't it?
What can possibly go wrong?
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376855</id>
	<title>Re:What Climate Problem?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245351120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This might be a dumb question, but where does all the extra energy required to raise the earth's temperature come from?  Out of the back of my car?  Why can't my car use it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This might be a dumb question , but where does all the extra energy required to raise the earth 's temperature come from ?
Out of the back of my car ?
Why ca n't my car use it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This might be a dumb question, but where does all the extra energy required to raise the earth's temperature come from?
Out of the back of my car?
Why can't my car use it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376613</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376733</id>
	<title>I have the answer.</title>
	<author>yttrstein</author>
	<datestamp>1245350700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>http://image52.webshots.com/152/1/14/3/518111403JQgFmi\_ph.jpg</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //image52.webshots.com/152/1/14/3/518111403JQgFmi \ _ph.jpg</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://image52.webshots.com/152/1/14/3/518111403JQgFmi\_ph.jpg</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377497</id>
	<title>Re:What Climate Problem?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245353400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>As I understand it, methane is a bigger problem them CO2</i></p><p>You understand wrong.  It is a large problem, but CO2 is larger by over threefold.</p><p><i>They tell us to not fart anymore. </i></p><p>Who, your roomate?  Certainly not the scientific community.  Most animal-based methane emissions come from ruminants.  And not from "farting", but "belching" (the initial breakdown occurs in the rumen, and the bolus moves back and forth between the mouth and the rumen).  "Farting" isn't even the second leading cause of ruminant methane emissions -- that goes to manure decomposition.</p><p>Livestock-sourced methane is only one significant anthropogenic component.  Others include rice agriculture, peatland/wetlands development, the oil and gas industry, landfills, and biomass burning.  Other significant human-sourced methane emissions, including ruminant raising, are nearly double those of natural emissions.  Ruminants may be the largest single anthropogenic component, but they're less than a sixth of total human-sourced methane emissions.</p><p><i>And yet, when those monster Apatosaurus, including the popular, but obsolete synonym Brontosaurus roamed the earth. I dare say one herd/tribe/pod produced a much methane as all the cattle that currently populate the earth. </i></p><p>Little is known that could lead one to draw any conclusions about the large sauropods in terms of methane emissions.  They weren't ruminants, although they did eat large quantities of plant matter.  We don't know their herd size, and haven't even conclusively shown that herding behavior was significant for them.  And more importantly, we don't know their total worldwide population.  However, as large herbivores, one thing can be certain: they didn't have a particularly high global population density.  It just wouldn't support them.</p><p>There are approximately 1 trillion cattle worldwide.  This is just cattle -- not counting other ruminants.  These average about 1.5 tons at adulthood.  An adult apatosaurus is estimated to weigh about 30 tons.  If we assume a weight equivalence, that's the equivalent of 50 billion apatosaurus.  It is <i>extremely</i> unlikely that there were that many apatosaurus -- or even total sauropods.  We support this much cattle mass cattle via modern intensive agriculture and research.</p><p>Furthermore, your notion is based on a premise -- that either the atmosphere is static or it's always changing harmlessly.  But that's not the reality.  The atmosphere has changed dramatically over history.  Generally these changes are very slow; that's not a problem.  It's when changes are rapid that there are problems.  The last atmospheric change similar to what we're forcing nowadays was the PETM (Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum).  The causes are still unknown, but one thing is known: over the course of hundreds or thousands of years (the blink of an eye by geologic standards), there was a CO2 and heat spike.  This triggered a methane spike, which amplified the heat spike.  The total warming input was approximately what we'll have locked in to if we continue the "business as usual" scenario through 2100.  The results were dramatic and catastrophic.  Entire ocean currents shifted.  The climates of regions across the planet dramatically altered.  Forests became plains became deserts became forests.  The ocean became acidic, and most of the world's corals and carbonate-shelled plankton died, causing a massive upheaval in the oceanic food chains.  The planet was left such a changed place that we give it a different name -- the Eocene.</p><p>Now, my question to you is this: do you really want to create the Anthropocene?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As I understand it , methane is a bigger problem them CO2You understand wrong .
It is a large problem , but CO2 is larger by over threefold.They tell us to not fart anymore .
Who , your roomate ?
Certainly not the scientific community .
Most animal-based methane emissions come from ruminants .
And not from " farting " , but " belching " ( the initial breakdown occurs in the rumen , and the bolus moves back and forth between the mouth and the rumen ) .
" Farting " is n't even the second leading cause of ruminant methane emissions -- that goes to manure decomposition.Livestock-sourced methane is only one significant anthropogenic component .
Others include rice agriculture , peatland/wetlands development , the oil and gas industry , landfills , and biomass burning .
Other significant human-sourced methane emissions , including ruminant raising , are nearly double those of natural emissions .
Ruminants may be the largest single anthropogenic component , but they 're less than a sixth of total human-sourced methane emissions.And yet , when those monster Apatosaurus , including the popular , but obsolete synonym Brontosaurus roamed the earth .
I dare say one herd/tribe/pod produced a much methane as all the cattle that currently populate the earth .
Little is known that could lead one to draw any conclusions about the large sauropods in terms of methane emissions .
They were n't ruminants , although they did eat large quantities of plant matter .
We do n't know their herd size , and have n't even conclusively shown that herding behavior was significant for them .
And more importantly , we do n't know their total worldwide population .
However , as large herbivores , one thing can be certain : they did n't have a particularly high global population density .
It just would n't support them.There are approximately 1 trillion cattle worldwide .
This is just cattle -- not counting other ruminants .
These average about 1.5 tons at adulthood .
An adult apatosaurus is estimated to weigh about 30 tons .
If we assume a weight equivalence , that 's the equivalent of 50 billion apatosaurus .
It is extremely unlikely that there were that many apatosaurus -- or even total sauropods .
We support this much cattle mass cattle via modern intensive agriculture and research.Furthermore , your notion is based on a premise -- that either the atmosphere is static or it 's always changing harmlessly .
But that 's not the reality .
The atmosphere has changed dramatically over history .
Generally these changes are very slow ; that 's not a problem .
It 's when changes are rapid that there are problems .
The last atmospheric change similar to what we 're forcing nowadays was the PETM ( Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum ) .
The causes are still unknown , but one thing is known : over the course of hundreds or thousands of years ( the blink of an eye by geologic standards ) , there was a CO2 and heat spike .
This triggered a methane spike , which amplified the heat spike .
The total warming input was approximately what we 'll have locked in to if we continue the " business as usual " scenario through 2100 .
The results were dramatic and catastrophic .
Entire ocean currents shifted .
The climates of regions across the planet dramatically altered .
Forests became plains became deserts became forests .
The ocean became acidic , and most of the world 's corals and carbonate-shelled plankton died , causing a massive upheaval in the oceanic food chains .
The planet was left such a changed place that we give it a different name -- the Eocene.Now , my question to you is this : do you really want to create the Anthropocene ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As I understand it, methane is a bigger problem them CO2You understand wrong.
It is a large problem, but CO2 is larger by over threefold.They tell us to not fart anymore.
Who, your roomate?
Certainly not the scientific community.
Most animal-based methane emissions come from ruminants.
And not from "farting", but "belching" (the initial breakdown occurs in the rumen, and the bolus moves back and forth between the mouth and the rumen).
"Farting" isn't even the second leading cause of ruminant methane emissions -- that goes to manure decomposition.Livestock-sourced methane is only one significant anthropogenic component.
Others include rice agriculture, peatland/wetlands development, the oil and gas industry, landfills, and biomass burning.
Other significant human-sourced methane emissions, including ruminant raising, are nearly double those of natural emissions.
Ruminants may be the largest single anthropogenic component, but they're less than a sixth of total human-sourced methane emissions.And yet, when those monster Apatosaurus, including the popular, but obsolete synonym Brontosaurus roamed the earth.
I dare say one herd/tribe/pod produced a much methane as all the cattle that currently populate the earth.
Little is known that could lead one to draw any conclusions about the large sauropods in terms of methane emissions.
They weren't ruminants, although they did eat large quantities of plant matter.
We don't know their herd size, and haven't even conclusively shown that herding behavior was significant for them.
And more importantly, we don't know their total worldwide population.
However, as large herbivores, one thing can be certain: they didn't have a particularly high global population density.
It just wouldn't support them.There are approximately 1 trillion cattle worldwide.
This is just cattle -- not counting other ruminants.
These average about 1.5 tons at adulthood.
An adult apatosaurus is estimated to weigh about 30 tons.
If we assume a weight equivalence, that's the equivalent of 50 billion apatosaurus.
It is extremely unlikely that there were that many apatosaurus -- or even total sauropods.
We support this much cattle mass cattle via modern intensive agriculture and research.Furthermore, your notion is based on a premise -- that either the atmosphere is static or it's always changing harmlessly.
But that's not the reality.
The atmosphere has changed dramatically over history.
Generally these changes are very slow; that's not a problem.
It's when changes are rapid that there are problems.
The last atmospheric change similar to what we're forcing nowadays was the PETM (Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum).
The causes are still unknown, but one thing is known: over the course of hundreds or thousands of years (the blink of an eye by geologic standards), there was a CO2 and heat spike.
This triggered a methane spike, which amplified the heat spike.
The total warming input was approximately what we'll have locked in to if we continue the "business as usual" scenario through 2100.
The results were dramatic and catastrophic.
Entire ocean currents shifted.
The climates of regions across the planet dramatically altered.
Forests became plains became deserts became forests.
The ocean became acidic, and most of the world's corals and carbonate-shelled plankton died, causing a massive upheaval in the oceanic food chains.
The planet was left such a changed place that we give it a different name -- the Eocene.Now, my question to you is this: do you really want to create the Anthropocene?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376835</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376831</id>
	<title>Global experiments with us as guinea pigs</title>
	<author>RichMan</author>
	<datestamp>1245351060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok, the whole solution of Geo-engineering is a WTF moment.</p><p>We did not understand the global bio-sphere to begin with so we are in the Global-Environment change state. Now we propose attacking the symptoms without a full understanding of the dynamics.</p><p>It is like we have are playing russian roulette here and we don't know how many chambers are loaded.</p><p>Look at most attempts to "fix" environmental problems by introducing others. The bio-sphere is just way more interconnected than we can account for.</p><p>The best solution is to reduce our foot-print as rapidly as we can. And make sure it stays that way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , the whole solution of Geo-engineering is a WTF moment.We did not understand the global bio-sphere to begin with so we are in the Global-Environment change state .
Now we propose attacking the symptoms without a full understanding of the dynamics.It is like we have are playing russian roulette here and we do n't know how many chambers are loaded.Look at most attempts to " fix " environmental problems by introducing others .
The bio-sphere is just way more interconnected than we can account for.The best solution is to reduce our foot-print as rapidly as we can .
And make sure it stays that way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, the whole solution of Geo-engineering is a WTF moment.We did not understand the global bio-sphere to begin with so we are in the Global-Environment change state.
Now we propose attacking the symptoms without a full understanding of the dynamics.It is like we have are playing russian roulette here and we don't know how many chambers are loaded.Look at most attempts to "fix" environmental problems by introducing others.
The bio-sphere is just way more interconnected than we can account for.The best solution is to reduce our foot-print as rapidly as we can.
And make sure it stays that way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28383303</id>
	<title>Geotech</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245330780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Geotech is slang for Geotechnical Engineering, having to do with soil mechanics and such things as foundation bearing capacity and settlement parameters, not reversing global warming.  Stop taking our words!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Geotech is slang for Geotechnical Engineering , having to do with soil mechanics and such things as foundation bearing capacity and settlement parameters , not reversing global warming .
Stop taking our words !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Geotech is slang for Geotechnical Engineering, having to do with soil mechanics and such things as foundation bearing capacity and settlement parameters, not reversing global warming.
Stop taking our words!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376859</id>
	<title>Re:What Climate Problem?</title>
	<author>Overly Critical Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1245351180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Weird, I'm using my reliance on <a href="http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2008/040408\_cools\_off.htm" title="prisonplanet.com" rel="nofollow">actual</a> [prisonplanet.com] <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3624242/There-IS-a-problem-with-global-warming...-it-stopped-in-1998.html" title="telegraph.co.uk" rel="nofollow">figures</a> [telegraph.co.uk] to support my conclusion that it isn't.  I understand, however, that not being able to blame society for destroying the planet in some way doesn't allow lefties to feel enlightened and judgmental or convince the public to accept increased government control over their lives.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Weird , I 'm using my reliance on actual [ prisonplanet.com ] figures [ telegraph.co.uk ] to support my conclusion that it is n't .
I understand , however , that not being able to blame society for destroying the planet in some way does n't allow lefties to feel enlightened and judgmental or convince the public to accept increased government control over their lives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Weird, I'm using my reliance on actual [prisonplanet.com] figures [telegraph.co.uk] to support my conclusion that it isn't.
I understand, however, that not being able to blame society for destroying the planet in some way doesn't allow lefties to feel enlightened and judgmental or convince the public to accept increased government control over their lives.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376613</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377263</id>
	<title>Re:What Climate Problem?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245352740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You, sir, are an idiot. The number of cattle in the world is approximated somewhere around 2 billion. That's a two followed by nine zeroes. It would have to be quite the herd of just about anything to match the consumption rate of our cattle. And since the methane production is proportional to food consumption, the total output of all herbivorous dinosaurs could not have been much more than the total output of herbivorous creatures now since there's only so much food available (and back then, of course there weren't people artificially increasing the number of herbivores and growing food for them).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You , sir , are an idiot .
The number of cattle in the world is approximated somewhere around 2 billion .
That 's a two followed by nine zeroes .
It would have to be quite the herd of just about anything to match the consumption rate of our cattle .
And since the methane production is proportional to food consumption , the total output of all herbivorous dinosaurs could not have been much more than the total output of herbivorous creatures now since there 's only so much food available ( and back then , of course there were n't people artificially increasing the number of herbivores and growing food for them ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You, sir, are an idiot.
The number of cattle in the world is approximated somewhere around 2 billion.
That's a two followed by nine zeroes.
It would have to be quite the herd of just about anything to match the consumption rate of our cattle.
And since the methane production is proportional to food consumption, the total output of all herbivorous dinosaurs could not have been much more than the total output of herbivorous creatures now since there's only so much food available (and back then, of course there weren't people artificially increasing the number of herbivores and growing food for them).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376835</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376835</id>
	<title>Re:What Climate Problem?</title>
	<author>arizwebfoot</author>
	<datestamp>1245351060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>And what about Methane?
<br> <br>
As I understand it, methane is a bigger problem them CO2.  They tell us to not fart anymore.
<br> <br>
And yet, when those monster Apatosaurus, including the popular, but obsolete synonym Brontosaurus roamed the earth.  I dare say one herd/tribe/pod produced a much methane as all the cattle that currently populate the earth.
<br> <br>
Now, take into account how many of these methane makers roamed the earth in their day and one wonders - <b>if</b> methane is the bigger problem - how life ever survived at all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And what about Methane ?
As I understand it , methane is a bigger problem them CO2 .
They tell us to not fart anymore .
And yet , when those monster Apatosaurus , including the popular , but obsolete synonym Brontosaurus roamed the earth .
I dare say one herd/tribe/pod produced a much methane as all the cattle that currently populate the earth .
Now , take into account how many of these methane makers roamed the earth in their day and one wonders - if methane is the bigger problem - how life ever survived at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And what about Methane?
As I understand it, methane is a bigger problem them CO2.
They tell us to not fart anymore.
And yet, when those monster Apatosaurus, including the popular, but obsolete synonym Brontosaurus roamed the earth.
I dare say one herd/tribe/pod produced a much methane as all the cattle that currently populate the earth.
Now, take into account how many of these methane makers roamed the earth in their day and one wonders - if methane is the bigger problem - how life ever survived at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376613</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376625</id>
	<title>Idea</title>
	<author>jimbobborg</author>
	<datestamp>1245350280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why don't they use something to up the alkalinity of the ocean, like, crushed coral?  Oh, wait...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do n't they use something to up the alkalinity of the ocean , like , crushed coral ?
Oh , wait.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why don't they use something to up the alkalinity of the ocean, like, crushed coral?
Oh, wait...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377277</id>
	<title>Where did all the non idiots go?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245352740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Guess the bunch of sudo scientists here believe communism is a viable economic system also.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Guess the bunch of sudo scientists here believe communism is a viable economic system also .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Guess the bunch of sudo scientists here believe communism is a viable economic system also.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28378437</id>
	<title>Re:What Climate Problem?</title>
	<author>Rei</author>
	<datestamp>1245355740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Why can't my car use it?</i></p><p>Not a dumb question at all!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)  You brought up one of the biggest misunderstandings of physics that is the basis for innumerable perpetual motion/free energy scams: the concept of heat as energy.</p><p>Yes, heat *is* energy.  But you can't harvest it directly; you can only harvest heat from differences in temperature.  Why?  Entropy.  A hot material is more "disordered" than a cold material.  Hence, you harvest energy from heat alone, sure, you wouldn't be violating enthalpy, but you would be violating entropy.  Entropy must always increase.  Now, if you have a hot reservoir and a cold reservoir, you can harvest some energy from heat, so long as you increase the entropy of the cold reservoir more than the hot reservoir lost.</p><p>If this law of the universe didn't exist, perpetual motion would be possible.  Picture a closed system where you have a "heat harvester" that produces electricity without a cold reservoir, surrounded by a working fluid.  It then runs some electrical appliance.  The waste heat from the electrical appliance goes back into the working fluid, where it's harnessed again to make more electricity by the "heat harvester".  Ad infinitum.  Perpetual motion.  And entropy forbids it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why ca n't my car use it ? Not a dumb question at all !
: ) You brought up one of the biggest misunderstandings of physics that is the basis for innumerable perpetual motion/free energy scams : the concept of heat as energy.Yes , heat * is * energy .
But you ca n't harvest it directly ; you can only harvest heat from differences in temperature .
Why ? Entropy .
A hot material is more " disordered " than a cold material .
Hence , you harvest energy from heat alone , sure , you would n't be violating enthalpy , but you would be violating entropy .
Entropy must always increase .
Now , if you have a hot reservoir and a cold reservoir , you can harvest some energy from heat , so long as you increase the entropy of the cold reservoir more than the hot reservoir lost.If this law of the universe did n't exist , perpetual motion would be possible .
Picture a closed system where you have a " heat harvester " that produces electricity without a cold reservoir , surrounded by a working fluid .
It then runs some electrical appliance .
The waste heat from the electrical appliance goes back into the working fluid , where it 's harnessed again to make more electricity by the " heat harvester " .
Ad infinitum .
Perpetual motion .
And entropy forbids it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why can't my car use it?Not a dumb question at all!
:)  You brought up one of the biggest misunderstandings of physics that is the basis for innumerable perpetual motion/free energy scams: the concept of heat as energy.Yes, heat *is* energy.
But you can't harvest it directly; you can only harvest heat from differences in temperature.
Why?  Entropy.
A hot material is more "disordered" than a cold material.
Hence, you harvest energy from heat alone, sure, you wouldn't be violating enthalpy, but you would be violating entropy.
Entropy must always increase.
Now, if you have a hot reservoir and a cold reservoir, you can harvest some energy from heat, so long as you increase the entropy of the cold reservoir more than the hot reservoir lost.If this law of the universe didn't exist, perpetual motion would be possible.
Picture a closed system where you have a "heat harvester" that produces electricity without a cold reservoir, surrounded by a working fluid.
It then runs some electrical appliance.
The waste heat from the electrical appliance goes back into the working fluid, where it's harnessed again to make more electricity by the "heat harvester".
Ad infinitum.
Perpetual motion.
And entropy forbids it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376855</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376615</id>
	<title>Volcanoes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245350220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do these climate models take into account the fact that Volcanoes erupt from time to time, spewings tons of ash into the atmosphere, which reflects sunlight, and thereby cools the earth?</p><p>What effect does all that ash have on ocean acidity?</p><p>Is volcanic ash acidic or basic?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do these climate models take into account the fact that Volcanoes erupt from time to time , spewings tons of ash into the atmosphere , which reflects sunlight , and thereby cools the earth ? What effect does all that ash have on ocean acidity ? Is volcanic ash acidic or basic ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do these climate models take into account the fact that Volcanoes erupt from time to time, spewings tons of ash into the atmosphere, which reflects sunlight, and thereby cools the earth?What effect does all that ash have on ocean acidity?Is volcanic ash acidic or basic?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28390059</id>
	<title>Ocean Acidification.</title>
	<author>GargamelSpaceman</author>
	<datestamp>1245426720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It doesn't seem nearly as surprising that the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are being raised significantly as a result of man made emmissions of the gas, as that the carbolic acid levels of the ocean would be significantly changed.
</p><p>The atmosphere seems so light and airy compared with the dense and vast oceans.  A gallon of air weighs almost nothing, whereas a gallon of water is frikken heavy!
</p><p>What would the atmospheric pressure be at what is now sea level if the oceans were boiled into steam?  It's probably many many times 14 lbs/sq inch. ( Actually I have no idea but that's the feeling my intuition gives me. )
</p><p>I guess the numbers have been run, and the CO2 in the air is enough to account for the acidification, ( gotta give em the benefit of the doubt unless you're willing to do better ) but wow man.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It does n't seem nearly as surprising that the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are being raised significantly as a result of man made emmissions of the gas , as that the carbolic acid levels of the ocean would be significantly changed .
The atmosphere seems so light and airy compared with the dense and vast oceans .
A gallon of air weighs almost nothing , whereas a gallon of water is frikken heavy !
What would the atmospheric pressure be at what is now sea level if the oceans were boiled into steam ?
It 's probably many many times 14 lbs/sq inch .
( Actually I have no idea but that 's the feeling my intuition gives me .
) I guess the numbers have been run , and the CO2 in the air is enough to account for the acidification , ( got ta give em the benefit of the doubt unless you 're willing to do better ) but wow man .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It doesn't seem nearly as surprising that the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are being raised significantly as a result of man made emmissions of the gas, as that the carbolic acid levels of the ocean would be significantly changed.
The atmosphere seems so light and airy compared with the dense and vast oceans.
A gallon of air weighs almost nothing, whereas a gallon of water is frikken heavy!
What would the atmospheric pressure be at what is now sea level if the oceans were boiled into steam?
It's probably many many times 14 lbs/sq inch.
( Actually I have no idea but that's the feeling my intuition gives me.
)
I guess the numbers have been run, and the CO2 in the air is enough to account for the acidification, ( gotta give em the benefit of the doubt unless you're willing to do better ) but wow man.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377253</id>
	<title>Re:Global experiments with us as guinea pigs</title>
	<author>jayme0227</author>
	<datestamp>1245352680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It reminds me of attempts to control the invasive Purple Loosestrife flower here in the states. One of the earlier efforts to control it was with the use of the Small Engrailed moth. It turned out to be just as bad as it not only ate the Purple Loosestrife, but pretty much everything else. They now have a species of beetle that kills off the Purple Loosestrife without attacking other plants. Making this kind of mistake on a global scale rather than just in a local ecosystem, though, has the potential to be catastrophic to say the least.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It reminds me of attempts to control the invasive Purple Loosestrife flower here in the states .
One of the earlier efforts to control it was with the use of the Small Engrailed moth .
It turned out to be just as bad as it not only ate the Purple Loosestrife , but pretty much everything else .
They now have a species of beetle that kills off the Purple Loosestrife without attacking other plants .
Making this kind of mistake on a global scale rather than just in a local ecosystem , though , has the potential to be catastrophic to say the least .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It reminds me of attempts to control the invasive Purple Loosestrife flower here in the states.
One of the earlier efforts to control it was with the use of the Small Engrailed moth.
It turned out to be just as bad as it not only ate the Purple Loosestrife, but pretty much everything else.
They now have a species of beetle that kills off the Purple Loosestrife without attacking other plants.
Making this kind of mistake on a global scale rather than just in a local ecosystem, though, has the potential to be catastrophic to say the least.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376831</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28395705</id>
	<title>Re:Global experiments with us as guinea pigs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245405660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It is like we have are playing russian roulette here and we don't know how many chambers are loaded.</p></div><p>That <em>is</em> the most fun way.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is like we have are playing russian roulette here and we do n't know how many chambers are loaded.That is the most fun way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is like we have are playing russian roulette here and we don't know how many chambers are loaded.That is the most fun way.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376831</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376851</id>
	<title>Re:Volcanoes</title>
	<author>Publikwerks</author>
	<datestamp>1245351120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>...So volcanos are terrorists? Or is the Earth trying to Carradine itself?</htmltext>
<tokenext>...So volcanos are terrorists ?
Or is the Earth trying to Carradine itself ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...So volcanos are terrorists?
Or is the Earth trying to Carradine itself?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376615</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28382769</id>
	<title>Study conclusion is hardly surprising</title>
	<author>Protoslo</author>
	<datestamp>1245328860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This study is neither surprising nor controversial.  They refer to "geoengineering" multiple times in the article, but it is clear that the study refers only to the specific geoengineering in which the albedo of the earth is changed with atmospheric particulates.  They concluded that it would stop global warming, but not stop CO2 accumulation/acidification of the oceans.  Well, that hardly makes it a bad idea--it just isn't a complete solution.<br> <br>It only means that we need to have a separate project to counter the acidification of the oceans--perhaps genetically engineered algae or something.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This study is neither surprising nor controversial .
They refer to " geoengineering " multiple times in the article , but it is clear that the study refers only to the specific geoengineering in which the albedo of the earth is changed with atmospheric particulates .
They concluded that it would stop global warming , but not stop CO2 accumulation/acidification of the oceans .
Well , that hardly makes it a bad idea--it just is n't a complete solution .
It only means that we need to have a separate project to counter the acidification of the oceans--perhaps genetically engineered algae or something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This study is neither surprising nor controversial.
They refer to "geoengineering" multiple times in the article, but it is clear that the study refers only to the specific geoengineering in which the albedo of the earth is changed with atmospheric particulates.
They concluded that it would stop global warming, but not stop CO2 accumulation/acidification of the oceans.
Well, that hardly makes it a bad idea--it just isn't a complete solution.
It only means that we need to have a separate project to counter the acidification of the oceans--perhaps genetically engineered algae or something.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377131</id>
	<title>Re:What Climate Problem?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245352260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The one killing coral reefs and making poor polar bears homeless. Also the increase in extreme weather.<br>Maybe you can't see it in your home wearing blinders, but the effects are measurable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The one killing coral reefs and making poor polar bears homeless .
Also the increase in extreme weather.Maybe you ca n't see it in your home wearing blinders , but the effects are measurable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The one killing coral reefs and making poor polar bears homeless.
Also the increase in extreme weather.Maybe you can't see it in your home wearing blinders, but the effects are measurable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376613</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28379581</id>
	<title>Re:straw man argument</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245315840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>sophistry will not persuade anyone.</p></div><p>YMBNH</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>sophistry will not persuade anyone.YMBNH</tokentext>
<sentencetext>sophistry will not persuade anyone.YMBNH
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376669</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377063</id>
	<title>Re:Volcanoes</title>
	<author>jayme0227</author>
	<datestamp>1245352020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the short term, volcanic eruptions do indeed cool the earth, however, that effect is only temporary. In the long run, they actually help to warm the Earth because of the the CO2 that they release. They are actually cited as the reason that Earth was able to break out of/avoid becoming Snowball Earth.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball\_Earth" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball\_Earth</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the short term , volcanic eruptions do indeed cool the earth , however , that effect is only temporary .
In the long run , they actually help to warm the Earth because of the the CO2 that they release .
They are actually cited as the reason that Earth was able to break out of/avoid becoming Snowball Earth.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball \ _Earth [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the short term, volcanic eruptions do indeed cool the earth, however, that effect is only temporary.
In the long run, they actually help to warm the Earth because of the the CO2 that they release.
They are actually cited as the reason that Earth was able to break out of/avoid becoming Snowball Earth.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball\_Earth [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376615</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376979</id>
	<title>Noone is enthustiastic about geoengineering</title>
	<author>amorsen</author>
	<datestamp>1245351660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Aerosols at best delay the rising temperatures. Perhaps we can come up with a temporary fix for the oceans, to tide us over until we can come up with a solution.</p><p>If <a href="http://climatecongress.ku.dk/pdf/synthesisreport/" title="climatecongress.ku.dk">this report</a> [climatecongress.ku.dk] is correct, we'll need some quick hacks, because sustainable energy production has no chance to solve the problem on time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Aerosols at best delay the rising temperatures .
Perhaps we can come up with a temporary fix for the oceans , to tide us over until we can come up with a solution.If this report [ climatecongress.ku.dk ] is correct , we 'll need some quick hacks , because sustainable energy production has no chance to solve the problem on time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aerosols at best delay the rising temperatures.
Perhaps we can come up with a temporary fix for the oceans, to tide us over until we can come up with a solution.If this report [climatecongress.ku.dk] is correct, we'll need some quick hacks, because sustainable energy production has no chance to solve the problem on time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377537</id>
	<title>Leave my world alone!!!</title>
	<author>char70ger</author>
	<datestamp>1245353460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think if we just leave it all alone it will take care of itself. All this science is just a best guess anyways. If mankind is able to destroy the world it would have died a long time ago. It seems the more we try to fix things the worse they get. Give the environment some credit and let it fix itself.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think if we just leave it all alone it will take care of itself .
All this science is just a best guess anyways .
If mankind is able to destroy the world it would have died a long time ago .
It seems the more we try to fix things the worse they get .
Give the environment some credit and let it fix itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think if we just leave it all alone it will take care of itself.
All this science is just a best guess anyways.
If mankind is able to destroy the world it would have died a long time ago.
It seems the more we try to fix things the worse they get.
Give the environment some credit and let it fix itself.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28383049</id>
	<title>Re:Global experiments with us as guinea pigs</title>
	<author>vic-traill</author>
	<datestamp>1245329820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We did not understand the global bio-sphere to begin with so we are in the Global-Environment change state. Now we propose attacking the symptoms without a full understanding of the dynamics.</p></div><p>Thank you. Very succinctly and clearly stated.</p><p>I've never understood what appears to me to be an urge to rush headlong into 'fixing' one problem that came about through poor understanding into another initiative or second phase that is also poorly understood.</p><p>Of course, you never know what you don't know, so there is a danger of paralysis resulting from fear (and even FUD) of the unknown.</p><p>The James Bay Project <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James\_Bay\_Project" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James\_Bay\_Project</a> [wikipedia.org] is an example of a tremendously complex initiative w/ an obvious goal and an amazing number of social, environmental and resource impacts (ranging from the obvious and straightforward to the unanticipated and complex).  Many impacts were known and/or anticipated, but many weren't.</p><p>At the time, what I gleaned out of the controversy surrounding the proposed final phase on the project (often referred to as the James Bay Project 2) was that by the time man becomes aware of effects, through monitoring/observation/testing, etc. they are often a *done* deal. Monitoring, adjusting and reacting quickly enough in such circumstance is very difficult.</p><p>So what?  Well, often the idea that we can fix specific elements in such complex systems is hubris and sheer folly.  However, the fear-of-the-unknown objection can be the pendulum swinging to the other extreme to stop any activity.  This planet is out in the middle of nowhere, and is all we have in terms of resources.  There's no going down to the Milky Way corner store to pick up replacements for things we seriously fuck up.</p><p>This is serious shit.  I'm glad to see serious study is occurring at the Carnegie Institution. The idea of countering warming with geoengineering on a piecemeal basis scares the crap out of me.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We did not understand the global bio-sphere to begin with so we are in the Global-Environment change state .
Now we propose attacking the symptoms without a full understanding of the dynamics.Thank you .
Very succinctly and clearly stated.I 've never understood what appears to me to be an urge to rush headlong into 'fixing ' one problem that came about through poor understanding into another initiative or second phase that is also poorly understood.Of course , you never know what you do n't know , so there is a danger of paralysis resulting from fear ( and even FUD ) of the unknown.The James Bay Project http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James \ _Bay \ _Project [ wikipedia.org ] is an example of a tremendously complex initiative w/ an obvious goal and an amazing number of social , environmental and resource impacts ( ranging from the obvious and straightforward to the unanticipated and complex ) .
Many impacts were known and/or anticipated , but many were n't.At the time , what I gleaned out of the controversy surrounding the proposed final phase on the project ( often referred to as the James Bay Project 2 ) was that by the time man becomes aware of effects , through monitoring/observation/testing , etc .
they are often a * done * deal .
Monitoring , adjusting and reacting quickly enough in such circumstance is very difficult.So what ?
Well , often the idea that we can fix specific elements in such complex systems is hubris and sheer folly .
However , the fear-of-the-unknown objection can be the pendulum swinging to the other extreme to stop any activity .
This planet is out in the middle of nowhere , and is all we have in terms of resources .
There 's no going down to the Milky Way corner store to pick up replacements for things we seriously fuck up.This is serious shit .
I 'm glad to see serious study is occurring at the Carnegie Institution .
The idea of countering warming with geoengineering on a piecemeal basis scares the crap out of me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We did not understand the global bio-sphere to begin with so we are in the Global-Environment change state.
Now we propose attacking the symptoms without a full understanding of the dynamics.Thank you.
Very succinctly and clearly stated.I've never understood what appears to me to be an urge to rush headlong into 'fixing' one problem that came about through poor understanding into another initiative or second phase that is also poorly understood.Of course, you never know what you don't know, so there is a danger of paralysis resulting from fear (and even FUD) of the unknown.The James Bay Project http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James\_Bay\_Project [wikipedia.org] is an example of a tremendously complex initiative w/ an obvious goal and an amazing number of social, environmental and resource impacts (ranging from the obvious and straightforward to the unanticipated and complex).
Many impacts were known and/or anticipated, but many weren't.At the time, what I gleaned out of the controversy surrounding the proposed final phase on the project (often referred to as the James Bay Project 2) was that by the time man becomes aware of effects, through monitoring/observation/testing, etc.
they are often a *done* deal.
Monitoring, adjusting and reacting quickly enough in such circumstance is very difficult.So what?
Well, often the idea that we can fix specific elements in such complex systems is hubris and sheer folly.
However, the fear-of-the-unknown objection can be the pendulum swinging to the other extreme to stop any activity.
This planet is out in the middle of nowhere, and is all we have in terms of resources.
There's no going down to the Milky Way corner store to pick up replacements for things we seriously fuck up.This is serious shit.
I'm glad to see serious study is occurring at the Carnegie Institution.
The idea of countering warming with geoengineering on a piecemeal basis scares the crap out of me.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376831</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377121</id>
	<title>Re:in for a penny in for a pound</title>
	<author>oldspewey</author>
	<datestamp>1245352200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Define "bunch"</htmltext>
<tokenext>Define " bunch "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Define "bunch"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376923</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376653</id>
	<title>Dream on.  Chemtrails cause heating.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245350460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://home.earthlink.net/~root.man/warming.html</p><p>http://www.carnicom.com/gwmodel.htm</p><p>A study has been done to examine the role of the aerosol operations with respect to global warming. It has long been proposed1,2,3 that the aerosol operations have the effect of aggravating the heating condition of the planet, and that they show no prospect for cooling the earth as many have claimed. This is in direct contradiction to many of the popular notions that commonly circulate regarding the operations, i.e., that these operations are somehow intended for our benefit, but it is best that their true nature remain undisclosed and closed to fair examination by the public. Whether or not such popular theories are intended to mislead the public is open to question; the facts, however, speak of an opposite end result.  The aerosols are being dispersed into the lower atmosphere, and it can be shown from this fact that they will indeed heat up the lower portion of the atmosphere.  Global warming itself is defined as the heating of the lower atmosphere and earth4. The notion that the aerosols are in some way cooling the planet is contradictory to direct observation and the examinations of physics.  To cool the planet, the intentionally dispersed aerosols would have to be in the upper regions of the atmosphere or in space; readers interested in that conclusion may wish to read more closely the proposals of Edward Teller that are often cited in the claims of supposed mitigation.   It will be found that any claims of aerosols cooling the planet will usually require those materials to be at the upper reaches of the atmosphere to the boundaries of space; aerosols in the lower atmosphere will usually be shown to be heating the planet.  These facts must be considered by any of those individuals that continue to promulgate claims of anonymous and beneficial mitigation in conjunction with the aerosol operations.</p><p>The current model examines the effects of deliberately introducing barium particulates into the lower atmosphere, and the subsequent contribution to the global warming problem.  The results are not encouraging.  The results indicate that these particulates, even at rather modest concentration levels, can contribute in a real and significant way to the heating of the lower atmosphere.  The magnitude appears to be quite on par with any of the more popularly discussed contributions, such as carbon dioxide increase and greenhouse gases.  It is recommended that the public be willing to consider some of the more direct, visible and palpable alterations to our planet and atmosphere within the pursuit of the global warming issue,  namely the aerosol operations as they have been imposed upon the public without informed consent for more than 8 years now.</p><p>The graph above shows the expected interactions from 3 variables that relate to the global warming issue; these are: aerosol concentration, time and rise in temperature.  On one axis, relatively modest concentrations of barium particulates in the atmosphere are shown.  The magnitudes shown are not at all unreasonable with respect to the numerous analyses that have been made by this researcher in the past, e.g., visibility studies available on this site. As a point of reference, the EPA air quality standard for particulates of less than 2.5 microns in size has been recently lowered5 to 35 ugms (micrograms) per m3 (cubic meter).  It will be seen from the graph, for example,  that even a 10\% level of this standard (i.e., 3.5-ugms / m3) can produce a noticeable heating of the lower atmosphere.  As has been stated previously, the candor and accountability of the EPA  is sorely lacking over the past decade, and this agency has failed miserably in its duty to the public to maintain environmental safeguards.  It can no longer be assured or assumed that minimal air quality standards are being honored in any way, and the integrity of the EPA to serve the public interest can no longer be upheld.  It is quite possible, and unfortunately somewhat expected, that enforceable and accounta</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //home.earthlink.net/ ~ root.man/warming.htmlhttp : //www.carnicom.com/gwmodel.htmA study has been done to examine the role of the aerosol operations with respect to global warming .
It has long been proposed1,2,3 that the aerosol operations have the effect of aggravating the heating condition of the planet , and that they show no prospect for cooling the earth as many have claimed .
This is in direct contradiction to many of the popular notions that commonly circulate regarding the operations , i.e. , that these operations are somehow intended for our benefit , but it is best that their true nature remain undisclosed and closed to fair examination by the public .
Whether or not such popular theories are intended to mislead the public is open to question ; the facts , however , speak of an opposite end result .
The aerosols are being dispersed into the lower atmosphere , and it can be shown from this fact that they will indeed heat up the lower portion of the atmosphere .
Global warming itself is defined as the heating of the lower atmosphere and earth4 .
The notion that the aerosols are in some way cooling the planet is contradictory to direct observation and the examinations of physics .
To cool the planet , the intentionally dispersed aerosols would have to be in the upper regions of the atmosphere or in space ; readers interested in that conclusion may wish to read more closely the proposals of Edward Teller that are often cited in the claims of supposed mitigation .
It will be found that any claims of aerosols cooling the planet will usually require those materials to be at the upper reaches of the atmosphere to the boundaries of space ; aerosols in the lower atmosphere will usually be shown to be heating the planet .
These facts must be considered by any of those individuals that continue to promulgate claims of anonymous and beneficial mitigation in conjunction with the aerosol operations.The current model examines the effects of deliberately introducing barium particulates into the lower atmosphere , and the subsequent contribution to the global warming problem .
The results are not encouraging .
The results indicate that these particulates , even at rather modest concentration levels , can contribute in a real and significant way to the heating of the lower atmosphere .
The magnitude appears to be quite on par with any of the more popularly discussed contributions , such as carbon dioxide increase and greenhouse gases .
It is recommended that the public be willing to consider some of the more direct , visible and palpable alterations to our planet and atmosphere within the pursuit of the global warming issue , namely the aerosol operations as they have been imposed upon the public without informed consent for more than 8 years now.The graph above shows the expected interactions from 3 variables that relate to the global warming issue ; these are : aerosol concentration , time and rise in temperature .
On one axis , relatively modest concentrations of barium particulates in the atmosphere are shown .
The magnitudes shown are not at all unreasonable with respect to the numerous analyses that have been made by this researcher in the past , e.g. , visibility studies available on this site .
As a point of reference , the EPA air quality standard for particulates of less than 2.5 microns in size has been recently lowered5 to 35 ugms ( micrograms ) per m3 ( cubic meter ) .
It will be seen from the graph , for example , that even a 10 \ % level of this standard ( i.e. , 3.5-ugms / m3 ) can produce a noticeable heating of the lower atmosphere .
As has been stated previously , the candor and accountability of the EPA is sorely lacking over the past decade , and this agency has failed miserably in its duty to the public to maintain environmental safeguards .
It can no longer be assured or assumed that minimal air quality standards are being honored in any way , and the integrity of the EPA to serve the public interest can no longer be upheld .
It is quite possible , and unfortunately somewhat expected , that enforceable and accounta</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://home.earthlink.net/~root.man/warming.htmlhttp://www.carnicom.com/gwmodel.htmA study has been done to examine the role of the aerosol operations with respect to global warming.
It has long been proposed1,2,3 that the aerosol operations have the effect of aggravating the heating condition of the planet, and that they show no prospect for cooling the earth as many have claimed.
This is in direct contradiction to many of the popular notions that commonly circulate regarding the operations, i.e., that these operations are somehow intended for our benefit, but it is best that their true nature remain undisclosed and closed to fair examination by the public.
Whether or not such popular theories are intended to mislead the public is open to question; the facts, however, speak of an opposite end result.
The aerosols are being dispersed into the lower atmosphere, and it can be shown from this fact that they will indeed heat up the lower portion of the atmosphere.
Global warming itself is defined as the heating of the lower atmosphere and earth4.
The notion that the aerosols are in some way cooling the planet is contradictory to direct observation and the examinations of physics.
To cool the planet, the intentionally dispersed aerosols would have to be in the upper regions of the atmosphere or in space; readers interested in that conclusion may wish to read more closely the proposals of Edward Teller that are often cited in the claims of supposed mitigation.
It will be found that any claims of aerosols cooling the planet will usually require those materials to be at the upper reaches of the atmosphere to the boundaries of space; aerosols in the lower atmosphere will usually be shown to be heating the planet.
These facts must be considered by any of those individuals that continue to promulgate claims of anonymous and beneficial mitigation in conjunction with the aerosol operations.The current model examines the effects of deliberately introducing barium particulates into the lower atmosphere, and the subsequent contribution to the global warming problem.
The results are not encouraging.
The results indicate that these particulates, even at rather modest concentration levels, can contribute in a real and significant way to the heating of the lower atmosphere.
The magnitude appears to be quite on par with any of the more popularly discussed contributions, such as carbon dioxide increase and greenhouse gases.
It is recommended that the public be willing to consider some of the more direct, visible and palpable alterations to our planet and atmosphere within the pursuit of the global warming issue,  namely the aerosol operations as they have been imposed upon the public without informed consent for more than 8 years now.The graph above shows the expected interactions from 3 variables that relate to the global warming issue; these are: aerosol concentration, time and rise in temperature.
On one axis, relatively modest concentrations of barium particulates in the atmosphere are shown.
The magnitudes shown are not at all unreasonable with respect to the numerous analyses that have been made by this researcher in the past, e.g., visibility studies available on this site.
As a point of reference, the EPA air quality standard for particulates of less than 2.5 microns in size has been recently lowered5 to 35 ugms (micrograms) per m3 (cubic meter).
It will be seen from the graph, for example,  that even a 10\% level of this standard (i.e., 3.5-ugms / m3) can produce a noticeable heating of the lower atmosphere.
As has been stated previously, the candor and accountability of the EPA  is sorely lacking over the past decade, and this agency has failed miserably in its duty to the public to maintain environmental safeguards.
It can no longer be assured or assumed that minimal air quality standards are being honored in any way, and the integrity of the EPA to serve the public interest can no longer be upheld.
It is quite possible, and unfortunately somewhat expected, that enforceable and accounta</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28379683</id>
	<title>We should ban swimming in the ocean</title>
	<author>CHK6</author>
	<datestamp>1245316200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because Lord knows, I've peed in the ocean before. Now if we can ban marine animals from peeing too, that will only help quicken the results. Maybe we should use federal tax money to sponsor research into marine diapers for whales and dolphins.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because Lord knows , I 've peed in the ocean before .
Now if we can ban marine animals from peeing too , that will only help quicken the results .
Maybe we should use federal tax money to sponsor research into marine diapers for whales and dolphins .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because Lord knows, I've peed in the ocean before.
Now if we can ban marine animals from peeing too, that will only help quicken the results.
Maybe we should use federal tax money to sponsor research into marine diapers for whales and dolphins.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377281</id>
	<title>Re:Global experiments with us as guinea pigs</title>
	<author>vertinox</author>
	<datestamp>1245352740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>We did not understand the global bio-sphere to begin with so we are in the Global-Environment change state. Now we propose attacking the symptoms without a full understanding of the dynamics.</i></p><p>To be fair, once we start tinkering, we'll have a better understanding of what does what.</p><p>Its like those old 1960's films of the doctors who crack open patients skulls and put the electric prod onto spots of the brain saying "What does this do? How about now?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We did not understand the global bio-sphere to begin with so we are in the Global-Environment change state .
Now we propose attacking the symptoms without a full understanding of the dynamics.To be fair , once we start tinkering , we 'll have a better understanding of what does what.Its like those old 1960 's films of the doctors who crack open patients skulls and put the electric prod onto spots of the brain saying " What does this do ?
How about now ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We did not understand the global bio-sphere to begin with so we are in the Global-Environment change state.
Now we propose attacking the symptoms without a full understanding of the dynamics.To be fair, once we start tinkering, we'll have a better understanding of what does what.Its like those old 1960's films of the doctors who crack open patients skulls and put the electric prod onto spots of the brain saying "What does this do?
How about now?
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376831</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377473</id>
	<title>Re:What Climate Problem?</title>
	<author>revjtanton</author>
	<datestamp>1245353340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've been in a coma for 12 years and i didn't even know there was a climate!  Couldn't we just kill the climate and then it wouldnt be a problem?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been in a coma for 12 years and i did n't even know there was a climate !
Could n't we just kill the climate and then it wouldnt be a problem ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been in a coma for 12 years and i didn't even know there was a climate!
Couldn't we just kill the climate and then it wouldnt be a problem?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376613</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28384001</id>
	<title>Now they tell us</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245334740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was getting tired of explaining to hotel guards why I was spending my weekends on the roof with caseloads of Lysol and Raid.</p><p>I kept getting "Why don't you go home and save the world?", like that.  Stupid people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was getting tired of explaining to hotel guards why I was spending my weekends on the roof with caseloads of Lysol and Raid.I kept getting " Why do n't you go home and save the world ?
" , like that .
Stupid people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was getting tired of explaining to hotel guards why I was spending my weekends on the roof with caseloads of Lysol and Raid.I kept getting "Why don't you go home and save the world?
", like that.
Stupid people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28379697</id>
	<title>Re:if i remember well from high school chemistry</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245316200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>You're broadcasting ignorance... like a beacon.</i></p><p>Of course he is.  It's kinda his "thing".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're broadcasting ignorance... like a beacon.Of course he is .
It 's kinda his " thing " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're broadcasting ignorance... like a beacon.Of course he is.
It's kinda his "thing".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376937</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377711</id>
	<title>Re:What Climate Problem?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245353940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm more worried that the magnetic pole are going to shift shortly.</p><p>And the Core of the earth is cooling.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm more worried that the magnetic pole are going to shift shortly.And the Core of the earth is cooling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm more worried that the magnetic pole are going to shift shortly.And the Core of the earth is cooling.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376613</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28387471</id>
	<title>Re:What Climate Problem?</title>
	<author>Burnhard</author>
	<datestamp>1245412560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Generally these changes are very slow; that's not a problem. It's when changes are rapid that there are problems. The last atmospheric change similar to what we're forcing nowadays was the PETM (Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum)</p></div>
</blockquote><p>

Good lord, what a load of rubbish.  The surface temperature, mostly measured in the USA (as it has by far the majority of sensors), mostly with stations cited next to air conditioning units, tarmack and barbeque's,  surrounding by half a century of urban growth, has shown a small increase.  An increase, I have to say, well within the bounds of natural variation and an increase, it also must be said, that is not outside of the scope of the possible error (2 degrees, with an increase of around 0.5).<br>
<br>
It's rump-smackingly obvious that you and your fellow Warmists overstate your case.  Your projections of doom are beyond parody.  It just so happens that I'm reading a book right now called, "Irrationality" - there is a chapter in it for the Warmists.  It's called: Distorting the evidence.<br> <br>Happy days!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Generally these changes are very slow ; that 's not a problem .
It 's when changes are rapid that there are problems .
The last atmospheric change similar to what we 're forcing nowadays was the PETM ( Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum ) Good lord , what a load of rubbish .
The surface temperature , mostly measured in the USA ( as it has by far the majority of sensors ) , mostly with stations cited next to air conditioning units , tarmack and barbeque 's , surrounding by half a century of urban growth , has shown a small increase .
An increase , I have to say , well within the bounds of natural variation and an increase , it also must be said , that is not outside of the scope of the possible error ( 2 degrees , with an increase of around 0.5 ) .
It 's rump-smackingly obvious that you and your fellow Warmists overstate your case .
Your projections of doom are beyond parody .
It just so happens that I 'm reading a book right now called , " Irrationality " - there is a chapter in it for the Warmists .
It 's called : Distorting the evidence .
Happy days !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Generally these changes are very slow; that's not a problem.
It's when changes are rapid that there are problems.
The last atmospheric change similar to what we're forcing nowadays was the PETM (Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum)


Good lord, what a load of rubbish.
The surface temperature, mostly measured in the USA (as it has by far the majority of sensors), mostly with stations cited next to air conditioning units, tarmack and barbeque's,  surrounding by half a century of urban growth, has shown a small increase.
An increase, I have to say, well within the bounds of natural variation and an increase, it also must be said, that is not outside of the scope of the possible error (2 degrees, with an increase of around 0.5).
It's rump-smackingly obvious that you and your fellow Warmists overstate your case.
Your projections of doom are beyond parody.
It just so happens that I'm reading a book right now called, "Irrationality" - there is a chapter in it for the Warmists.
It's called: Distorting the evidence.
Happy days!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377497</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376679</id>
	<title>Re:Volcanoes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245350580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good thing you thought of that - you should probably send them an email right away!  You discovered the missing forcing that will keep our planet cool and our oceans pH balanced!  Turns out that in all this freaking out about climate change, nobody who was even somewhat competent got involved at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good thing you thought of that - you should probably send them an email right away !
You discovered the missing forcing that will keep our planet cool and our oceans pH balanced !
Turns out that in all this freaking out about climate change , nobody who was even somewhat competent got involved at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good thing you thought of that - you should probably send them an email right away!
You discovered the missing forcing that will keep our planet cool and our oceans pH balanced!
Turns out that in all this freaking out about climate change, nobody who was even somewhat competent got involved at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376615</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377129</id>
	<title>Re:Stop driving or die</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245352260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I, for one, have set my air conditioner at 70 degrees to help offset the extra warming. If everyone would follow my example, we'd have enough cooler air for everyone and completely reverse global warmin'</htmltext>
<tokenext>I , for one , have set my air conditioner at 70 degrees to help offset the extra warming .
If everyone would follow my example , we 'd have enough cooler air for everyone and completely reverse global warmin'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I, for one, have set my air conditioner at 70 degrees to help offset the extra warming.
If everyone would follow my example, we'd have enough cooler air for everyone and completely reverse global warmin'</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376673</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28380229</id>
	<title>Re:if i remember well from high school chemistry</title>
	<author>myowntrueself</author>
	<datestamp>1245317880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm in oceanography research, and I've seen a number of talks now talking about changing pH in the oceans.</p></div><p>Maybe you can answer a question for me then.</p><p>According to wikipedia, the Great Barrier Reef of Australia dates back maybe 600,000 years.</p><p>During the last 600,000 years there has been some significant climate change, way more radical than what we have been experiencing with the whole 'global warming' thing. There was an ice age, what? 20,000 years ago?</p><p>So my question is, do we have any evidence of historical ocean acidification and if so what impact did it have on the reefs at the time? Because OBVIOUSLY they have survived and thrived in recent millennia.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm in oceanography research , and I 've seen a number of talks now talking about changing pH in the oceans.Maybe you can answer a question for me then.According to wikipedia , the Great Barrier Reef of Australia dates back maybe 600,000 years.During the last 600,000 years there has been some significant climate change , way more radical than what we have been experiencing with the whole 'global warming ' thing .
There was an ice age , what ?
20,000 years ago ? So my question is , do we have any evidence of historical ocean acidification and if so what impact did it have on the reefs at the time ?
Because OBVIOUSLY they have survived and thrived in recent millennia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm in oceanography research, and I've seen a number of talks now talking about changing pH in the oceans.Maybe you can answer a question for me then.According to wikipedia, the Great Barrier Reef of Australia dates back maybe 600,000 years.During the last 600,000 years there has been some significant climate change, way more radical than what we have been experiencing with the whole 'global warming' thing.
There was an ice age, what?
20,000 years ago?So my question is, do we have any evidence of historical ocean acidification and if so what impact did it have on the reefs at the time?
Because OBVIOUSLY they have survived and thrived in recent millennia.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377115</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376669</id>
	<title>straw man argument</title>
	<author>Captain Kirk</author>
	<datestamp>1245350520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Geo-engineering may make people think that we can carry on as now with no sacrifices.  This article tries to re-inject a sense of fear.  Its like saying "OK so the vacuum cleaner is good at cleaning the floor.  But does it paint the garage? No? Well back to cleaning the floor with a mop then"</p><p>Surely we deserve a more rational debate?  Sacrifices are needed but sophistry will not persuade anyone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Geo-engineering may make people think that we can carry on as now with no sacrifices .
This article tries to re-inject a sense of fear .
Its like saying " OK so the vacuum cleaner is good at cleaning the floor .
But does it paint the garage ?
No ? Well back to cleaning the floor with a mop then " Surely we deserve a more rational debate ?
Sacrifices are needed but sophistry will not persuade anyone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Geo-engineering may make people think that we can carry on as now with no sacrifices.
This article tries to re-inject a sense of fear.
Its like saying "OK so the vacuum cleaner is good at cleaning the floor.
But does it paint the garage?
No? Well back to cleaning the floor with a mop then"Surely we deserve a more rational debate?
Sacrifices are needed but sophistry will not persuade anyone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28387051</id>
	<title>Re:if i remember well from high school chemistry</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245407640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh dear, so I take it you didn't end up with a career in chemistry?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh dear , so I take it you did n't end up with a career in chemistry ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh dear, so I take it you didn't end up with a career in chemistry?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377187</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377275</id>
	<title>Re:if i remember well from high school chemistry</title>
	<author>syphax</author>
	<datestamp>1245352740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, the ocean is very well buffered.  There's no shortage of carbonate.</p><p>But the timescale of the buffering is way, way, way slower than the timescale with which the extra CO2 is going into the ocean.</p><p>So, over a couple million years, no big deal.</p><p>But over 100-500 years?  Kind of a big deal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , the ocean is very well buffered .
There 's no shortage of carbonate.But the timescale of the buffering is way , way , way slower than the timescale with which the extra CO2 is going into the ocean.So , over a couple million years , no big deal.But over 100-500 years ?
Kind of a big deal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, the ocean is very well buffered.
There's no shortage of carbonate.But the timescale of the buffering is way, way, way slower than the timescale with which the extra CO2 is going into the ocean.So, over a couple million years, no big deal.But over 100-500 years?
Kind of a big deal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376643</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28378595</id>
	<title>Re:Global experiments with us as guinea pigs</title>
	<author>mrlibertarian</author>
	<datestamp>1245356160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>The best solution is to reduce our foot-print as rapidly as we can.</i> <br> <br>Is it safe to do that without a full understanding of the dynamics? Or does that argument only apply to your opponents?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The best solution is to reduce our foot-print as rapidly as we can .
Is it safe to do that without a full understanding of the dynamics ?
Or does that argument only apply to your opponents ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The best solution is to reduce our foot-print as rapidly as we can.
Is it safe to do that without a full understanding of the dynamics?
Or does that argument only apply to your opponents?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376831</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377177</id>
	<title>Re:if i remember well from high school chemistry</title>
	<author>drunken\_boxer777</author>
	<datestamp>1245352440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And with a vague memory from high school you managed to disprove hundreds of scientists who spend all of their time studying the ocean as an ecosystem. Bravo.</p><p>In all seriousness, some of the media reports are over-hyped, but the concern of ocean acidification has been around for at least a decade and you'd think that someone would have raised your objection during that time. Are some proponents hysterical? Yes. Is their concern valid? Yes.</p><p>Regardless, are you willing to gamble that what we do now has no real impact on the planet? Furthermore, are you willing to gamble that if we don't begin to limit our footprint on the planet our descendants will do so?</p><p>For instance, the widespread pollution of rivers by industrial chemical plants occurred rampantly throughout the US. Then we realized, "Hey! We have an impact on the environment!" It was a hard-earned and costly lesson, which fortunately we managed to clean up, for the most part. It could be argued that we didn't know any better at the time. But I think we know better now, and to argue that we don't have an effect on our environment is negligent. To argue that there's nothing we can do and we'll let future generations sort it out (in the meantime the situation worsens and the population continues to increase, compounding the damage) is downright evil.</p><p>By the way, it's already been published that even if the earth doesn't warm from human CO2, <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070308220426.htm" title="sciencedaily.com" rel="nofollow">ocean acidification will still be a problem</a> [sciencedaily.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And with a vague memory from high school you managed to disprove hundreds of scientists who spend all of their time studying the ocean as an ecosystem .
Bravo.In all seriousness , some of the media reports are over-hyped , but the concern of ocean acidification has been around for at least a decade and you 'd think that someone would have raised your objection during that time .
Are some proponents hysterical ?
Yes. Is their concern valid ?
Yes.Regardless , are you willing to gamble that what we do now has no real impact on the planet ?
Furthermore , are you willing to gamble that if we do n't begin to limit our footprint on the planet our descendants will do so ? For instance , the widespread pollution of rivers by industrial chemical plants occurred rampantly throughout the US .
Then we realized , " Hey !
We have an impact on the environment !
" It was a hard-earned and costly lesson , which fortunately we managed to clean up , for the most part .
It could be argued that we did n't know any better at the time .
But I think we know better now , and to argue that we do n't have an effect on our environment is negligent .
To argue that there 's nothing we can do and we 'll let future generations sort it out ( in the meantime the situation worsens and the population continues to increase , compounding the damage ) is downright evil.By the way , it 's already been published that even if the earth does n't warm from human CO2 , ocean acidification will still be a problem [ sciencedaily.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And with a vague memory from high school you managed to disprove hundreds of scientists who spend all of their time studying the ocean as an ecosystem.
Bravo.In all seriousness, some of the media reports are over-hyped, but the concern of ocean acidification has been around for at least a decade and you'd think that someone would have raised your objection during that time.
Are some proponents hysterical?
Yes. Is their concern valid?
Yes.Regardless, are you willing to gamble that what we do now has no real impact on the planet?
Furthermore, are you willing to gamble that if we don't begin to limit our footprint on the planet our descendants will do so?For instance, the widespread pollution of rivers by industrial chemical plants occurred rampantly throughout the US.
Then we realized, "Hey!
We have an impact on the environment!
" It was a hard-earned and costly lesson, which fortunately we managed to clean up, for the most part.
It could be argued that we didn't know any better at the time.
But I think we know better now, and to argue that we don't have an effect on our environment is negligent.
To argue that there's nothing we can do and we'll let future generations sort it out (in the meantime the situation worsens and the population continues to increase, compounding the damage) is downright evil.By the way, it's already been published that even if the earth doesn't warm from human CO2, ocean acidification will still be a problem [sciencedaily.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376643</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376873</id>
	<title>Re:Volcanoes</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1245351240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The amount of material eject by volcanoes is minuscule compared to what we put in the air, year after year.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The amount of material eject by volcanoes is minuscule compared to what we put in the air , year after year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The amount of material eject by volcanoes is minuscule compared to what we put in the air, year after year.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376615</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28382717</id>
	<title>Re:What Climate Problem?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245328620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Using the number you provided (1 trillion), there would be over 100 cattle for every person on earth.  Are you sure about that number?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Using the number you provided ( 1 trillion ) , there would be over 100 cattle for every person on earth .
Are you sure about that number ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Using the number you provided (1 trillion), there would be over 100 cattle for every person on earth.
Are you sure about that number?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377497</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377953</id>
	<title>Re:Global experiments with us as guinea pigs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245354480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The best solution is to reduce our foot-print as rapidly as we can. And make sure it stays that way.</p></div><p>Scientists are unsure about the coloration between atmospheric CO2 and temperature increases.  Forcing everyone to be "Carbon Neutral" will increase the cost of energy and may have little to no effect on the temperature.  I do not want my own set of the Emperors New Cloak.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The best solution is to reduce our foot-print as rapidly as we can .
And make sure it stays that way.Scientists are unsure about the coloration between atmospheric CO2 and temperature increases .
Forcing everyone to be " Carbon Neutral " will increase the cost of energy and may have little to no effect on the temperature .
I do not want my own set of the Emperors New Cloak .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The best solution is to reduce our foot-print as rapidly as we can.
And make sure it stays that way.Scientists are unsure about the coloration between atmospheric CO2 and temperature increases.
Forcing everyone to be "Carbon Neutral" will increase the cost of energy and may have little to no effect on the temperature.
I do not want my own set of the Emperors New Cloak.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376831</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28409345</id>
	<title>Oceans are akaline and will never be acidic,</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245582600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> Hey does anyone know what the ocean PH actually is? Well it's 8.1 and with 7 bieng nuetral that means the oceans are getting less alkaline, that's right you heard it LESS ALKALINE.</p><p>Since the industrial revolution happened ocean PHs have dropped by an estimated 0.075, since 1700. Even by 2100 it is predicted that they will drop by another 0.28. leaving ph at around 7.8.</p><p>Now if you fools keep on insisting to come up with imaginative new theories that make out that "the world is ending and it's all our fault," your all going to be left with less credibility at then end of this as compared to when you entered it (after you are all proven wrong)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey does anyone know what the ocean PH actually is ?
Well it 's 8.1 and with 7 bieng nuetral that means the oceans are getting less alkaline , that 's right you heard it LESS ALKALINE.Since the industrial revolution happened ocean PHs have dropped by an estimated 0.075 , since 1700 .
Even by 2100 it is predicted that they will drop by another 0.28. leaving ph at around 7.8.Now if you fools keep on insisting to come up with imaginative new theories that make out that " the world is ending and it 's all our fault , " your all going to be left with less credibility at then end of this as compared to when you entered it ( after you are all proven wrong )</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Hey does anyone know what the ocean PH actually is?
Well it's 8.1 and with 7 bieng nuetral that means the oceans are getting less alkaline, that's right you heard it LESS ALKALINE.Since the industrial revolution happened ocean PHs have dropped by an estimated 0.075, since 1700.
Even by 2100 it is predicted that they will drop by another 0.28. leaving ph at around 7.8.Now if you fools keep on insisting to come up with imaginative new theories that make out that "the world is ending and it's all our fault," your all going to be left with less credibility at then end of this as compared to when you entered it (after you are all proven wrong)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28379155</id>
	<title>Re:Global experiments with us as guinea pigs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245357840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I love the anti-human attitudes of the typical environmentalist. Yeah, sure kill off all the humans and that WILL solve the problem...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I love the anti-human attitudes of the typical environmentalist .
Yeah , sure kill off all the humans and that WILL solve the problem.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love the anti-human attitudes of the typical environmentalist.
Yeah, sure kill off all the humans and that WILL solve the problem...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376831</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377007</id>
	<title>Re:if i remember well from high school chemistry</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245351780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pardon me sir/madam, your facts are not welcome here. You must take your hysteria-free reasoning and go call a right-wing talk show or something.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pardon me sir/madam , your facts are not welcome here .
You must take your hysteria-free reasoning and go call a right-wing talk show or something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pardon me sir/madam, your facts are not welcome here.
You must take your hysteria-free reasoning and go call a right-wing talk show or something.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376643</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377363</id>
	<title>Re:Volcanoes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245353040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's volcanoes fault is a classic rationalize. There have been far worse volcanic episodes in the last flew million years without causing the spike we have seen in CO2. The increase in CO2 mirrors the onset of industrialization. Deal with it. In the short term acidification is probably a far worse problem than actual warming and ironically in the long run it's the most frightening. Also simply blocking sunlight seems like an extreme solution when we depend on the sun for food. The extreme end of that scale is called night. Which is easier in the end, behaving responsibly or spending trillions of dollars on unproven techniques for undoing the damage we are doing? If we'd simply spend the money spent on avoiding the issues on actual solutions we could fix the problem. I recently heard that it will likely cost an additional trillion dollars for carbon sequestering so we can keep burning coal, a trillion dollars! And that's just an estimate since it's also unproven technology. Is it smarter to keep spending trillions of dollars on the status quo or to fix the problem once and for all?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's volcanoes fault is a classic rationalize .
There have been far worse volcanic episodes in the last flew million years without causing the spike we have seen in CO2 .
The increase in CO2 mirrors the onset of industrialization .
Deal with it .
In the short term acidification is probably a far worse problem than actual warming and ironically in the long run it 's the most frightening .
Also simply blocking sunlight seems like an extreme solution when we depend on the sun for food .
The extreme end of that scale is called night .
Which is easier in the end , behaving responsibly or spending trillions of dollars on unproven techniques for undoing the damage we are doing ?
If we 'd simply spend the money spent on avoiding the issues on actual solutions we could fix the problem .
I recently heard that it will likely cost an additional trillion dollars for carbon sequestering so we can keep burning coal , a trillion dollars !
And that 's just an estimate since it 's also unproven technology .
Is it smarter to keep spending trillions of dollars on the status quo or to fix the problem once and for all ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's volcanoes fault is a classic rationalize.
There have been far worse volcanic episodes in the last flew million years without causing the spike we have seen in CO2.
The increase in CO2 mirrors the onset of industrialization.
Deal with it.
In the short term acidification is probably a far worse problem than actual warming and ironically in the long run it's the most frightening.
Also simply blocking sunlight seems like an extreme solution when we depend on the sun for food.
The extreme end of that scale is called night.
Which is easier in the end, behaving responsibly or spending trillions of dollars on unproven techniques for undoing the damage we are doing?
If we'd simply spend the money spent on avoiding the issues on actual solutions we could fix the problem.
I recently heard that it will likely cost an additional trillion dollars for carbon sequestering so we can keep burning coal, a trillion dollars!
And that's just an estimate since it's also unproven technology.
Is it smarter to keep spending trillions of dollars on the status quo or to fix the problem once and for all?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376615</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377099</id>
	<title>Re:What Climate Problem?</title>
	<author>at\_slashdot</author>
	<datestamp>1245352140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>God could change the CO2 atmospheric concentration with one fart...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>God could change the CO2 atmospheric concentration with one fart.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>God could change the CO2 atmospheric concentration with one fart...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376613</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28385095</id>
	<title>Re:What Climate Problem?</title>
	<author>TapeCutter</author>
	<datestamp>1245343560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"Weird, I'm using my reliance on actual figures to support my conclusion that it isn't"</i>
<br> <br>
No you are relying on Bob Carter who <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/minchin-denies-climate-change-manmade/2007/03/14/1173722560417.html" title="smh.com.au">says</a> [smh.com.au]: "the role of peer review in scientific literature was overstressed, and whether or not a scientist had been funded by the fossil fuel industry was irrelevant to the validity of research"
<br> <br>
"Weird" how pseudo-skeptics like Carter opt for lobbying instead of publishing. Sad how many people are still desperately clinging to their politically inspired FUD.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Weird , I 'm using my reliance on actual figures to support my conclusion that it is n't " No you are relying on Bob Carter who says [ smh.com.au ] : " the role of peer review in scientific literature was overstressed , and whether or not a scientist had been funded by the fossil fuel industry was irrelevant to the validity of research " " Weird " how pseudo-skeptics like Carter opt for lobbying instead of publishing .
Sad how many people are still desperately clinging to their politically inspired FUD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Weird, I'm using my reliance on actual figures to support my conclusion that it isn't"
 
No you are relying on Bob Carter who says [smh.com.au]: "the role of peer review in scientific literature was overstressed, and whether or not a scientist had been funded by the fossil fuel industry was irrelevant to the validity of research"
 
"Weird" how pseudo-skeptics like Carter opt for lobbying instead of publishing.
Sad how many people are still desperately clinging to their politically inspired FUD.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376859</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376961</id>
	<title>Re:What Climate Problem?</title>
	<author>jayme0227</author>
	<datestamp>1245351600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>According to my layman's understanding of climate change theory, the energy comes from the sun. What your car is doing is emitting CO2 which builds up in the atmosphere. Because of the extra buildup of CO2 and other so-called "greenhouse gases" the energy that would normally leave the earth into space does so at a much slower pace, thus the average temperature of the earth is slowly increasing.</p><p>For more information: <a href="http://lmgtfy.com/?q=global+warming" title="lmgtfy.com" rel="nofollow">http://lmgtfy.com/?q=global+warming</a> [lmgtfy.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>According to my layman 's understanding of climate change theory , the energy comes from the sun .
What your car is doing is emitting CO2 which builds up in the atmosphere .
Because of the extra buildup of CO2 and other so-called " greenhouse gases " the energy that would normally leave the earth into space does so at a much slower pace , thus the average temperature of the earth is slowly increasing.For more information : http : //lmgtfy.com/ ? q = global + warming [ lmgtfy.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to my layman's understanding of climate change theory, the energy comes from the sun.
What your car is doing is emitting CO2 which builds up in the atmosphere.
Because of the extra buildup of CO2 and other so-called "greenhouse gases" the energy that would normally leave the earth into space does so at a much slower pace, thus the average temperature of the earth is slowly increasing.For more information: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=global+warming [lmgtfy.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376855</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376643</id>
	<title>if i remember well from high school chemistry</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245350400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the ocean is a sort of buffer solution</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffer\_solution" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffer\_solution</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>what is major component of this buffer? us. living critters and how they react to an increase in CO2</p><p><a href="http://oceancolor.gsfc.nasa.gov/SeaWiFS/TEACHERS/CHEMISTRY/" title="nasa.gov" rel="nofollow">http://oceancolor.gsfc.nasa.gov/SeaWiFS/TEACHERS/CHEMISTRY/</a> [nasa.gov]</p><p>which means the oceans will maintain their pH over a wide range of abuse and this notion of ocean acidification is hysteria</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the ocean is a sort of buffer solutionhttp : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffer \ _solution [ wikipedia.org ] what is major component of this buffer ?
us. living critters and how they react to an increase in CO2http : //oceancolor.gsfc.nasa.gov/SeaWiFS/TEACHERS/CHEMISTRY/ [ nasa.gov ] which means the oceans will maintain their pH over a wide range of abuse and this notion of ocean acidification is hysteria</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the ocean is a sort of buffer solutionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffer\_solution [wikipedia.org]what is major component of this buffer?
us. living critters and how they react to an increase in CO2http://oceancolor.gsfc.nasa.gov/SeaWiFS/TEACHERS/CHEMISTRY/ [nasa.gov]which means the oceans will maintain their pH over a wide range of abuse and this notion of ocean acidification is hysteria</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377435</id>
	<title>Just</title>
	<author>shelterpaw</author>
	<datestamp>1245353220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>let nature take it's course!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>let nature take it 's course ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>let nature take it's course!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28399689</id>
	<title>Cquestrate is a Geotech solution for that</title>
	<author>sam\_vilain</author>
	<datestamp>1245439560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Which seems to me to be the first easy retort to this<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... as there are geoengineering solutions which are all about taking limestone, baking it using "stranded" energy to slaked lime, then dumping it into the ocean.  See <a href="http://www.cquestrate.com/" title="cquestrate.com" rel="nofollow">Cquestrate.com</a> [cquestrate.com].  Fixing acidification is the <em>mechanism</em> for those geotech solutions - how can they not help with it?  Very strange.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Which seems to me to be the first easy retort to this ... as there are geoengineering solutions which are all about taking limestone , baking it using " stranded " energy to slaked lime , then dumping it into the ocean .
See Cquestrate.com [ cquestrate.com ] .
Fixing acidification is the mechanism for those geotech solutions - how can they not help with it ?
Very strange .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which seems to me to be the first easy retort to this ... as there are geoengineering solutions which are all about taking limestone, baking it using "stranded" energy to slaked lime, then dumping it into the ocean.
See Cquestrate.com [cquestrate.com].
Fixing acidification is the mechanism for those geotech solutions - how can they not help with it?
Very strange.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376707</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376707</id>
	<title>It's a pity...</title>
	<author>MillionthMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1245350640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>... a few hundred billion metric tons of calcium hydroxide would be a really nice thing to have right about now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... a few hundred billion metric tons of calcium hydroxide would be a really nice thing to have right about now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... a few hundred billion metric tons of calcium hydroxide would be a really nice thing to have right about now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376915</id>
	<title>My Turn.</title>
	<author>TinFoilMan</author>
	<datestamp>1245351360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Perhaps I have this incorrectly and someone can fix it for me, but now that I've got my tin hat on, please answer this:
<br> <br>
IF the earth gets warmer, then that would create more water vapor - becoming clouds - and clouds prevent reflect IR (heat), thus cooling the earth back down?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps I have this incorrectly and someone can fix it for me , but now that I 've got my tin hat on , please answer this : IF the earth gets warmer , then that would create more water vapor - becoming clouds - and clouds prevent reflect IR ( heat ) , thus cooling the earth back down ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps I have this incorrectly and someone can fix it for me, but now that I've got my tin hat on, please answer this:
 
IF the earth gets warmer, then that would create more water vapor - becoming clouds - and clouds prevent reflect IR (heat), thus cooling the earth back down?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377437</id>
	<title>Re:straw man argument</title>
	<author>kannibal\_klown</author>
	<datestamp>1245353220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Geo-engineering may make people think that we can carry on as now with no sacrifices.  This article tries to re-inject a sense of fear.  Its like saying "OK so the vacuum cleaner is good at cleaning the floor.  But does it paint the garage? No? Well back to cleaning the floor with a mop then"</p><p>Surely we deserve a more rational debate?  Sacrifices are needed but sophistry will not persuade anyone.</p></div><p>Poor analogy.  Unless I'm reading things incorrectly, tour analogy is trying to join 2 separate things (clean floors, painted garages) while their issue is trying to join 2 symptoms of the same problem.</p><p>If I'm reading it correctly: they're trying to use Geo-Engineering to solve one of the main concerns of greenhouse emissions: global warming.  However the increased greenhouse emissions are also causing  the acidity issue in the ocean due to the carbon in the atmosphere getting absorbed.</p><p>A better analogy might be:</p><p>There's this dark spot of rot on the wall of our house.  We are going to sand it down and apply a new anti-fungal paint to the wall so it looks nice and so the spot doesn't get visibly bigger.</p><p>However, this doesn't address the problem that the rot is starting to eat away at the wood underneath, and if left untreated we'll have both structural and health problems.</p><p>That's not to say sanding and painting is a bad idea, but by simply taking care of one symptom of the rot we aren't addressing other less obvious symptoms.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Geo-engineering may make people think that we can carry on as now with no sacrifices .
This article tries to re-inject a sense of fear .
Its like saying " OK so the vacuum cleaner is good at cleaning the floor .
But does it paint the garage ?
No ? Well back to cleaning the floor with a mop then " Surely we deserve a more rational debate ?
Sacrifices are needed but sophistry will not persuade anyone.Poor analogy .
Unless I 'm reading things incorrectly , tour analogy is trying to join 2 separate things ( clean floors , painted garages ) while their issue is trying to join 2 symptoms of the same problem.If I 'm reading it correctly : they 're trying to use Geo-Engineering to solve one of the main concerns of greenhouse emissions : global warming .
However the increased greenhouse emissions are also causing the acidity issue in the ocean due to the carbon in the atmosphere getting absorbed.A better analogy might be : There 's this dark spot of rot on the wall of our house .
We are going to sand it down and apply a new anti-fungal paint to the wall so it looks nice and so the spot does n't get visibly bigger.However , this does n't address the problem that the rot is starting to eat away at the wood underneath , and if left untreated we 'll have both structural and health problems.That 's not to say sanding and painting is a bad idea , but by simply taking care of one symptom of the rot we are n't addressing other less obvious symptoms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Geo-engineering may make people think that we can carry on as now with no sacrifices.
This article tries to re-inject a sense of fear.
Its like saying "OK so the vacuum cleaner is good at cleaning the floor.
But does it paint the garage?
No? Well back to cleaning the floor with a mop then"Surely we deserve a more rational debate?
Sacrifices are needed but sophistry will not persuade anyone.Poor analogy.
Unless I'm reading things incorrectly, tour analogy is trying to join 2 separate things (clean floors, painted garages) while their issue is trying to join 2 symptoms of the same problem.If I'm reading it correctly: they're trying to use Geo-Engineering to solve one of the main concerns of greenhouse emissions: global warming.
However the increased greenhouse emissions are also causing  the acidity issue in the ocean due to the carbon in the atmosphere getting absorbed.A better analogy might be:There's this dark spot of rot on the wall of our house.
We are going to sand it down and apply a new anti-fungal paint to the wall so it looks nice and so the spot doesn't get visibly bigger.However, this doesn't address the problem that the rot is starting to eat away at the wood underneath, and if left untreated we'll have both structural and health problems.That's not to say sanding and painting is a bad idea, but by simply taking care of one symptom of the rot we aren't addressing other less obvious symptoms.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376669</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376869</id>
	<title>Re:What Climate Problem?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245351240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I only have one thing to say----------</p><p>Giant ROLAIDS!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I only have one thing to say----------Giant ROLAIDS !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I only have one thing to say----------Giant ROLAIDS!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376613</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28379719</id>
	<title>jiggleitalittleit'llwiggle</title>
	<author>castironpigeon</author>
	<datestamp>1245316320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Woooo! Jelly corals!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Woooo !
Jelly corals !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Woooo!
Jelly corals!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377115</id>
	<title>Re:if i remember well from high school chemistry</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245352200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm in oceanography research, and I've seen a number of talks now talking about changing pH in the oceans.</p><p>pH doesn't only change due to increased partial pressures of atmospheric CO2.  Nutrient loading to suface waters can cause pH in bottom waters to drop as well.</p><p>Whether or not the overall average ocean pH is changing - we cannot say yet.<br>But there are some regions, the Gulf of St. Lawrence for example, where pH has had clear downward trends over the last 50 years or so.<br>This effect, in combination with dropping levels of dissolved O2 is displacing a growing number of biota.  In this case, much (but not all) of these changes can be linked to changes in ocean currents.  I'll have to read the papers over, but for now I seem to remember that fertilizer runoff in the St. Lawrence river is another significant contributing factor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm in oceanography research , and I 've seen a number of talks now talking about changing pH in the oceans.pH does n't only change due to increased partial pressures of atmospheric CO2 .
Nutrient loading to suface waters can cause pH in bottom waters to drop as well.Whether or not the overall average ocean pH is changing - we can not say yet.But there are some regions , the Gulf of St. Lawrence for example , where pH has had clear downward trends over the last 50 years or so.This effect , in combination with dropping levels of dissolved O2 is displacing a growing number of biota .
In this case , much ( but not all ) of these changes can be linked to changes in ocean currents .
I 'll have to read the papers over , but for now I seem to remember that fertilizer runoff in the St. Lawrence river is another significant contributing factor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm in oceanography research, and I've seen a number of talks now talking about changing pH in the oceans.pH doesn't only change due to increased partial pressures of atmospheric CO2.
Nutrient loading to suface waters can cause pH in bottom waters to drop as well.Whether or not the overall average ocean pH is changing - we cannot say yet.But there are some regions, the Gulf of St. Lawrence for example, where pH has had clear downward trends over the last 50 years or so.This effect, in combination with dropping levels of dissolved O2 is displacing a growing number of biota.
In this case, much (but not all) of these changes can be linked to changes in ocean currents.
I'll have to read the papers over, but for now I seem to remember that fertilizer runoff in the St. Lawrence river is another significant contributing factor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376643</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376697</id>
	<title>Re:Volcanoes</title>
	<author>Rei</author>
	<datestamp>1245350640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Do these climate models take into account the fact that Volcanoes erupt from time to time, spewings tons of ash into the atmosphere, which reflects sunlight, and thereby cools the earth?</i></p><p>Yes.  And it's not the ash that primarily reflects the sunlight; it's the SOx.  And the cooling is only temporary.  And volcanoes also emit CO2.  But a small fraction as much as humans release.</p><p>And yes, volcanic ash is acidic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do these climate models take into account the fact that Volcanoes erupt from time to time , spewings tons of ash into the atmosphere , which reflects sunlight , and thereby cools the earth ? Yes .
And it 's not the ash that primarily reflects the sunlight ; it 's the SOx .
And the cooling is only temporary .
And volcanoes also emit CO2 .
But a small fraction as much as humans release.And yes , volcanic ash is acidic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do these climate models take into account the fact that Volcanoes erupt from time to time, spewings tons of ash into the atmosphere, which reflects sunlight, and thereby cools the earth?Yes.
And it's not the ash that primarily reflects the sunlight; it's the SOx.
And the cooling is only temporary.
And volcanoes also emit CO2.
But a small fraction as much as humans release.And yes, volcanic ash is acidic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376615</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377443</id>
	<title>Re:Simple solutions are possible</title>
	<author>deanston</author>
	<datestamp>1245353220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I second your simple solution and salute you sir! There are only 2 problems (of human nature and society, which are the root cause of all this in the first place) - <p>1) Most people are too lazy to plant a tree. </p><p>2) Major corporations and Wall Street do not make a ton of money from this *solution*.
</p><p>If you have proposed that it be mandatory for each family to buy a genetically altered tree that will absorb extra carbon and grow extra fast from the new super fertilizer from Mosanto, then, yeah, maybe the bureaucrats' ears will perk up. Then the subsequent soil and water pollution will kill us all anyway. Sorry to say.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I second your simple solution and salute you sir !
There are only 2 problems ( of human nature and society , which are the root cause of all this in the first place ) - 1 ) Most people are too lazy to plant a tree .
2 ) Major corporations and Wall Street do not make a ton of money from this * solution * .
If you have proposed that it be mandatory for each family to buy a genetically altered tree that will absorb extra carbon and grow extra fast from the new super fertilizer from Mosanto , then , yeah , maybe the bureaucrats ' ears will perk up .
Then the subsequent soil and water pollution will kill us all anyway .
Sorry to say .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I second your simple solution and salute you sir!
There are only 2 problems (of human nature and society, which are the root cause of all this in the first place) - 1) Most people are too lazy to plant a tree.
2) Major corporations and Wall Street do not make a ton of money from this *solution*.
If you have proposed that it be mandatory for each family to buy a genetically altered tree that will absorb extra carbon and grow extra fast from the new super fertilizer from Mosanto, then, yeah, maybe the bureaucrats' ears will perk up.
Then the subsequent soil and water pollution will kill us all anyway.
Sorry to say.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376983</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377815</id>
	<title>Re:Simple solutions are possible</title>
	<author>juanergie</author>
	<datestamp>1245354180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We should avoid the "butterfly effects" of the proposed solutions. We don't know what will happen if we just dump shit in the ocean, it might be that the remedy is worse than the disease.</p><p>For the plant argument, I agree we cannot just plant whatever ficus we happen to like. However, planting trees of the same species we've cut in the same places where we've cut them would be a start-- they were already there, and nothing bad happened to us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We should avoid the " butterfly effects " of the proposed solutions .
We do n't know what will happen if we just dump shit in the ocean , it might be that the remedy is worse than the disease.For the plant argument , I agree we can not just plant whatever ficus we happen to like .
However , planting trees of the same species we 've cut in the same places where we 've cut them would be a start-- they were already there , and nothing bad happened to us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We should avoid the "butterfly effects" of the proposed solutions.
We don't know what will happen if we just dump shit in the ocean, it might be that the remedy is worse than the disease.For the plant argument, I agree we cannot just plant whatever ficus we happen to like.
However, planting trees of the same species we've cut in the same places where we've cut them would be a start-- they were already there, and nothing bad happened to us.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376983</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376983</id>
	<title>Simple solutions are possible</title>
	<author>juanergie</author>
	<datestamp>1245351660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>at least conceptually.</p><p>The solution? Plant trees and cut carbon emissions by a fraction such that old trees + new trees absorb and stabilize carbon levels. The problem? Major polluters are not taking bold steps; they are like the United Nations-- speak a lot, and hope speeches will accomplish something.</p><p>Why are we looking for esoteric ways to "heal the planet"? We have the answer, it is just a matter of someone with a lot of balls standing up and saying "listen, fuckers, we are going to cap the carbon emissions and every human family will plant a tree. If we don't do it we will be fucked, and I will not fucking allow that to fucking happen" (notice than my stereotype of "person with a lot of balls" uses the word "fuck" a lot).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>at least conceptually.The solution ?
Plant trees and cut carbon emissions by a fraction such that old trees + new trees absorb and stabilize carbon levels .
The problem ?
Major polluters are not taking bold steps ; they are like the United Nations-- speak a lot , and hope speeches will accomplish something.Why are we looking for esoteric ways to " heal the planet " ?
We have the answer , it is just a matter of someone with a lot of balls standing up and saying " listen , fuckers , we are going to cap the carbon emissions and every human family will plant a tree .
If we do n't do it we will be fucked , and I will not fucking allow that to fucking happen " ( notice than my stereotype of " person with a lot of balls " uses the word " fuck " a lot ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>at least conceptually.The solution?
Plant trees and cut carbon emissions by a fraction such that old trees + new trees absorb and stabilize carbon levels.
The problem?
Major polluters are not taking bold steps; they are like the United Nations-- speak a lot, and hope speeches will accomplish something.Why are we looking for esoteric ways to "heal the planet"?
We have the answer, it is just a matter of someone with a lot of balls standing up and saying "listen, fuckers, we are going to cap the carbon emissions and every human family will plant a tree.
If we don't do it we will be fucked, and I will not fucking allow that to fucking happen" (notice than my stereotype of "person with a lot of balls" uses the word "fuck" a lot).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376673</id>
	<title>Stop driving or die</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245350520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We're all hollering about global warming, but I don't see anyone, even the ones hollering about global warming, ceasing transportation activities that involve burning stuff and releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.  People keep driving to work, getting on cloud-belching diesel busses, hopping onto their 80cc motor scooters, etc etc.  It's going to take a mass shift to telecommuting by any company that has people sitting in chairs most of the time, but that shift isn't happening.  It hasn't even begun to happen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're all hollering about global warming , but I do n't see anyone , even the ones hollering about global warming , ceasing transportation activities that involve burning stuff and releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere .
People keep driving to work , getting on cloud-belching diesel busses , hopping onto their 80cc motor scooters , etc etc .
It 's going to take a mass shift to telecommuting by any company that has people sitting in chairs most of the time , but that shift is n't happening .
It has n't even begun to happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're all hollering about global warming, but I don't see anyone, even the ones hollering about global warming, ceasing transportation activities that involve burning stuff and releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
People keep driving to work, getting on cloud-belching diesel busses, hopping onto their 80cc motor scooters, etc etc.
It's going to take a mass shift to telecommuting by any company that has people sitting in chairs most of the time, but that shift isn't happening.
It hasn't even begun to happen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28378019</id>
	<title>Re:What Climate Problem?</title>
	<author>Rei</author>
	<datestamp>1245354660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ack, sorry -- it's 2 <i>billion</i> cattle, not trillion.  Either way, though -- cattle aren't the only ruminants, there weren't an equivalent number of sauropods, and the only reason we can support as many as we do is modern high-density agriculture.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ack , sorry -- it 's 2 billion cattle , not trillion .
Either way , though -- cattle are n't the only ruminants , there were n't an equivalent number of sauropods , and the only reason we can support as many as we do is modern high-density agriculture .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ack, sorry -- it's 2 billion cattle, not trillion.
Either way, though -- cattle aren't the only ruminants, there weren't an equivalent number of sauropods, and the only reason we can support as many as we do is modern high-density agriculture.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377497</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28386973</id>
	<title>Re:straw man argument</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245406860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Rational debate was never in. Politicians were already involved in the 70s. The Brundtland report, anyone? And shouting panic was done by the club of Rome. And no, political science isn't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rational debate was never in .
Politicians were already involved in the 70s .
The Brundtland report , anyone ?
And shouting panic was done by the club of Rome .
And no , political science is n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rational debate was never in.
Politicians were already involved in the 70s.
The Brundtland report, anyone?
And shouting panic was done by the club of Rome.
And no, political science isn't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377963</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376687</id>
	<title>Stop global warming?</title>
	<author>tcopeland</author>
	<datestamp>1245350640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And miss out on the <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/16/first-ever-ice-wine-in-brazil/" title="wattsupwiththat.com">Brazilian ice wine</a> [wattsupwiththat.com]?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And miss out on the Brazilian ice wine [ wattsupwiththat.com ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And miss out on the Brazilian ice wine [wattsupwiththat.com]?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377863</id>
	<title>Re:straw man argument</title>
	<author>ivan256</author>
	<datestamp>1245354300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We're never going to have a rational debate or an un-biased study at this rate.</p><blockquote><div><p>Geo-engineering may make people think that we can carry on as now with no sacrifices.</p><p>[...]</p><p>Sacrifices are needed but sophistry will not persuade anyone.</p></div></blockquote><p>If your motive is to get people to make sacrifices and alter their lifestyle, you're going to find solutions that require such alterations, and spend time shooting down proposals that don't require such things. That's the problem with almost all mainstream environmentalists. They care more about altering people's lifestyles than solving problems.</p><p>If we could harness an equivalent amount of energy to what we're using now without emitting greenhouse gasses in the process, we wouldn't need any "sacrifices" beyond the investment in the technology. This is sufficiently obvious to everybody outside of the mainstream environmental movement that we have hundreds of millions of people who dis-trust and completely dis-believe said environmentalists. If they're obviously lying about what we need to do to solve the problem, why wouldn't people think that they're lying about the problem itself too?</p><p>Bullshit arguments like yours cause the existence global-warming deniers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're never going to have a rational debate or an un-biased study at this rate.Geo-engineering may make people think that we can carry on as now with no sacrifices. [ .. .
] Sacrifices are needed but sophistry will not persuade anyone.If your motive is to get people to make sacrifices and alter their lifestyle , you 're going to find solutions that require such alterations , and spend time shooting down proposals that do n't require such things .
That 's the problem with almost all mainstream environmentalists .
They care more about altering people 's lifestyles than solving problems.If we could harness an equivalent amount of energy to what we 're using now without emitting greenhouse gasses in the process , we would n't need any " sacrifices " beyond the investment in the technology .
This is sufficiently obvious to everybody outside of the mainstream environmental movement that we have hundreds of millions of people who dis-trust and completely dis-believe said environmentalists .
If they 're obviously lying about what we need to do to solve the problem , why would n't people think that they 're lying about the problem itself too ? Bullshit arguments like yours cause the existence global-warming deniers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're never going to have a rational debate or an un-biased study at this rate.Geo-engineering may make people think that we can carry on as now with no sacrifices.[...
]Sacrifices are needed but sophistry will not persuade anyone.If your motive is to get people to make sacrifices and alter their lifestyle, you're going to find solutions that require such alterations, and spend time shooting down proposals that don't require such things.
That's the problem with almost all mainstream environmentalists.
They care more about altering people's lifestyles than solving problems.If we could harness an equivalent amount of energy to what we're using now without emitting greenhouse gasses in the process, we wouldn't need any "sacrifices" beyond the investment in the technology.
This is sufficiently obvious to everybody outside of the mainstream environmental movement that we have hundreds of millions of people who dis-trust and completely dis-believe said environmentalists.
If they're obviously lying about what we need to do to solve the problem, why wouldn't people think that they're lying about the problem itself too?Bullshit arguments like yours cause the existence global-warming deniers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376669</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376923</id>
	<title>in for a penny in for a pound</title>
	<author>allawalla</author>
	<datestamp>1245351420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Couldn't we just then drop a bunch of limestone into the ocean to mitigate the acidification?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Could n't we just then drop a bunch of limestone into the ocean to mitigate the acidification ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Couldn't we just then drop a bunch of limestone into the ocean to mitigate the acidification?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377291</id>
	<title>Re:What Climate Problem?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245352800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who was the limpdick that modded parent troll - <b>I</b> thought it was a good question.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who was the limpdick that modded parent troll - I thought it was a good question .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who was the limpdick that modded parent troll - I thought it was a good question.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376835</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28382859</id>
	<title>Re:What Climate Problem?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245329160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"But I'm Super Serial!!" - Al Gore</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" But I 'm Super Serial ! !
" - Al Gore</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"But I'm Super Serial!!
" - Al Gore</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376613</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377909</id>
	<title>Re:What Climate Problem?</title>
	<author>TinFoilMan</author>
	<datestamp>1245354420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mod the parent up, it was an honest question.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod the parent up , it was an honest question .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod the parent up, it was an honest question.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376835</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376937</id>
	<title>Re:if i remember well from high school chemistry</title>
	<author>Rei</author>
	<datestamp>1245351420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>what is major component of this buffer? us. living critters and how they react to an increase in CO2</i></p><p>Wow!  Amazing that all of those egghead boffins living in their ivory towers with their hoity-toity "science" missed that one!  Thank you so much for pointing it out!</p><p>Except for the fact that most ocean life is not primarily constrained by CO2, but nutrients, especially iron.  Whoops.</p><p>I never ceased to be amazed at people who insist that something must be wrong with the science on a subject when they haven't done even the most rudimentary amount to educate themselves on what the science of the subject actually is.  You could at least start by reading the relevant sections of the <a href="http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html" title="ucar.edu">IPCC technical reports</a> [ucar.edu] to see what actually has been studied and how.  I guarantee you, it's way, way more than you ever expected.</p><p>There's a reason why people go to college for years to get a degree in these fields.  This isn't high school baking-soda-and-vinegar-volcanoes here.  It's an incredibly complex science that you need a solid background in.  At least spend a week reading peer-reviewed papers on the subject before you put fingers to keyboard.  You're coming across like if someone who had never used a computer started talking about how programmers should make every piece of software be run by voice commands in spoken English sentences like "Could you open up the letter to my grandmother and edit out the part where I told her about my chihuahua?", and have the software figure out what you want it to do.  You're broadcasting ignorance on the topic like a beacon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>what is major component of this buffer ?
us. living critters and how they react to an increase in CO2Wow !
Amazing that all of those egghead boffins living in their ivory towers with their hoity-toity " science " missed that one !
Thank you so much for pointing it out ! Except for the fact that most ocean life is not primarily constrained by CO2 , but nutrients , especially iron .
Whoops.I never ceased to be amazed at people who insist that something must be wrong with the science on a subject when they have n't done even the most rudimentary amount to educate themselves on what the science of the subject actually is .
You could at least start by reading the relevant sections of the IPCC technical reports [ ucar.edu ] to see what actually has been studied and how .
I guarantee you , it 's way , way more than you ever expected.There 's a reason why people go to college for years to get a degree in these fields .
This is n't high school baking-soda-and-vinegar-volcanoes here .
It 's an incredibly complex science that you need a solid background in .
At least spend a week reading peer-reviewed papers on the subject before you put fingers to keyboard .
You 're coming across like if someone who had never used a computer started talking about how programmers should make every piece of software be run by voice commands in spoken English sentences like " Could you open up the letter to my grandmother and edit out the part where I told her about my chihuahua ?
" , and have the software figure out what you want it to do .
You 're broadcasting ignorance on the topic like a beacon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what is major component of this buffer?
us. living critters and how they react to an increase in CO2Wow!
Amazing that all of those egghead boffins living in their ivory towers with their hoity-toity "science" missed that one!
Thank you so much for pointing it out!Except for the fact that most ocean life is not primarily constrained by CO2, but nutrients, especially iron.
Whoops.I never ceased to be amazed at people who insist that something must be wrong with the science on a subject when they haven't done even the most rudimentary amount to educate themselves on what the science of the subject actually is.
You could at least start by reading the relevant sections of the IPCC technical reports [ucar.edu] to see what actually has been studied and how.
I guarantee you, it's way, way more than you ever expected.There's a reason why people go to college for years to get a degree in these fields.
This isn't high school baking-soda-and-vinegar-volcanoes here.
It's an incredibly complex science that you need a solid background in.
At least spend a week reading peer-reviewed papers on the subject before you put fingers to keyboard.
You're coming across like if someone who had never used a computer started talking about how programmers should make every piece of software be run by voice commands in spoken English sentences like "Could you open up the letter to my grandmother and edit out the part where I told her about my chihuahua?
", and have the software figure out what you want it to do.
You're broadcasting ignorance on the topic like a beacon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376643</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377853</id>
	<title>Re:What Climate Problem?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245354240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Global Warming != Ocean Acidification</p><p>Until people stop relating every fricken environmental problem to "Global Warming"(tm) the sooner we can start giving attention to things like Ocean Acidification, that are less politically motivated and debatable.  Al Gore has done more to harm the environment than help it by incorporating and profiting from Global Warming, to the detriment of more serious issues that have far better science and less political hyperbole.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Global Warming ! = Ocean AcidificationUntil people stop relating every fricken environmental problem to " Global Warming " ( tm ) the sooner we can start giving attention to things like Ocean Acidification , that are less politically motivated and debatable .
Al Gore has done more to harm the environment than help it by incorporating and profiting from Global Warming , to the detriment of more serious issues that have far better science and less political hyperbole .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Global Warming != Ocean AcidificationUntil people stop relating every fricken environmental problem to "Global Warming"(tm) the sooner we can start giving attention to things like Ocean Acidification, that are less politically motivated and debatable.
Al Gore has done more to harm the environment than help it by incorporating and profiting from Global Warming, to the detriment of more serious issues that have far better science and less political hyperbole.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376613</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28381299</id>
	<title>PHOTOSYNTHESIS</title>
	<author>jn20</author>
	<datestamp>1245322200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So what they are saying is that more CO2 would be absorbed in the water, oka,y but did they factor in that algea can counteract the reaction? Simply like this 6H2O+6CO2 -&gt; C6H12O6+6O2 the process would only need a source of energy(the sun) to commence.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So what they are saying is that more CO2 would be absorbed in the water , oka,y but did they factor in that algea can counteract the reaction ?
Simply like this 6H2O + 6CO2 - &gt; C6H12O6 + 6O2 the process would only need a source of energy ( the sun ) to commence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what they are saying is that more CO2 would be absorbed in the water, oka,y but did they factor in that algea can counteract the reaction?
Simply like this 6H2O+6CO2 -&gt; C6H12O6+6O2 the process would only need a source of energy(the sun) to commence.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28378383</id>
	<title>Re:Where did all the non idiots go?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245355620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The McCarthy era is over, get over it. You can't win arguments by associating labeling everyone against you as a liberal commie, maybe in Alabama.. <br> <br>Head over to Fox news' website for some like minded hick rednecks and good 'ole fashioned commit bashing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The McCarthy era is over , get over it .
You ca n't win arguments by associating labeling everyone against you as a liberal commie , maybe in Alabama.. Head over to Fox news ' website for some like minded hick rednecks and good 'ole fashioned commit bashing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The McCarthy era is over, get over it.
You can't win arguments by associating labeling everyone against you as a liberal commie, maybe in Alabama..  Head over to Fox news' website for some like minded hick rednecks and good 'ole fashioned commit bashing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377277</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28378369</id>
	<title>Coral evolved in much higher CO2 levels</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245355560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Coral evolved during the Cambrian period, when CO2 was over 4,000ppm (over <i>ten times</i> the current level).<br>CO2 didn't drop below 3,000ppm until the Devonian period, didn't get below 1,000ppm until the Carboniferous Period,<br>went back above 1,000ppm during the mid Permian, didn't get back below 1,000pm until the late Cretaceous.  Coral isn't<br>going to go extinct because the CO2 levels go up a little bit, they've been through much higher.  They might very well<br>do better if the CO2 level wasn't so low.</p><p>And the global average temperature outside of ice ages hasn't gotten much above 22 degrees C, regardless of the<br>CO2 level.  Greenhouse runaway is a delusion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Coral evolved during the Cambrian period , when CO2 was over 4,000ppm ( over ten times the current level ) .CO2 did n't drop below 3,000ppm until the Devonian period , did n't get below 1,000ppm until the Carboniferous Period,went back above 1,000ppm during the mid Permian , did n't get back below 1,000pm until the late Cretaceous .
Coral isn'tgoing to go extinct because the CO2 levels go up a little bit , they 've been through much higher .
They might very welldo better if the CO2 level was n't so low.And the global average temperature outside of ice ages has n't gotten much above 22 degrees C , regardless of theCO2 level .
Greenhouse runaway is a delusion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Coral evolved during the Cambrian period, when CO2 was over 4,000ppm (over ten times the current level).CO2 didn't drop below 3,000ppm until the Devonian period, didn't get below 1,000ppm until the Carboniferous Period,went back above 1,000ppm during the mid Permian, didn't get back below 1,000pm until the late Cretaceous.
Coral isn'tgoing to go extinct because the CO2 levels go up a little bit, they've been through much higher.
They might very welldo better if the CO2 level wasn't so low.And the global average temperature outside of ice ages hasn't gotten much above 22 degrees C, regardless of theCO2 level.
Greenhouse runaway is a delusion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28378345</id>
	<title>Re:My Turn.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245355500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1) Water vapor itself is a powerfull greenhouse gas. So more warming, whee.<br>2) The extra clouds you get aren't enough to counter 1.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) Water vapor itself is a powerfull greenhouse gas .
So more warming , whee.2 ) The extra clouds you get are n't enough to counter 1 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) Water vapor itself is a powerfull greenhouse gas.
So more warming, whee.2) The extra clouds you get aren't enough to counter 1.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376915</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28383465</id>
	<title>Re:Volcanoes</title>
	<author>kjllmn</author>
	<datestamp>1245331680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ash and other dark matters do not reflect sunlight. They block it from entering the earth, but the warmth is kept in the atmosphere (in the heated matter first, and by diffusion in the atmosphere), making this kind of pollution a part of the warming.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ash and other dark matters do not reflect sunlight .
They block it from entering the earth , but the warmth is kept in the atmosphere ( in the heated matter first , and by diffusion in the atmosphere ) , making this kind of pollution a part of the warming .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ash and other dark matters do not reflect sunlight.
They block it from entering the earth, but the warmth is kept in the atmosphere (in the heated matter first, and by diffusion in the atmosphere), making this kind of pollution a part of the warming.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376615</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28381579</id>
	<title>Isn't this already happening? Look up! chemtrails.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245323340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They've been spraying the sky with reflective particles for years now. Just look up in the sky and watch the chemtrails. I've been to 25+ states in the last few years and the planes are definitely blanketing the sky with a sun obscuring material. If you watch for long enough you can see it completely cover an entire city within a few hours effectively blocking out lots of sunshine. Spray days make me feel bad inside even when I haven't looked up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 've been spraying the sky with reflective particles for years now .
Just look up in the sky and watch the chemtrails .
I 've been to 25 + states in the last few years and the planes are definitely blanketing the sky with a sun obscuring material .
If you watch for long enough you can see it completely cover an entire city within a few hours effectively blocking out lots of sunshine .
Spray days make me feel bad inside even when I have n't looked up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They've been spraying the sky with reflective particles for years now.
Just look up in the sky and watch the chemtrails.
I've been to 25+ states in the last few years and the planes are definitely blanketing the sky with a sun obscuring material.
If you watch for long enough you can see it completely cover an entire city within a few hours effectively blocking out lots of sunshine.
Spray days make me feel bad inside even when I haven't looked up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1728218_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376669
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28380467
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1728218_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376643
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377275
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1728218_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376615
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28383465
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1728218_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376615
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377063
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1728218_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376643
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377007
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1728218_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376615
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28385251
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1728218_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376613
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376835
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377497
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28387471
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1728218_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376643
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376937
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28379697
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1728218_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376983
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377443
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1728218_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376669
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377963
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28386973
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1728218_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376643
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377177
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1728218_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376613
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376835
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377497
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28391307
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1728218_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376707
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28399689
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1728218_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376831
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28378595
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1728218_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376613
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28382859
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1728218_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376615
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376873
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1728218_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376615
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376851
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1728218_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377537
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28378525
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28389607
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1728218_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376831
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28383049
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1728218_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376669
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377863
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1728218_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376687
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28382939
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1728218_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376669
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377437
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1728218_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376613
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28378437
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1728218_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376643
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377125
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1728218_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376613
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376835
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377263
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1728218_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376915
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28378345
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1728218_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376643
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377115
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28380229
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1728218_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376831
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377953
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1728218_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376613
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377131
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1728218_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376831
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377281
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1728218_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376615
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377363
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1728218_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376831
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28384809
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1728218_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376613
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376855
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376961
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1728218_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376831
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377685
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1728218_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376613
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377711
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1728218_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376669
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28379581
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1728218_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376643
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377187
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28387051
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1728218_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376983
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377815
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1728218_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376613
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376859
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28385095
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1728218_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376831
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377253
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1728218_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376831
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28379155
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1728218_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376613
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376835
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377909
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1728218_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376643
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376767
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1728218_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376613
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376835
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377497
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28382717
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1728218_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376613
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376835
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377497
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28380545
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1728218_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376613
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376835
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377497
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28378799
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1728218_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376613
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377853
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1728218_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376613
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376869
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1728218_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376923
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377121
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1728218_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377035
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28379361
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1728218_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377277
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28378383
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1728218_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376613
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376835
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377497
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28378019
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1728218_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376673
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377129
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1728218_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376615
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376697
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1728218_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376831
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28395705
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1728218_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376615
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376679
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1728218_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376673
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377133
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1728218_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376613
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377099
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1728218_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376613
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376835
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377291
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_18_1728218_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376613
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377473
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_1728218.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376707
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28399689
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_1728218.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28378367
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_1728218.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376915
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28378345
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_1728218.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377035
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28379361
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_1728218.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377277
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28378383
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_1728218.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376749
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_1728218.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28382769
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_1728218.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376613
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377131
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377099
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28382859
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377711
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376835
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377291
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377909
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377263
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377497
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28380545
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28382717
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28378799
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28378019
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28391307
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28387471
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376855
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28378437
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376961
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376869
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377853
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376859
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28385095
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377473
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_1728218.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376983
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377815
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377443
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_1728218.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377765
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_1728218.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376643
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377187
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28387051
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376767
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377177
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377125
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377115
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28380229
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377275
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376937
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28379697
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377007
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_1728218.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376923
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377121
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_1728218.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376625
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_1728218.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377537
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28378525
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28389607
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_1728218.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376615
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28385251
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376851
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377363
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377063
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376679
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376697
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376873
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28383465
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_1728218.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376673
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377129
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377133
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_1728218.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376733
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_1728218.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376669
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28379581
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377963
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28386973
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377863
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377437
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28380467
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_1728218.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376687
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28382939
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_1728218.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28378369
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_18_1728218.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28376831
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377281
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28395705
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377685
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28384809
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377253
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28379155
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28378595
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28383049
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_18_1728218.28377953
</commentlist>
</conversation>
