<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_27_2314213</id>
	<title>EPA Quashed Report Skeptical of Global Warming</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1246103400000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="mailto:theodp@aol.com" rel="nofollow">theodp</a> writes <i>"CNET reports that less than two weeks before the EPA formally submitted its pro-carbon dioxide regulation recommendation to the White House, <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578\_3-10274412-38.html">an EPA center director quashed a 98-page report</a> that warned against making hasty 'decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data.' In an <a href="http://cei.org/cei\_files/fm/active/0/Endangerment\%20Comments\%206-23-09.pdf">e-mail message</a> (pdf) to a staff researcher on March 17, the EPA official wrote: 'The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward...and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision.' The employee was also ordered not to 'have any direct communication' with anyone outside his small group at EPA on the topic of climate change, and was informed his report would not be shared with the agency group working on the topic. In a statement, the EPA took aim at the credentials of the <a href="http://carlineconomics.googlepages.com/">report's author</a>, Alan Carlin (BS Physics-Caltech, PhD Econ-MIT), describing him as 'not a scientist.' BTW, the official who chastised Carlin also found himself caught up in a <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55268-2005Mar21.html">2005 brouhaha over mercury emissions</a> after top EPA officials ordered the findings of a Harvard University study stripped from public records."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>theodp writes " CNET reports that less than two weeks before the EPA formally submitted its pro-carbon dioxide regulation recommendation to the White House , an EPA center director quashed a 98-page report that warned against making hasty 'decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data .
' In an e-mail message ( pdf ) to a staff researcher on March 17 , the EPA official wrote : 'The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward...and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision .
' The employee was also ordered not to 'have any direct communication ' with anyone outside his small group at EPA on the topic of climate change , and was informed his report would not be shared with the agency group working on the topic .
In a statement , the EPA took aim at the credentials of the report 's author , Alan Carlin ( BS Physics-Caltech , PhD Econ-MIT ) , describing him as 'not a scientist .
' BTW , the official who chastised Carlin also found himself caught up in a 2005 brouhaha over mercury emissions after top EPA officials ordered the findings of a Harvard University study stripped from public records .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>theodp writes "CNET reports that less than two weeks before the EPA formally submitted its pro-carbon dioxide regulation recommendation to the White House, an EPA center director quashed a 98-page report that warned against making hasty 'decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data.
' In an e-mail message (pdf) to a staff researcher on March 17, the EPA official wrote: 'The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward...and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision.
' The employee was also ordered not to 'have any direct communication' with anyone outside his small group at EPA on the topic of climate change, and was informed his report would not be shared with the agency group working on the topic.
In a statement, the EPA took aim at the credentials of the report's author, Alan Carlin (BS Physics-Caltech, PhD Econ-MIT), describing him as 'not a scientist.
' BTW, the official who chastised Carlin also found himself caught up in a 2005 brouhaha over mercury emissions after top EPA officials ordered the findings of a Harvard University study stripped from public records.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28501623</id>
	<title>Alex Jones' Prison Planet.com</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246132080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why does it appear that more and more of what this guy says appears to be true?</p><p>My guess is that the world will always be and always has been "this way".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does it appear that more and more of what this guy says appears to be true ? My guess is that the world will always be and always has been " this way " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does it appear that more and more of what this guy says appears to be true?My guess is that the world will always be and always has been "this way".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499153</id>
	<title>Problems with the US Temperature Record</title>
	<author>MCSEBear</author>
	<datestamp>1246108920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We seriously need to move some of the stations where temperature data is gathered.  When the National Weather Service's temperature sensors are often surrounded by large brick buildings, concrete sidewalks, and asphalt parking lots, you're just not getting good data.  Anybody whose car has a thermometer that measures outside temperature can tell you that just driving from the countryside into an area full of buildings and asphalt results in very real temperature increases.  Having the official instruments that measure climate change be in highly developed areas is resulting in temperature measurement records that are not trustworthy.<br> <br>

Recently, a National Weather Service temperature sensor in Hawaii was racking up day after day of record temperatures before they discovered that the sensor was not only located in the middle of all the runways of the Honolulu airport, but that the temperature sensor was malfunctioning and was reporting temperatures many degrees higher than they actually were.  <br> <br>

When compared to measurements taken at the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center only four miles away (which is outside the highly developed area) temperature measurements were *seven* degrees cooler.  Did the weather service invalidate the temperature records that by the faulty sensor in the middle of the airport runways?  Nope.  All that faulty data is now being used to 'prove' global warming.<br> <br>

A survey of the official National Weather System ground temperature measurement instruments is underway and a huge number of problems have been observed.  More information on this survey and photos of just how fucked up some of the instrument placements are is available here:  <br> <br>

<a href="http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/surfacestationsreport\_spring09.pdf" title="wordpress.com" rel="nofollow">http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/surfacestationsreport\_spring09.pdf</a> [wordpress.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>We seriously need to move some of the stations where temperature data is gathered .
When the National Weather Service 's temperature sensors are often surrounded by large brick buildings , concrete sidewalks , and asphalt parking lots , you 're just not getting good data .
Anybody whose car has a thermometer that measures outside temperature can tell you that just driving from the countryside into an area full of buildings and asphalt results in very real temperature increases .
Having the official instruments that measure climate change be in highly developed areas is resulting in temperature measurement records that are not trustworthy .
Recently , a National Weather Service temperature sensor in Hawaii was racking up day after day of record temperatures before they discovered that the sensor was not only located in the middle of all the runways of the Honolulu airport , but that the temperature sensor was malfunctioning and was reporting temperatures many degrees higher than they actually were .
When compared to measurements taken at the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center only four miles away ( which is outside the highly developed area ) temperature measurements were * seven * degrees cooler .
Did the weather service invalidate the temperature records that by the faulty sensor in the middle of the airport runways ?
Nope. All that faulty data is now being used to 'prove ' global warming .
A survey of the official National Weather System ground temperature measurement instruments is underway and a huge number of problems have been observed .
More information on this survey and photos of just how fucked up some of the instrument placements are is available here : http : //wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/surfacestationsreport \ _spring09.pdf [ wordpress.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We seriously need to move some of the stations where temperature data is gathered.
When the National Weather Service's temperature sensors are often surrounded by large brick buildings, concrete sidewalks, and asphalt parking lots, you're just not getting good data.
Anybody whose car has a thermometer that measures outside temperature can tell you that just driving from the countryside into an area full of buildings and asphalt results in very real temperature increases.
Having the official instruments that measure climate change be in highly developed areas is resulting in temperature measurement records that are not trustworthy.
Recently, a National Weather Service temperature sensor in Hawaii was racking up day after day of record temperatures before they discovered that the sensor was not only located in the middle of all the runways of the Honolulu airport, but that the temperature sensor was malfunctioning and was reporting temperatures many degrees higher than they actually were.
When compared to measurements taken at the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center only four miles away (which is outside the highly developed area) temperature measurements were *seven* degrees cooler.
Did the weather service invalidate the temperature records that by the faulty sensor in the middle of the airport runways?
Nope.  All that faulty data is now being used to 'prove' global warming.
A survey of the official National Weather System ground temperature measurement instruments is underway and a huge number of problems have been observed.
More information on this survey and photos of just how fucked up some of the instrument placements are is available here:   

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/surfacestationsreport\_spring09.pdf [wordpress.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499259</id>
	<title>Lunatic Fringe</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246109820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course this story will bring all the conspiracy theorists out of the woodwork. They will argue that global warming really doesn't exist, or that it's not anthropogenic, and other such things. It makes them feel great to imagine they can see something which the larger scientific community is clearly missing. They can feel like heroes.</p><p>Well, sorry to dash your hopes, climate-change deniers, but this report is akin to a convicted criminal filing appeal after appeal after appeal, not to bring up some point of fact or law, but simply to clog the system and delay his sentence. After a certain mass of evidence has accumulated, you've got to find something extraordinary to reverse the judgment. Appeals eventually end.</p><p>As the old saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Considering the vast body of reviewed and verified climate change literature, and considering this paper's lack of relevant extraordinary evidence, quashing the report was certainly the right thing to do. It would eventually be rebuffed anyway, but doing so would divert resources from valuable endeavors and provide the not-so-loyal opposition with ammunition to delay climate change in the legislature. We've studied the problem enough: now it's time to say "enough is enough" and work on solutions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course this story will bring all the conspiracy theorists out of the woodwork .
They will argue that global warming really does n't exist , or that it 's not anthropogenic , and other such things .
It makes them feel great to imagine they can see something which the larger scientific community is clearly missing .
They can feel like heroes.Well , sorry to dash your hopes , climate-change deniers , but this report is akin to a convicted criminal filing appeal after appeal after appeal , not to bring up some point of fact or law , but simply to clog the system and delay his sentence .
After a certain mass of evidence has accumulated , you 've got to find something extraordinary to reverse the judgment .
Appeals eventually end.As the old saying goes , extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence .
Considering the vast body of reviewed and verified climate change literature , and considering this paper 's lack of relevant extraordinary evidence , quashing the report was certainly the right thing to do .
It would eventually be rebuffed anyway , but doing so would divert resources from valuable endeavors and provide the not-so-loyal opposition with ammunition to delay climate change in the legislature .
We 've studied the problem enough : now it 's time to say " enough is enough " and work on solutions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course this story will bring all the conspiracy theorists out of the woodwork.
They will argue that global warming really doesn't exist, or that it's not anthropogenic, and other such things.
It makes them feel great to imagine they can see something which the larger scientific community is clearly missing.
They can feel like heroes.Well, sorry to dash your hopes, climate-change deniers, but this report is akin to a convicted criminal filing appeal after appeal after appeal, not to bring up some point of fact or law, but simply to clog the system and delay his sentence.
After a certain mass of evidence has accumulated, you've got to find something extraordinary to reverse the judgment.
Appeals eventually end.As the old saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Considering the vast body of reviewed and verified climate change literature, and considering this paper's lack of relevant extraordinary evidence, quashing the report was certainly the right thing to do.
It would eventually be rebuffed anyway, but doing so would divert resources from valuable endeavors and provide the not-so-loyal opposition with ammunition to delay climate change in the legislature.
We've studied the problem enough: now it's time to say "enough is enough" and work on solutions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28502187</id>
	<title>Re:Biased?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246186320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>This of course renders your remarks as useless as words spoken from any so called climate expert. You as well as others have<br>a vested interest in pushing the global warming theory. It keeps the grant money from the govt flowing.</p></div></blockquote><p>Yup, that's what I always say when people make fun of me for not believing in Einstein's relativity <strong>theory</strong> - of course the idiot <em>establishment</em> physicists are going to think that relativity is true, they have a VESTED INTEREST in preserving the status quo to protect their careers.</p><p>[/sarcasm]<br>I suspect that post might have been a troll or a joke, but if not, yeesh...think about what else your "logic" might be applied to before you pretend that it has any bearing on an argument.  If it makes no sense elsewhere, then it makes no sense here, either.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This of course renders your remarks as useless as words spoken from any so called climate expert .
You as well as others havea vested interest in pushing the global warming theory .
It keeps the grant money from the govt flowing.Yup , that 's what I always say when people make fun of me for not believing in Einstein 's relativity theory - of course the idiot establishment physicists are going to think that relativity is true , they have a VESTED INTEREST in preserving the status quo to protect their careers .
[ /sarcasm ] I suspect that post might have been a troll or a joke , but if not , yeesh...think about what else your " logic " might be applied to before you pretend that it has any bearing on an argument .
If it makes no sense elsewhere , then it makes no sense here , either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This of course renders your remarks as useless as words spoken from any so called climate expert.
You as well as others havea vested interest in pushing the global warming theory.
It keeps the grant money from the govt flowing.Yup, that's what I always say when people make fun of me for not believing in Einstein's relativity theory - of course the idiot establishment physicists are going to think that relativity is true, they have a VESTED INTEREST in preserving the status quo to protect their careers.
[/sarcasm]I suspect that post might have been a troll or a joke, but if not, yeesh...think about what else your "logic" might be applied to before you pretend that it has any bearing on an argument.
If it makes no sense elsewhere, then it makes no sense here, either.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500487</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499245</id>
	<title>The Right Legislation...for the Wrong Reasons</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246109640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the Waxman-Markey bill is a fine piece of legislation, but the motivations being put forth to enact it are all wrong. The anthropological component to global warming will never be known with acceptable certainty, and anyone who says anything one way or the other doesn't know what the hell they are talking about. We'll never really know for 100\% certainty. It's a lightning rod for political arguments, and the arguments are probably spewing forth more hot air and CO2 than coal plants ever will.</p><p>Reasons for enacting this bill should be:</p><p>1) Energy Independence - Let's get the energy supply from within our borders so we stop getting in dumb wars where we need to shoot people for petroleum. Hell, we're so nice and humanitarian that we can't even pillage and loot a country properly! After 6 years in Iraq we should have had crude oil shooting out of the White House fountain during Dubya's term.</p><p>2) Modernize the Coal Plant Fleet - We'll need all that coal in W. Virginia and Pennsylvania and the west for the foreseeable future, but we should be smart in how we utilize it. This bill will not kill coal or jobs - coal is just too big a slice of our energy generation needs for the present. If it turns out that it does start hurting, lots of people will scream, politicians' heads will roll, and it will get sorted out in short order - the beauty of democracy. This bill *will* kick the coal industry in the pants and give it some financial incentive to modernize and invest in pollution controls. Believe it or not, people in the coal industry really don't mind investing in pollution control equipment as long as it doesn't break the bank. Go figure - people who WORK in coal plants tend to live NEAR coal plants, and they want clean air at home just as much as you do.</p><p>I don't buy the CO2 impact, and by the time they get carbon sequestration sorted out, all the coal will be gone, but if it makes a bunch of people busy trying to figure out how to capture CO2, then I say let them have their fun and jobs.</p><p>3) Sustainability - Coal isn't going to last forever. How long? I don't know, depends what guess you consider the most reliable. A W.A.G, probably less than 100 years - let's use that number for giggles. Why wait for coal to gasp it's last in 100 years and THEN try to get other technologies up to speed? If we can make some good jobs to harness renewable energy now, why not do that? Better to learn how to utilize renewables reliably now and phase them in over time while coal winds down. Otherwise we're just pushing a crisis on our kids, or our kid's kids. Utilizing renewables now can't hurt, and it would make jobs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the Waxman-Markey bill is a fine piece of legislation , but the motivations being put forth to enact it are all wrong .
The anthropological component to global warming will never be known with acceptable certainty , and anyone who says anything one way or the other does n't know what the hell they are talking about .
We 'll never really know for 100 \ % certainty .
It 's a lightning rod for political arguments , and the arguments are probably spewing forth more hot air and CO2 than coal plants ever will.Reasons for enacting this bill should be : 1 ) Energy Independence - Let 's get the energy supply from within our borders so we stop getting in dumb wars where we need to shoot people for petroleum .
Hell , we 're so nice and humanitarian that we ca n't even pillage and loot a country properly !
After 6 years in Iraq we should have had crude oil shooting out of the White House fountain during Dubya 's term.2 ) Modernize the Coal Plant Fleet - We 'll need all that coal in W. Virginia and Pennsylvania and the west for the foreseeable future , but we should be smart in how we utilize it .
This bill will not kill coal or jobs - coal is just too big a slice of our energy generation needs for the present .
If it turns out that it does start hurting , lots of people will scream , politicians ' heads will roll , and it will get sorted out in short order - the beauty of democracy .
This bill * will * kick the coal industry in the pants and give it some financial incentive to modernize and invest in pollution controls .
Believe it or not , people in the coal industry really do n't mind investing in pollution control equipment as long as it does n't break the bank .
Go figure - people who WORK in coal plants tend to live NEAR coal plants , and they want clean air at home just as much as you do.I do n't buy the CO2 impact , and by the time they get carbon sequestration sorted out , all the coal will be gone , but if it makes a bunch of people busy trying to figure out how to capture CO2 , then I say let them have their fun and jobs.3 ) Sustainability - Coal is n't going to last forever .
How long ?
I do n't know , depends what guess you consider the most reliable .
A W.A.G , probably less than 100 years - let 's use that number for giggles .
Why wait for coal to gasp it 's last in 100 years and THEN try to get other technologies up to speed ?
If we can make some good jobs to harness renewable energy now , why not do that ?
Better to learn how to utilize renewables reliably now and phase them in over time while coal winds down .
Otherwise we 're just pushing a crisis on our kids , or our kid 's kids .
Utilizing renewables now ca n't hurt , and it would make jobs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the Waxman-Markey bill is a fine piece of legislation, but the motivations being put forth to enact it are all wrong.
The anthropological component to global warming will never be known with acceptable certainty, and anyone who says anything one way or the other doesn't know what the hell they are talking about.
We'll never really know for 100\% certainty.
It's a lightning rod for political arguments, and the arguments are probably spewing forth more hot air and CO2 than coal plants ever will.Reasons for enacting this bill should be:1) Energy Independence - Let's get the energy supply from within our borders so we stop getting in dumb wars where we need to shoot people for petroleum.
Hell, we're so nice and humanitarian that we can't even pillage and loot a country properly!
After 6 years in Iraq we should have had crude oil shooting out of the White House fountain during Dubya's term.2) Modernize the Coal Plant Fleet - We'll need all that coal in W. Virginia and Pennsylvania and the west for the foreseeable future, but we should be smart in how we utilize it.
This bill will not kill coal or jobs - coal is just too big a slice of our energy generation needs for the present.
If it turns out that it does start hurting, lots of people will scream, politicians' heads will roll, and it will get sorted out in short order - the beauty of democracy.
This bill *will* kick the coal industry in the pants and give it some financial incentive to modernize and invest in pollution controls.
Believe it or not, people in the coal industry really don't mind investing in pollution control equipment as long as it doesn't break the bank.
Go figure - people who WORK in coal plants tend to live NEAR coal plants, and they want clean air at home just as much as you do.I don't buy the CO2 impact, and by the time they get carbon sequestration sorted out, all the coal will be gone, but if it makes a bunch of people busy trying to figure out how to capture CO2, then I say let them have their fun and jobs.3) Sustainability - Coal isn't going to last forever.
How long?
I don't know, depends what guess you consider the most reliable.
A W.A.G, probably less than 100 years - let's use that number for giggles.
Why wait for coal to gasp it's last in 100 years and THEN try to get other technologies up to speed?
If we can make some good jobs to harness renewable energy now, why not do that?
Better to learn how to utilize renewables reliably now and phase them in over time while coal winds down.
Otherwise we're just pushing a crisis on our kids, or our kid's kids.
Utilizing renewables now can't hurt, and it would make jobs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28517035</id>
	<title>Re:Did anybody read his paper?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246302720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Can you give me a hard problem? Something at least partially challenging? You know the rules of physics and chemistry better than this.</p></div></blockquote><p>Yes I do, so here's a hard problem check the margin of error on our measurement of the planet's temperature?  We are not even out of the error bars yet (especially when you combine all of the different data sets).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can you give me a hard problem ?
Something at least partially challenging ?
You know the rules of physics and chemistry better than this.Yes I do , so here 's a hard problem check the margin of error on our measurement of the planet 's temperature ?
We are not even out of the error bars yet ( especially when you combine all of the different data sets ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can you give me a hard problem?
Something at least partially challenging?
You know the rules of physics and chemistry better than this.Yes I do, so here's a hard problem check the margin of error on our measurement of the planet's temperature?
We are not even out of the error bars yet (especially when you combine all of the different data sets).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499569</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500487</id>
	<title>Biased?</title>
	<author>codepunk</author>
	<datestamp>1246119660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Disclaimer: I am software person who happens to work with a group of people who deal with, among other issues, climate change.</p><p>This of course renders your remarks as useless as words spoken from any so called climate expert. You as well as others have<br>a vested interest in pushing the global warming theory. It keeps the grant money from the govt flowing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Disclaimer : I am software person who happens to work with a group of people who deal with , among other issues , climate change.This of course renders your remarks as useless as words spoken from any so called climate expert .
You as well as others havea vested interest in pushing the global warming theory .
It keeps the grant money from the govt flowing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Disclaimer: I am software person who happens to work with a group of people who deal with, among other issues, climate change.This of course renders your remarks as useless as words spoken from any so called climate expert.
You as well as others havea vested interest in pushing the global warming theory.
It keeps the grant money from the govt flowing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499363</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28501227</id>
	<title>Re:They said he's not a climate scientist</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1246126200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Or working for the EPA for 38 years?</p></div><p>Those 38 years in EPA was on a <a href="http://carlineconomics.googlepages.com/" title="googlepages.com">senior economist</a> [googlepages.com] position. Not everyone there is a scientist, you know - you also have administrators, clerks, and guys who mop the floors...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or working for the EPA for 38 years ? Those 38 years in EPA was on a senior economist [ googlepages.com ] position .
Not everyone there is a scientist , you know - you also have administrators , clerks , and guys who mop the floors.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or working for the EPA for 38 years?Those 38 years in EPA was on a senior economist [googlepages.com] position.
Not everyone there is a scientist, you know - you also have administrators, clerks, and guys who mop the floors...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499229</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28501887</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah...</title>
	<author>jwhitener</author>
	<datestamp>1246180140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"How can you judge whether there is a consensus, if the community has had things withheld from its judgment ? Yep, we have 100\% agreement from those who don't know ALL the facts."</p><p>There have been studies, of studies, that show that a vast majority of climate scientist experiments favor many things that this guy dismissed.</p><p>I'm not going to bother to google for a link, but it was something like 1000 out of 1200 peer reviewed papers supported humans as the leading cause of the rise in co2, and co2 as the leading cause of global climate change.</p><p>Just because you dissent does not mean your voice should be heard to 'balance things out'.  Do a study, present actual data.  This guy did neither.</p><p>This is yet another instance of the culture created by our 24 hour news cycles.  Everything must be debatable with a pro/con spin.  No matter what the facts are, we must find 2 dissenting opinions and get them on TV for a debate!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" How can you judge whether there is a consensus , if the community has had things withheld from its judgment ?
Yep , we have 100 \ % agreement from those who do n't know ALL the facts .
" There have been studies , of studies , that show that a vast majority of climate scientist experiments favor many things that this guy dismissed.I 'm not going to bother to google for a link , but it was something like 1000 out of 1200 peer reviewed papers supported humans as the leading cause of the rise in co2 , and co2 as the leading cause of global climate change.Just because you dissent does not mean your voice should be heard to 'balance things out' .
Do a study , present actual data .
This guy did neither.This is yet another instance of the culture created by our 24 hour news cycles .
Everything must be debatable with a pro/con spin .
No matter what the facts are , we must find 2 dissenting opinions and get them on TV for a debate !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"How can you judge whether there is a consensus, if the community has had things withheld from its judgment ?
Yep, we have 100\% agreement from those who don't know ALL the facts.
"There have been studies, of studies, that show that a vast majority of climate scientist experiments favor many things that this guy dismissed.I'm not going to bother to google for a link, but it was something like 1000 out of 1200 peer reviewed papers supported humans as the leading cause of the rise in co2, and co2 as the leading cause of global climate change.Just because you dissent does not mean your voice should be heard to 'balance things out'.
Do a study, present actual data.
This guy did neither.This is yet another instance of the culture created by our 24 hour news cycles.
Everything must be debatable with a pro/con spin.
No matter what the facts are, we must find 2 dissenting opinions and get them on TV for a debate!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499145</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499493</id>
	<title>Re:Did anybody read his paper?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246111500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There were several links in TFS, including one to his <a href="http://carlineconomics.googlepages.com/" title="googlepages.com" rel="nofollow">home page</a> [googlepages.com]. In forming an assessment of him, skimming it is more helpful than TFA proper, I should think.</p><p>Let's see, he says he was with the agency since... 1971?<br>While it's quite possible we've hired a few wingnuts in either run of Bush years, I can say with confidence that he was not among them.</p><p>Not a climate scientist? Well, no; he lists his position as "Senior Economist". Given that climate control measures, like most stuff the EPA touches, are economic as well as environmental issues, they probably have a bunch of economists.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There were several links in TFS , including one to his home page [ googlepages.com ] .
In forming an assessment of him , skimming it is more helpful than TFA proper , I should think.Let 's see , he says he was with the agency since... 1971 ? While it 's quite possible we 've hired a few wingnuts in either run of Bush years , I can say with confidence that he was not among them.Not a climate scientist ?
Well , no ; he lists his position as " Senior Economist " .
Given that climate control measures , like most stuff the EPA touches , are economic as well as environmental issues , they probably have a bunch of economists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There were several links in TFS, including one to his home page [googlepages.com].
In forming an assessment of him, skimming it is more helpful than TFA proper, I should think.Let's see, he says he was with the agency since... 1971?While it's quite possible we've hired a few wingnuts in either run of Bush years, I can say with confidence that he was not among them.Not a climate scientist?
Well, no; he lists his position as "Senior Economist".
Given that climate control measures, like most stuff the EPA touches, are economic as well as environmental issues, they probably have a bunch of economists.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499161</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499161</id>
	<title>Re:Did anybody read his paper?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246109040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Skimming TFA, I found myself wondering if we might not have hired a few wingnuts into the EPA during the Bush years.  "No warming in 11 years", in particular, is a wingnut claim.

And with a PhD in Economics, he's not a climate scientist.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Skimming TFA , I found myself wondering if we might not have hired a few wingnuts into the EPA during the Bush years .
" No warming in 11 years " , in particular , is a wingnut claim .
And with a PhD in Economics , he 's not a climate scientist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Skimming TFA, I found myself wondering if we might not have hired a few wingnuts into the EPA during the Bush years.
"No warming in 11 years", in particular, is a wingnut claim.
And with a PhD in Economics, he's not a climate scientist.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499039</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499943</id>
	<title>Re:Irony and Science</title>
	<author>jberryman</author>
	<datestamp>1246114980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>While the author does cite a number of actual scientific reports, the text quoted here and the failure to consider the entire constellation of improvements wrought by technology over the last century render his entire report ridiculous.</p></div></blockquote><p>Even ignoring improvements in medical technology, <i>mean lifespan</i> is probably the most useless single statistic I can think of. The fact of infant mortality is enough to throw that entire argument in the garbage. *facepalm*</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>While the author does cite a number of actual scientific reports , the text quoted here and the failure to consider the entire constellation of improvements wrought by technology over the last century render his entire report ridiculous.Even ignoring improvements in medical technology , mean lifespan is probably the most useless single statistic I can think of .
The fact of infant mortality is enough to throw that entire argument in the garbage .
* facepalm *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While the author does cite a number of actual scientific reports, the text quoted here and the failure to consider the entire constellation of improvements wrought by technology over the last century render his entire report ridiculous.Even ignoring improvements in medical technology, mean lifespan is probably the most useless single statistic I can think of.
The fact of infant mortality is enough to throw that entire argument in the garbage.
*facepalm*
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499363</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500587</id>
	<title>Re:Did anybody read his paper?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246120500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>no one doing "climate science" is a computational physicist, yet a huge amount of climate science is nothing but computational physics.</i></p><p>I'm a computational physicist who does climate science, so that's kind of an amusing statement.  I don't write GCMs, though.  But I bet that, say, the modelers at places like at the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Lab would be offended to hear that they're not "real" computational physicists, considering what they did their dissertations on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>no one doing " climate science " is a computational physicist , yet a huge amount of climate science is nothing but computational physics.I 'm a computational physicist who does climate science , so that 's kind of an amusing statement .
I do n't write GCMs , though .
But I bet that , say , the modelers at places like at the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Lab would be offended to hear that they 're not " real " computational physicists , considering what they did their dissertations on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>no one doing "climate science" is a computational physicist, yet a huge amount of climate science is nothing but computational physics.I'm a computational physicist who does climate science, so that's kind of an amusing statement.
I don't write GCMs, though.
But I bet that, say, the modelers at places like at the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Lab would be offended to hear that they're not "real" computational physicists, considering what they did their dissertations on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499421</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499421</id>
	<title>Re:Did anybody read his paper?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246110900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>"No warming in 11 years", in particular, is a wingnut claim. And with a PhD in Economics, he's not a climate scientist.</i></p><p>First, have a look at the data: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental\_Temperature\_Record.png" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental\_Temperature\_Record.png</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>"Global temperature" is a meaningless term in any case, but so long as measures are consistent (they aren't--the thermometer coverage in Asia dropped precipitately after the fall of the Soviet Union) the trend should have something vaguely to do with atmospheric heat content.  On that basis, there was a large increase in atmospheric heat content from around 1900 to about 1940, then nothing much for the next forty years, then a sudden jump between 1980 and 2000.  It's too soon to tell yet, and I've not run a statistical analysis myself (although one is trivial to do) but you'd have to be insane not to notice that the past decade looks a lot like noise.</p><p>Furthermore, the climate modelling community are now predicting "the possibility" of a reduction in global heat content in the next decade, making AGW an untestable hypothesis, globally.  If temperatures go up:  it proves we have global warming!  If temperatures go down:  it proves nothing because global warming can cause that too!</p><p>So now the ball is firmly in the court of AGW advocates:  what facts would you count as evidence that AGW is NOT occurring?  If you can't name any, then your belief is not science but faith.  We'll argue about priors strength and whatnot after you've adduced the facts that you would count as evidence.</p><p>Secondly, with a B.Sc. in physics from Caltech he is one of the smartest people you could possibly imagine, with a better grounding in physics--and remember, climate science is nothing but a special category of physics, so anyone with a decent physics degree is qualified to do climate science--than many people with Ph.D.'s in the subject.  I was a post-doc at Caltech, coming from a top-tier university, and felt myself in good company with the grad students, post-docs and profs there.  The undergrads were like they belonged to a different species:  focused, intelligent and intense beyond belief.</p><p>And I should also point out:  no one doing "climate science" is a computational physicist, yet a huge amount of climate science is nothing but computational physics.  As a computational physicist who has had a look at GCM's, I'm appalled by what I find there.  Good science, certainly, but nothing like what I would want public policy based on.</p><p>I think there are good reasons to try to reduce our dependence on carbon-based fuels, and as a believer in free markets I am in general an advocate of cap and trade as a sustainable mechanism for imposing property rights and limiting dumping in the atmospheric commons.  But as a scientist I think there are far more open questions on AGW than settled ones, and the public debate as pretty much abandoned any pretence of science, with each side arguing its own religion with no reference to any facts that would reasonably bear on the issue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" No warming in 11 years " , in particular , is a wingnut claim .
And with a PhD in Economics , he 's not a climate scientist.First , have a look at the data : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File : Instrumental \ _Temperature \ _Record.png [ wikipedia.org ] " Global temperature " is a meaningless term in any case , but so long as measures are consistent ( they are n't--the thermometer coverage in Asia dropped precipitately after the fall of the Soviet Union ) the trend should have something vaguely to do with atmospheric heat content .
On that basis , there was a large increase in atmospheric heat content from around 1900 to about 1940 , then nothing much for the next forty years , then a sudden jump between 1980 and 2000 .
It 's too soon to tell yet , and I 've not run a statistical analysis myself ( although one is trivial to do ) but you 'd have to be insane not to notice that the past decade looks a lot like noise.Furthermore , the climate modelling community are now predicting " the possibility " of a reduction in global heat content in the next decade , making AGW an untestable hypothesis , globally .
If temperatures go up : it proves we have global warming !
If temperatures go down : it proves nothing because global warming can cause that too ! So now the ball is firmly in the court of AGW advocates : what facts would you count as evidence that AGW is NOT occurring ?
If you ca n't name any , then your belief is not science but faith .
We 'll argue about priors strength and whatnot after you 've adduced the facts that you would count as evidence.Secondly , with a B.Sc .
in physics from Caltech he is one of the smartest people you could possibly imagine , with a better grounding in physics--and remember , climate science is nothing but a special category of physics , so anyone with a decent physics degree is qualified to do climate science--than many people with Ph.D. 's in the subject .
I was a post-doc at Caltech , coming from a top-tier university , and felt myself in good company with the grad students , post-docs and profs there .
The undergrads were like they belonged to a different species : focused , intelligent and intense beyond belief.And I should also point out : no one doing " climate science " is a computational physicist , yet a huge amount of climate science is nothing but computational physics .
As a computational physicist who has had a look at GCM 's , I 'm appalled by what I find there .
Good science , certainly , but nothing like what I would want public policy based on.I think there are good reasons to try to reduce our dependence on carbon-based fuels , and as a believer in free markets I am in general an advocate of cap and trade as a sustainable mechanism for imposing property rights and limiting dumping in the atmospheric commons .
But as a scientist I think there are far more open questions on AGW than settled ones , and the public debate as pretty much abandoned any pretence of science , with each side arguing its own religion with no reference to any facts that would reasonably bear on the issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"No warming in 11 years", in particular, is a wingnut claim.
And with a PhD in Economics, he's not a climate scientist.First, have a look at the data: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental\_Temperature\_Record.png [wikipedia.org]"Global temperature" is a meaningless term in any case, but so long as measures are consistent (they aren't--the thermometer coverage in Asia dropped precipitately after the fall of the Soviet Union) the trend should have something vaguely to do with atmospheric heat content.
On that basis, there was a large increase in atmospheric heat content from around 1900 to about 1940, then nothing much for the next forty years, then a sudden jump between 1980 and 2000.
It's too soon to tell yet, and I've not run a statistical analysis myself (although one is trivial to do) but you'd have to be insane not to notice that the past decade looks a lot like noise.Furthermore, the climate modelling community are now predicting "the possibility" of a reduction in global heat content in the next decade, making AGW an untestable hypothesis, globally.
If temperatures go up:  it proves we have global warming!
If temperatures go down:  it proves nothing because global warming can cause that too!So now the ball is firmly in the court of AGW advocates:  what facts would you count as evidence that AGW is NOT occurring?
If you can't name any, then your belief is not science but faith.
We'll argue about priors strength and whatnot after you've adduced the facts that you would count as evidence.Secondly, with a B.Sc.
in physics from Caltech he is one of the smartest people you could possibly imagine, with a better grounding in physics--and remember, climate science is nothing but a special category of physics, so anyone with a decent physics degree is qualified to do climate science--than many people with Ph.D.'s in the subject.
I was a post-doc at Caltech, coming from a top-tier university, and felt myself in good company with the grad students, post-docs and profs there.
The undergrads were like they belonged to a different species:  focused, intelligent and intense beyond belief.And I should also point out:  no one doing "climate science" is a computational physicist, yet a huge amount of climate science is nothing but computational physics.
As a computational physicist who has had a look at GCM's, I'm appalled by what I find there.
Good science, certainly, but nothing like what I would want public policy based on.I think there are good reasons to try to reduce our dependence on carbon-based fuels, and as a believer in free markets I am in general an advocate of cap and trade as a sustainable mechanism for imposing property rights and limiting dumping in the atmospheric commons.
But as a scientist I think there are far more open questions on AGW than settled ones, and the public debate as pretty much abandoned any pretence of science, with each side arguing its own religion with no reference to any facts that would reasonably bear on the issue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499161</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500597</id>
	<title>Re:I dunno...</title>
	<author>microbox</author>
	<datestamp>1246120560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>I'd say it's worth paying attention to the man. Even if he's on the verge of retirement, 38 years of experience is nothing to sneeze at.</i> <br>
<br>
If it's worth paying attention to him, then you'd actually RTFA, <i>and the references</i>, and work out that it's really just remedial junk.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd say it 's worth paying attention to the man .
Even if he 's on the verge of retirement , 38 years of experience is nothing to sneeze at .
If it 's worth paying attention to him , then you 'd actually RTFA , and the references , and work out that it 's really just remedial junk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd say it's worth paying attention to the man.
Even if he's on the verge of retirement, 38 years of experience is nothing to sneeze at.
If it's worth paying attention to him, then you'd actually RTFA, and the references, and work out that it's really just remedial junk.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499239</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28501055</id>
	<title>einstein wasn't a scientist either</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246124700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>he was a patent clerk.  relativity must be wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>he was a patent clerk .
relativity must be wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>he was a patent clerk.
relativity must be wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499583</id>
	<title>Fascinating</title>
	<author>thethibs</author>
	<datestamp>1246111980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Second hand smoke, mercury, now global warming. Shouldn't the EPA be registered as a lobby group?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Second hand smoke , mercury , now global warming .
Should n't the EPA be registered as a lobby group ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Second hand smoke, mercury, now global warming.
Shouldn't the EPA be registered as a lobby group?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500289</id>
	<title>Re:Did anybody read his paper?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246118040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Not even Scotty could change the laws of physics,</i></p><p>Well, LaForge changed the <a href="http://www.st-minutiae.com/academy/literature329/161.txt" title="st-minutiae.com" rel="nofollow">gravitation constant</a> [st-minutiae.com] of the universe.</p><p>Scotty could probably change a few laws with some duct tape, phasers, and a tricorder.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not even Scotty could change the laws of physics,Well , LaForge changed the gravitation constant [ st-minutiae.com ] of the universe.Scotty could probably change a few laws with some duct tape , phasers , and a tricorder .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not even Scotty could change the laws of physics,Well, LaForge changed the gravitation constant [st-minutiae.com] of the universe.Scotty could probably change a few laws with some duct tape, phasers, and a tricorder.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499569</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28502261</id>
	<title>One thing is certain</title>
	<author>mshmgi</author>
	<datestamp>1246187520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>From reading these comments, one ting is absolutely certain. Al Gore's infamous, "The Debate Is Over" statement was patently wrong.</htmltext>
<tokenext>From reading these comments , one ting is absolutely certain .
Al Gore 's infamous , " The Debate Is Over " statement was patently wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From reading these comments, one ting is absolutely certain.
Al Gore's infamous, "The Debate Is Over" statement was patently wrong.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500261</id>
	<title>Re:Climate change denialism</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1246117800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>On the other hand, the Obama administration, much to their credit, are far more reality-based, and have a much more rational world view generally. Senior Obama advisors are a veritable who's who of great minds. Wooly disfunctional thinking won't get you very far with this lot.</p></div><p>Neiter will delusional posting on Slashdot. I don't see the current administration being any more reality based than the last one. There's a consistent pattern with a lot of the current administration's recent activities. Congress passes a Obama priority with haste and little debate. Never mind that most such problems aren't urgent and the solutions to the few that are (eg, the "stimulus" bill) have greatly lagged effect. The current mess with the Waxman-Markley (carbon emissions cap and trade) bill in the House is a good example. It passed even though the bill didn't actually exist at the time (they were still in the process of integrating proposed changes). Further, the bill has a huge number of compromises and pork in it. If global warming is such an urgent problem, then it'd be nice for Congress to treat it as one, not produce a monster bill that requires endless compromises and (among other things) protects Democrat constituencies for a time from the direct consequences of the bill.<br> <br>

The Obama administration has exhibited a remarkable amount of favoritism and kronyism whether it be rewarding auto worker unions with the corpses of their employers or selecting large media IP protectionists for key Department of Justice jobs. Another problem is that the Obama administration is chock full of <a href="http://www.readtheplan.com/" title="readtheplan.com">"Big Plan"</a> [readtheplan.com] advocates, politicians with various huge schemes. This is precisely the source of the reality problem with the Bush administration. If you may recall, a pile of Republicans had come up with a foreign policy plan that would have sequentially overthrown all the non-democracies in the Middle East. Not so prudent assumptions like "They'll welcome us with open arms" were part of the Plan. Universal healthcare, massive increases on already massive investments in renewable energy, carbon emission restrictions, or mandatory public service are more great ideas along these lines, strongly decoupled from reality, but supported by people who now control tremendous public resources. Who knows? They might even kill as many people in the end too.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>On the other hand , the Obama administration , much to their credit , are far more reality-based , and have a much more rational world view generally .
Senior Obama advisors are a veritable who 's who of great minds .
Wooly disfunctional thinking wo n't get you very far with this lot.Neiter will delusional posting on Slashdot .
I do n't see the current administration being any more reality based than the last one .
There 's a consistent pattern with a lot of the current administration 's recent activities .
Congress passes a Obama priority with haste and little debate .
Never mind that most such problems are n't urgent and the solutions to the few that are ( eg , the " stimulus " bill ) have greatly lagged effect .
The current mess with the Waxman-Markley ( carbon emissions cap and trade ) bill in the House is a good example .
It passed even though the bill did n't actually exist at the time ( they were still in the process of integrating proposed changes ) .
Further , the bill has a huge number of compromises and pork in it .
If global warming is such an urgent problem , then it 'd be nice for Congress to treat it as one , not produce a monster bill that requires endless compromises and ( among other things ) protects Democrat constituencies for a time from the direct consequences of the bill .
The Obama administration has exhibited a remarkable amount of favoritism and kronyism whether it be rewarding auto worker unions with the corpses of their employers or selecting large media IP protectionists for key Department of Justice jobs .
Another problem is that the Obama administration is chock full of " Big Plan " [ readtheplan.com ] advocates , politicians with various huge schemes .
This is precisely the source of the reality problem with the Bush administration .
If you may recall , a pile of Republicans had come up with a foreign policy plan that would have sequentially overthrown all the non-democracies in the Middle East .
Not so prudent assumptions like " They 'll welcome us with open arms " were part of the Plan .
Universal healthcare , massive increases on already massive investments in renewable energy , carbon emission restrictions , or mandatory public service are more great ideas along these lines , strongly decoupled from reality , but supported by people who now control tremendous public resources .
Who knows ?
They might even kill as many people in the end too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the other hand, the Obama administration, much to their credit, are far more reality-based, and have a much more rational world view generally.
Senior Obama advisors are a veritable who's who of great minds.
Wooly disfunctional thinking won't get you very far with this lot.Neiter will delusional posting on Slashdot.
I don't see the current administration being any more reality based than the last one.
There's a consistent pattern with a lot of the current administration's recent activities.
Congress passes a Obama priority with haste and little debate.
Never mind that most such problems aren't urgent and the solutions to the few that are (eg, the "stimulus" bill) have greatly lagged effect.
The current mess with the Waxman-Markley (carbon emissions cap and trade) bill in the House is a good example.
It passed even though the bill didn't actually exist at the time (they were still in the process of integrating proposed changes).
Further, the bill has a huge number of compromises and pork in it.
If global warming is such an urgent problem, then it'd be nice for Congress to treat it as one, not produce a monster bill that requires endless compromises and (among other things) protects Democrat constituencies for a time from the direct consequences of the bill.
The Obama administration has exhibited a remarkable amount of favoritism and kronyism whether it be rewarding auto worker unions with the corpses of their employers or selecting large media IP protectionists for key Department of Justice jobs.
Another problem is that the Obama administration is chock full of "Big Plan" [readtheplan.com] advocates, politicians with various huge schemes.
This is precisely the source of the reality problem with the Bush administration.
If you may recall, a pile of Republicans had come up with a foreign policy plan that would have sequentially overthrown all the non-democracies in the Middle East.
Not so prudent assumptions like "They'll welcome us with open arms" were part of the Plan.
Universal healthcare, massive increases on already massive investments in renewable energy, carbon emission restrictions, or mandatory public service are more great ideas along these lines, strongly decoupled from reality, but supported by people who now control tremendous public resources.
Who knows?
They might even kill as many people in the end too.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499293</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28501165</id>
	<title>Any scientist can look at climate change</title>
	<author>phirzcol</author>
	<datestamp>1246125540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fact we can't model all of the factors that go into climate</p><p>Fact many theories exist to explain climate change</p><p>Fact the climate will change</p><p>Fact the earth will.continue to exist regardless</p><p>Fact the climate has been in continual change and will continue to change<br>Opinion forcing the climate into stasis is at least as harmful as change<br>Opinion change happens get over your fear<br>Opinion people are powerful to the point that they can change or alter the earth without understanding what they are doing<br>Fact welcome to earth 0.1 prepare for revision/upgrade<br>Opinion if I can't stand it when my email client changes why would I let people change my planet</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fact we ca n't model all of the factors that go into climateFact many theories exist to explain climate changeFact the climate will changeFact the earth will.continue to exist regardlessFact the climate has been in continual change and will continue to changeOpinion forcing the climate into stasis is at least as harmful as changeOpinion change happens get over your fearOpinion people are powerful to the point that they can change or alter the earth without understanding what they are doingFact welcome to earth 0.1 prepare for revision/upgradeOpinion if I ca n't stand it when my email client changes why would I let people change my planet</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fact we can't model all of the factors that go into climateFact many theories exist to explain climate changeFact the climate will changeFact the earth will.continue to exist regardlessFact the climate has been in continual change and will continue to changeOpinion forcing the climate into stasis is at least as harmful as changeOpinion change happens get over your fearOpinion people are powerful to the point that they can change or alter the earth without understanding what they are doingFact welcome to earth 0.1 prepare for revision/upgradeOpinion if I can't stand it when my email client changes why would I let people change my planet</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499135</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah...</title>
	<author>Darkness404</author>
	<datestamp>1246108860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sure, lets rush into something that may or may not be true and lets totally screw up our economy because of it! We did the exact same thing with drugs, copyright and you can even look at the war on terror as the same way. You need to carefully look at the information and make informed decisions. <br> <br>

You have to realize too that alarmist positions are great at gaining funds, which lead to much of the research being carefully edited to lead to even more alarmist predictions to gain more funds. Which are you going to support, the study that finds that within 10 years the sea levels are going to flood New York, and many animals will die. Or the study that says that if everything continues just right now with absolutely no variation we might possibly see a 2 inch increase of the sea level in 30 years. <br> <br>

If you don't stop to look at these things you end up charging into things much as how Bush did in Iraq. Only rather than chasing WMDs and screwing us of some speech and privacy rights and a bunch of tax dollars, we can charge into this and screw us of our economic rights and a bunch of tax dollars.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , lets rush into something that may or may not be true and lets totally screw up our economy because of it !
We did the exact same thing with drugs , copyright and you can even look at the war on terror as the same way .
You need to carefully look at the information and make informed decisions .
You have to realize too that alarmist positions are great at gaining funds , which lead to much of the research being carefully edited to lead to even more alarmist predictions to gain more funds .
Which are you going to support , the study that finds that within 10 years the sea levels are going to flood New York , and many animals will die .
Or the study that says that if everything continues just right now with absolutely no variation we might possibly see a 2 inch increase of the sea level in 30 years .
If you do n't stop to look at these things you end up charging into things much as how Bush did in Iraq .
Only rather than chasing WMDs and screwing us of some speech and privacy rights and a bunch of tax dollars , we can charge into this and screw us of our economic rights and a bunch of tax dollars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, lets rush into something that may or may not be true and lets totally screw up our economy because of it!
We did the exact same thing with drugs, copyright and you can even look at the war on terror as the same way.
You need to carefully look at the information and make informed decisions.
You have to realize too that alarmist positions are great at gaining funds, which lead to much of the research being carefully edited to lead to even more alarmist predictions to gain more funds.
Which are you going to support, the study that finds that within 10 years the sea levels are going to flood New York, and many animals will die.
Or the study that says that if everything continues just right now with absolutely no variation we might possibly see a 2 inch increase of the sea level in 30 years.
If you don't stop to look at these things you end up charging into things much as how Bush did in Iraq.
Only rather than chasing WMDs and screwing us of some speech and privacy rights and a bunch of tax dollars, we can charge into this and screw us of our economic rights and a bunch of tax dollars.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499025</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499319</id>
	<title>You Don't Have to be a Scientist to Know...</title>
	<author>thepainguy</author>
	<datestamp>1246110240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>...that there are problems with the theory of anthropogenic global warming and at least how it is presented. A while back I put together a document that points out some serious problems with how Algore has gone about making his points...<br> <br> <a href="http://www.chrisoleary.com/projects/NeitherThisNorThat/Documents/AnInconvenientTruth\_Analysis.pdf" title="chrisoleary.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.chrisoleary.com/projects/NeitherThisNorThat/Documents/AnInconvenientTruth\_Analysis.pdf</a> [chrisoleary.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>...that there are problems with the theory of anthropogenic global warming and at least how it is presented .
A while back I put together a document that points out some serious problems with how Algore has gone about making his points... http : //www.chrisoleary.com/projects/NeitherThisNorThat/Documents/AnInconvenientTruth \ _Analysis.pdf [ chrisoleary.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...that there are problems with the theory of anthropogenic global warming and at least how it is presented.
A while back I put together a document that points out some serious problems with how Algore has gone about making his points...  http://www.chrisoleary.com/projects/NeitherThisNorThat/Documents/AnInconvenientTruth\_Analysis.pdf [chrisoleary.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499227</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder....</title>
	<author>davester666</author>
	<datestamp>1246109520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All of them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All of them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28498967</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500997</id>
	<title>Re:Did anybody read his paper?</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1246124040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Secondly, he also states that global temperatures have fallen for the last 11 years. I really would like to see his work.</i></p><p>And...</p><p><i>This article (http://earthtrends.wri.org/updates/node/83), reported in the September 26 issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, shows global temperatures rising for the last 30 years.</i></p><p>Can you please explain how those two things are mutually-exclusive? It's possible for the average temperature to fall over the last 11 years, and also to have risen in the past 30 years. Right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Secondly , he also states that global temperatures have fallen for the last 11 years .
I really would like to see his work.And...This article ( http : //earthtrends.wri.org/updates/node/83 ) , reported in the September 26 issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , shows global temperatures rising for the last 30 years.Can you please explain how those two things are mutually-exclusive ?
It 's possible for the average temperature to fall over the last 11 years , and also to have risen in the past 30 years .
Right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Secondly, he also states that global temperatures have fallen for the last 11 years.
I really would like to see his work.And...This article (http://earthtrends.wri.org/updates/node/83), reported in the September 26 issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, shows global temperatures rising for the last 30 years.Can you please explain how those two things are mutually-exclusive?
It's possible for the average temperature to fall over the last 11 years, and also to have risen in the past 30 years.
Right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499039</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28502295</id>
	<title>Re:They said he's not a climate scientist</title>
	<author>nyri</author>
	<datestamp>1246188060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They said he's not a climate scientist, but he has an undergrad physics degree and a PhD in economics and he's seems to have spent most of his career writing position papers for economics think tanks!  Heck, that should be enough to qualify him as a client scientist...oh wait.  What I mean is, with those credentials he should be able to practice dentistry and set policy on...no, that's not it.</p><p>He's a...race car driver?  No, that's not it either.</p><p>Let me think.</p><p>I know!  He's an economist.</p><p>So now all I have to do is prove that climate science is a subset of economics and the "how dare they say he isn't a climate scientist" outrage will be justified.</p></div><p>They said you are not a psychologist*, but you have [your qualifications] and you seem to have spent most of your career writing [whatever you write]!  Heck, that should be enough to qualify you as a psychologist...oh wait.  What I mean is, with those credentials you should be able to practice dentistry and set policy on...no, that's not it.</p><p>You are a...race car driver?  No, that's not it either.</p><p>Let me think.</p><p>I know!  You are a [your job description].</p><p>So now all I have to do is prove that psychology is a subset of [your job description] and the "how dare they say your argument is just plain stupid and ad hominem" outrage will be justified.</p><p>* Psychology chosen arbitrarily; maybe political scientists or economists are better at judging papers and arguments based who is putting it forward.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They said he 's not a climate scientist , but he has an undergrad physics degree and a PhD in economics and he 's seems to have spent most of his career writing position papers for economics think tanks !
Heck , that should be enough to qualify him as a client scientist...oh wait .
What I mean is , with those credentials he should be able to practice dentistry and set policy on...no , that 's not it.He 's a...race car driver ?
No , that 's not it either.Let me think.I know !
He 's an economist.So now all I have to do is prove that climate science is a subset of economics and the " how dare they say he is n't a climate scientist " outrage will be justified.They said you are not a psychologist * , but you have [ your qualifications ] and you seem to have spent most of your career writing [ whatever you write ] !
Heck , that should be enough to qualify you as a psychologist...oh wait .
What I mean is , with those credentials you should be able to practice dentistry and set policy on...no , that 's not it.You are a...race car driver ?
No , that 's not it either.Let me think.I know !
You are a [ your job description ] .So now all I have to do is prove that psychology is a subset of [ your job description ] and the " how dare they say your argument is just plain stupid and ad hominem " outrage will be justified .
* Psychology chosen arbitrarily ; maybe political scientists or economists are better at judging papers and arguments based who is putting it forward .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They said he's not a climate scientist, but he has an undergrad physics degree and a PhD in economics and he's seems to have spent most of his career writing position papers for economics think tanks!
Heck, that should be enough to qualify him as a client scientist...oh wait.
What I mean is, with those credentials he should be able to practice dentistry and set policy on...no, that's not it.He's a...race car driver?
No, that's not it either.Let me think.I know!
He's an economist.So now all I have to do is prove that climate science is a subset of economics and the "how dare they say he isn't a climate scientist" outrage will be justified.They said you are not a psychologist*, but you have [your qualifications] and you seem to have spent most of your career writing [whatever you write]!
Heck, that should be enough to qualify you as a psychologist...oh wait.
What I mean is, with those credentials you should be able to practice dentistry and set policy on...no, that's not it.You are a...race car driver?
No, that's not it either.Let me think.I know!
You are a [your job description].So now all I have to do is prove that psychology is a subset of [your job description] and the "how dare they say your argument is just plain stupid and ad hominem" outrage will be justified.
* Psychology chosen arbitrarily; maybe political scientists or economists are better at judging papers and arguments based who is putting it forward.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28504697</id>
	<title>predictions and standard deviations</title>
	<author>coopex</author>
	<datestamp>1246210620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is it so unreasonable to ask that the *observed* standard deviation of global temperature be calculated, and then model prediction (along with their own standard deviation) be graphed, from 1900-2100 as that is the range they are claimed to be valid for.<br> <br>If they can actually predict something with the degree of certainty they imply, they wouldn't have to make so many ad homiem attacks and could just go with "hypothesis non fingo".</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it so unreasonable to ask that the * observed * standard deviation of global temperature be calculated , and then model prediction ( along with their own standard deviation ) be graphed , from 1900-2100 as that is the range they are claimed to be valid for .
If they can actually predict something with the degree of certainty they imply , they would n't have to make so many ad homiem attacks and could just go with " hypothesis non fingo " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it so unreasonable to ask that the *observed* standard deviation of global temperature be calculated, and then model prediction (along with their own standard deviation) be graphed, from 1900-2100 as that is the range they are claimed to be valid for.
If they can actually predict something with the degree of certainty they imply, they wouldn't have to make so many ad homiem attacks and could just go with "hypothesis non fingo".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500045</id>
	<title>File Host</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246115820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whilst it's not directly relevant to the decision in quashing the report it's interesting to look at who is pushing this.  The file is hosted at by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, an right-wing think tank who "seeks to overturn government regulations that the CEI regards as inappropriate, such as regulations pertaining to drug safety, rent control, and automobile fuel efficiency" See info at <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Competitive\_Enterprise\_Institute" title="sourcewatch.org">http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Competitive\_Enterprise\_Institute</a> [sourcewatch.org]</p><p>They get significant corporation funding, including from the likes of Texaco.</p><p>However, I suspect that the reality of this is that the EPA commissioned a report under the previous government and chose someone who would give them the line the White house wanted, then with the change of President they cancelled it.  It's politics.  Don't let that stop any conspiracy theories though.</p><p>Most of these reports are poor, whether they support your point of view or not.  They are intended to take a large body of primary material understandable only by experts and make it easy for politicians to get ideas from.  Usually this results in an unacceptable simplification of that primary material.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whilst it 's not directly relevant to the decision in quashing the report it 's interesting to look at who is pushing this .
The file is hosted at by the Competitive Enterprise Institute , an right-wing think tank who " seeks to overturn government regulations that the CEI regards as inappropriate , such as regulations pertaining to drug safety , rent control , and automobile fuel efficiency " See info at http : //www.sourcewatch.org/index.php ? title = Competitive \ _Enterprise \ _Institute [ sourcewatch.org ] They get significant corporation funding , including from the likes of Texaco.However , I suspect that the reality of this is that the EPA commissioned a report under the previous government and chose someone who would give them the line the White house wanted , then with the change of President they cancelled it .
It 's politics .
Do n't let that stop any conspiracy theories though.Most of these reports are poor , whether they support your point of view or not .
They are intended to take a large body of primary material understandable only by experts and make it easy for politicians to get ideas from .
Usually this results in an unacceptable simplification of that primary material .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whilst it's not directly relevant to the decision in quashing the report it's interesting to look at who is pushing this.
The file is hosted at by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, an right-wing think tank who "seeks to overturn government regulations that the CEI regards as inappropriate, such as regulations pertaining to drug safety, rent control, and automobile fuel efficiency" See info at http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Competitive\_Enterprise\_Institute [sourcewatch.org]They get significant corporation funding, including from the likes of Texaco.However, I suspect that the reality of this is that the EPA commissioned a report under the previous government and chose someone who would give them the line the White house wanted, then with the change of President they cancelled it.
It's politics.
Don't let that stop any conspiracy theories though.Most of these reports are poor, whether they support your point of view or not.
They are intended to take a large body of primary material understandable only by experts and make it easy for politicians to get ideas from.
Usually this results in an unacceptable simplification of that primary material.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28501175</id>
	<title>Re:Fuck you corpocrate troll</title>
	<author>LynnwoodRooster</author>
	<datestamp>1246125720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The rest of the industrial world (you know, all those countries with universal health care) do not have this problem. The United STates, with its unregulated private market DOES have it. Your private health insurance can refuse to treat your cancer based on "pre-existing conditions;" guess what, the S&eacute;curit&eacute; Sociale or the National Health Service cannot.</p></div><p>Guess what: <a href="http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/faqs/faq\_consumer\_hipaa.html" title="dol.gov">in the US you cannot exclude on pre-existing conditions either</a> [dol.gov].</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The rest of the industrial world ( you know , all those countries with universal health care ) do not have this problem .
The United STates , with its unregulated private market DOES have it .
Your private health insurance can refuse to treat your cancer based on " pre-existing conditions ; " guess what , the S   curit   Sociale or the National Health Service can not.Guess what : in the US you can not exclude on pre-existing conditions either [ dol.gov ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The rest of the industrial world (you know, all those countries with universal health care) do not have this problem.
The United STates, with its unregulated private market DOES have it.
Your private health insurance can refuse to treat your cancer based on "pre-existing conditions;" guess what, the Sécurité Sociale or the National Health Service cannot.Guess what: in the US you cannot exclude on pre-existing conditions either [dol.gov].
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499377</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28503119</id>
	<title>Be afraid...</title>
	<author>TheUglyAmerican</author>
	<datestamp>1246198500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here's my take on it.  Government's goal is to grow; grow in power and control over all.  The means to do this involves making people afraid.  When people are afraid they are willing, in fact may demand, that government step in and "do something."  This is not a left or right issue.  The right might use the "terror threat" to make people afraid, the left "global warming."  Both have used "economic meltdown."

So we argue the merits of this or that all the while the government rolls along on its real agenda.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's my take on it .
Government 's goal is to grow ; grow in power and control over all .
The means to do this involves making people afraid .
When people are afraid they are willing , in fact may demand , that government step in and " do something .
" This is not a left or right issue .
The right might use the " terror threat " to make people afraid , the left " global warming .
" Both have used " economic meltdown .
" So we argue the merits of this or that all the while the government rolls along on its real agenda .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's my take on it.
Government's goal is to grow; grow in power and control over all.
The means to do this involves making people afraid.
When people are afraid they are willing, in fact may demand, that government step in and "do something.
"  This is not a left or right issue.
The right might use the "terror threat" to make people afraid, the left "global warming.
"  Both have used "economic meltdown.
"

So we argue the merits of this or that all the while the government rolls along on its real agenda.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28505237</id>
	<title>Re:Did anybody read his paper?</title>
	<author>BarefootClown</author>
	<datestamp>1246213980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Interesting that you point out the fall of the Soviet Union and the loss of temperature data from that region.  The decline of the USSR correlates strongly with the rapid rise in reported global temperature.  The USSR--Russia in particular--sits well to the north; in fact, the mean southern border of Russia is roughly at the same latitude as Canada's southern border.</p><p>What would be the effect on the data of losing reports from the largest, coldest country in the world?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting that you point out the fall of the Soviet Union and the loss of temperature data from that region .
The decline of the USSR correlates strongly with the rapid rise in reported global temperature .
The USSR--Russia in particular--sits well to the north ; in fact , the mean southern border of Russia is roughly at the same latitude as Canada 's southern border.What would be the effect on the data of losing reports from the largest , coldest country in the world ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting that you point out the fall of the Soviet Union and the loss of temperature data from that region.
The decline of the USSR correlates strongly with the rapid rise in reported global temperature.
The USSR--Russia in particular--sits well to the north; in fact, the mean southern border of Russia is roughly at the same latitude as Canada's southern border.What would be the effect on the data of losing reports from the largest, coldest country in the world?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499421</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28505885</id>
	<title>Re:Lunatic Fringe</title>
	<author>coopex</author>
	<datestamp>1246218000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree that conspiracy theorists have delusions of grandeur.  What you fail to notice is the conspiracy claims by the AGW people, along with other kneejerk ad homiem attacks if you dare to ask them for predictions, say 2000-2100, including standard deviations of both observed climate and models(*).  "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" does not follow "vast body of reviewed and verified climate change literature", because that literature has fallen into the groupthink of models being reality.<br> <br>But, I wouldn't want to trouble you to take the time to do actually science and do experiments, especially because that would conflict with your precious messiah complex.<br> <br>(*)It's rather pathetic that the level of competence in doing science is so low that this is regarded as a crackpot claim, but that's more of a problem with "science is a pile of facts, especially those that make me feel superior" crowd.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree that conspiracy theorists have delusions of grandeur .
What you fail to notice is the conspiracy claims by the AGW people , along with other kneejerk ad homiem attacks if you dare to ask them for predictions , say 2000-2100 , including standard deviations of both observed climate and models ( * ) .
" extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence " does not follow " vast body of reviewed and verified climate change literature " , because that literature has fallen into the groupthink of models being reality .
But , I would n't want to trouble you to take the time to do actually science and do experiments , especially because that would conflict with your precious messiah complex .
( * ) It 's rather pathetic that the level of competence in doing science is so low that this is regarded as a crackpot claim , but that 's more of a problem with " science is a pile of facts , especially those that make me feel superior " crowd .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree that conspiracy theorists have delusions of grandeur.
What you fail to notice is the conspiracy claims by the AGW people, along with other kneejerk ad homiem attacks if you dare to ask them for predictions, say 2000-2100, including standard deviations of both observed climate and models(*).
"extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" does not follow "vast body of reviewed and verified climate change literature", because that literature has fallen into the groupthink of models being reality.
But, I wouldn't want to trouble you to take the time to do actually science and do experiments, especially because that would conflict with your precious messiah complex.
(*)It's rather pathetic that the level of competence in doing science is so low that this is regarded as a crackpot claim, but that's more of a problem with "science is a pile of facts, especially those that make me feel superior" crowd.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499259</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499399</id>
	<title>Re:The Administration modded this guy troll too!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246110780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Now is it worth severe economic consequences to lower the temperature...</i> <p>
Well, let's see.  A higher average temperature means longer, warmer summers over more of the world, leading to longer growing seasons, bigger harvests and a larger food supply.  A lower temperature leads to shorter growing seasons, smaller harvests, less food and, in extreme cases, crop failures.  Granted, the one-twentieth of one degree that you refer to is probably not enough to make a difference, but I think the basic principle is clear.  Cleaning up smog is good (Living near Los Angeles, I know how bad it can be.) and pouring endless amounts of CO2 into the air is probably not a good idea, but humanity has not only survived times when it was warmer than it is now, it prospered during htem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now is it worth severe economic consequences to lower the temperature.. . Well , let 's see .
A higher average temperature means longer , warmer summers over more of the world , leading to longer growing seasons , bigger harvests and a larger food supply .
A lower temperature leads to shorter growing seasons , smaller harvests , less food and , in extreme cases , crop failures .
Granted , the one-twentieth of one degree that you refer to is probably not enough to make a difference , but I think the basic principle is clear .
Cleaning up smog is good ( Living near Los Angeles , I know how bad it can be .
) and pouring endless amounts of CO2 into the air is probably not a good idea , but humanity has not only survived times when it was warmer than it is now , it prospered during htem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now is it worth severe economic consequences to lower the temperature... 
Well, let's see.
A higher average temperature means longer, warmer summers over more of the world, leading to longer growing seasons, bigger harvests and a larger food supply.
A lower temperature leads to shorter growing seasons, smaller harvests, less food and, in extreme cases, crop failures.
Granted, the one-twentieth of one degree that you refer to is probably not enough to make a difference, but I think the basic principle is clear.
Cleaning up smog is good (Living near Los Angeles, I know how bad it can be.
) and pouring endless amounts of CO2 into the air is probably not a good idea, but humanity has not only survived times when it was warmer than it is now, it prospered during htem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499643</id>
	<title>Re:Problems with the US Temperature Record</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246112460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, it's just shocking that these scientists are so astoundingly incompetent that they don't take into account stuff like this.   I mean, that sensor!   They never found it!   That's why we know about its failure.   Er.   Wait.   No.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , it 's just shocking that these scientists are so astoundingly incompetent that they do n't take into account stuff like this .
I mean , that sensor !
They never found it !
That 's why we know about its failure .
Er. Wait .
No .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, it's just shocking that these scientists are so astoundingly incompetent that they don't take into account stuff like this.
I mean, that sensor!
They never found it!
That's why we know about its failure.
Er.   Wait.
No.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499153</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28502337</id>
	<title>Even dumber of radtea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246188780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>An average rate isn't the first number minus the last number.</p><p>IF you draw a best fit line to that data INCLUDING 1998, you get a slight warming.</p><p>So even on the data he wants to use, you don't get what he says unless you do it wrong.</p><p>PS what happened to this method when it was 1998/2005? That wasn't used then, was it. Funny how they change what they do depending on whether it says "it's cooling" or not...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>An average rate is n't the first number minus the last number.IF you draw a best fit line to that data INCLUDING 1998 , you get a slight warming.So even on the data he wants to use , you do n't get what he says unless you do it wrong.PS what happened to this method when it was 1998/2005 ?
That was n't used then , was it .
Funny how they change what they do depending on whether it says " it 's cooling " or not.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An average rate isn't the first number minus the last number.IF you draw a best fit line to that data INCLUDING 1998, you get a slight warming.So even on the data he wants to use, you don't get what he says unless you do it wrong.PS what happened to this method when it was 1998/2005?
That wasn't used then, was it.
Funny how they change what they do depending on whether it says "it's cooling" or not...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500111</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28501299</id>
	<title>Re:Did anybody read his paper?</title>
	<author>azgard</author>
	<datestamp>1246127220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He's simplifying a bit, but he is generally right. Of course GW models account for the inequilibrium - the GP was just explaining why we wouldn't always see warming on even simpler model.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He 's simplifying a bit , but he is generally right .
Of course GW models account for the inequilibrium - the GP was just explaining why we would n't always see warming on even simpler model .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He's simplifying a bit, but he is generally right.
Of course GW models account for the inequilibrium - the GP was just explaining why we wouldn't always see warming on even simpler model.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500695</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499109</id>
	<title>Re:News Flash! Civil Servants Corrupt! News @ 11:0</title>
	<author>eln</author>
	<datestamp>1246108680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Under the old boss, the EPA was accused of quashing reports on climate change made by climatologists.  Now, they're accused of quashing reports on climate change made by economists.  There's a fundamental difference there.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Under the old boss , the EPA was accused of quashing reports on climate change made by climatologists .
Now , they 're accused of quashing reports on climate change made by economists .
There 's a fundamental difference there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Under the old boss, the EPA was accused of quashing reports on climate change made by climatologists.
Now, they're accused of quashing reports on climate change made by economists.
There's a fundamental difference there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28498951</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499075</id>
	<title>They said he's not a climate scientist</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246108440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They said he's not a climate scientist, but he has an undergrad physics degree and a PhD in economics and he's seems to have spent most of his career writing position papers for economics think tanks!  Heck, that should be enough to qualify him as a client scientist...oh wait.  What I mean is, with those credentials he should be able to practice dentistry and set policy on...no, that's not it.

</p><p>He's a...race car driver?  No, that's not it either.

</p><p>Let me think.

</p><p>I know!  He's an economist.

</p><p>So now all I have to do is prove that climate science is a subset of economics and the "how dare they say he isn't a climate scientist" outrage will be justified.

</p><p>--MarkusQ

</p><p>P.S. From what I can gather, the "suppressed opinion" was just that--an opinion.  It isn't like the guy had gone out and done any original research.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They said he 's not a climate scientist , but he has an undergrad physics degree and a PhD in economics and he 's seems to have spent most of his career writing position papers for economics think tanks !
Heck , that should be enough to qualify him as a client scientist...oh wait .
What I mean is , with those credentials he should be able to practice dentistry and set policy on...no , that 's not it .
He 's a...race car driver ?
No , that 's not it either .
Let me think .
I know !
He 's an economist .
So now all I have to do is prove that climate science is a subset of economics and the " how dare they say he is n't a climate scientist " outrage will be justified .
--MarkusQ P.S .
From what I can gather , the " suppressed opinion " was just that--an opinion .
It is n't like the guy had gone out and done any original research .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They said he's not a climate scientist, but he has an undergrad physics degree and a PhD in economics and he's seems to have spent most of his career writing position papers for economics think tanks!
Heck, that should be enough to qualify him as a client scientist...oh wait.
What I mean is, with those credentials he should be able to practice dentistry and set policy on...no, that's not it.
He's a...race car driver?
No, that's not it either.
Let me think.
I know!
He's an economist.
So now all I have to do is prove that climate science is a subset of economics and the "how dare they say he isn't a climate scientist" outrage will be justified.
--MarkusQ

P.S.
From what I can gather, the "suppressed opinion" was just that--an opinion.
It isn't like the guy had gone out and done any original research.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499551</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah...</title>
	<author>Dausha</author>
	<datestamp>1246111740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>There will ALWAYS be skepticism on a scientific theory as controversial as this. At some point we have to take action...</i> </p><p>Why must action be taken if we are uncertain as to which action? If you believe action must be taken, then you believe the matter is settled. However, you acknowledge that there is controversy. Therefore, you acknowledge the matter is not settled. This leads to the conclusion that you are operating with an agenda, or are at the very least behaving in a conclusory manner. If your reaction to the first sentence was emotional, or that I was crazy, then your reaction validates my observation.</p><p>The controversy exists primarily because there are political underpinnings at work. There are those who feel a moral obligation to change things to make everything better. However, it is not certain or verifiable that the change will actually produce meaningful results---you can't prove things will be "better." It is a massive assumption to think that we can return to 1910 emissions levels and reverse the natural trend. We haven't even conclusively proven that the trend is of our own creation. One side points to data and offers a cause, and the other side offers plausible causes of that data. That the data show supports two divergent opinions suggests we don't know what we're talking about.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There will ALWAYS be skepticism on a scientific theory as controversial as this .
At some point we have to take action... Why must action be taken if we are uncertain as to which action ?
If you believe action must be taken , then you believe the matter is settled .
However , you acknowledge that there is controversy .
Therefore , you acknowledge the matter is not settled .
This leads to the conclusion that you are operating with an agenda , or are at the very least behaving in a conclusory manner .
If your reaction to the first sentence was emotional , or that I was crazy , then your reaction validates my observation.The controversy exists primarily because there are political underpinnings at work .
There are those who feel a moral obligation to change things to make everything better .
However , it is not certain or verifiable that the change will actually produce meaningful results---you ca n't prove things will be " better .
" It is a massive assumption to think that we can return to 1910 emissions levels and reverse the natural trend .
We have n't even conclusively proven that the trend is of our own creation .
One side points to data and offers a cause , and the other side offers plausible causes of that data .
That the data show supports two divergent opinions suggests we do n't know what we 're talking about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> There will ALWAYS be skepticism on a scientific theory as controversial as this.
At some point we have to take action... Why must action be taken if we are uncertain as to which action?
If you believe action must be taken, then you believe the matter is settled.
However, you acknowledge that there is controversy.
Therefore, you acknowledge the matter is not settled.
This leads to the conclusion that you are operating with an agenda, or are at the very least behaving in a conclusory manner.
If your reaction to the first sentence was emotional, or that I was crazy, then your reaction validates my observation.The controversy exists primarily because there are political underpinnings at work.
There are those who feel a moral obligation to change things to make everything better.
However, it is not certain or verifiable that the change will actually produce meaningful results---you can't prove things will be "better.
" It is a massive assumption to think that we can return to 1910 emissions levels and reverse the natural trend.
We haven't even conclusively proven that the trend is of our own creation.
One side points to data and offers a cause, and the other side offers plausible causes of that data.
That the data show supports two divergent opinions suggests we don't know what we're talking about.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499025</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499099</id>
	<title>A Convenient Scapegoat</title>
	<author>pipingguy</author>
	<datestamp>1246108560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let the unraveling begin.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let the unraveling begin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let the unraveling begin.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28502571</id>
	<title>Re:Irony and Science</title>
	<author>Tore S B</author>
	<datestamp>1246192020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thanks. I wish there was a +6.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks .
I wish there was a + 6 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks.
I wish there was a +6.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499363</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499015</id>
	<title>The Administration modded this guy troll too!</title>
	<author>realcoolguy425</author>
	<datestamp>1246107900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I made a post very critical of carbon emissions not long ago, think it ended up scoring (1, Troll).  I was even trying to cite the numbers from other sources.  Now is it worth severe economic consequences to lower the temperature (and this is just a maybe, and likely using the best model for the pro-carbon-emission-controllers out there) by <b> ONE-TWENTIETH of ONE degree? </b> (over the course of decades)  I know I certainly believed most of this green crap when I was in school (not all of it is COMPLETELY crap).  However the carbon dioxide aspect of it is the biggest fairy tale we seem to want to believe.  Clouds and sunspots have more effect on climate than carbon dioxide ever will.  Feel free to mod me down, but at least explain where I'm wrong before doing so.  Once again please note I'm only talking about carbon dioxide, and I'm not saying things like smog, or other emissions that cause acid rain are not problems.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I made a post very critical of carbon emissions not long ago , think it ended up scoring ( 1 , Troll ) .
I was even trying to cite the numbers from other sources .
Now is it worth severe economic consequences to lower the temperature ( and this is just a maybe , and likely using the best model for the pro-carbon-emission-controllers out there ) by ONE-TWENTIETH of ONE degree ?
( over the course of decades ) I know I certainly believed most of this green crap when I was in school ( not all of it is COMPLETELY crap ) .
However the carbon dioxide aspect of it is the biggest fairy tale we seem to want to believe .
Clouds and sunspots have more effect on climate than carbon dioxide ever will .
Feel free to mod me down , but at least explain where I 'm wrong before doing so .
Once again please note I 'm only talking about carbon dioxide , and I 'm not saying things like smog , or other emissions that cause acid rain are not problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I made a post very critical of carbon emissions not long ago, think it ended up scoring (1, Troll).
I was even trying to cite the numbers from other sources.
Now is it worth severe economic consequences to lower the temperature (and this is just a maybe, and likely using the best model for the pro-carbon-emission-controllers out there) by  ONE-TWENTIETH of ONE degree?
(over the course of decades)  I know I certainly believed most of this green crap when I was in school (not all of it is COMPLETELY crap).
However the carbon dioxide aspect of it is the biggest fairy tale we seem to want to believe.
Clouds and sunspots have more effect on climate than carbon dioxide ever will.
Feel free to mod me down, but at least explain where I'm wrong before doing so.
Once again please note I'm only talking about carbon dioxide, and I'm not saying things like smog, or other emissions that cause acid rain are not problems.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500719</id>
	<title>Re:Did anybody read his paper?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246121520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>"No warming in 11 years", in particular, is a wingnut claim</i> </p><p>Er, no, actually, that's observation of the data.</p><p>It rather says quite a bit about this topic that a demonstrably factual statement is attempted to be labelled "a wingnut claim" doesn't it now?</p><p> <a href="http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS\%20Essay/GlobalTroposphereTemperaturesAverage.jpg" title="friendsofscience.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS\%20Essay/GlobalTroposphereTemperaturesAverage.jpg</a> [friendsofscience.org] </p></div><p>FYI: "Friends of science" is an oil industry sponsored lobby group with a strong bias.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" No warming in 11 years " , in particular , is a wingnut claim Er , no , actually , that 's observation of the data.It rather says quite a bit about this topic that a demonstrably factual statement is attempted to be labelled " a wingnut claim " does n't it now ?
http : //www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS \ % 20Essay/GlobalTroposphereTemperaturesAverage.jpg [ friendsofscience.org ] FYI : " Friends of science " is an oil industry sponsored lobby group with a strong bias .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> "No warming in 11 years", in particular, is a wingnut claim Er, no, actually, that's observation of the data.It rather says quite a bit about this topic that a demonstrably factual statement is attempted to be labelled "a wingnut claim" doesn't it now?
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS\%20Essay/GlobalTroposphereTemperaturesAverage.jpg [friendsofscience.org] FYI: "Friends of science" is an oil industry sponsored lobby group with a strong bias.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499315</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500243</id>
	<title>Re:Sad facts, but inescapable</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246117680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While clearly a troll and or "Modest Proposal" like comment, it bears noting that 4 pi r^2 for the earth is about 500 trillion square meters.  The usual radiative forcings are on the order of 1 W/m^2 (varying from -1 to -2 for things people do accidentally or undesirably and +1 to +2 for CO2).  So, 450 billion W for Soylent Green, I mean peoples, is not much compared to multiples of 500 trillion.  0.5\% is less than random fluctuations in solar output.</p><p>Still, though, because framed along with some challenges to the strength of this young science, people here and in the media are ignoring the major theme of this guy's paper and prior position papers - that solar radiation management is a cheaper strategy and better insurance against actual catastrophic changes.</p><p>This claim is not so far fetched.  Regardless of one's position on the quality of model forecasts, just looking at empirical estimates in IPCC tables of forcings, our sulfate and other activities almost cancel the positive forcing of CO2 so far (+/- a factor of two or so, but with much larger errors).  Given that we have accidentally compensated for something like a 1.4X increase in CO2, intentionally compensating for a 2X does not seem so crazy.</p><p>Higher baseline CO2, but with a human controlled rapidly reactive global dimmer switch to compensate, may be good protection in the event of some large meteor strike or spurt of volcanism or North Korean spastastic small scale nuclear party.  Things go boom -- turn up the light.  Maybe we can still feed those many billions.</p><p>Corals might suffer for this ability to protect people.  Such geoengineering might not be some monotonically better situation, but it might not be as uniformly negative either, especially in the "disaster tail" part of the evaluation.</p><p>His estimate is that it is <b>3 to 4 orders of magnitude</b> cheaper.  If in reality it is 1/10 the price, well a 90\% discount is a major bargain.  This is especially so given that emissions controls are only even targeting something like 1.75x pre-industrial CO2 rather than 2X or some such difference.</p><p>Beyond this, climate engineering through sunlight reflection control sure sounds like a more plausible future to me than "halting at 1.75X to 1.85X was <i>just</i> enough to save the day from the troubles of 2X!"  (Those numbers are rough ballparks from memory reading the 3rd IPCC report).  So, it's not like the conclusion is so bonkers.  Why not make the best of things and engineer against what one side says is already inevitable where we can only control <i>how</i> bad things ge?  Then no matter who's right, we have something useful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While clearly a troll and or " Modest Proposal " like comment , it bears noting that 4 pi r ^ 2 for the earth is about 500 trillion square meters .
The usual radiative forcings are on the order of 1 W/m ^ 2 ( varying from -1 to -2 for things people do accidentally or undesirably and + 1 to + 2 for CO2 ) .
So , 450 billion W for Soylent Green , I mean peoples , is not much compared to multiples of 500 trillion .
0.5 \ % is less than random fluctuations in solar output.Still , though , because framed along with some challenges to the strength of this young science , people here and in the media are ignoring the major theme of this guy 's paper and prior position papers - that solar radiation management is a cheaper strategy and better insurance against actual catastrophic changes.This claim is not so far fetched .
Regardless of one 's position on the quality of model forecasts , just looking at empirical estimates in IPCC tables of forcings , our sulfate and other activities almost cancel the positive forcing of CO2 so far ( + /- a factor of two or so , but with much larger errors ) .
Given that we have accidentally compensated for something like a 1.4X increase in CO2 , intentionally compensating for a 2X does not seem so crazy.Higher baseline CO2 , but with a human controlled rapidly reactive global dimmer switch to compensate , may be good protection in the event of some large meteor strike or spurt of volcanism or North Korean spastastic small scale nuclear party .
Things go boom -- turn up the light .
Maybe we can still feed those many billions.Corals might suffer for this ability to protect people .
Such geoengineering might not be some monotonically better situation , but it might not be as uniformly negative either , especially in the " disaster tail " part of the evaluation.His estimate is that it is 3 to 4 orders of magnitude cheaper .
If in reality it is 1/10 the price , well a 90 \ % discount is a major bargain .
This is especially so given that emissions controls are only even targeting something like 1.75x pre-industrial CO2 rather than 2X or some such difference.Beyond this , climate engineering through sunlight reflection control sure sounds like a more plausible future to me than " halting at 1.75X to 1.85X was just enough to save the day from the troubles of 2X !
" ( Those numbers are rough ballparks from memory reading the 3rd IPCC report ) .
So , it 's not like the conclusion is so bonkers .
Why not make the best of things and engineer against what one side says is already inevitable where we can only control how bad things ge ?
Then no matter who 's right , we have something useful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While clearly a troll and or "Modest Proposal" like comment, it bears noting that 4 pi r^2 for the earth is about 500 trillion square meters.
The usual radiative forcings are on the order of 1 W/m^2 (varying from -1 to -2 for things people do accidentally or undesirably and +1 to +2 for CO2).
So, 450 billion W for Soylent Green, I mean peoples, is not much compared to multiples of 500 trillion.
0.5\% is less than random fluctuations in solar output.Still, though, because framed along with some challenges to the strength of this young science, people here and in the media are ignoring the major theme of this guy's paper and prior position papers - that solar radiation management is a cheaper strategy and better insurance against actual catastrophic changes.This claim is not so far fetched.
Regardless of one's position on the quality of model forecasts, just looking at empirical estimates in IPCC tables of forcings, our sulfate and other activities almost cancel the positive forcing of CO2 so far (+/- a factor of two or so, but with much larger errors).
Given that we have accidentally compensated for something like a 1.4X increase in CO2, intentionally compensating for a 2X does not seem so crazy.Higher baseline CO2, but with a human controlled rapidly reactive global dimmer switch to compensate, may be good protection in the event of some large meteor strike or spurt of volcanism or North Korean spastastic small scale nuclear party.
Things go boom -- turn up the light.
Maybe we can still feed those many billions.Corals might suffer for this ability to protect people.
Such geoengineering might not be some monotonically better situation, but it might not be as uniformly negative either, especially in the "disaster tail" part of the evaluation.His estimate is that it is 3 to 4 orders of magnitude cheaper.
If in reality it is 1/10 the price, well a 90\% discount is a major bargain.
This is especially so given that emissions controls are only even targeting something like 1.75x pre-industrial CO2 rather than 2X or some such difference.Beyond this, climate engineering through sunlight reflection control sure sounds like a more plausible future to me than "halting at 1.75X to 1.85X was just enough to save the day from the troubles of 2X!
"  (Those numbers are rough ballparks from memory reading the 3rd IPCC report).
So, it's not like the conclusion is so bonkers.
Why not make the best of things and engineer against what one side says is already inevitable where we can only control how bad things ge?
Then no matter who's right, we have something useful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499509</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500189</id>
	<title>Re:Did anybody read his paper?</title>
	<author>jrumney</author>
	<datestamp>1246117200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Secondly, he also states that global temperatures have fallen for the last 11 years.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Statements like this are very suspicious, and I would consider it evidence that he is manipulating the statistics that he presents to push a point of view. Why 11 years? Usually in cases where you see statements like this it is because the 11 year point was a local maximum, and if you look at the last 10 years or the last 12 years the figures tell a different story. But if he was being scientific, he wouldn't be looking at such short term trends anyway, as they are dominated by the normal year to year fluctuations in temperature.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Secondly , he also states that global temperatures have fallen for the last 11 years .
Statements like this are very suspicious , and I would consider it evidence that he is manipulating the statistics that he presents to push a point of view .
Why 11 years ?
Usually in cases where you see statements like this it is because the 11 year point was a local maximum , and if you look at the last 10 years or the last 12 years the figures tell a different story .
But if he was being scientific , he would n't be looking at such short term trends anyway , as they are dominated by the normal year to year fluctuations in temperature .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Secondly, he also states that global temperatures have fallen for the last 11 years.
Statements like this are very suspicious, and I would consider it evidence that he is manipulating the statistics that he presents to push a point of view.
Why 11 years?
Usually in cases where you see statements like this it is because the 11 year point was a local maximum, and if you look at the last 10 years or the last 12 years the figures tell a different story.
But if he was being scientific, he wouldn't be looking at such short term trends anyway, as they are dominated by the normal year to year fluctuations in temperature.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499039</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28507307</id>
	<title>Rolls eyes....</title>
	<author>jotaeleemeese</author>
	<datestamp>1246186620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Give it a rest  please....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Give it a rest please... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Give it a rest  please....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499473</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499025</id>
	<title>Yeah...</title>
	<author>Sitnalta</author>
	<datestamp>1246107960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There will ALWAYS be skepticism on a scientific theory as controversial as this. At some point we have to take action. And maybe this paper was given the bum's rush, but I think it was less "conspiracy to silence critics of the almighty environmentalists" and more "oh, God, let's just get on with this already."</p><p>The EPA is a federal organization that, at the end of the day, must side on the consensus of the scientific community. Not be paralyzed by every single dissenting opinion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There will ALWAYS be skepticism on a scientific theory as controversial as this .
At some point we have to take action .
And maybe this paper was given the bum 's rush , but I think it was less " conspiracy to silence critics of the almighty environmentalists " and more " oh , God , let 's just get on with this already .
" The EPA is a federal organization that , at the end of the day , must side on the consensus of the scientific community .
Not be paralyzed by every single dissenting opinion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There will ALWAYS be skepticism on a scientific theory as controversial as this.
At some point we have to take action.
And maybe this paper was given the bum's rush, but I think it was less "conspiracy to silence critics of the almighty environmentalists" and more "oh, God, let's just get on with this already.
"The EPA is a federal organization that, at the end of the day, must side on the consensus of the scientific community.
Not be paralyzed by every single dissenting opinion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500941</id>
	<title>Re:I dunno...</title>
	<author>gchesney0001</author>
	<datestamp>1246123560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thank you for saying something sane.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank you for saying something sane .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank you for saying something sane.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499239</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500483</id>
	<title>Cui bono?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246119600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Well, you might say, who cares? If cap-and-trade succeeds, won't we all be saved from the catastrophe of global warming? Maybe - but cap-and-trade, as envisioned by Goldman, is really just a carbon tax so that private interests collect the revenues. Instead of simply imposing a fixed government levy on carbon pollution and forcing unclean energy producers to pay for the mess they make, cap-and-trade will allow a small tribe of greedy-as-hell Wall Street swine to turn yet another commodities market into a private tax-collection scheme. This is worse than the bailout: It allows the bank to seize taxpayer money before it's even collected.</p><p>"If it's going to be a tax, I would prefer that Washington set the tax and collect it," says Michael Masters, the hedge-fund director who spoke out against oil-futures speculation. "But we're saying that Wall Street can set the tax, and Wall Street can collect the tax. That's the last thing in the world I want. It's just asinine."</p><p>Cap-and-trade is going to happen. [Ed. note - this was published yesterday.] Or, if it doesn't, something like it will. The moral is the same for all the other bubbles that Goldman helped create, from 1929 to 2009. In almost every case, the very same bank that behaved recklessly for years, weighing down the system with toxic loans and predatory debt, and accomplishing nothing but massive bonuses for a few bosses, has been rewarded with mountains of virtually free money and government guarantees - while the actual victims in this mess, ordinary taxpayers, are the ones paying for it.</p><p>It's not always easy to accept the reality of what we now routinely allow these people to get away with; there's a kind of collective denial that kicks in when a country goes through what America has gone through lately, when a people lose as much prestige and status as we have in the past few years. You can't really register the fact that you're no longer a citizen of a thriving first-world democracy, that you're no longer above getting robbed in broad daylight, because like an amputee, you still sort of feel things that are no longer there.</p><p>But this is it. This is the world we live in now. And in this world, some of us have to play by the rules, while others get a note from the principal excusing them from homework until the end of time, plus 10 billion free dollars in a paper bag to buy lunch. It's a gangster state, running on gangster economics, and even prices can't be trusted anymore; there are hidden taxes in every buck you pay. And maybe we can't stop it, but we should at least know where it's all going.</p></div></blockquote><p>-- <a href="http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3159732&amp;pagenumber=1" title="somethingawful.com" rel="nofollow">THE GREAT AMERICAN BUBBLE MACHINE, Matt Taibbi</a> [somethingawful.com]</p><p>He's even more corrupt than the previous guy folks (no mean feat) and he's inherited the worst parts (wars, torture, gulags) and has made few changes.  I wish the presidency were more than a job interview for a no-work/no-show job at some hedge fund...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , you might say , who cares ?
If cap-and-trade succeeds , wo n't we all be saved from the catastrophe of global warming ?
Maybe - but cap-and-trade , as envisioned by Goldman , is really just a carbon tax so that private interests collect the revenues .
Instead of simply imposing a fixed government levy on carbon pollution and forcing unclean energy producers to pay for the mess they make , cap-and-trade will allow a small tribe of greedy-as-hell Wall Street swine to turn yet another commodities market into a private tax-collection scheme .
This is worse than the bailout : It allows the bank to seize taxpayer money before it 's even collected .
" If it 's going to be a tax , I would prefer that Washington set the tax and collect it , " says Michael Masters , the hedge-fund director who spoke out against oil-futures speculation .
" But we 're saying that Wall Street can set the tax , and Wall Street can collect the tax .
That 's the last thing in the world I want .
It 's just asinine .
" Cap-and-trade is going to happen .
[ Ed. note - this was published yesterday .
] Or , if it does n't , something like it will .
The moral is the same for all the other bubbles that Goldman helped create , from 1929 to 2009 .
In almost every case , the very same bank that behaved recklessly for years , weighing down the system with toxic loans and predatory debt , and accomplishing nothing but massive bonuses for a few bosses , has been rewarded with mountains of virtually free money and government guarantees - while the actual victims in this mess , ordinary taxpayers , are the ones paying for it.It 's not always easy to accept the reality of what we now routinely allow these people to get away with ; there 's a kind of collective denial that kicks in when a country goes through what America has gone through lately , when a people lose as much prestige and status as we have in the past few years .
You ca n't really register the fact that you 're no longer a citizen of a thriving first-world democracy , that you 're no longer above getting robbed in broad daylight , because like an amputee , you still sort of feel things that are no longer there.But this is it .
This is the world we live in now .
And in this world , some of us have to play by the rules , while others get a note from the principal excusing them from homework until the end of time , plus 10 billion free dollars in a paper bag to buy lunch .
It 's a gangster state , running on gangster economics , and even prices ca n't be trusted anymore ; there are hidden taxes in every buck you pay .
And maybe we ca n't stop it , but we should at least know where it 's all going.-- THE GREAT AMERICAN BUBBLE MACHINE , Matt Taibbi [ somethingawful.com ] He 's even more corrupt than the previous guy folks ( no mean feat ) and he 's inherited the worst parts ( wars , torture , gulags ) and has made few changes .
I wish the presidency were more than a job interview for a no-work/no-show job at some hedge fund.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, you might say, who cares?
If cap-and-trade succeeds, won't we all be saved from the catastrophe of global warming?
Maybe - but cap-and-trade, as envisioned by Goldman, is really just a carbon tax so that private interests collect the revenues.
Instead of simply imposing a fixed government levy on carbon pollution and forcing unclean energy producers to pay for the mess they make, cap-and-trade will allow a small tribe of greedy-as-hell Wall Street swine to turn yet another commodities market into a private tax-collection scheme.
This is worse than the bailout: It allows the bank to seize taxpayer money before it's even collected.
"If it's going to be a tax, I would prefer that Washington set the tax and collect it," says Michael Masters, the hedge-fund director who spoke out against oil-futures speculation.
"But we're saying that Wall Street can set the tax, and Wall Street can collect the tax.
That's the last thing in the world I want.
It's just asinine.
"Cap-and-trade is going to happen.
[Ed. note - this was published yesterday.
] Or, if it doesn't, something like it will.
The moral is the same for all the other bubbles that Goldman helped create, from 1929 to 2009.
In almost every case, the very same bank that behaved recklessly for years, weighing down the system with toxic loans and predatory debt, and accomplishing nothing but massive bonuses for a few bosses, has been rewarded with mountains of virtually free money and government guarantees - while the actual victims in this mess, ordinary taxpayers, are the ones paying for it.It's not always easy to accept the reality of what we now routinely allow these people to get away with; there's a kind of collective denial that kicks in when a country goes through what America has gone through lately, when a people lose as much prestige and status as we have in the past few years.
You can't really register the fact that you're no longer a citizen of a thriving first-world democracy, that you're no longer above getting robbed in broad daylight, because like an amputee, you still sort of feel things that are no longer there.But this is it.
This is the world we live in now.
And in this world, some of us have to play by the rules, while others get a note from the principal excusing them from homework until the end of time, plus 10 billion free dollars in a paper bag to buy lunch.
It's a gangster state, running on gangster economics, and even prices can't be trusted anymore; there are hidden taxes in every buck you pay.
And maybe we can't stop it, but we should at least know where it's all going.-- THE GREAT AMERICAN BUBBLE MACHINE, Matt Taibbi [somethingawful.com]He's even more corrupt than the previous guy folks (no mean feat) and he's inherited the worst parts (wars, torture, gulags) and has made few changes.
I wish the presidency were more than a job interview for a no-work/no-show job at some hedge fund...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500391</id>
	<title>Re:Did anybody read his paper?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246118760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah... I was an undergrad at caltech.  A tech grad student commenting on what the undergrads are like is somewhat like a physics/economics type setting or influencing public policy on climate change.  Seems like everyone with a brain cell around here thinks they are an expert in everything because of it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah... I was an undergrad at caltech .
A tech grad student commenting on what the undergrads are like is somewhat like a physics/economics type setting or influencing public policy on climate change .
Seems like everyone with a brain cell around here thinks they are an expert in everything because of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah... I was an undergrad at caltech.
A tech grad student commenting on what the undergrads are like is somewhat like a physics/economics type setting or influencing public policy on climate change.
Seems like everyone with a brain cell around here thinks they are an expert in everything because of it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499421</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499279</id>
	<title>Get the facts straight</title>
	<author>hllclmbr</author>
	<datestamp>1246110000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Too bad that the folks who wrote the report in question were economists instead of scientists, and the compiled their "data" from anti-global warming websites.

<a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/bubkes/#more-691" title="realclimate.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/bubkes/#more-691</a> [realclimate.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Too bad that the folks who wrote the report in question were economists instead of scientists , and the compiled their " data " from anti-global warming websites .
http : //www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/bubkes/ # more-691 [ realclimate.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too bad that the folks who wrote the report in question were economists instead of scientists, and the compiled their "data" from anti-global warming websites.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/bubkes/#more-691 [realclimate.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499685</id>
	<title>Re:They said he's not a climate scientist</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246112880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thanks for writing and posting that comment. It was spot on, well written and moreover it has a nice humorous side to it. Good stuff all around. Kudos.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks for writing and posting that comment .
It was spot on , well written and moreover it has a nice humorous side to it .
Good stuff all around .
Kudos .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks for writing and posting that comment.
It was spot on, well written and moreover it has a nice humorous side to it.
Good stuff all around.
Kudos.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28501507</id>
	<title>Re:The Administration modded this guy troll too!</title>
	<author>riverat1</author>
	<datestamp>1246130640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you're concerned about mercury in the environment then you should be trying to shut down coal fired power plants.  40\% of US emissions of mercury come from burning fossil fuels.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're concerned about mercury in the environment then you should be trying to shut down coal fired power plants .
40 \ % of US emissions of mercury come from burning fossil fuels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're concerned about mercury in the environment then you should be trying to shut down coal fired power plants.
40\% of US emissions of mercury come from burning fossil fuels.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499137</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28509927</id>
	<title>Re:The Administration modded this guy troll too!</title>
	<author>BlackSmithNZ</author>
	<datestamp>1246211220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I made a post very critical of carbon emissions not long ago, think it ended up scoring (1, Troll).  I was even trying to cite the numbers from other sources.</p></div><p>For sources, you may want to start with say Wikipedia which links to some very good sources. Don't do what Carlin does and pick some contrarian websites. Given your comments below, I suspect you have not been looking a decent sources for a start.</p><p><div class="quote"><p> Now is it worth severe economic consequences to lower the temperature (and this is just a maybe, and likely using the best model for the pro-carbon-emission-controllers out there) by <b> ONE-TWENTIETH of ONE degree? </b> (over the course of decades)</p></div><p>1) Please give references if you are going to claim figures like 0.04 degrees. Severe economic responses (Kyoto doesn't seem all that severe) would give more over the long run, but if you don't believe in GW, why believe the best model would only give a 0.04 decrease?</p><p>2)  There does not have to be severe economic consequences to lower the temperature; one valid response to global warming is to do nothing, or very little. On the other hand the economic consequences of doing nothing could be much higher; I personally would pay for power from coal-powered stations vs renewal energy sources than deal with drought.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I know I certainly believed most of this green crap when I was in school (not all of it is COMPLETELY crap).  However the carbon dioxide aspect of it is the biggest fairy tale we seem to want to believe. Clouds and sunspots have more effect on climate than carbon dioxide ever will.</p></div><p>GW is not a "fairy tale". 2 minutes reading the Wikipedia article (you have done that right?) would show the weight of evidence for GW. You can argue about how much is human generated, how much affect it will have and the best responses but to dismiss it as a story is to show a critical lack of understanding right up there with flat earth brigade.</p><p><div class="quote"><p> Feel free to mod me down, but at least explain where I'm wrong before doing so.  Once again please note I'm only talking about carbon dioxide, and I'm not saying things like smog, or other emissions that cause acid rain are not problems.</p></div><p>I won't mod you down, I will spend a few minutes to answer your post, even though it reads as a troll. But will you actually take the time to read unbiased sources, or just spend your time complaining about being mod down?</p><p>To explain where you are wrong:<br>"Clouds and sunspots have more effect on climate than carbon dioxide ever will".</p><p>You think that climate scientists missed the big shiny thing in the sky every day? You would be wrong; huge amounts of research have gone into examining the amount of input from solar 'forcing' - and the result is simply that you are wrong. "Direct measurements of solar output since 1978 show a steady rise and fall over the 11-year sunspot cycle, but no upwards or downward trend"<br>[http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11650-climate-myths-global-warming-is-down-to-the-sun-not-humans.html]</p><p>And carbon dioxide; you have a point to some extent in that it is just one of the most important factors and not the sole factor.. but "A simplified summary is that about 50\% of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapour, 25\% due to clouds, 20\% to CO2, with other gases accounting for the remainder". I personally think of it as being like a bath or basin filling with water; in the past over very long periods of time, the flow of water (heat) coming in is roughly balance by the amount of water flowing out the plug hole. But CO2 and other gases is like somebody dumping some tissues in water; but a big thing by themselves but enough to partial block the plug hole causing a overflow.<br>[http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11652-climate-myths-co2-isnt-the-most-important-greenhouse-gas.html]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I made a post very critical of carbon emissions not long ago , think it ended up scoring ( 1 , Troll ) .
I was even trying to cite the numbers from other sources.For sources , you may want to start with say Wikipedia which links to some very good sources .
Do n't do what Carlin does and pick some contrarian websites .
Given your comments below , I suspect you have not been looking a decent sources for a start .
Now is it worth severe economic consequences to lower the temperature ( and this is just a maybe , and likely using the best model for the pro-carbon-emission-controllers out there ) by ONE-TWENTIETH of ONE degree ?
( over the course of decades ) 1 ) Please give references if you are going to claim figures like 0.04 degrees .
Severe economic responses ( Kyoto does n't seem all that severe ) would give more over the long run , but if you do n't believe in GW , why believe the best model would only give a 0.04 decrease ? 2 ) There does not have to be severe economic consequences to lower the temperature ; one valid response to global warming is to do nothing , or very little .
On the other hand the economic consequences of doing nothing could be much higher ; I personally would pay for power from coal-powered stations vs renewal energy sources than deal with drought.I know I certainly believed most of this green crap when I was in school ( not all of it is COMPLETELY crap ) .
However the carbon dioxide aspect of it is the biggest fairy tale we seem to want to believe .
Clouds and sunspots have more effect on climate than carbon dioxide ever will.GW is not a " fairy tale " .
2 minutes reading the Wikipedia article ( you have done that right ?
) would show the weight of evidence for GW .
You can argue about how much is human generated , how much affect it will have and the best responses but to dismiss it as a story is to show a critical lack of understanding right up there with flat earth brigade .
Feel free to mod me down , but at least explain where I 'm wrong before doing so .
Once again please note I 'm only talking about carbon dioxide , and I 'm not saying things like smog , or other emissions that cause acid rain are not problems.I wo n't mod you down , I will spend a few minutes to answer your post , even though it reads as a troll .
But will you actually take the time to read unbiased sources , or just spend your time complaining about being mod down ? To explain where you are wrong : " Clouds and sunspots have more effect on climate than carbon dioxide ever will " .You think that climate scientists missed the big shiny thing in the sky every day ?
You would be wrong ; huge amounts of research have gone into examining the amount of input from solar 'forcing ' - and the result is simply that you are wrong .
" Direct measurements of solar output since 1978 show a steady rise and fall over the 11-year sunspot cycle , but no upwards or downward trend " [ http : //www.newscientist.com/article/dn11650-climate-myths-global-warming-is-down-to-the-sun-not-humans.html ] And carbon dioxide ; you have a point to some extent in that it is just one of the most important factors and not the sole factor.. but " A simplified summary is that about 50 \ % of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapour , 25 \ % due to clouds , 20 \ % to CO2 , with other gases accounting for the remainder " .
I personally think of it as being like a bath or basin filling with water ; in the past over very long periods of time , the flow of water ( heat ) coming in is roughly balance by the amount of water flowing out the plug hole .
But CO2 and other gases is like somebody dumping some tissues in water ; but a big thing by themselves but enough to partial block the plug hole causing a overflow .
[ http : //www.newscientist.com/article/dn11652-climate-myths-co2-isnt-the-most-important-greenhouse-gas.html ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I made a post very critical of carbon emissions not long ago, think it ended up scoring (1, Troll).
I was even trying to cite the numbers from other sources.For sources, you may want to start with say Wikipedia which links to some very good sources.
Don't do what Carlin does and pick some contrarian websites.
Given your comments below, I suspect you have not been looking a decent sources for a start.
Now is it worth severe economic consequences to lower the temperature (and this is just a maybe, and likely using the best model for the pro-carbon-emission-controllers out there) by  ONE-TWENTIETH of ONE degree?
(over the course of decades)1) Please give references if you are going to claim figures like 0.04 degrees.
Severe economic responses (Kyoto doesn't seem all that severe) would give more over the long run, but if you don't believe in GW, why believe the best model would only give a 0.04 decrease?2)  There does not have to be severe economic consequences to lower the temperature; one valid response to global warming is to do nothing, or very little.
On the other hand the economic consequences of doing nothing could be much higher; I personally would pay for power from coal-powered stations vs renewal energy sources than deal with drought.I know I certainly believed most of this green crap when I was in school (not all of it is COMPLETELY crap).
However the carbon dioxide aspect of it is the biggest fairy tale we seem to want to believe.
Clouds and sunspots have more effect on climate than carbon dioxide ever will.GW is not a "fairy tale".
2 minutes reading the Wikipedia article (you have done that right?
) would show the weight of evidence for GW.
You can argue about how much is human generated, how much affect it will have and the best responses but to dismiss it as a story is to show a critical lack of understanding right up there with flat earth brigade.
Feel free to mod me down, but at least explain where I'm wrong before doing so.
Once again please note I'm only talking about carbon dioxide, and I'm not saying things like smog, or other emissions that cause acid rain are not problems.I won't mod you down, I will spend a few minutes to answer your post, even though it reads as a troll.
But will you actually take the time to read unbiased sources, or just spend your time complaining about being mod down?To explain where you are wrong:"Clouds and sunspots have more effect on climate than carbon dioxide ever will".You think that climate scientists missed the big shiny thing in the sky every day?
You would be wrong; huge amounts of research have gone into examining the amount of input from solar 'forcing' - and the result is simply that you are wrong.
"Direct measurements of solar output since 1978 show a steady rise and fall over the 11-year sunspot cycle, but no upwards or downward trend"[http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11650-climate-myths-global-warming-is-down-to-the-sun-not-humans.html]And carbon dioxide; you have a point to some extent in that it is just one of the most important factors and not the sole factor.. but "A simplified summary is that about 50\% of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapour, 25\% due to clouds, 20\% to CO2, with other gases accounting for the remainder".
I personally think of it as being like a bath or basin filling with water; in the past over very long periods of time, the flow of water (heat) coming in is roughly balance by the amount of water flowing out the plug hole.
But CO2 and other gases is like somebody dumping some tissues in water; but a big thing by themselves but enough to partial block the plug hole causing a overflow.
[http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11652-climate-myths-co2-isnt-the-most-important-greenhouse-gas.html]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499785</id>
	<title>Re:Problems with the US Temperature Record</title>
	<author>wagnerer</author>
	<datestamp>1246113660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Comparing two locations in Hawaii for temperature doesn't give you much. Those two locations are in different climate zones. It can pour rain for a week on one part of Oahu without a drop falling on another. In Hawaii weather is extremely dependent on location. Your assumption that they actually have the same temperature is just plain wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Comparing two locations in Hawaii for temperature does n't give you much .
Those two locations are in different climate zones .
It can pour rain for a week on one part of Oahu without a drop falling on another .
In Hawaii weather is extremely dependent on location .
Your assumption that they actually have the same temperature is just plain wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Comparing two locations in Hawaii for temperature doesn't give you much.
Those two locations are in different climate zones.
It can pour rain for a week on one part of Oahu without a drop falling on another.
In Hawaii weather is extremely dependent on location.
Your assumption that they actually have the same temperature is just plain wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499153</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28501155</id>
	<title>Re:Sad facts, but inescapable</title>
	<author>blueg3</author>
	<datestamp>1246125480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You think billions of watts is bad -- just look at how much pressure you're under in Pascals!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You think billions of watts is bad -- just look at how much pressure you 're under in Pascals !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You think billions of watts is bad -- just look at how much pressure you're under in Pascals!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499509</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500593</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah...</title>
	<author>cfulmer</author>
	<datestamp>1246120500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But, there's a difference between siding "on the consensus of the scientific community" and what the EPA did here.</p><p>When a regulatory agency intends to enact some regulations, it has a "public comment period" in which members of the public can comment on what the regulation should look like.  Before that public comment period starts, the agency is supposed to publish all of its information on the subject matter, *INCLUDING* internal reports that it discounted.</p><p>That's the problem we have here -- the EPA basically decided "this report doesn't support our position, so we're not going to release it, EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE TO."</p><p>It's not a question of being "paralyzed" by dissenting opinions -- it's a matter of acknowledging that they exist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But , there 's a difference between siding " on the consensus of the scientific community " and what the EPA did here.When a regulatory agency intends to enact some regulations , it has a " public comment period " in which members of the public can comment on what the regulation should look like .
Before that public comment period starts , the agency is supposed to publish all of its information on the subject matter , * INCLUDING * internal reports that it discounted.That 's the problem we have here -- the EPA basically decided " this report does n't support our position , so we 're not going to release it , EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE TO .
" It 's not a question of being " paralyzed " by dissenting opinions -- it 's a matter of acknowledging that they exist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But, there's a difference between siding "on the consensus of the scientific community" and what the EPA did here.When a regulatory agency intends to enact some regulations, it has a "public comment period" in which members of the public can comment on what the regulation should look like.
Before that public comment period starts, the agency is supposed to publish all of its information on the subject matter, *INCLUDING* internal reports that it discounted.That's the problem we have here -- the EPA basically decided "this report doesn't support our position, so we're not going to release it, EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE TO.
"It's not a question of being "paralyzed" by dissenting opinions -- it's a matter of acknowledging that they exist.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499025</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28501983</id>
	<title>Re:Irony and Science</title>
	<author>blind biker</author>
	<datestamp>1246182660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OK, thank you for that - now I am satisfied that the report you cite is total bullshit.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Then, the kicker comes on page 66; I quote:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Perhaps, most significant of all, the average lifespan of Americans has increased (Figure 2-5) [ Graph of Mean lifespan in US, 1890-2010, omitted ].<br>In fact, there is no better way to obtain a good picture of how human health and welfare may trend in the future under increases in greenhouse gas emissions than to assess how we have fared in the past during a period of increasing greenhouse gas emissions.</p></div></div><p>That lifespan increase had everything to do with development in medicine and a better healthcare network. Deriving a conclusion that there was no global warming from data on lifespan is utterly silly.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>OK , thank you for that - now I am satisfied that the report you cite is total bullshit.Then , the kicker comes on page 66 ; I quote : Perhaps , most significant of all , the average lifespan of Americans has increased ( Figure 2-5 ) [ Graph of Mean lifespan in US , 1890-2010 , omitted ] .In fact , there is no better way to obtain a good picture of how human health and welfare may trend in the future under increases in greenhouse gas emissions than to assess how we have fared in the past during a period of increasing greenhouse gas emissions.That lifespan increase had everything to do with development in medicine and a better healthcare network .
Deriving a conclusion that there was no global warming from data on lifespan is utterly silly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK, thank you for that - now I am satisfied that the report you cite is total bullshit.Then, the kicker comes on page 66; I quote:Perhaps, most significant of all, the average lifespan of Americans has increased (Figure 2-5) [ Graph of Mean lifespan in US, 1890-2010, omitted ].In fact, there is no better way to obtain a good picture of how human health and welfare may trend in the future under increases in greenhouse gas emissions than to assess how we have fared in the past during a period of increasing greenhouse gas emissions.That lifespan increase had everything to do with development in medicine and a better healthcare network.
Deriving a conclusion that there was no global warming from data on lifespan is utterly silly.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499363</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499057</id>
	<title>harsh but right</title>
	<author>slimjim8094</author>
	<datestamp>1246108260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Look, I'm sure this guy is very competent as a physicist and economist but he is simply not qualified to cast doubt on climatologists.</p><p>They were right to dismiss him</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look , I 'm sure this guy is very competent as a physicist and economist but he is simply not qualified to cast doubt on climatologists.They were right to dismiss him</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look, I'm sure this guy is very competent as a physicist and economist but he is simply not qualified to cast doubt on climatologists.They were right to dismiss him</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500905</id>
	<title>Re:The Administration modded this guy troll too!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246123200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Meh, sunspot's are also correlated to wine vintages for certain wineries! But their role in earth's temperature has been debunked, it's merely correlation now-a-days. And ocean acidification(a bigger problem than a warmer planet) is becoming increasingly troublesome.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Meh , sunspot 's are also correlated to wine vintages for certain wineries !
But their role in earth 's temperature has been debunked , it 's merely correlation now-a-days .
And ocean acidification ( a bigger problem than a warmer planet ) is becoming increasingly troublesome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Meh, sunspot's are also correlated to wine vintages for certain wineries!
But their role in earth's temperature has been debunked, it's merely correlation now-a-days.
And ocean acidification(a bigger problem than a warmer planet) is becoming increasingly troublesome.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499455</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah...</title>
	<author>QuoteMstr</author>
	<datestamp>1246111140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your skepticism would have been laudable in 1960, but today, it's just a hindrance. The scientific community has studied the problem for almost 50 years, and except for the unavoidable lunatic fringe, has reached a strong and emphatic consensus on a solution.</p><p>What more do you want? What fact would, if presented, convince you that anthropogenic global warming is a real danger?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your skepticism would have been laudable in 1960 , but today , it 's just a hindrance .
The scientific community has studied the problem for almost 50 years , and except for the unavoidable lunatic fringe , has reached a strong and emphatic consensus on a solution.What more do you want ?
What fact would , if presented , convince you that anthropogenic global warming is a real danger ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your skepticism would have been laudable in 1960, but today, it's just a hindrance.
The scientific community has studied the problem for almost 50 years, and except for the unavoidable lunatic fringe, has reached a strong and emphatic consensus on a solution.What more do you want?
What fact would, if presented, convince you that anthropogenic global warming is a real danger?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499135</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500271</id>
	<title>Re:Did anybody read his paper?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246117860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've got a B.Sc.(we try and avoid the B.S. abbreviation<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)  in math from CalTech and took a lot of physics.</p><p>From what I see, the anti-AWG guy is dead wrong.  I can understand the EPA not including his opinion when they report their analysis, but his argument should not be suppressed.  Better to let him publish it (maybe in a non-government venue) and let people try to refute it.  If he's wrong, they will.</p><p>It's really important to not to suppress dissent (some times it turns out that your iedas are the ones that are wrong).</p><p>All that said, every undergrad at CalTech is smart, but not all are sane<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... he mioght be one of the outliers<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've got a B.Sc .
( we try and avoid the B.S .
abbreviation ; ) in math from CalTech and took a lot of physics.From what I see , the anti-AWG guy is dead wrong .
I can understand the EPA not including his opinion when they report their analysis , but his argument should not be suppressed .
Better to let him publish it ( maybe in a non-government venue ) and let people try to refute it .
If he 's wrong , they will.It 's really important to not to suppress dissent ( some times it turns out that your iedas are the ones that are wrong ) .All that said , every undergrad at CalTech is smart , but not all are sane ... he mioght be one of the outliers .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've got a B.Sc.
(we try and avoid the B.S.
abbreviation ;)  in math from CalTech and took a lot of physics.From what I see, the anti-AWG guy is dead wrong.
I can understand the EPA not including his opinion when they report their analysis, but his argument should not be suppressed.
Better to let him publish it (maybe in a non-government venue) and let people try to refute it.
If he's wrong, they will.It's really important to not to suppress dissent (some times it turns out that your iedas are the ones that are wrong).All that said, every undergrad at CalTech is smart, but not all are sane ... he mioght be one of the outliers ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499421</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28503375</id>
	<title>debunked several days ago already, Slashdot late</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246200720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Doesn't anybody screen these calls?" -- Click and Clack</p><p><a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/bubkes/" title="realclimate.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/bubkes/</a> [realclimate.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Does n't anybody screen these calls ?
" -- Click and Clackhttp : //www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/bubkes/ [ realclimate.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Doesn't anybody screen these calls?
" -- Click and Clackhttp://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/bubkes/ [realclimate.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28508357</id>
	<title>BS in Physics</title>
	<author>drolli</author>
	<datestamp>1246195980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Disclaimer: I hold a phd in physics, so whoever wants to discard my words, because i belong to the "ecosocialist" scientific establishment which puts critical scientists into mental hospitals, where we torture and brainwash them, feel free to do so.</p><p>A BS in physics does make you a scientist - you can use the scientific method without as BS. The scientific method includes, opposed to what you have learned in elementary school, more than just making observations. It also consists of presenting them. Presenting results in science happens solely but peer-reviewed publications. Nothing else counts in your CV. The funny thing is that the Journals give skeptical readers ways to express their skepticism in place. Funnily neither the evolutionists nor the (oil-money-soaked) "global warming skepticists" stick to that way. I have learned that reading things which were not even intended to be peer-reviewed usually is a big waste of time. That is true particularly in subjects which are not my expertise (i am a solid state physicist). Only after some referee with expertise has helped the authors to order the text, i thrust that i can read it without a big headache.</p><p>I made the mistake of reading some texts which were published by skepticists. I am not sure what they tried to tell me, because it was more an accusation of others paper being wrong instead of own content (for this we don't write an article, but a comment). Usually they did not focus on a single, important message, but spread a general aura of mystic and predjudices against certain methods. So instead of trying to explain me what is wrong with discretizing certain PDEs, which would be interesting, they just claimed that these are non-solvable and imprecise. If they would hva had a coherent message about that, then would have been *absolutely* no reason to discuss five other topics in the same paper. And believe me, the agencies funding the supercomputers for climate research would be interedeted *and* willing to hear *why* you *in princliple* can not use model-based simulations for simulating the climate, while the same models seem to work for designing airplanes.</p><p>so there are two possibilities</p><p>a) a huge conpiracy theory driving the "climate skepticals" so mad by the use of drugs that they are not able to present their thoughts in an coherent, ordered and comprehensive manner</p><p>b) no arguments, but some people who are paid by lobbyists to create doubt in press releases.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Disclaimer : I hold a phd in physics , so whoever wants to discard my words , because i belong to the " ecosocialist " scientific establishment which puts critical scientists into mental hospitals , where we torture and brainwash them , feel free to do so.A BS in physics does make you a scientist - you can use the scientific method without as BS .
The scientific method includes , opposed to what you have learned in elementary school , more than just making observations .
It also consists of presenting them .
Presenting results in science happens solely but peer-reviewed publications .
Nothing else counts in your CV .
The funny thing is that the Journals give skeptical readers ways to express their skepticism in place .
Funnily neither the evolutionists nor the ( oil-money-soaked ) " global warming skepticists " stick to that way .
I have learned that reading things which were not even intended to be peer-reviewed usually is a big waste of time .
That is true particularly in subjects which are not my expertise ( i am a solid state physicist ) .
Only after some referee with expertise has helped the authors to order the text , i thrust that i can read it without a big headache.I made the mistake of reading some texts which were published by skepticists .
I am not sure what they tried to tell me , because it was more an accusation of others paper being wrong instead of own content ( for this we do n't write an article , but a comment ) .
Usually they did not focus on a single , important message , but spread a general aura of mystic and predjudices against certain methods .
So instead of trying to explain me what is wrong with discretizing certain PDEs , which would be interesting , they just claimed that these are non-solvable and imprecise .
If they would hva had a coherent message about that , then would have been * absolutely * no reason to discuss five other topics in the same paper .
And believe me , the agencies funding the supercomputers for climate research would be interedeted * and * willing to hear * why * you * in princliple * can not use model-based simulations for simulating the climate , while the same models seem to work for designing airplanes.so there are two possibilitiesa ) a huge conpiracy theory driving the " climate skepticals " so mad by the use of drugs that they are not able to present their thoughts in an coherent , ordered and comprehensive mannerb ) no arguments , but some people who are paid by lobbyists to create doubt in press releases .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Disclaimer: I hold a phd in physics, so whoever wants to discard my words, because i belong to the "ecosocialist" scientific establishment which puts critical scientists into mental hospitals, where we torture and brainwash them, feel free to do so.A BS in physics does make you a scientist - you can use the scientific method without as BS.
The scientific method includes, opposed to what you have learned in elementary school, more than just making observations.
It also consists of presenting them.
Presenting results in science happens solely but peer-reviewed publications.
Nothing else counts in your CV.
The funny thing is that the Journals give skeptical readers ways to express their skepticism in place.
Funnily neither the evolutionists nor the (oil-money-soaked) "global warming skepticists" stick to that way.
I have learned that reading things which were not even intended to be peer-reviewed usually is a big waste of time.
That is true particularly in subjects which are not my expertise (i am a solid state physicist).
Only after some referee with expertise has helped the authors to order the text, i thrust that i can read it without a big headache.I made the mistake of reading some texts which were published by skepticists.
I am not sure what they tried to tell me, because it was more an accusation of others paper being wrong instead of own content (for this we don't write an article, but a comment).
Usually they did not focus on a single, important message, but spread a general aura of mystic and predjudices against certain methods.
So instead of trying to explain me what is wrong with discretizing certain PDEs, which would be interesting, they just claimed that these are non-solvable and imprecise.
If they would hva had a coherent message about that, then would have been *absolutely* no reason to discuss five other topics in the same paper.
And believe me, the agencies funding the supercomputers for climate research would be interedeted *and* willing to hear *why* you *in princliple* can not use model-based simulations for simulating the climate, while the same models seem to work for designing airplanes.so there are two possibilitiesa) a huge conpiracy theory driving the "climate skepticals" so mad by the use of drugs that they are not able to present their thoughts in an coherent, ordered and comprehensive mannerb) no arguments, but some people who are paid by lobbyists to create doubt in press releases.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499213</id>
	<title>Shocking! NOT!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246109460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Big Eco is just as likely as Big Business to misuse funds and only put forth studies supporting their views.</p><p>Recent examples abound...<br>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2237375/posts - California  Air Resource Board puts forth new Diesel rules even though the lead scientist was a liar<br>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20503.html - Obama EPA nominee involved in $25 million misuse of funds</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Big Eco is just as likely as Big Business to misuse funds and only put forth studies supporting their views.Recent examples abound...http : //www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2237375/posts - California Air Resource Board puts forth new Diesel rules even though the lead scientist was a liarhttp : //www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20503.html - Obama EPA nominee involved in $ 25 million misuse of funds</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Big Eco is just as likely as Big Business to misuse funds and only put forth studies supporting their views.Recent examples abound...http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2237375/posts - California  Air Resource Board puts forth new Diesel rules even though the lead scientist was a liarhttp://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20503.html - Obama EPA nominee involved in $25 million misuse of funds</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500309</id>
	<title>So basically ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246118280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So basically the EPA filters disenting views just like<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.</p><p>I cannot tell you how many times I am moded -1 troll when I question GW or Obama on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So basically the EPA filters disenting views just like /.I can not tell you how many times I am moded -1 troll when I question GW or Obama on / .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So basically the EPA filters disenting views just like /.I cannot tell you how many times I am moded -1 troll when I question GW or Obama on /.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28511133</id>
	<title>Re:I dunno...</title>
	<author>will\_die</author>
	<datestamp>1246266060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Your ignoring that climate science is a very,very, very complex subject and if you don't have a degree in it you cannot understand it.  If you have a degree in the subject and disagree with global warming being primarily caused by humans it is because you don't understand the science. <br>
So if you use standard practices in the area of math(statistics) or apply economic principlies to the numbers the global warmers provide and it comes up different from what they want you are "just an economist" or "just a math teacher".</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your ignoring that climate science is a very,very , very complex subject and if you do n't have a degree in it you can not understand it .
If you have a degree in the subject and disagree with global warming being primarily caused by humans it is because you do n't understand the science .
So if you use standard practices in the area of math ( statistics ) or apply economic principlies to the numbers the global warmers provide and it comes up different from what they want you are " just an economist " or " just a math teacher " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your ignoring that climate science is a very,very, very complex subject and if you don't have a degree in it you cannot understand it.
If you have a degree in the subject and disagree with global warming being primarily caused by humans it is because you don't understand the science.
So if you use standard practices in the area of math(statistics) or apply economic principlies to the numbers the global warmers provide and it comes up different from what they want you are "just an economist" or "just a math teacher".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499239</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499145</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah...</title>
	<author>smoker2</author>
	<datestamp>1246108920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The EPA is a federal organization that, at the end of the day, must side on the consensus of the scientific community. Not be paralyzed by every single dissenting opinion</p></div></blockquote><p>How can you judge whether there is a consensus, if the community has had things withheld from its judgment ? Yep, we have 100\% agreement from those who don't know ALL the facts.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The EPA is a federal organization that , at the end of the day , must side on the consensus of the scientific community .
Not be paralyzed by every single dissenting opinionHow can you judge whether there is a consensus , if the community has had things withheld from its judgment ?
Yep , we have 100 \ % agreement from those who do n't know ALL the facts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The EPA is a federal organization that, at the end of the day, must side on the consensus of the scientific community.
Not be paralyzed by every single dissenting opinionHow can you judge whether there is a consensus, if the community has had things withheld from its judgment ?
Yep, we have 100\% agreement from those who don't know ALL the facts.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499025</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500545</id>
	<title>Re:Did anybody read his paper?</title>
	<author>microbox</author>
	<datestamp>1246120140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>You do realise that friendsofscience is run by Ken Gregory who knows <i>nothing</i> about science, and is <i>not a friend</i>. Anyway, the Carlin paper is full of wingnut claims. For anyone interested, there's some information: <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/bubkes/" title="realclimate.org" rel="nofollow"> here </a> [realclimate.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>You do realise that friendsofscience is run by Ken Gregory who knows nothing about science , and is not a friend .
Anyway , the Carlin paper is full of wingnut claims .
For anyone interested , there 's some information : here [ realclimate.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You do realise that friendsofscience is run by Ken Gregory who knows nothing about science, and is not a friend.
Anyway, the Carlin paper is full of wingnut claims.
For anyone interested, there's some information:  here  [realclimate.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499315</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499407</id>
	<title>Controversial? Controversial according to whom?</title>
	<author>Nicolas MONNET</author>
	<datestamp>1246110840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>According to Exxon or its PR team (GOPFOX inc.), it is controversial.<br>To the scientific community, it is about as controversial as evolution, the Big Bang, the germ theory of disease or the wave/particle duality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>According to Exxon or its PR team ( GOPFOX inc. ) , it is controversial.To the scientific community , it is about as controversial as evolution , the Big Bang , the germ theory of disease or the wave/particle duality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to Exxon or its PR team (GOPFOX inc.), it is controversial.To the scientific community, it is about as controversial as evolution, the Big Bang, the germ theory of disease or the wave/particle duality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499025</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499237</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah...</title>
	<author>Luke has no name</author>
	<datestamp>1246109580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The EPA is one of many federal organizations with too much power and not enough purpose.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The EPA is one of many federal organizations with too much power and not enough purpose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The EPA is one of many federal organizations with too much power and not enough purpose.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499025</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499657</id>
	<title>Re:I agree</title>
	<author>Peter La Casse</author>
	<datestamp>1246112580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I am not sure what the substance of his report would be - economic impact?</p></div></blockquote><p>The article said it listed recent research papers whose findings contradicted the draft EPA report he was reviewing.  So in other words, it collected and summarized information.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am not sure what the substance of his report would be - economic impact ? The article said it listed recent research papers whose findings contradicted the draft EPA report he was reviewing .
So in other words , it collected and summarized information .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am not sure what the substance of his report would be - economic impact?The article said it listed recent research papers whose findings contradicted the draft EPA report he was reviewing.
So in other words, it collected and summarized information.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499031</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500455</id>
	<title>Global warming really isn't the most salient issue</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246119420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Humans would most likely survive if 100\% of the trees in all the worlds forests were cut down.  It might be moderatly or severly "inconvienent" but most of us can also live with significant temperature change if it were to occur.</p><p>Now on the other hand if our oceans are sufficently fucked up you can forget about breathing.  The alarming rate of and observed consequences WRT acidification of our oceans alone is more than enough to justify the token efforts made to remedy the situation.</p><p>"Global warming" is just icing on the cake.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Humans would most likely survive if 100 \ % of the trees in all the worlds forests were cut down .
It might be moderatly or severly " inconvienent " but most of us can also live with significant temperature change if it were to occur.Now on the other hand if our oceans are sufficently fucked up you can forget about breathing .
The alarming rate of and observed consequences WRT acidification of our oceans alone is more than enough to justify the token efforts made to remedy the situation .
" Global warming " is just icing on the cake .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Humans would most likely survive if 100\% of the trees in all the worlds forests were cut down.
It might be moderatly or severly "inconvienent" but most of us can also live with significant temperature change if it were to occur.Now on the other hand if our oceans are sufficently fucked up you can forget about breathing.
The alarming rate of and observed consequences WRT acidification of our oceans alone is more than enough to justify the token efforts made to remedy the situation.
"Global warming" is just icing on the cake.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28501959</id>
	<title>Global warming is real</title>
	<author>petrus4</author>
	<datestamp>1246182000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here in Melbourne this last summer, we had our two hottest days on record, both at 46 degrees centigrade.  Victoria also has not had seasonal rainfall now for 14 years.</p><p>Global warming is very real, and has been measured all over the planet; look up some of the studies that have been done on the polar ice caps.</p><p>The only people who want to believe that global warming isn't occurring are the capitalist fanatic, "making money is literally more important than being alive to spend it," crowd, who want an excuse to continue to rape the planet until it is no longer inhabitable at all.  Such people do not care about the survival of anyone, including their own.</p><p>These people <i>need</i> to be silenced.  We need to move past the debate stage, and into the stage where we start taking concrete action to rectify the problem...and at least halt it, even if it cannot be reversed.  Something else that is appropriate to quote, here.</p><p>"Only when the last tree has been cut down,<br>Only when the last river has been poisoned,<br>Only when the last fish has been caught...<br>Only then, will you realise, that money cannot be eaten."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here in Melbourne this last summer , we had our two hottest days on record , both at 46 degrees centigrade .
Victoria also has not had seasonal rainfall now for 14 years.Global warming is very real , and has been measured all over the planet ; look up some of the studies that have been done on the polar ice caps.The only people who want to believe that global warming is n't occurring are the capitalist fanatic , " making money is literally more important than being alive to spend it , " crowd , who want an excuse to continue to rape the planet until it is no longer inhabitable at all .
Such people do not care about the survival of anyone , including their own.These people need to be silenced .
We need to move past the debate stage , and into the stage where we start taking concrete action to rectify the problem...and at least halt it , even if it can not be reversed .
Something else that is appropriate to quote , here .
" Only when the last tree has been cut down,Only when the last river has been poisoned,Only when the last fish has been caught...Only then , will you realise , that money can not be eaten .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here in Melbourne this last summer, we had our two hottest days on record, both at 46 degrees centigrade.
Victoria also has not had seasonal rainfall now for 14 years.Global warming is very real, and has been measured all over the planet; look up some of the studies that have been done on the polar ice caps.The only people who want to believe that global warming isn't occurring are the capitalist fanatic, "making money is literally more important than being alive to spend it," crowd, who want an excuse to continue to rape the planet until it is no longer inhabitable at all.
Such people do not care about the survival of anyone, including their own.These people need to be silenced.
We need to move past the debate stage, and into the stage where we start taking concrete action to rectify the problem...and at least halt it, even if it cannot be reversed.
Something else that is appropriate to quote, here.
"Only when the last tree has been cut down,Only when the last river has been poisoned,Only when the last fish has been caught...Only then, will you realise, that money cannot be eaten.
"
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28501171</id>
	<title>I feel sorry...</title>
	<author>glitch23</author>
	<datestamp>1246125660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>for all those people who have degrees in physics and economics because we now have definitive proof from the EPA that those people holding those degrees aren't really scientists after all. Can the EPA give us the official criteria for determining who can be a scientist? Only people who submit reports that further the democratic agenda must be the scientists and everyone else must be a quack, no matter their credentials. It's always good to know the government doesn't allow censorship.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>In a statement, the EPA took aim at the credentials of the report's author, Alan Carlin (BS Physics-Caltech, PhD Econ-MIT), describing him as 'not a scientist.'</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>for all those people who have degrees in physics and economics because we now have definitive proof from the EPA that those people holding those degrees are n't really scientists after all .
Can the EPA give us the official criteria for determining who can be a scientist ?
Only people who submit reports that further the democratic agenda must be the scientists and everyone else must be a quack , no matter their credentials .
It 's always good to know the government does n't allow censorship.In a statement , the EPA took aim at the credentials of the report 's author , Alan Carlin ( BS Physics-Caltech , PhD Econ-MIT ) , describing him as 'not a scientist .
'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>for all those people who have degrees in physics and economics because we now have definitive proof from the EPA that those people holding those degrees aren't really scientists after all.
Can the EPA give us the official criteria for determining who can be a scientist?
Only people who submit reports that further the democratic agenda must be the scientists and everyone else must be a quack, no matter their credentials.
It's always good to know the government doesn't allow censorship.In a statement, the EPA took aim at the credentials of the report's author, Alan Carlin (BS Physics-Caltech, PhD Econ-MIT), describing him as 'not a scientist.
'
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28501127</id>
	<title>Re:Climate change denialism</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246125300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obama's Energy Secretary wants to paint roofs white. Is this clear, rational thinking from "a veritable who's who of great minds"?</p><p><a href="http://www.caymanmama.com/2009/05/27/us-energy-secretary-says-painting-roofs-white-will-save-energy\_200905274700.html" title="caymanmama.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.caymanmama.com/2009/05/27/us-energy-secretary-says-painting-roofs-white-will-save-energy\_200905274700.html</a> [caymanmama.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obama 's Energy Secretary wants to paint roofs white .
Is this clear , rational thinking from " a veritable who 's who of great minds " ? http : //www.caymanmama.com/2009/05/27/us-energy-secretary-says-painting-roofs-white-will-save-energy \ _200905274700.html [ caymanmama.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obama's Energy Secretary wants to paint roofs white.
Is this clear, rational thinking from "a veritable who's who of great minds"?http://www.caymanmama.com/2009/05/27/us-energy-secretary-says-painting-roofs-white-will-save-energy\_200905274700.html [caymanmama.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499293</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28504081</id>
	<title>CALL YOUR SENATORS!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246206420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And call the now.  The House has already pass (barely) legislation that will tax anything producing CO2, which even the CBO agrees is going to be bad for the economy.  All in order to make "green" energy "competitive".  We have to kill it in the Senate, or be prepared for gas to shoot over $4.00/gal, electricity go up (most is produced by coal and natural gas), and more.</p><p>If Congress wants to limit CO2 output, they need to glue their lips together first.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And call the now .
The House has already pass ( barely ) legislation that will tax anything producing CO2 , which even the CBO agrees is going to be bad for the economy .
All in order to make " green " energy " competitive " .
We have to kill it in the Senate , or be prepared for gas to shoot over $ 4.00/gal , electricity go up ( most is produced by coal and natural gas ) , and more.If Congress wants to limit CO2 output , they need to glue their lips together first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And call the now.
The House has already pass (barely) legislation that will tax anything producing CO2, which even the CBO agrees is going to be bad for the economy.
All in order to make "green" energy "competitive".
We have to kill it in the Senate, or be prepared for gas to shoot over $4.00/gal, electricity go up (most is produced by coal and natural gas), and more.If Congress wants to limit CO2 output, they need to glue their lips together first.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499667</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246112700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well alrighty then.  Let's rush ahead and do things that have been damaging to the other major economy to institute such policies instead of adopting a policy of increasing all sources of energy while maintaining economical costs.  Yep, cap and trade has gone so swimmingly for Europe, they lose almost 2 jobs for each "green" job produced, their ag economy is reeling and CO2 emissions have continued to increase.  And at the same time let's ignore a few small sticking points that the scientific community has come up with along the way such as water accounting for 90-95\% of atmospheric heating, thermoelectric radiation from only the top 100 urban areas being as great as 11 years of industrial CO2 emissions, recent comprehensive studies of ocean current mixing invalidating the assumptions built into global warming models, that atmospheric CO2 levels started increasing after temps began rising, we still have no clue of where when or how CO2 is recycled in the environment, don't have past a basic understanding of atmospheric dynamics and on and on including such things as 20\% of the heating in Europe being from cleaner air. Oh yeah, and that contrary to the chest beating, we are nowhere near the highest levels of atmospheric CO2.  That would have been leading up to and during an ice age.  Also, if you have followed atmospheric methane research you would know there has been a very strong indication that something else is going on out there.  After being stable for quite a few years, levels jumped up<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.6\% uniformly around the globe in opposition to what global warming models say it should do instead of increasing in the northern hemisphere then gradually rising in the south.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well alrighty then .
Let 's rush ahead and do things that have been damaging to the other major economy to institute such policies instead of adopting a policy of increasing all sources of energy while maintaining economical costs .
Yep , cap and trade has gone so swimmingly for Europe , they lose almost 2 jobs for each " green " job produced , their ag economy is reeling and CO2 emissions have continued to increase .
And at the same time let 's ignore a few small sticking points that the scientific community has come up with along the way such as water accounting for 90-95 \ % of atmospheric heating , thermoelectric radiation from only the top 100 urban areas being as great as 11 years of industrial CO2 emissions , recent comprehensive studies of ocean current mixing invalidating the assumptions built into global warming models , that atmospheric CO2 levels started increasing after temps began rising , we still have no clue of where when or how CO2 is recycled in the environment , do n't have past a basic understanding of atmospheric dynamics and on and on including such things as 20 \ % of the heating in Europe being from cleaner air .
Oh yeah , and that contrary to the chest beating , we are nowhere near the highest levels of atmospheric CO2 .
That would have been leading up to and during an ice age .
Also , if you have followed atmospheric methane research you would know there has been a very strong indication that something else is going on out there .
After being stable for quite a few years , levels jumped up .6 \ % uniformly around the globe in opposition to what global warming models say it should do instead of increasing in the northern hemisphere then gradually rising in the south .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well alrighty then.
Let's rush ahead and do things that have been damaging to the other major economy to institute such policies instead of adopting a policy of increasing all sources of energy while maintaining economical costs.
Yep, cap and trade has gone so swimmingly for Europe, they lose almost 2 jobs for each "green" job produced, their ag economy is reeling and CO2 emissions have continued to increase.
And at the same time let's ignore a few small sticking points that the scientific community has come up with along the way such as water accounting for 90-95\% of atmospheric heating, thermoelectric radiation from only the top 100 urban areas being as great as 11 years of industrial CO2 emissions, recent comprehensive studies of ocean current mixing invalidating the assumptions built into global warming models, that atmospheric CO2 levels started increasing after temps began rising, we still have no clue of where when or how CO2 is recycled in the environment, don't have past a basic understanding of atmospheric dynamics and on and on including such things as 20\% of the heating in Europe being from cleaner air.
Oh yeah, and that contrary to the chest beating, we are nowhere near the highest levels of atmospheric CO2.
That would have been leading up to and during an ice age.
Also, if you have followed atmospheric methane research you would know there has been a very strong indication that something else is going on out there.
After being stable for quite a few years, levels jumped up .6\% uniformly around the globe in opposition to what global warming models say it should do instead of increasing in the northern hemisphere then gradually rising in the south.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499313</id>
	<title>Re:The Administration modded this guy troll too!</title>
	<author>mangu</author>
	<datestamp>1246110180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Now is it worth severe economic consequences to lower the temperature</p></div></blockquote><p>I know we shouldn't feed trolls, but I will bite. Isn't it funny how people dismiss so many rigorous physical studies that overwhelmingly indicate a close correlation between global warming and CO2 emission, yet they will readily accept some vague assumptions of economics, the "dismal science" that can't even predict market prices five minutes ahead?</p><p>If one assumes that "severe economic consequences" will result from lowering anthropogenic CO2 emissions, then those studies in economics should be much better, more precise, more accurate than the physical studies that predict the survival of a large part of humanity may be in danger if the current situation persists.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now is it worth severe economic consequences to lower the temperatureI know we should n't feed trolls , but I will bite .
Is n't it funny how people dismiss so many rigorous physical studies that overwhelmingly indicate a close correlation between global warming and CO2 emission , yet they will readily accept some vague assumptions of economics , the " dismal science " that ca n't even predict market prices five minutes ahead ? If one assumes that " severe economic consequences " will result from lowering anthropogenic CO2 emissions , then those studies in economics should be much better , more precise , more accurate than the physical studies that predict the survival of a large part of humanity may be in danger if the current situation persists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now is it worth severe economic consequences to lower the temperatureI know we shouldn't feed trolls, but I will bite.
Isn't it funny how people dismiss so many rigorous physical studies that overwhelmingly indicate a close correlation between global warming and CO2 emission, yet they will readily accept some vague assumptions of economics, the "dismal science" that can't even predict market prices five minutes ahead?If one assumes that "severe economic consequences" will result from lowering anthropogenic CO2 emissions, then those studies in economics should be much better, more precise, more accurate than the physical studies that predict the survival of a large part of humanity may be in danger if the current situation persists.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28523773</id>
	<title>How can we be so bold...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246292340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The human race has not been in existance long enough to be qualified to know what the earth's weather patterns are. The earth and it's weather patterns are far beyond what the human mind can possibly understand. We haven't even kept accurate weather records for much more than a hundred years. To believe that we the insignificant human can influence an entire planets weather is quite a stretch and a bit arrogant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The human race has not been in existance long enough to be qualified to know what the earth 's weather patterns are .
The earth and it 's weather patterns are far beyond what the human mind can possibly understand .
We have n't even kept accurate weather records for much more than a hundred years .
To believe that we the insignificant human can influence an entire planets weather is quite a stretch and a bit arrogant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The human race has not been in existance long enough to be qualified to know what the earth's weather patterns are.
The earth and it's weather patterns are far beyond what the human mind can possibly understand.
We haven't even kept accurate weather records for much more than a hundred years.
To believe that we the insignificant human can influence an entire planets weather is quite a stretch and a bit arrogant.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28508591</id>
	<title>Re:You Don't Have to be a Scientist to Know...</title>
	<author>thepainguy</author>
	<datestamp>1246197780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>To whomever flagged me as a troll...<br> <br>
Again, I find it curious that all you can do is attack me, but you have nothing to say about the points I make in the attached article.<br> <br>
Your silence speaks volumes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>To whomever flagged me as a troll.. . Again , I find it curious that all you can do is attack me , but you have nothing to say about the points I make in the attached article .
Your silence speaks volumes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To whomever flagged me as a troll... 
Again, I find it curious that all you can do is attack me, but you have nothing to say about the points I make in the attached article.
Your silence speaks volumes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499319</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28502665</id>
	<title>Re:Did anybody read his paper?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246193220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please study Carl Sagan's "<a href="http://www.xenu.net/archive/baloney\_detection.html" title="xenu.net" rel="nofollow">Bologna detection kit</a> [xenu.net]" and repose your argument with the many fallacies removed.</p><blockquote><div><p>And I should also point out: no one doing "climate science" is a computational physicist, yet a huge amount of climate science is nothing but computational physics.</p></div></blockquote><p>I find that to be a very strange claim, as I am a computational physicist doing "climate science". Do I, and many of my colleagues, not exist because we didn't go to Caltech at the same time you did?</p><p>If you feel that some specific model needs improvement, please help improve it. Otherwise I find your broad and absolutist claims worth very little.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Please study Carl Sagan 's " Bologna detection kit [ xenu.net ] " and repose your argument with the many fallacies removed.And I should also point out : no one doing " climate science " is a computational physicist , yet a huge amount of climate science is nothing but computational physics.I find that to be a very strange claim , as I am a computational physicist doing " climate science " .
Do I , and many of my colleagues , not exist because we did n't go to Caltech at the same time you did ? If you feel that some specific model needs improvement , please help improve it .
Otherwise I find your broad and absolutist claims worth very little .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please study Carl Sagan's "Bologna detection kit [xenu.net]" and repose your argument with the many fallacies removed.And I should also point out: no one doing "climate science" is a computational physicist, yet a huge amount of climate science is nothing but computational physics.I find that to be a very strange claim, as I am a computational physicist doing "climate science".
Do I, and many of my colleagues, not exist because we didn't go to Caltech at the same time you did?If you feel that some specific model needs improvement, please help improve it.
Otherwise I find your broad and absolutist claims worth very little.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499421</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28507355</id>
	<title>So?</title>
	<author>jotaeleemeese</author>
	<datestamp>1246186860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Right now we have no credible treaty (thanks Mr Bush).</p><p>Acknowledging we have a problem and start things rolling is the first step, at a later stage the West can reason with China and India in order to fix the situation (China is becoming painfully aware that they will not be able to pollute their way into full fledged development).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right now we have no credible treaty ( thanks Mr Bush ) .Acknowledging we have a problem and start things rolling is the first step , at a later stage the West can reason with China and India in order to fix the situation ( China is becoming painfully aware that they will not be able to pollute their way into full fledged development ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right now we have no credible treaty (thanks Mr Bush).Acknowledging we have a problem and start things rolling is the first step, at a later stage the West can reason with China and India in order to fix the situation (China is becoming painfully aware that they will not be able to pollute their way into full fledged development).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500355</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500301</id>
	<title>Re:Did anybody read his paper?</title>
	<author>philpalm</author>
	<datestamp>1246118220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let's see what the anti-global warming people are proposing:
1. Sunspot activity is low so we are in a cooling trend right now (but sunspot activity could go up any year now)
2. Add tons of CO2 and yes an overall rising level of CO2 is measureable. How come no warming trend?

Skeptical GW people point out:
1. that in order to lower CO2 levels you need more green plants and the ability to sequester CO2.
2. The long period of making more CO2 cannot be instantly countered and it takes years to reduce the levels that will become too late to reduce. What is the threshold amount of CO2 level that is dangerous?

Cynical GW people point out:
1. We may never have another opportunity to stop the increasing levels of CO2. When you reach it, it will be too late to save mankind.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's see what the anti-global warming people are proposing : 1 .
Sunspot activity is low so we are in a cooling trend right now ( but sunspot activity could go up any year now ) 2 .
Add tons of CO2 and yes an overall rising level of CO2 is measureable .
How come no warming trend ?
Skeptical GW people point out : 1. that in order to lower CO2 levels you need more green plants and the ability to sequester CO2 .
2. The long period of making more CO2 can not be instantly countered and it takes years to reduce the levels that will become too late to reduce .
What is the threshold amount of CO2 level that is dangerous ?
Cynical GW people point out : 1 .
We may never have another opportunity to stop the increasing levels of CO2 .
When you reach it , it will be too late to save mankind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's see what the anti-global warming people are proposing:
1.
Sunspot activity is low so we are in a cooling trend right now (but sunspot activity could go up any year now)
2.
Add tons of CO2 and yes an overall rising level of CO2 is measureable.
How come no warming trend?
Skeptical GW people point out:
1. that in order to lower CO2 levels you need more green plants and the ability to sequester CO2.
2. The long period of making more CO2 cannot be instantly countered and it takes years to reduce the levels that will become too late to reduce.
What is the threshold amount of CO2 level that is dangerous?
Cynical GW people point out:
1.
We may never have another opportunity to stop the increasing levels of CO2.
When you reach it, it will be too late to save mankind.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499039</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28501543</id>
	<title>Re:The Administration modded this guy troll too!</title>
	<author>Phil06</author>
	<datestamp>1246131180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The climate has been in equilibrium for millions of years. There is no tipping point. My suggestion to people wringing their hands about climate change; understand the real problem, that there is not going to be any more fossil fuels to convert to CO2 in the near future. That will be a bigger calamity than a few centimeters of sea level. Food sources? We're already burning food now, just wait until we run out of oil.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The climate has been in equilibrium for millions of years .
There is no tipping point .
My suggestion to people wringing their hands about climate change ; understand the real problem , that there is not going to be any more fossil fuels to convert to CO2 in the near future .
That will be a bigger calamity than a few centimeters of sea level .
Food sources ?
We 're already burning food now , just wait until we run out of oil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The climate has been in equilibrium for millions of years.
There is no tipping point.
My suggestion to people wringing their hands about climate change; understand the real problem, that there is not going to be any more fossil fuels to convert to CO2 in the near future.
That will be a bigger calamity than a few centimeters of sea level.
Food sources?
We're already burning food now, just wait until we run out of oil.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499137</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28501729</id>
	<title>Re:Did anybody read his paper?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246220040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To summarize your post: "Experts -  what do <i>they</i> know?"</p><p>You kind of blew any rational scientific discussion out ouf the water by bringing free markets economics and other decidely -scientific disciplines into the mix.</p><p>I am not a climatologist myself, but work with many such at NERC and so have first-hand experience in how my colleagues go out of their way, all the time, to find holes, mistakes, flaws and plain untruths <i>in their own hypothesises</i>.</p><p>If you are truly a scientist yourself, then shame on you sir for for your ad hominem style of discourse.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To summarize your post : " Experts - what do they know ?
" You kind of blew any rational scientific discussion out ouf the water by bringing free markets economics and other decidely -scientific disciplines into the mix.I am not a climatologist myself , but work with many such at NERC and so have first-hand experience in how my colleagues go out of their way , all the time , to find holes , mistakes , flaws and plain untruths in their own hypothesises.If you are truly a scientist yourself , then shame on you sir for for your ad hominem style of discourse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To summarize your post: "Experts -  what do they know?
"You kind of blew any rational scientific discussion out ouf the water by bringing free markets economics and other decidely -scientific disciplines into the mix.I am not a climatologist myself, but work with many such at NERC and so have first-hand experience in how my colleagues go out of their way, all the time, to find holes, mistakes, flaws and plain untruths in their own hypothesises.If you are truly a scientist yourself, then shame on you sir for for your ad hominem style of discourse.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499421</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499413</id>
	<title>Re:Did anybody read his paper?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246110840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Curious you found one graph that seems to contradict everyone else who has anything to say about the subject. Even more curious that the graph seems to only select the last 30 years, since the start of the largest scale warming on record.</p><p>http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&amp;q=global+temperature+graph&amp;btnG=Search+Images&amp;gbv=2&amp;aq=0&amp;oq=global+temperature</p><p>Somehow I'm more inclined to believe NASA then the "friends of science".<br>http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/images/content/208488main\_global\_temp\_change.jpg</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Curious you found one graph that seems to contradict everyone else who has anything to say about the subject .
Even more curious that the graph seems to only select the last 30 years , since the start of the largest scale warming on record.http : //images.google.com/images ? hl = en&amp;q = global + temperature + graph&amp;btnG = Search + Images&amp;gbv = 2&amp;aq = 0&amp;oq = global + temperatureSomehow I 'm more inclined to believe NASA then the " friends of science " .http : //www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/images/content/208488main \ _global \ _temp \ _change.jpg</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Curious you found one graph that seems to contradict everyone else who has anything to say about the subject.
Even more curious that the graph seems to only select the last 30 years, since the start of the largest scale warming on record.http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&amp;q=global+temperature+graph&amp;btnG=Search+Images&amp;gbv=2&amp;aq=0&amp;oq=global+temperatureSomehow I'm more inclined to believe NASA then the "friends of science".http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/images/content/208488main\_global\_temp\_change.jpg</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499315</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499039</id>
	<title>Did anybody read his paper?</title>
	<author>Useful Wheat</author>
	<datestamp>1246108080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you read through the entire article, you can find some interesting information on what it was he wanted us to do. Instead of regulating CO2 emissions, he states that it is more economical to reduce the amount of radiation from the sun that reaches the earth. I don't really understand his position. In effect, he's saying, "I don't believe in global warming. However, even if I did, there's no reason to regulate CO2 emissions." He seems bent against regulation of CO2 at any cost.</p><p>Secondly, he also states that global temperatures have fallen for the last 11 years. I really would like to see his work. This article (http://earthtrends.wri.org/updates/node/83), reported in the September 26 issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, shows global temperatures rising for the last 30 years.</p><p>This man strikes me as being very much against any type of environmental regulation, and I'm not surprised that the EPA is trying to silence him.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you read through the entire article , you can find some interesting information on what it was he wanted us to do .
Instead of regulating CO2 emissions , he states that it is more economical to reduce the amount of radiation from the sun that reaches the earth .
I do n't really understand his position .
In effect , he 's saying , " I do n't believe in global warming .
However , even if I did , there 's no reason to regulate CO2 emissions .
" He seems bent against regulation of CO2 at any cost.Secondly , he also states that global temperatures have fallen for the last 11 years .
I really would like to see his work .
This article ( http : //earthtrends.wri.org/updates/node/83 ) , reported in the September 26 issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , shows global temperatures rising for the last 30 years.This man strikes me as being very much against any type of environmental regulation , and I 'm not surprised that the EPA is trying to silence him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you read through the entire article, you can find some interesting information on what it was he wanted us to do.
Instead of regulating CO2 emissions, he states that it is more economical to reduce the amount of radiation from the sun that reaches the earth.
I don't really understand his position.
In effect, he's saying, "I don't believe in global warming.
However, even if I did, there's no reason to regulate CO2 emissions.
" He seems bent against regulation of CO2 at any cost.Secondly, he also states that global temperatures have fallen for the last 11 years.
I really would like to see his work.
This article (http://earthtrends.wri.org/updates/node/83), reported in the September 26 issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, shows global temperatures rising for the last 30 years.This man strikes me as being very much against any type of environmental regulation, and I'm not surprised that the EPA is trying to silence him.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28502529</id>
	<title>Re:Global warming is real</title>
	<author>daveime</author>
	<datestamp>1246191360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And as a side note to your ludicrous decision making processes; if, hypothetically, the next 14 years are fucking freezing (or even below seasonal averages), we should then CANCEL all the CO2 limiting measures, because they are no longer needed ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And as a side note to your ludicrous decision making processes ; if , hypothetically , the next 14 years are fucking freezing ( or even below seasonal averages ) , we should then CANCEL all the CO2 limiting measures , because they are no longer needed ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And as a side note to your ludicrous decision making processes; if, hypothetically, the next 14 years are fucking freezing (or even below seasonal averages), we should then CANCEL all the CO2 limiting measures, because they are no longer needed ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28501959</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499187</id>
	<title>Give me $10 mil, and ill get you 10 reports</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1246109220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>from separate 'research institutions'. i will time them so that they will come one after another and even make you believe that there is no global warming, despite the ice you stand on in antarctica is melting and you gonna fall into the water in 5 minutes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>from separate 'research institutions' .
i will time them so that they will come one after another and even make you believe that there is no global warming , despite the ice you stand on in antarctica is melting and you gon na fall into the water in 5 minutes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>from separate 'research institutions'.
i will time them so that they will come one after another and even make you believe that there is no global warming, despite the ice you stand on in antarctica is melting and you gonna fall into the water in 5 minutes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28505085</id>
	<title>Re:Did anybody read his paper?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246213140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Furthermore, the climate modelling community are now predicting "the possibility" of a reduction in global heat content in the next decade"<p>

Er.  One paper, Keenlyside et al., raised the possibility of a reduction in surface temperature due to an interesting modeling methodology that they were testing that re-initialized ocean states every 5 years to try and capture ENSO type variability.</p><p>

Of course, the Keenlyside paper noted that their model performed \_worse\_ than standard models in predicting past global mean temperature:  where they beat standard models was in predicting past temperatures in ENSO-sensitive areas like the edges of the Pacific and western Atlantic basins.  </p><p>

The "community" certainly does not expect a reduction in heat content.  </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Furthermore , the climate modelling community are now predicting " the possibility " of a reduction in global heat content in the next decade " Er .
One paper , Keenlyside et al. , raised the possibility of a reduction in surface temperature due to an interesting modeling methodology that they were testing that re-initialized ocean states every 5 years to try and capture ENSO type variability .
Of course , the Keenlyside paper noted that their model performed \ _worse \ _ than standard models in predicting past global mean temperature : where they beat standard models was in predicting past temperatures in ENSO-sensitive areas like the edges of the Pacific and western Atlantic basins .
The " community " certainly does not expect a reduction in heat content .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Furthermore, the climate modelling community are now predicting "the possibility" of a reduction in global heat content in the next decade"

Er.
One paper, Keenlyside et al., raised the possibility of a reduction in surface temperature due to an interesting modeling methodology that they were testing that re-initialized ocean states every 5 years to try and capture ENSO type variability.
Of course, the Keenlyside paper noted that their model performed \_worse\_ than standard models in predicting past global mean temperature:  where they beat standard models was in predicting past temperatures in ENSO-sensitive areas like the edges of the Pacific and western Atlantic basins.
The "community" certainly does not expect a reduction in heat content.  </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499421</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499605</id>
	<title>Re:I dunno...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246112160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He has been working for the EPA as an economist. Not a climatologist.</p><p>His prior publications are in law and economics journals. Not science journals.</p><p>He is no doubt very qualified to asses the economic impact of EPA actions.</p><p>Not so much the veracity of various competing scientific theories of climate change.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He has been working for the EPA as an economist .
Not a climatologist.His prior publications are in law and economics journals .
Not science journals.He is no doubt very qualified to asses the economic impact of EPA actions.Not so much the veracity of various competing scientific theories of climate change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He has been working for the EPA as an economist.
Not a climatologist.His prior publications are in law and economics journals.
Not science journals.He is no doubt very qualified to asses the economic impact of EPA actions.Not so much the veracity of various competing scientific theories of climate change.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499239</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28501043</id>
	<title>Re:Did anybody read his paper?</title>
	<author>blueg3</author>
	<datestamp>1246124580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did you seriously try to have a scientific opinion and refer to it as C02? It's an O, not a zero.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you seriously try to have a scientific opinion and refer to it as C02 ?
It 's an O , not a zero .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you seriously try to have a scientific opinion and refer to it as C02?
It's an O, not a zero.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499315</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499103</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah...</title>
	<author>Kohath</author>
	<datestamp>1246108620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Translation: It's OK to silence dissent when it's expedient.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Translation : It 's OK to silence dissent when it 's expedient .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Translation: It's OK to silence dissent when it's expedient.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499025</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499501</id>
	<title>Re:Irony and Science</title>
	<author>hyades1</author>
	<datestamp>1246111500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> Thank you for taking the time to do the heavy lifting on this.  One can't help but wonder whether the author of the report isn't one of the deeply-entrenched "loyal Bushies" who so worked so assiduously to create the eight-year nightmare of incompetence, greed and fanaticism that was the Bush/Cheney administration. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank you for taking the time to do the heavy lifting on this .
One ca n't help but wonder whether the author of the report is n't one of the deeply-entrenched " loyal Bushies " who so worked so assiduously to create the eight-year nightmare of incompetence , greed and fanaticism that was the Bush/Cheney administration .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Thank you for taking the time to do the heavy lifting on this.
One can't help but wonder whether the author of the report isn't one of the deeply-entrenched "loyal Bushies" who so worked so assiduously to create the eight-year nightmare of incompetence, greed and fanaticism that was the Bush/Cheney administration. </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499363</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28527597</id>
	<title>unsubscribe</title>
	<author>sam\_vilain</author>
	<datestamp>1246373520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I unsubscribed from WattsUpWithThat, after I realised that the skeptics basically have no case and generally are ignorant of the history of climate change, yet I'm still getting sensationalist posts implying some kind of grand conspiracy led by climate scientists in my RSS feed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I unsubscribed from WattsUpWithThat , after I realised that the skeptics basically have no case and generally are ignorant of the history of climate change , yet I 'm still getting sensationalist posts implying some kind of grand conspiracy led by climate scientists in my RSS feed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I unsubscribed from WattsUpWithThat, after I realised that the skeptics basically have no case and generally are ignorant of the history of climate change, yet I'm still getting sensationalist posts implying some kind of grand conspiracy led by climate scientists in my RSS feed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500607</id>
	<title>Re:The Administration modded this guy troll too!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246120620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's funny how anything not pro flat-earth is instantly modded troll here, and I thought the people here were supposed to be smart open minded people but they censor anyone who doesn't believe the crap spewing out of NASA.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; - The Flat Earth Society</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's funny how anything not pro flat-earth is instantly modded troll here , and I thought the people here were supposed to be smart open minded people but they censor anyone who does n't believe the crap spewing out of NASA .
    - The Flat Earth Society</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's funny how anything not pro flat-earth is instantly modded troll here, and I thought the people here were supposed to be smart open minded people but they censor anyone who doesn't believe the crap spewing out of NASA.
    - The Flat Earth Society</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499793</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500119</id>
	<title>There's always a race war.</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1246116480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you wanted to become a NAZI, you could basically blow away everyone who isn't white.  That would knock the earth's population down to around a billion, maybe less. Since white europeans aren't even breeding - (guess german women should shave after all), we would be down to around 800 million or even 500 million humans on earth.</p><p>When it all boils down to it, conservatives really screwed us up. If they would have let Hitler finish the job in Eurasia and Africa, there would be no global warming.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you wanted to become a NAZI , you could basically blow away everyone who is n't white .
That would knock the earth 's population down to around a billion , maybe less .
Since white europeans are n't even breeding - ( guess german women should shave after all ) , we would be down to around 800 million or even 500 million humans on earth.When it all boils down to it , conservatives really screwed us up .
If they would have let Hitler finish the job in Eurasia and Africa , there would be no global warming .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you wanted to become a NAZI, you could basically blow away everyone who isn't white.
That would knock the earth's population down to around a billion, maybe less.
Since white europeans aren't even breeding - (guess german women should shave after all), we would be down to around 800 million or even 500 million humans on earth.When it all boils down to it, conservatives really screwed us up.
If they would have let Hitler finish the job in Eurasia and Africa, there would be no global warming.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499509</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500277</id>
	<title>Re:Did anybody read his paper?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246117920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Friends\_of\_Science</p><p>FOS sounds like an astroturfing project to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.sourcewatch.org/index.php ? title = Friends \ _of \ _ScienceFOS sounds like an astroturfing project to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Friends\_of\_ScienceFOS sounds like an astroturfing project to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499315</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499511</id>
	<title>Thank you!</title>
	<author>QuoteMstr</author>
	<datestamp>1246111500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thank you! Posts like yours make it worthwhile to hold my nose and deal with the sophomoric ignorance of most posters on Slashdot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank you !
Posts like yours make it worthwhile to hold my nose and deal with the sophomoric ignorance of most posters on Slashdot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank you!
Posts like yours make it worthwhile to hold my nose and deal with the sophomoric ignorance of most posters on Slashdot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499363</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28509175</id>
	<title>Re:I agree</title>
	<author>DeVilla</author>
	<datestamp>1246204140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah.  It's kind of like having a bunch of mathematicians, physicists and electrical engineers who want to call themselves "Computer Scientists".  Next you'll tell me some guy from that patent office could call himself a "Physicist" and find flaws in the age old scientific laws dating back to Newton.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah .
It 's kind of like having a bunch of mathematicians , physicists and electrical engineers who want to call themselves " Computer Scientists " .
Next you 'll tell me some guy from that patent office could call himself a " Physicist " and find flaws in the age old scientific laws dating back to Newton .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah.
It's kind of like having a bunch of mathematicians, physicists and electrical engineers who want to call themselves "Computer Scientists".
Next you'll tell me some guy from that patent office could call himself a "Physicist" and find flaws in the age old scientific laws dating back to Newton.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499031</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500345</id>
	<title>The problem I have</title>
	<author>CopterHawk</author>
	<datestamp>1246118520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No matter what the EPA is able to achieve, China, India and others will continue to pump out greenhouse gasses like there's no tomorrow.  Meanwhile back here in the US I won't be able to afford air conditioning because we will have eliminated all the cheap sources of electricity.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No matter what the EPA is able to achieve , China , India and others will continue to pump out greenhouse gasses like there 's no tomorrow .
Meanwhile back here in the US I wo n't be able to afford air conditioning because we will have eliminated all the cheap sources of electricity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No matter what the EPA is able to achieve, China, India and others will continue to pump out greenhouse gasses like there's no tomorrow.
Meanwhile back here in the US I won't be able to afford air conditioning because we will have eliminated all the cheap sources of electricity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28523329</id>
	<title>I disagree</title>
	<author>JBaustian</author>
	<datestamp>1246288440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A BS in physics and a PhD in economics sounds to me like excellent credentials. Especially when Carlin's BS is from Cal Tech and the PhD is from MIT.<br><br>http://carlineconomics.googlepages.com/</htmltext>
<tokenext>A BS in physics and a PhD in economics sounds to me like excellent credentials .
Especially when Carlin 's BS is from Cal Tech and the PhD is from MIT.http : //carlineconomics.googlepages.com/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A BS in physics and a PhD in economics sounds to me like excellent credentials.
Especially when Carlin's BS is from Cal Tech and the PhD is from MIT.http://carlineconomics.googlepages.com/</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499031</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28506311</id>
	<title>RE: Obama's Beautiful America -- Alive in Iran</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246221240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Climate changes<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and changes for no one.</p><p>The Bush Hooligans tried to suppres it because it did not fit their Presumed Truth.</p><p>The Obama Hooligans are now at it again.  In the mean-time, climate changed, the other way, and now does not fit the Presumed Truth.</p><p>With Mr. Obama poised to anoint himself a the Judicary above the Constitution, all Courts, and laws of the former United States of America, with his Pre-Crime Permanent Detention Law (Executive Order), he should declare himself the "Scientist of the World" and there are non other, and issue his "Declarations of Science".</p><p>The actions of the people of Hondorus through their armed forces, should give Mr. Obama pause to reflect on his lawlessness -- Mr. Obama's allies, the President of Iran and Dictator Kim of North Korea, his "Allies of Evil" should do likewise.</p><p>Mr. Obama's lawlessness, like those of his "Police" the TSA, will only be tolerated for a short period of time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Climate changes ... and changes for no one.The Bush Hooligans tried to suppres it because it did not fit their Presumed Truth.The Obama Hooligans are now at it again .
In the mean-time , climate changed , the other way , and now does not fit the Presumed Truth.With Mr. Obama poised to anoint himself a the Judicary above the Constitution , all Courts , and laws of the former United States of America , with his Pre-Crime Permanent Detention Law ( Executive Order ) , he should declare himself the " Scientist of the World " and there are non other , and issue his " Declarations of Science " .The actions of the people of Hondorus through their armed forces , should give Mr. Obama pause to reflect on his lawlessness -- Mr. Obama 's allies , the President of Iran and Dictator Kim of North Korea , his " Allies of Evil " should do likewise.Mr .
Obama 's lawlessness , like those of his " Police " the TSA , will only be tolerated for a short period of time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Climate changes ... and changes for no one.The Bush Hooligans tried to suppres it because it did not fit their Presumed Truth.The Obama Hooligans are now at it again.
In the mean-time, climate changed, the other way, and now does not fit the Presumed Truth.With Mr. Obama poised to anoint himself a the Judicary above the Constitution, all Courts, and laws of the former United States of America, with his Pre-Crime Permanent Detention Law (Executive Order), he should declare himself the "Scientist of the World" and there are non other, and issue his "Declarations of Science".The actions of the people of Hondorus through their armed forces, should give Mr. Obama pause to reflect on his lawlessness -- Mr. Obama's allies, the President of Iran and Dictator Kim of North Korea, his "Allies of Evil" should do likewise.Mr.
Obama's lawlessness, like those of his "Police" the TSA, will only be tolerated for a short period of time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500355</id>
	<title>Cap and Trade Will Not Work</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246118580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I find it amusing that everyone is so fired up about Cap and Trade when they ignore the fact that it will only work if EVERY emitter buys into it.<br> <br> That's simply not going to be the case.<br> <br>What's going to happen is that more heavy, energy-intensive industry will move to India, China, and other less industrialized countries and C02 emission will stay the same (if not actually increasing due to lower levels of efficiency).<br> <br>The only true solution is mitigation or sequestration.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it amusing that everyone is so fired up about Cap and Trade when they ignore the fact that it will only work if EVERY emitter buys into it .
That 's simply not going to be the case .
What 's going to happen is that more heavy , energy-intensive industry will move to India , China , and other less industrialized countries and C02 emission will stay the same ( if not actually increasing due to lower levels of efficiency ) .
The only true solution is mitigation or sequestration .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it amusing that everyone is so fired up about Cap and Trade when they ignore the fact that it will only work if EVERY emitter buys into it.
That's simply not going to be the case.
What's going to happen is that more heavy, energy-intensive industry will move to India, China, and other less industrialized countries and C02 emission will stay the same (if not actually increasing due to lower levels of efficiency).
The only true solution is mitigation or sequestration.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499137</id>
	<title>Re:The Administration modded this guy troll too!</title>
	<author>EastCoastSurfer</author>
	<datestamp>1246108860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What irks me about the climate-change-CO2-fear-mongers is that we are forgetting about very real pollutants that are causing problems today.  Just look at the current levels of mercury in the oceans.  It has gotten to the point where it's not safe to eat many types of fish because the mercury content is so high.  Sure, the global warming may be real and we might so happen to stop the planet from heating up, but then what?  At that point other pollutants will have killed off all of our food sources.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What irks me about the climate-change-CO2-fear-mongers is that we are forgetting about very real pollutants that are causing problems today .
Just look at the current levels of mercury in the oceans .
It has gotten to the point where it 's not safe to eat many types of fish because the mercury content is so high .
Sure , the global warming may be real and we might so happen to stop the planet from heating up , but then what ?
At that point other pollutants will have killed off all of our food sources .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What irks me about the climate-change-CO2-fear-mongers is that we are forgetting about very real pollutants that are causing problems today.
Just look at the current levels of mercury in the oceans.
It has gotten to the point where it's not safe to eat many types of fish because the mercury content is so high.
Sure, the global warming may be real and we might so happen to stop the planet from heating up, but then what?
At that point other pollutants will have killed off all of our food sources.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28509103</id>
	<title>Re:Did anybody read his paper?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246203180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>"It is a statistical certainty (p less than 10e-11) that there are innocent people being held at Guantanamo Bay."
<p>
I think you mean p &gt;<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.99999999999.
</p><p>
Pretty sad for someone that spent time at Caltech.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" It is a statistical certainty ( p less than 10e-11 ) that there are innocent people being held at Guantanamo Bay .
" I think you mean p &gt; .99999999999 .
Pretty sad for someone that spent time at Caltech .
; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"It is a statistical certainty (p less than 10e-11) that there are innocent people being held at Guantanamo Bay.
"

I think you mean p &gt; .99999999999.
Pretty sad for someone that spent time at Caltech.
;-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499421</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28502637</id>
	<title>Re:The Administration modded this guy troll too!</title>
	<author>HertzaHaeon</author>
	<datestamp>1246192980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Global warming" is a misleading term. Climate change is better, because it tells us we won't just get warmer. Maybe you'll get warm and dry, or be drenched in more rain, or some such. Rising sea levels might negate any food increase by reducing usable farm land. There are also non-climate effects of increasing CO2 levels to worry about, such as ocean acidification.</p><p>Also, I'm guessing you're writing from a part of the world that will be less affected by the effects of climate change and has better means of dealing with them. Not everyone is so lucky.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Global warming " is a misleading term .
Climate change is better , because it tells us we wo n't just get warmer .
Maybe you 'll get warm and dry , or be drenched in more rain , or some such .
Rising sea levels might negate any food increase by reducing usable farm land .
There are also non-climate effects of increasing CO2 levels to worry about , such as ocean acidification.Also , I 'm guessing you 're writing from a part of the world that will be less affected by the effects of climate change and has better means of dealing with them .
Not everyone is so lucky .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Global warming" is a misleading term.
Climate change is better, because it tells us we won't just get warmer.
Maybe you'll get warm and dry, or be drenched in more rain, or some such.
Rising sea levels might negate any food increase by reducing usable farm land.
There are also non-climate effects of increasing CO2 levels to worry about, such as ocean acidification.Also, I'm guessing you're writing from a part of the world that will be less affected by the effects of climate change and has better means of dealing with them.
Not everyone is so lucky.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499399</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500047</id>
	<title>Re:Did anybody read his paper?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246115880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, you respond to a statement about the data for the past ELEVEN years with a graph that conveniently draws a line of best fit for the last SEVEN years and even that looks bogus to me.</p><p>A casual glance at ALL of the data reveals an upward trend (disregarding the anomaly in 1998). I expect 2010 to be very warm indeed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , you respond to a statement about the data for the past ELEVEN years with a graph that conveniently draws a line of best fit for the last SEVEN years and even that looks bogus to me.A casual glance at ALL of the data reveals an upward trend ( disregarding the anomaly in 1998 ) .
I expect 2010 to be very warm indeed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, you respond to a statement about the data for the past ELEVEN years with a graph that conveniently draws a line of best fit for the last SEVEN years and even that looks bogus to me.A casual glance at ALL of the data reveals an upward trend (disregarding the anomaly in 1998).
I expect 2010 to be very warm indeed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499315</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499377</id>
	<title>Fuck you corpocrate troll</title>
	<author>Nicolas MONNET</author>
	<datestamp>1246110600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The rest of the industrial world (you know, all those countries with universal health care) do not have this problem. The United STates, with its unregulated private market DOES have it. Your private health insurance can refuse to treat your cancer based on "pre-existing conditions;" guess what, the S&eacute;curit&eacute; Sociale or the National Health Service cannot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The rest of the industrial world ( you know , all those countries with universal health care ) do not have this problem .
The United STates , with its unregulated private market DOES have it .
Your private health insurance can refuse to treat your cancer based on " pre-existing conditions ; " guess what , the S   curit   Sociale or the National Health Service can not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The rest of the industrial world (you know, all those countries with universal health care) do not have this problem.
The United STates, with its unregulated private market DOES have it.
Your private health insurance can refuse to treat your cancer based on "pre-existing conditions;" guess what, the Sécurité Sociale or the National Health Service cannot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28498993</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499975</id>
	<title>Re:Did anybody read his paper?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246115280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i> So now the ball is firmly in the court of AGW advocates: what facts would you count as evidence that AGW is NOT occurring? If you can't name any, then your belief is not science but faith.</i> <br>Ok, I'll name one possibility: show me that we've had a cooling trend over the past several decades.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So now the ball is firmly in the court of AGW advocates : what facts would you count as evidence that AGW is NOT occurring ?
If you ca n't name any , then your belief is not science but faith .
Ok , I 'll name one possibility : show me that we 've had a cooling trend over the past several decades .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> So now the ball is firmly in the court of AGW advocates: what facts would you count as evidence that AGW is NOT occurring?
If you can't name any, then your belief is not science but faith.
Ok, I'll name one possibility: show me that we've had a cooling trend over the past several decades.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499421</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500695</id>
	<title>Re:Did anybody read his paper?</title>
	<author>DigiShaman</author>
	<datestamp>1246121340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At what point in Earth's history has it *not* been in a state of phase change? I would imagine the GW models are flawed unless we know at what point the phase-in-progress is at.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At what point in Earth 's history has it * not * been in a state of phase change ?
I would imagine the GW models are flawed unless we know at what point the phase-in-progress is at .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At what point in Earth's history has it *not* been in a state of phase change?
I would imagine the GW models are flawed unless we know at what point the phase-in-progress is at.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499569</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28501755</id>
	<title>Re:Irony and Science</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246220580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's a subtle but interesting irony: The desire to cut CO2 emissions at all costs also "fails to consider the entire constellation of improvements wrought by technology". To this I would add the entire constellation of improvements wrought by burning stuff, metabolizing the energy into something useful for humans.</p><p>In other words, we are rich because we use energy. We have stuff because we burn things, and turn fire into mechanical motion. Technology is clearly a part of it, but we are fat largely because we burn oil to power machines that dam rivers, diverting water to crops, then we harvest the wheat with tractors. In the developed world, we don't worry about getting enough calories because we don't hoe our beans by hand. We live in a perfect climate controlled paradise because we burn coal and then displace heat from our homes with air conditioning. We dedicate hours every day to writing pithy comments on Slashdot, showing off our graduate educations, because we didn't have to haul water powered by our own metabolisms up the hill to our crops. How can anyone argue against the gains that cheap energy has brought us? And yet somehow so many people are willing to blithely say, "let's cap our energy use because we don't know what will happen in 1000 years". No one is talking about what energy has actually done for us, and what it means to cap it.</p><p>The big question here is this: What is the cost of capping energy use? Do we really want to trade what cheap energy does for us, for an infinitesimally small change in the vector of global temperature? I'm sure there are those who would say, yes, at *all* costs, but let's define what that cost is so that the rest of the sane world can actually make the choice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's a subtle but interesting irony : The desire to cut CO2 emissions at all costs also " fails to consider the entire constellation of improvements wrought by technology " .
To this I would add the entire constellation of improvements wrought by burning stuff , metabolizing the energy into something useful for humans.In other words , we are rich because we use energy .
We have stuff because we burn things , and turn fire into mechanical motion .
Technology is clearly a part of it , but we are fat largely because we burn oil to power machines that dam rivers , diverting water to crops , then we harvest the wheat with tractors .
In the developed world , we do n't worry about getting enough calories because we do n't hoe our beans by hand .
We live in a perfect climate controlled paradise because we burn coal and then displace heat from our homes with air conditioning .
We dedicate hours every day to writing pithy comments on Slashdot , showing off our graduate educations , because we did n't have to haul water powered by our own metabolisms up the hill to our crops .
How can anyone argue against the gains that cheap energy has brought us ?
And yet somehow so many people are willing to blithely say , " let 's cap our energy use because we do n't know what will happen in 1000 years " .
No one is talking about what energy has actually done for us , and what it means to cap it.The big question here is this : What is the cost of capping energy use ?
Do we really want to trade what cheap energy does for us , for an infinitesimally small change in the vector of global temperature ?
I 'm sure there are those who would say , yes , at * all * costs , but let 's define what that cost is so that the rest of the sane world can actually make the choice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's a subtle but interesting irony: The desire to cut CO2 emissions at all costs also "fails to consider the entire constellation of improvements wrought by technology".
To this I would add the entire constellation of improvements wrought by burning stuff, metabolizing the energy into something useful for humans.In other words, we are rich because we use energy.
We have stuff because we burn things, and turn fire into mechanical motion.
Technology is clearly a part of it, but we are fat largely because we burn oil to power machines that dam rivers, diverting water to crops, then we harvest the wheat with tractors.
In the developed world, we don't worry about getting enough calories because we don't hoe our beans by hand.
We live in a perfect climate controlled paradise because we burn coal and then displace heat from our homes with air conditioning.
We dedicate hours every day to writing pithy comments on Slashdot, showing off our graduate educations, because we didn't have to haul water powered by our own metabolisms up the hill to our crops.
How can anyone argue against the gains that cheap energy has brought us?
And yet somehow so many people are willing to blithely say, "let's cap our energy use because we don't know what will happen in 1000 years".
No one is talking about what energy has actually done for us, and what it means to cap it.The big question here is this: What is the cost of capping energy use?
Do we really want to trade what cheap energy does for us, for an infinitesimally small change in the vector of global temperature?
I'm sure there are those who would say, yes, at *all* costs, but let's define what that cost is so that the rest of the sane world can actually make the choice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499363</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28501243</id>
	<title>Re:Did anybody read his paper?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246126380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No a BS in physics doesn't qualify you to do meteorology or climatology better than a PhD in meteorology or climatology. Making such a statement indicates you know little of either. You claim to have looked at GCM's and were appalled and what you find. Please enlighten us with how you would replace the surface boundary layer parameterization schemes for a grid spacing of 50km with a closure turbulence scheme. Or maybe you would like to explain exactly how you would solve the growth of cloud droplets which occurs on the scale of meters with a 25km grid spacing in the climate model. Better yet please provide us with an analytic solution for the Navier-Stokes equation on all scales of motion from cloud scales (centimeters to meters) to global scales (100's of kilometer). Considering the parameterization schemes in use and the documented accuracy of the many different climate models it's clear how little you know, Try going to http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/ where you can download the output from more that two dozen different climate models and then try NCDC for the observed data and compare the results. Turns out the results are remarkably good.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No a BS in physics does n't qualify you to do meteorology or climatology better than a PhD in meteorology or climatology .
Making such a statement indicates you know little of either .
You claim to have looked at GCM 's and were appalled and what you find .
Please enlighten us with how you would replace the surface boundary layer parameterization schemes for a grid spacing of 50km with a closure turbulence scheme .
Or maybe you would like to explain exactly how you would solve the growth of cloud droplets which occurs on the scale of meters with a 25km grid spacing in the climate model .
Better yet please provide us with an analytic solution for the Navier-Stokes equation on all scales of motion from cloud scales ( centimeters to meters ) to global scales ( 100 's of kilometer ) .
Considering the parameterization schemes in use and the documented accuracy of the many different climate models it 's clear how little you know , Try going to http : //www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/ where you can download the output from more that two dozen different climate models and then try NCDC for the observed data and compare the results .
Turns out the results are remarkably good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No a BS in physics doesn't qualify you to do meteorology or climatology better than a PhD in meteorology or climatology.
Making such a statement indicates you know little of either.
You claim to have looked at GCM's and were appalled and what you find.
Please enlighten us with how you would replace the surface boundary layer parameterization schemes for a grid spacing of 50km with a closure turbulence scheme.
Or maybe you would like to explain exactly how you would solve the growth of cloud droplets which occurs on the scale of meters with a 25km grid spacing in the climate model.
Better yet please provide us with an analytic solution for the Navier-Stokes equation on all scales of motion from cloud scales (centimeters to meters) to global scales (100's of kilometer).
Considering the parameterization schemes in use and the documented accuracy of the many different climate models it's clear how little you know, Try going to http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/ where you can download the output from more that two dozen different climate models and then try NCDC for the observed data and compare the results.
Turns out the results are remarkably good.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499421</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28506345</id>
	<title>Now that's odd</title>
	<author>Lars T.</author>
	<datestamp>1246221420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Alan Carlin has just recently written an <a href="http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eermfile.nsf/vwAN/EE-0514-01.pdf/$File/EE-0514-01.pdf" title="epa.gov">article</a> [epa.gov], where he not only argues that:<p><div class="quote"><p>This Article finds that the emissions reduction approach would be
ineffective at solving the dangerous climate change effects of global warming
because it would be technically risky, inflexible, extremely expensive,
and politically unrealistic, and would probably delay more effective and
vastly less expensive measures using solar radiation management.</p></div><p>So he clearly does think that Global Warming is real <b>and dangerous</b>. No, he also believes that it can be solved by the well proven science of geo-engineering!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Alan Carlin has just recently written an article [ epa.gov ] , where he not only argues that : This Article finds that the emissions reduction approach would be ineffective at solving the dangerous climate change effects of global warming because it would be technically risky , inflexible , extremely expensive , and politically unrealistic , and would probably delay more effective and vastly less expensive measures using solar radiation management.So he clearly does think that Global Warming is real and dangerous .
No , he also believes that it can be solved by the well proven science of geo-engineering !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Alan Carlin has just recently written an article [epa.gov], where he not only argues that:This Article finds that the emissions reduction approach would be
ineffective at solving the dangerous climate change effects of global warming
because it would be technically risky, inflexible, extremely expensive,
and politically unrealistic, and would probably delay more effective and
vastly less expensive measures using solar radiation management.So he clearly does think that Global Warming is real and dangerous.
No, he also believes that it can be solved by the well proven science of geo-engineering!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28501511</id>
	<title>Scientist view on the matter</title>
	<author>Front Line Assembly</author>
	<datestamp>1246130700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's some scientists view on the matter. Apparently this report is typical for AGW deniers stuff in every way. You decide:<br><a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/bubkes/" title="realclimate.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/bubkes/</a> [realclimate.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's some scientists view on the matter .
Apparently this report is typical for AGW deniers stuff in every way .
You decide : http : //www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/bubkes/ [ realclimate.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's some scientists view on the matter.
Apparently this report is typical for AGW deniers stuff in every way.
You decide:http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/bubkes/ [realclimate.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499791</id>
	<title>Re:Did anybody read his paper?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246113660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Secondly, he also states that global temperatures have fallen for the last 11 years. I really would like to see his work. This article (http://earthtrends.wri.org/updates/node/83), reported in the September 26 issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, shows global temperatures rising for the last 30 years.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>Hmm... is it possible for temperatures to decline in the last 11 years but rise in the past 30.  Uh.  Yes.  The trend since 1998 is decidedly down.  What does that mean?  Well that's a more complex question, but your broad brush covers it up.</p><p>I suggest reading the following to get a taste of the counter-argument to the EPA's finding:</p><blockquote><div><ul>
<li> <a href="http://icecap.us/images/uploads/EPA\_ChristyJR\_Response\_2.pdf" title="icecap.us">John Christy</a> [icecap.us] </li><li> <a href="http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/06/epa-endangerment-finding-my-submitted-comments/" title="drroyspencer.com">Roy Spencer</a> [drroyspencer.com] </li><li> <a href="http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/McIntyre\_Submission\_to\_EPA.pdf" title="climateaudit.org">Steve McIntyre</a> [climateaudit.org] </li><li> <a href="http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CSPPIPCC+CCSPBias06-23-09.pdf" title="icecap.us">Dr. Roger Pielke Sr.</a> [icecap.us] </li></ul></div> </blockquote><p>
These all address concerns about the lack of underlying science--not the political/economics issues.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Secondly , he also states that global temperatures have fallen for the last 11 years .
I really would like to see his work .
This article ( http : //earthtrends.wri.org/updates/node/83 ) , reported in the September 26 issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , shows global temperatures rising for the last 30 years .
Hmm... is it possible for temperatures to decline in the last 11 years but rise in the past 30 .
Uh. Yes .
The trend since 1998 is decidedly down .
What does that mean ?
Well that 's a more complex question , but your broad brush covers it up.I suggest reading the following to get a taste of the counter-argument to the EPA 's finding : John Christy [ icecap.us ] Roy Spencer [ drroyspencer.com ] Steve McIntyre [ climateaudit.org ] Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. [ icecap.us ] These all address concerns about the lack of underlying science--not the political/economics issues .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Secondly, he also states that global temperatures have fallen for the last 11 years.
I really would like to see his work.
This article (http://earthtrends.wri.org/updates/node/83), reported in the September 26 issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, shows global temperatures rising for the last 30 years.
Hmm... is it possible for temperatures to decline in the last 11 years but rise in the past 30.
Uh.  Yes.
The trend since 1998 is decidedly down.
What does that mean?
Well that's a more complex question, but your broad brush covers it up.I suggest reading the following to get a taste of the counter-argument to the EPA's finding:
 John Christy [icecap.us]  Roy Spencer [drroyspencer.com]  Steve McIntyre [climateaudit.org]  Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. [icecap.us]  
These all address concerns about the lack of underlying science--not the political/economics issues.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499039</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28503797</id>
	<title>Re:Did anybody read his paper?</title>
	<author>mckyj57</author>
	<datestamp>1246204320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>If you read through the entire article, you can find some interesting information on what it was he wanted us to do. Instead of regulating CO2 emissions, he states that it is more economical to reduce the amount of radiation from the sun that reaches the earth. I don't really understand his position. In effect, he's saying, "I don't believe in global warming. However, even if I did, there's no reason to regulate CO2 emissions."</i><br>He's against limiting CO2 because he doesn't believe it can work. Neither do I. Even Waxman-Markey proponents agree that it will have an insignificant effect on world temperatures.</p><p><i>He seems bent against regulation of CO2 at any cost.</i></p><p>That's semantically a bit over the top.</p><p><i>Secondly, he also states that global temperatures have fallen for the last 11 years. I really would like to see his work. This article (http://earthtrends.wri.org/updates/node/83), reported in the September 26 issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, shows global temperatures rising for the last 30 years.</i></p><p>As they have apparently risen and fallen for millenia, in 30 year cycles. Now they are falling again. The IPCC graphs that the EPA is basing their engangerment finding on? Not a single one of them shows a falling. As it has for the last 10 years since the El-Nino-influenced year of 1998. More importantly, they have also fallen since 2002.</p><p><i> This man strikes me as being very much against any type of environmental regulation, and I'm not surprised that the EPA is trying to silence him.</i><br>The EPA is not supposed to silence anyone. I am a bit shocked that you think<br>that silencing an opposing scientific viewpoint is OK. Of course that is the<br>constant tactic of many environmentalists....I suppose you might be one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you read through the entire article , you can find some interesting information on what it was he wanted us to do .
Instead of regulating CO2 emissions , he states that it is more economical to reduce the amount of radiation from the sun that reaches the earth .
I do n't really understand his position .
In effect , he 's saying , " I do n't believe in global warming .
However , even if I did , there 's no reason to regulate CO2 emissions .
" He 's against limiting CO2 because he does n't believe it can work .
Neither do I. Even Waxman-Markey proponents agree that it will have an insignificant effect on world temperatures.He seems bent against regulation of CO2 at any cost.That 's semantically a bit over the top.Secondly , he also states that global temperatures have fallen for the last 11 years .
I really would like to see his work .
This article ( http : //earthtrends.wri.org/updates/node/83 ) , reported in the September 26 issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , shows global temperatures rising for the last 30 years.As they have apparently risen and fallen for millenia , in 30 year cycles .
Now they are falling again .
The IPCC graphs that the EPA is basing their engangerment finding on ?
Not a single one of them shows a falling .
As it has for the last 10 years since the El-Nino-influenced year of 1998 .
More importantly , they have also fallen since 2002 .
This man strikes me as being very much against any type of environmental regulation , and I 'm not surprised that the EPA is trying to silence him.The EPA is not supposed to silence anyone .
I am a bit shocked that you thinkthat silencing an opposing scientific viewpoint is OK. Of course that is theconstant tactic of many environmentalists....I suppose you might be one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you read through the entire article, you can find some interesting information on what it was he wanted us to do.
Instead of regulating CO2 emissions, he states that it is more economical to reduce the amount of radiation from the sun that reaches the earth.
I don't really understand his position.
In effect, he's saying, "I don't believe in global warming.
However, even if I did, there's no reason to regulate CO2 emissions.
"He's against limiting CO2 because he doesn't believe it can work.
Neither do I. Even Waxman-Markey proponents agree that it will have an insignificant effect on world temperatures.He seems bent against regulation of CO2 at any cost.That's semantically a bit over the top.Secondly, he also states that global temperatures have fallen for the last 11 years.
I really would like to see his work.
This article (http://earthtrends.wri.org/updates/node/83), reported in the September 26 issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, shows global temperatures rising for the last 30 years.As they have apparently risen and fallen for millenia, in 30 year cycles.
Now they are falling again.
The IPCC graphs that the EPA is basing their engangerment finding on?
Not a single one of them shows a falling.
As it has for the last 10 years since the El-Nino-influenced year of 1998.
More importantly, they have also fallen since 2002.
This man strikes me as being very much against any type of environmental regulation, and I'm not surprised that the EPA is trying to silence him.The EPA is not supposed to silence anyone.
I am a bit shocked that you thinkthat silencing an opposing scientific viewpoint is OK. Of course that is theconstant tactic of many environmentalists....I suppose you might be one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499039</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28503161</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder....</title>
	<author>jo\_ham</author>
	<datestamp>1246198920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, there's the government's point of view, and then there are "scientific" papers like this one that claim that since deaths from heat stroke have gone down and that crop yields have gone up, that atmospheric CO2 concentration isn't really a problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , there 's the government 's point of view , and then there are " scientific " papers like this one that claim that since deaths from heat stroke have gone down and that crop yields have gone up , that atmospheric CO2 concentration is n't really a problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, there's the government's point of view, and then there are "scientific" papers like this one that claim that since deaths from heat stroke have gone down and that crop yields have gone up, that atmospheric CO2 concentration isn't really a problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28498967</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499293</id>
	<title>Climate change denialism</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246110120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The position of the previous adminstration was not based on scientific consensus: it was based on political opinion and a lot of wishful thinking by a lot of people who thought that if they wished hard enough, that reality would change to fit their world-view.  You can't really expect more from politicians who base is composed of free market fundamentalists and young Earth creationists.</p><p>On the other hand, the Obama administration, much to their credit, are far more reality-based, and have a much more rational world view generally.  Senior Obama advisors are a veritable who's who of great minds.  Wooly disfunctional thinking won't get you very far with this lot.</p><p>So when a bureaucrat holdover from the previous administration starts trying to claim that there is anything but overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change, he deserves to have his arse kicked for his stupidity.</p><p>Modded +1 Darwin Bait.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The position of the previous adminstration was not based on scientific consensus : it was based on political opinion and a lot of wishful thinking by a lot of people who thought that if they wished hard enough , that reality would change to fit their world-view .
You ca n't really expect more from politicians who base is composed of free market fundamentalists and young Earth creationists.On the other hand , the Obama administration , much to their credit , are far more reality-based , and have a much more rational world view generally .
Senior Obama advisors are a veritable who 's who of great minds .
Wooly disfunctional thinking wo n't get you very far with this lot.So when a bureaucrat holdover from the previous administration starts trying to claim that there is anything but overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change , he deserves to have his arse kicked for his stupidity.Modded + 1 Darwin Bait .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The position of the previous adminstration was not based on scientific consensus: it was based on political opinion and a lot of wishful thinking by a lot of people who thought that if they wished hard enough, that reality would change to fit their world-view.
You can't really expect more from politicians who base is composed of free market fundamentalists and young Earth creationists.On the other hand, the Obama administration, much to their credit, are far more reality-based, and have a much more rational world view generally.
Senior Obama advisors are a veritable who's who of great minds.
Wooly disfunctional thinking won't get you very far with this lot.So when a bureaucrat holdover from the previous administration starts trying to claim that there is anything but overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change, he deserves to have his arse kicked for his stupidity.Modded +1 Darwin Bait.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499553</id>
	<title>A few bits of info...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246111800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Secondly, he also states that global temperatures have fallen for the last 11 years</p></div></blockquote><p>AFAIK, this is true*.  1998 was a particularly warm year, and recent mean global temperatures (MGT) are about 0.1 degrees Celsius cooler than they were in 1998. Draw a straight line between these points**, and you get a nice convinient cooling trend.  This cooling, however, is nothing compared to the overall trend though (roughly a MGT increase of 1 degree in the last 150 years). Unfortunately, '<em>the planet has cooled!</em>' ia a handy soundbite.</p><p>Solar emissions, ENSO, and other contributing factors to MGT vary, some of them cyclicly, and this is why <a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental\_Temperature\_Record.png" title="wikimedia.org" rel="nofollow">the graph of MGT</a> [wikimedia.org]*** has peaks and ditches. We're just in a minor ditch right now. The only bit of trouble is that the ditch is halfway up a mountain.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p><p>----<br>*The source for this shaky assertion is my geography teacher, so bear this in mind.<br>**Not an accurate model of temperature fluctuations.<br>***Search for 'hockey stick graph' for the same graph, but with 'older' temperatures added.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Secondly , he also states that global temperatures have fallen for the last 11 yearsAFAIK , this is true * .
1998 was a particularly warm year , and recent mean global temperatures ( MGT ) are about 0.1 degrees Celsius cooler than they were in 1998 .
Draw a straight line between these points * * , and you get a nice convinient cooling trend .
This cooling , however , is nothing compared to the overall trend though ( roughly a MGT increase of 1 degree in the last 150 years ) .
Unfortunately , 'the planet has cooled !
' ia a handy soundbite.Solar emissions , ENSO , and other contributing factors to MGT vary , some of them cyclicly , and this is why the graph of MGT [ wikimedia.org ] * * * has peaks and ditches .
We 're just in a minor ditch right now .
The only bit of trouble is that the ditch is halfway up a mountain .
: ( ---- * The source for this shaky assertion is my geography teacher , so bear this in mind .
* * Not an accurate model of temperature fluctuations .
* * * Search for 'hockey stick graph ' for the same graph , but with 'older ' temperatures added .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Secondly, he also states that global temperatures have fallen for the last 11 yearsAFAIK, this is true*.
1998 was a particularly warm year, and recent mean global temperatures (MGT) are about 0.1 degrees Celsius cooler than they were in 1998.
Draw a straight line between these points**, and you get a nice convinient cooling trend.
This cooling, however, is nothing compared to the overall trend though (roughly a MGT increase of 1 degree in the last 150 years).
Unfortunately, 'the planet has cooled!
' ia a handy soundbite.Solar emissions, ENSO, and other contributing factors to MGT vary, some of them cyclicly, and this is why the graph of MGT [wikimedia.org]*** has peaks and ditches.
We're just in a minor ditch right now.
The only bit of trouble is that the ditch is halfway up a mountain.
:(----*The source for this shaky assertion is my geography teacher, so bear this in mind.
**Not an accurate model of temperature fluctuations.
***Search for 'hockey stick graph' for the same graph, but with 'older' temperatures added.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499039</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28502349</id>
	<title>The scientific method applies to climate science</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246188900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In <a href="http://danielberinson.blogspot.com/2009/05/scientific-method.html" title="blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">this article</a> [blogspot.com], the author writes, "Science is not a popularity contest. The assertions we make, our assumptions and methodology, must stand up to critical scrutiny in order to carry any weight. Anyone with an elementary education should be able to understand and bear witness to such an exposition if it is carried out clearly and free of unnecessary jargon. We can all understand and judge for ourselves the difference between good science and bad science."  I suggest you read Carlin's paper, it's quite accessible, and draw your own conclusions about the quality and worth of his comments.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In this article [ blogspot.com ] , the author writes , " Science is not a popularity contest .
The assertions we make , our assumptions and methodology , must stand up to critical scrutiny in order to carry any weight .
Anyone with an elementary education should be able to understand and bear witness to such an exposition if it is carried out clearly and free of unnecessary jargon .
We can all understand and judge for ourselves the difference between good science and bad science .
" I suggest you read Carlin 's paper , it 's quite accessible , and draw your own conclusions about the quality and worth of his comments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In this article [blogspot.com], the author writes, "Science is not a popularity contest.
The assertions we make, our assumptions and methodology, must stand up to critical scrutiny in order to carry any weight.
Anyone with an elementary education should be able to understand and bear witness to such an exposition if it is carried out clearly and free of unnecessary jargon.
We can all understand and judge for ourselves the difference between good science and bad science.
"  I suggest you read Carlin's paper, it's quite accessible, and draw your own conclusions about the quality and worth of his comments.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28502755</id>
	<title>Re:Global warming is real</title>
	<author>lucm</author>
	<datestamp>1246194300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Global warming is very real, and has been measured all over the planet; look up some of the studies that have been done on the polar ice caps.</p><p>Apparently Alan Carlin, a 38-year veteran with the EPA, disagree with you. But wait, maybe he did not witness your Melbourne summers, you should definitely send him a memo so he could rectify his report!</p><p>&gt; The only people who want to believe that global warming isn't occurring are the capitalist fanatic</p><p>This logic reminds me of a quote from the Art professor Luther in the movie Glory Daze: "It is poetry that will save the world, not commerce"</p><p>&gt; These people need to be silenced. We need to move past the debate stage, and into the stage where we start taking concrete action to rectify the problem.</p><p>Hey, you could take this statement and make a book about it. But first make sure you don't get sued for stealing Intellectual Property from "Mein Kampf".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Global warming is very real , and has been measured all over the planet ; look up some of the studies that have been done on the polar ice caps.Apparently Alan Carlin , a 38-year veteran with the EPA , disagree with you .
But wait , maybe he did not witness your Melbourne summers , you should definitely send him a memo so he could rectify his report ! &gt; The only people who want to believe that global warming is n't occurring are the capitalist fanaticThis logic reminds me of a quote from the Art professor Luther in the movie Glory Daze : " It is poetry that will save the world , not commerce " &gt; These people need to be silenced .
We need to move past the debate stage , and into the stage where we start taking concrete action to rectify the problem.Hey , you could take this statement and make a book about it .
But first make sure you do n't get sued for stealing Intellectual Property from " Mein Kampf " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Global warming is very real, and has been measured all over the planet; look up some of the studies that have been done on the polar ice caps.Apparently Alan Carlin, a 38-year veteran with the EPA, disagree with you.
But wait, maybe he did not witness your Melbourne summers, you should definitely send him a memo so he could rectify his report!&gt; The only people who want to believe that global warming isn't occurring are the capitalist fanaticThis logic reminds me of a quote from the Art professor Luther in the movie Glory Daze: "It is poetry that will save the world, not commerce"&gt; These people need to be silenced.
We need to move past the debate stage, and into the stage where we start taking concrete action to rectify the problem.Hey, you could take this statement and make a book about it.
But first make sure you don't get sued for stealing Intellectual Property from "Mein Kampf".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28501959</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500317</id>
	<title>Check the references</title>
	<author>microbox</author>
	<datestamp>1246118400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are lots of environmental problems, just as mercury in the oceans. They should all be addressed, really. However, the forces of greed and ignorance make any sort of progress extremely difficult. And then there's a bunch of hostile crazy environmentalists who sabotage their own case.<br>
<br>
You talk about AGW "fear-mongers", which makes me think you really haven't understood what's really going on. What's really going on is a bunch of corporate public relations firms are spread disinformation on global warming, in a completely dishonest way. They know that people wont bother to look beneath the surface of their claims, and so the FUD stands. If you don't believe me, then you should read the original papers yourself, and <i>then check the references</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are lots of environmental problems , just as mercury in the oceans .
They should all be addressed , really .
However , the forces of greed and ignorance make any sort of progress extremely difficult .
And then there 's a bunch of hostile crazy environmentalists who sabotage their own case .
You talk about AGW " fear-mongers " , which makes me think you really have n't understood what 's really going on .
What 's really going on is a bunch of corporate public relations firms are spread disinformation on global warming , in a completely dishonest way .
They know that people wont bother to look beneath the surface of their claims , and so the FUD stands .
If you do n't believe me , then you should read the original papers yourself , and then check the references</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are lots of environmental problems, just as mercury in the oceans.
They should all be addressed, really.
However, the forces of greed and ignorance make any sort of progress extremely difficult.
And then there's a bunch of hostile crazy environmentalists who sabotage their own case.
You talk about AGW "fear-mongers", which makes me think you really haven't understood what's really going on.
What's really going on is a bunch of corporate public relations firms are spread disinformation on global warming, in a completely dishonest way.
They know that people wont bother to look beneath the surface of their claims, and so the FUD stands.
If you don't believe me, then you should read the original papers yourself, and then check the references</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499137</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500291</id>
	<title>Re:The Administration modded this guy troll too!</title>
	<author>dogmatixpsych</author>
	<datestamp>1246118040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Further, if we warm up the earth enough maybe we can flood LA and give it a good old ocean scrubbing.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)<br> <br>
[I'm only partially kidding].</htmltext>
<tokenext>Further , if we warm up the earth enough maybe we can flood LA and give it a good old ocean scrubbing .
: ) [ I 'm only partially kidding ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Further, if we warm up the earth enough maybe we can flood LA and give it a good old ocean scrubbing.
:) 
[I'm only partially kidding].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499399</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28512931</id>
	<title>Hippies</title>
	<author>kenp2002</author>
	<datestamp>1246283940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess I am old enouh to remember Global Ice Age. I remember the debates (hysteria) and noting has changed. Same scientists, same students, same nonsense.</p><p>People, we are devolving so damn fast you can't even have a discussion anymore. No one even knows what that word means it seems.</p><p>You have torn yourselves apart ideologically, socially, and spiritually.</p><p>You will never solve Roe v. Wade, Climate Change, or any other problem because you have lost your ability to function as a whole.</p><p>The comments, no, hysteria, that occurs any time someone challenges Islam, Climate Change, politics, Scientology, etc shows that we have failed as a society.</p><p>Facts speak for themselves. They don't need spin, they don't need long winded teardowns of the oppositions. Data is data and people will draw conclusions from it. This climate Jihad nonsense has to end.</p><p>The Global Warming Loons tell us we have to stop killing mother earth out of the left side of their mouth but tell us we are already doomed out of the right.</p><p>The anti-global warming goons tell us it is just sun spots, normal, bad data etc. But enter into the same name calling nonsense as the other side.</p><p>You have torn yourselves apart and learned nothing in the process. You've been blinded by your own sense of self rightiousness and intellectual superiority. You worship mankind. You worship youselves.</p><p>You have constructed your own self absorb religion around your own idealogical beliefs, compartmentalized your own existence, and reduced humanity to Me vs. Them.</p><p>The green crowd wants you to be 'green' but you are never green enough. Your never conservative, liberal, green, muslim, christian, pro-military, anti-military, what ever cause you lay claim to.</p><p>I have watched in my own lifetime humanity fall to lows I could never imagine. And while you tear one another part, mentally, physically, and spiritiually, everything around us suffers. Earth itself suffers our misdeeds.</p><p>Regardless of what you think, how can anyone expect to solve the problems around us when we cannot solve the problem in the mirror?</p><p>To hate we have become enslaved, rationalizing our personal war against the "they", "them", and "those" that stand against us.</p><p>You have fallen from being humans to machines. On and Off, Yes and No. The world is not digital but here you are, us v. them.</p><p>I heard in a coffee shop and old man utter the most painful thing I have heard:</p><p>"Humanity in the 21th century has become an embarrasment to the past."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess I am old enouh to remember Global Ice Age .
I remember the debates ( hysteria ) and noting has changed .
Same scientists , same students , same nonsense.People , we are devolving so damn fast you ca n't even have a discussion anymore .
No one even knows what that word means it seems.You have torn yourselves apart ideologically , socially , and spiritually.You will never solve Roe v. Wade , Climate Change , or any other problem because you have lost your ability to function as a whole.The comments , no , hysteria , that occurs any time someone challenges Islam , Climate Change , politics , Scientology , etc shows that we have failed as a society.Facts speak for themselves .
They do n't need spin , they do n't need long winded teardowns of the oppositions .
Data is data and people will draw conclusions from it .
This climate Jihad nonsense has to end.The Global Warming Loons tell us we have to stop killing mother earth out of the left side of their mouth but tell us we are already doomed out of the right.The anti-global warming goons tell us it is just sun spots , normal , bad data etc .
But enter into the same name calling nonsense as the other side.You have torn yourselves apart and learned nothing in the process .
You 've been blinded by your own sense of self rightiousness and intellectual superiority .
You worship mankind .
You worship youselves.You have constructed your own self absorb religion around your own idealogical beliefs , compartmentalized your own existence , and reduced humanity to Me vs. Them.The green crowd wants you to be 'green ' but you are never green enough .
Your never conservative , liberal , green , muslim , christian , pro-military , anti-military , what ever cause you lay claim to.I have watched in my own lifetime humanity fall to lows I could never imagine .
And while you tear one another part , mentally , physically , and spiritiually , everything around us suffers .
Earth itself suffers our misdeeds.Regardless of what you think , how can anyone expect to solve the problems around us when we can not solve the problem in the mirror ? To hate we have become enslaved , rationalizing our personal war against the " they " , " them " , and " those " that stand against us.You have fallen from being humans to machines .
On and Off , Yes and No .
The world is not digital but here you are , us v. them.I heard in a coffee shop and old man utter the most painful thing I have heard : " Humanity in the 21th century has become an embarrasment to the past .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess I am old enouh to remember Global Ice Age.
I remember the debates (hysteria) and noting has changed.
Same scientists, same students, same nonsense.People, we are devolving so damn fast you can't even have a discussion anymore.
No one even knows what that word means it seems.You have torn yourselves apart ideologically, socially, and spiritually.You will never solve Roe v. Wade, Climate Change, or any other problem because you have lost your ability to function as a whole.The comments, no, hysteria, that occurs any time someone challenges Islam, Climate Change, politics, Scientology, etc shows that we have failed as a society.Facts speak for themselves.
They don't need spin, they don't need long winded teardowns of the oppositions.
Data is data and people will draw conclusions from it.
This climate Jihad nonsense has to end.The Global Warming Loons tell us we have to stop killing mother earth out of the left side of their mouth but tell us we are already doomed out of the right.The anti-global warming goons tell us it is just sun spots, normal, bad data etc.
But enter into the same name calling nonsense as the other side.You have torn yourselves apart and learned nothing in the process.
You've been blinded by your own sense of self rightiousness and intellectual superiority.
You worship mankind.
You worship youselves.You have constructed your own self absorb religion around your own idealogical beliefs, compartmentalized your own existence, and reduced humanity to Me vs. Them.The green crowd wants you to be 'green' but you are never green enough.
Your never conservative, liberal, green, muslim, christian, pro-military, anti-military, what ever cause you lay claim to.I have watched in my own lifetime humanity fall to lows I could never imagine.
And while you tear one another part, mentally, physically, and spiritiually, everything around us suffers.
Earth itself suffers our misdeeds.Regardless of what you think, how can anyone expect to solve the problems around us when we cannot solve the problem in the mirror?To hate we have become enslaved, rationalizing our personal war against the "they", "them", and "those" that stand against us.You have fallen from being humans to machines.
On and Off, Yes and No.
The world is not digital but here you are, us v. them.I heard in a coffee shop and old man utter the most painful thing I have heard:"Humanity in the 21th century has become an embarrasment to the past.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499519</id>
	<title>USA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246111560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is this a great country or what?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this a great country or what ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this a great country or what?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499179</id>
	<title>Follow the money</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246109160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just watch how much of the "cap and trade" taxes are sent to Al Gore's company.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just watch how much of the " cap and trade " taxes are sent to Al Gore 's company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just watch how much of the "cap and trade" taxes are sent to Al Gore's company.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28501969</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246182300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"if the community has had things withheld from its judgment"</p><p>If the scientific community has to listen to *every* dissenting voice -even from non-scientists- before anything gets done, it'd be very easy to cause nothing to ever get done - just as certain special interests want it in this case.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" if the community has had things withheld from its judgment " If the scientific community has to listen to * every * dissenting voice -even from non-scientists- before anything gets done , it 'd be very easy to cause nothing to ever get done - just as certain special interests want it in this case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"if the community has had things withheld from its judgment"If the scientific community has to listen to *every* dissenting voice -even from non-scientists- before anything gets done, it'd be very easy to cause nothing to ever get done - just as certain special interests want it in this case.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499145</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499831</id>
	<title>Re:Fuck you corpocrate troll</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246114140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, you just wait x months for treatment and hopefully don't die beforehand.<br>http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/cancer-waiting-list-details-erased-as-targets-are-missed-584007.html</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , you just wait x months for treatment and hopefully do n't die beforehand.http : //www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/cancer-waiting-list-details-erased-as-targets-are-missed-584007.html</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, you just wait x months for treatment and hopefully don't die beforehand.http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/cancer-waiting-list-details-erased-as-targets-are-missed-584007.html</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499377</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500933</id>
	<title>Re:Did anybody read his paper?</title>
	<author>radtea</author>
	<datestamp>1246123500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Two other things:  I said nothing about exceeding 1998.  I said the data since then look like noise.  According to the graph I linked, we have exceeded 1998 in the early 2000's, so using "we have not exceeded 1998" as an element in any argument is pretty strange, and more evidence that this debate has become data-free.</p><p>Secondly:  why do you mention tracking hurricanes?  I wasn't aware there was any strong evidence that the strength or frequency of hurricanes was in any way related to AGW, except in popular mythology.</p><p>The third of my two things:  temperatures in Antarctica are generally falling, including some records that have been kept for many decades.  It is problematic to accept Arctic warming as evidence for AGW and dismiss Antarctic cooling as disconfirming.</p><p>I am a an empiricist, and the GCMs are very poor models of empirical reality, so I'm concerned that an extremely complex effect in a highly non-linear system is considered confirmed based on a simple sign in the Arctic, but not dismissed on the basis of the opposite sign in the Antarctic.  The same level of complexity should apply to the analysis at both poles.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Two other things : I said nothing about exceeding 1998 .
I said the data since then look like noise .
According to the graph I linked , we have exceeded 1998 in the early 2000 's , so using " we have not exceeded 1998 " as an element in any argument is pretty strange , and more evidence that this debate has become data-free.Secondly : why do you mention tracking hurricanes ?
I was n't aware there was any strong evidence that the strength or frequency of hurricanes was in any way related to AGW , except in popular mythology.The third of my two things : temperatures in Antarctica are generally falling , including some records that have been kept for many decades .
It is problematic to accept Arctic warming as evidence for AGW and dismiss Antarctic cooling as disconfirming.I am a an empiricist , and the GCMs are very poor models of empirical reality , so I 'm concerned that an extremely complex effect in a highly non-linear system is considered confirmed based on a simple sign in the Arctic , but not dismissed on the basis of the opposite sign in the Antarctic .
The same level of complexity should apply to the analysis at both poles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Two other things:  I said nothing about exceeding 1998.
I said the data since then look like noise.
According to the graph I linked, we have exceeded 1998 in the early 2000's, so using "we have not exceeded 1998" as an element in any argument is pretty strange, and more evidence that this debate has become data-free.Secondly:  why do you mention tracking hurricanes?
I wasn't aware there was any strong evidence that the strength or frequency of hurricanes was in any way related to AGW, except in popular mythology.The third of my two things:  temperatures in Antarctica are generally falling, including some records that have been kept for many decades.
It is problematic to accept Arctic warming as evidence for AGW and dismiss Antarctic cooling as disconfirming.I am a an empiricist, and the GCMs are very poor models of empirical reality, so I'm concerned that an extremely complex effect in a highly non-linear system is considered confirmed based on a simple sign in the Arctic, but not dismissed on the basis of the opposite sign in the Antarctic.
The same level of complexity should apply to the analysis at both poles.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500111</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500245</id>
	<title>Re:The Administration modded this guy troll too!</title>
	<author>joocemann</author>
	<datestamp>1246117680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're wrong in that you do not have the necessary education to understand the observable data in a relevant and significant manner.</p><p>That is why you are having problems.  You can understand, but it will take work and effort to learn on your part.  The great thing about science is that published work is reproducible.  You can be the guy who reproduces the established work you are currently skeptic of.  This happens a lot in science because skepticism is a big part of the peer review process.</p><p>I'm sorry you don't get it; if you were a horse, you're going to have to lead yourself to the water to quench your thirst for a better understanding of reality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're wrong in that you do not have the necessary education to understand the observable data in a relevant and significant manner.That is why you are having problems .
You can understand , but it will take work and effort to learn on your part .
The great thing about science is that published work is reproducible .
You can be the guy who reproduces the established work you are currently skeptic of .
This happens a lot in science because skepticism is a big part of the peer review process.I 'm sorry you do n't get it ; if you were a horse , you 're going to have to lead yourself to the water to quench your thirst for a better understanding of reality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're wrong in that you do not have the necessary education to understand the observable data in a relevant and significant manner.That is why you are having problems.
You can understand, but it will take work and effort to learn on your part.
The great thing about science is that published work is reproducible.
You can be the guy who reproduces the established work you are currently skeptic of.
This happens a lot in science because skepticism is a big part of the peer review process.I'm sorry you don't get it; if you were a horse, you're going to have to lead yourself to the water to quench your thirst for a better understanding of reality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28501371</id>
	<title>No Story Here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246128120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Al Gore said that the debate is over.  He meant it.  Now pay up.  The economy is down and the government is a hurtin'</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Al Gore said that the debate is over .
He meant it .
Now pay up .
The economy is down and the government is a hurtin'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Al Gore said that the debate is over.
He meant it.
Now pay up.
The economy is down and the government is a hurtin'</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28501311</id>
	<title>banjobob2</title>
	<author>banjobob2</author>
	<datestamp>1246127340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does anyone remember the EPA's study on second hand smoke?  Participates complained that the study was changed to meet the hyppothesis and further no one was able to confirm the EPA's results, even the the WHO (another politically charged org.)  The EPA has no credibility as it is a political entity with a track record of political agendas.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does anyone remember the EPA 's study on second hand smoke ?
Participates complained that the study was changed to meet the hyppothesis and further no one was able to confirm the EPA 's results , even the the WHO ( another politically charged org .
) The EPA has no credibility as it is a political entity with a track record of political agendas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does anyone remember the EPA's study on second hand smoke?
Participates complained that the study was changed to meet the hyppothesis and further no one was able to confirm the EPA's results, even the the WHO (another politically charged org.
)  The EPA has no credibility as it is a political entity with a track record of political agendas.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28501281</id>
	<title>Re:Irony and Science</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246126920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Item two parallels some of the arguments made in <i>The Skeptical Environmentalist</i>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Item two parallels some of the arguments made in The Skeptical Environmentalist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Item two parallels some of the arguments made in The Skeptical Environmentalist.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499363</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28502229</id>
	<title>Re:The Administration modded this guy troll too!</title>
	<author>mikechant</author>
	<datestamp>1246186920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It's funny how anything not pro global warming is instantly modded troll and here</i></p><p>Funny, I see posts which boil down to 'global warming is a bunch of lies cos I say so' modded up to +5 insightful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's funny how anything not pro global warming is instantly modded troll and hereFunny , I see posts which boil down to 'global warming is a bunch of lies cos I say so ' modded up to + 5 insightful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's funny how anything not pro global warming is instantly modded troll and hereFunny, I see posts which boil down to 'global warming is a bunch of lies cos I say so' modded up to +5 insightful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499793</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499035</id>
	<title>Depends on what you think of Economics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246108020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Alan Carlin (BS Physics-Caltech, PhD Econ-MIT), describing him as 'not a scientist.'</p></div><p>So what makes him a scientist, having a bachelor's degree in Physics, or a doctorate in Economics? 'Cause I know how y'all treat the "social sciences" around here</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Alan Carlin ( BS Physics-Caltech , PhD Econ-MIT ) , describing him as 'not a scientist .
'So what makes him a scientist , having a bachelor 's degree in Physics , or a doctorate in Economics ?
'Cause I know how y'all treat the " social sciences " around here</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Alan Carlin (BS Physics-Caltech, PhD Econ-MIT), describing him as 'not a scientist.
'So what makes him a scientist, having a bachelor's degree in Physics, or a doctorate in Economics?
'Cause I know how y'all treat the "social sciences" around here
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28501249</id>
	<title>Re:I agree</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246126440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Okay, what is a climate scientist?  The so called "climate scientists" depend on statistical models created by economists.  I would say that an under grad degree Physics and a Doctorate in Econ would surely rate this person as a climate scientist.  The head climate scientist at the IPCC is a Political Scientist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , what is a climate scientist ?
The so called " climate scientists " depend on statistical models created by economists .
I would say that an under grad degree Physics and a Doctorate in Econ would surely rate this person as a climate scientist .
The head climate scientist at the IPCC is a Political Scientist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay, what is a climate scientist?
The so called "climate scientists" depend on statistical models created by economists.
I would say that an under grad degree Physics and a Doctorate in Econ would surely rate this person as a climate scientist.
The head climate scientist at the IPCC is a Political Scientist.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499031</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499433</id>
	<title>Re:Problems with the US Temperature Record</title>
	<author>Snocone</author>
	<datestamp>1246110900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is that airport temperature sensors are designed to provide temperature information relevant to airplanes taking off. Unfortunately, those measurements are by design -- correct design for their purpose, mind you -- reflective of urban heat island bias.</p><p>If you're not working from satellite data, you're working from intrinsically unreliable data which even with the best will in the world (which in practice is almost <i>suspiciously</i> lacking) wouldn't be scientifically sound.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that airport temperature sensors are designed to provide temperature information relevant to airplanes taking off .
Unfortunately , those measurements are by design -- correct design for their purpose , mind you -- reflective of urban heat island bias.If you 're not working from satellite data , you 're working from intrinsically unreliable data which even with the best will in the world ( which in practice is almost suspiciously lacking ) would n't be scientifically sound .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that airport temperature sensors are designed to provide temperature information relevant to airplanes taking off.
Unfortunately, those measurements are by design -- correct design for their purpose, mind you -- reflective of urban heat island bias.If you're not working from satellite data, you're working from intrinsically unreliable data which even with the best will in the world (which in practice is almost suspiciously lacking) wouldn't be scientifically sound.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499153</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499615</id>
	<title>He's a Privatisation Agitator from way back</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246112220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you really need to look into who this person is and his body of work is easy to investigate; here he is agitating for the privatization of public lands, like the Grand Canyon</p><p>http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&amp;metadataPrefix=html&amp;identifier=AD0660118</p><p>I his book "Environmental investments"  his hypothesis reads like a Rand wet dream, "We must look to voluntary enforcement" yeah, that works out well.</p><p>How about the EPA just quashes his stupid "The corporations will solve this problem on their own" stupidity and leaves his ideas where they did the world the worst, back in the 60s.</p><p>Economists aren't even able to predict obvious bubbles in the housing and creidt market, let's not allow them to try and do the same to Environmental protection, okay?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you really need to look into who this person is and his body of work is easy to investigate ; here he is agitating for the privatization of public lands , like the Grand Canyonhttp : //oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai ? verb = getRecord&amp;metadataPrefix = html&amp;identifier = AD0660118I his book " Environmental investments " his hypothesis reads like a Rand wet dream , " We must look to voluntary enforcement " yeah , that works out well.How about the EPA just quashes his stupid " The corporations will solve this problem on their own " stupidity and leaves his ideas where they did the world the worst , back in the 60s.Economists are n't even able to predict obvious bubbles in the housing and creidt market , let 's not allow them to try and do the same to Environmental protection , okay ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you really need to look into who this person is and his body of work is easy to investigate; here he is agitating for the privatization of public lands, like the Grand Canyonhttp://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&amp;metadataPrefix=html&amp;identifier=AD0660118I his book "Environmental investments"  his hypothesis reads like a Rand wet dream, "We must look to voluntary enforcement" yeah, that works out well.How about the EPA just quashes his stupid "The corporations will solve this problem on their own" stupidity and leaves his ideas where they did the world the worst, back in the 60s.Economists aren't even able to predict obvious bubbles in the housing and creidt market, let's not allow them to try and do the same to Environmental protection, okay?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28507213</id>
	<title>Re:I agree</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246185900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of our most well-known climate scientists, Jim Hansen,  has degrees in physics and astronomy. Head of IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri has PhD in Industrial Engineering and in Economics, Michael Mann, author of famous hockey stick holds degrees in Physics and Applied Math and PhD in Geology &amp; Geophysics. Notice one interesting common trait between them? None of them have degree in "climate science".<br>I could go on, but I leave checking credentials of other pre-eminent climate scientist to others. I am not even sure there is such a "climate science" degree at all.<br>So far I had not heard a single objections to the report itself. Lots of ad homs but nothing real. You AGW guys must be very proud of your capability to make up dirt and put it on people you disagree with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of our most well-known climate scientists , Jim Hansen , has degrees in physics and astronomy .
Head of IPCC , Rajendra Pachauri has PhD in Industrial Engineering and in Economics , Michael Mann , author of famous hockey stick holds degrees in Physics and Applied Math and PhD in Geology &amp; Geophysics .
Notice one interesting common trait between them ?
None of them have degree in " climate science " .I could go on , but I leave checking credentials of other pre-eminent climate scientist to others .
I am not even sure there is such a " climate science " degree at all.So far I had not heard a single objections to the report itself .
Lots of ad homs but nothing real .
You AGW guys must be very proud of your capability to make up dirt and put it on people you disagree with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of our most well-known climate scientists, Jim Hansen,  has degrees in physics and astronomy.
Head of IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri has PhD in Industrial Engineering and in Economics, Michael Mann, author of famous hockey stick holds degrees in Physics and Applied Math and PhD in Geology &amp; Geophysics.
Notice one interesting common trait between them?
None of them have degree in "climate science".I could go on, but I leave checking credentials of other pre-eminent climate scientist to others.
I am not even sure there is such a "climate science" degree at all.So far I had not heard a single objections to the report itself.
Lots of ad homs but nothing real.
You AGW guys must be very proud of your capability to make up dirt and put it on people you disagree with.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499031</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500219</id>
	<title>Paranoia is a slashdot chestnut</title>
	<author>microbox</author>
	<datestamp>1246117500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>I wonder how many of these reports on other things (crime, drugs, copyright, etc) have been censored too in order to only give the government's point of view?</i> <br>
<br>
I know paranoia is popular on slashdot, and nobody RTFA, however, don't you think it's at least reasonable to judge the EPAs actions on the merits of their arguments? <br>
<br>
For what it's worth, some climate scientists wrote a short article on <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/bubkes/" title="realclimate.org" rel="nofollow">Alan Carlin's paper</a> [realclimate.org].<br>
<br>
There is, of course, no substitute for reading Carlin's paper yourself, but you need to also read the references, and try to find out more information about the arguments. <i>Then you can judge whether the EPA is just being manipulative</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder how many of these reports on other things ( crime , drugs , copyright , etc ) have been censored too in order to only give the government 's point of view ?
I know paranoia is popular on slashdot , and nobody RTFA , however , do n't you think it 's at least reasonable to judge the EPAs actions on the merits of their arguments ?
For what it 's worth , some climate scientists wrote a short article on Alan Carlin 's paper [ realclimate.org ] .
There is , of course , no substitute for reading Carlin 's paper yourself , but you need to also read the references , and try to find out more information about the arguments .
Then you can judge whether the EPA is just being manipulative</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder how many of these reports on other things (crime, drugs, copyright, etc) have been censored too in order to only give the government's point of view?
I know paranoia is popular on slashdot, and nobody RTFA, however, don't you think it's at least reasonable to judge the EPAs actions on the merits of their arguments?
For what it's worth, some climate scientists wrote a short article on Alan Carlin's paper [realclimate.org].
There is, of course, no substitute for reading Carlin's paper yourself, but you need to also read the references, and try to find out more information about the arguments.
Then you can judge whether the EPA is just being manipulative</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28498967</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500207</id>
	<title>you fools</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246117440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>co2 is a life giving gas, al gore is a sham, co2 is a sham, it's just another TAX you fucks!  FUCK YOU ALL YOU DOGS!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>co2 is a life giving gas , al gore is a sham , co2 is a sham , it 's just another TAX you fucks !
FUCK YOU ALL YOU DOGS !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>co2 is a life giving gas, al gore is a sham, co2 is a sham, it's just another TAX you fucks!
FUCK YOU ALL YOU DOGS!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499819</id>
	<title>Re:Did anybody read his paper?</title>
	<author>Dausha</author>
	<datestamp>1246113960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>This man strikes me as being very much against any type of environmental regulation, and I'm not surprised that the EPA is trying to silence him.</i> </p><p>Once upon a time, there was a man who flouted the institutional authority. He said the Earth revolved around the Sun, instead of the other way around. He was branded a heretic. Based on your statement, I would assume you would have sided with the clerics.</p><p>I don't know what "article" you refer to. I read a paper of his that is available from the links above. He builds his argument by first showing that the models used to support GW does not properly address the impact of solar radiation in their model. He also shows how the international organization stated it is 90 percent certain; which indicated a 10 percent risk of being completely wrong. His argument is that any uncertainty carries risk, and you have to effectively hedge your bets. He also argues that the predictions contradict 35 million years of data; and that the 1-2 meter sea level rise is less than the historic level that was 6 meters higher than present when the temperatures were 2deg C above present.</p><p>His paper then builds on that fundamental premise by showing the proposed solutions have doubtful impact on climate change and carry significant economic implications. He then operates under an assumption that something must be done, and offers options that are more tenable. I figure as an economist he might know something about that. I figure 38 years in the EPA means he might know a little something on the subject of the environment, especially when he's published in that field. At the very least, he offered his underlying assumptions and findings and allows for discussion. The EPA appears to refuse any information contrary to the party line. Sounds very much like the Earth again revolves around the Sun to me.</p><p> <i>"I don't believe in global warming. However, even if I did, there's no reason to regulate CO2 emissions."</i> </p><p>His paper isn't as you suggest. It's a classic approach to counter another point of view. "Their data fail to support the conclusion they reach, or it's faulty. However, assuming they're right, the solutions they recommend fail to properly address the underlying problem or causes; or they are impractical to implement."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This man strikes me as being very much against any type of environmental regulation , and I 'm not surprised that the EPA is trying to silence him .
Once upon a time , there was a man who flouted the institutional authority .
He said the Earth revolved around the Sun , instead of the other way around .
He was branded a heretic .
Based on your statement , I would assume you would have sided with the clerics.I do n't know what " article " you refer to .
I read a paper of his that is available from the links above .
He builds his argument by first showing that the models used to support GW does not properly address the impact of solar radiation in their model .
He also shows how the international organization stated it is 90 percent certain ; which indicated a 10 percent risk of being completely wrong .
His argument is that any uncertainty carries risk , and you have to effectively hedge your bets .
He also argues that the predictions contradict 35 million years of data ; and that the 1-2 meter sea level rise is less than the historic level that was 6 meters higher than present when the temperatures were 2deg C above present.His paper then builds on that fundamental premise by showing the proposed solutions have doubtful impact on climate change and carry significant economic implications .
He then operates under an assumption that something must be done , and offers options that are more tenable .
I figure as an economist he might know something about that .
I figure 38 years in the EPA means he might know a little something on the subject of the environment , especially when he 's published in that field .
At the very least , he offered his underlying assumptions and findings and allows for discussion .
The EPA appears to refuse any information contrary to the party line .
Sounds very much like the Earth again revolves around the Sun to me .
" I do n't believe in global warming .
However , even if I did , there 's no reason to regulate CO2 emissions .
" His paper is n't as you suggest .
It 's a classic approach to counter another point of view .
" Their data fail to support the conclusion they reach , or it 's faulty .
However , assuming they 're right , the solutions they recommend fail to properly address the underlying problem or causes ; or they are impractical to implement .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext> This man strikes me as being very much against any type of environmental regulation, and I'm not surprised that the EPA is trying to silence him.
Once upon a time, there was a man who flouted the institutional authority.
He said the Earth revolved around the Sun, instead of the other way around.
He was branded a heretic.
Based on your statement, I would assume you would have sided with the clerics.I don't know what "article" you refer to.
I read a paper of his that is available from the links above.
He builds his argument by first showing that the models used to support GW does not properly address the impact of solar radiation in their model.
He also shows how the international organization stated it is 90 percent certain; which indicated a 10 percent risk of being completely wrong.
His argument is that any uncertainty carries risk, and you have to effectively hedge your bets.
He also argues that the predictions contradict 35 million years of data; and that the 1-2 meter sea level rise is less than the historic level that was 6 meters higher than present when the temperatures were 2deg C above present.His paper then builds on that fundamental premise by showing the proposed solutions have doubtful impact on climate change and carry significant economic implications.
He then operates under an assumption that something must be done, and offers options that are more tenable.
I figure as an economist he might know something about that.
I figure 38 years in the EPA means he might know a little something on the subject of the environment, especially when he's published in that field.
At the very least, he offered his underlying assumptions and findings and allows for discussion.
The EPA appears to refuse any information contrary to the party line.
Sounds very much like the Earth again revolves around the Sun to me.
"I don't believe in global warming.
However, even if I did, there's no reason to regulate CO2 emissions.
" His paper isn't as you suggest.
It's a classic approach to counter another point of view.
"Their data fail to support the conclusion they reach, or it's faulty.
However, assuming they're right, the solutions they recommend fail to properly address the underlying problem or causes; or they are impractical to implement.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499039</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500537</id>
	<title>At some point the debate must move</title>
	<author>fabs64</author>
	<datestamp>1246120020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Imagine the company I work for spends 15 years debating a particular new growth strategy, where I had plenty of input and so did many other people and the eventual outcome was that majority/executive opinion decided on the course of action that I was debating against.</p><p>What would be the result if after this decision is made I continued spending my time formulating arguments against the decided strategy and disseminating them through the company as a whole? Swift kick up the arse would be the correct answer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Imagine the company I work for spends 15 years debating a particular new growth strategy , where I had plenty of input and so did many other people and the eventual outcome was that majority/executive opinion decided on the course of action that I was debating against.What would be the result if after this decision is made I continued spending my time formulating arguments against the decided strategy and disseminating them through the company as a whole ?
Swift kick up the arse would be the correct answer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Imagine the company I work for spends 15 years debating a particular new growth strategy, where I had plenty of input and so did many other people and the eventual outcome was that majority/executive opinion decided on the course of action that I was debating against.What would be the result if after this decision is made I continued spending my time formulating arguments against the decided strategy and disseminating them through the company as a whole?
Swift kick up the arse would be the correct answer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500871</id>
	<title>Re:Sad facts, but inescapable</title>
	<author>funwithBSD</author>
	<datestamp>1246122840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did you account for all the green house gasses and heated energy created by decaying corpses?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/sarcasm</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you account for all the green house gasses and heated energy created by decaying corpses ?
/sarcasm</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you account for all the green house gasses and heated energy created by decaying corpses?
/sarcasm</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500243</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499123</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246108740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The EPA, as a federal agency, must side with the Administration that makes its Appointments.<br> <br>

Were people here complaining about the scientists the federal government was siding with the last 8 years?<br> <br>

The previous Official View (tm) was one you didn't agree with, so you were critical. This is a view you agree with, so you are not critical. (You in the general sense, not the parent specifically.)<br> <br>

It's human nature, everyone does it, and it's an entirely separate issue from whether or not you happen to be right.<br> <br>

The whole point of the scientific process is to eliminate this problem. <br> <br>

This article is about a social issue, and it has nearly nothing to do with science... it's all about people, power, and censorship.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The EPA , as a federal agency , must side with the Administration that makes its Appointments .
Were people here complaining about the scientists the federal government was siding with the last 8 years ?
The previous Official View ( tm ) was one you did n't agree with , so you were critical .
This is a view you agree with , so you are not critical .
( You in the general sense , not the parent specifically .
) It 's human nature , everyone does it , and it 's an entirely separate issue from whether or not you happen to be right .
The whole point of the scientific process is to eliminate this problem .
This article is about a social issue , and it has nearly nothing to do with science... it 's all about people , power , and censorship .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The EPA, as a federal agency, must side with the Administration that makes its Appointments.
Were people here complaining about the scientists the federal government was siding with the last 8 years?
The previous Official View (tm) was one you didn't agree with, so you were critical.
This is a view you agree with, so you are not critical.
(You in the general sense, not the parent specifically.
) 

It's human nature, everyone does it, and it's an entirely separate issue from whether or not you happen to be right.
The whole point of the scientific process is to eliminate this problem.
This article is about a social issue, and it has nearly nothing to do with science... it's all about people, power, and censorship.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499025</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500111</id>
	<title>Re:Did anybody read his paper?</title>
	<author>dr2chase</author>
	<datestamp>1246116360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>1998 was a very warm year; it's not that outlandish not to have exceeded it yet.  I'm not thrilled at the delightful amounts of noisiness in the data, or the additional knobs that we are discovering (soot warmed ice, haze-cooled earth).  We also have the problem that the field itself has gotten very noisy, and there is plenty of money that depends on what policies we end up with, and that money is funding noise.
<br> <br>
Nonetheless, to simply pick the warmest year yet from a noisy warming series, and claim that failure to exceed it (yet) casts doubt on global warming, is a wingnut argument.
<br> <br>
What convinces me is three things: the historical information (river melt dates, flower blooming dates, advancing CO2 dip each year in the Hawaiian data); the melting ice (Greenland, arctic ice cap, glaciers) tell us that things are indeed getting warmer; and the basic mechanism -- CO2 is a greenhouse gas, you would expect it to have an effect.  The historical info and the glacier melts are relatively independent of changes in temperature measurement methodology, or urban heat islands, or changes in tracking hurricanes (etc).</htmltext>
<tokenext>1998 was a very warm year ; it 's not that outlandish not to have exceeded it yet .
I 'm not thrilled at the delightful amounts of noisiness in the data , or the additional knobs that we are discovering ( soot warmed ice , haze-cooled earth ) .
We also have the problem that the field itself has gotten very noisy , and there is plenty of money that depends on what policies we end up with , and that money is funding noise .
Nonetheless , to simply pick the warmest year yet from a noisy warming series , and claim that failure to exceed it ( yet ) casts doubt on global warming , is a wingnut argument .
What convinces me is three things : the historical information ( river melt dates , flower blooming dates , advancing CO2 dip each year in the Hawaiian data ) ; the melting ice ( Greenland , arctic ice cap , glaciers ) tell us that things are indeed getting warmer ; and the basic mechanism -- CO2 is a greenhouse gas , you would expect it to have an effect .
The historical info and the glacier melts are relatively independent of changes in temperature measurement methodology , or urban heat islands , or changes in tracking hurricanes ( etc ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1998 was a very warm year; it's not that outlandish not to have exceeded it yet.
I'm not thrilled at the delightful amounts of noisiness in the data, or the additional knobs that we are discovering (soot warmed ice, haze-cooled earth).
We also have the problem that the field itself has gotten very noisy, and there is plenty of money that depends on what policies we end up with, and that money is funding noise.
Nonetheless, to simply pick the warmest year yet from a noisy warming series, and claim that failure to exceed it (yet) casts doubt on global warming, is a wingnut argument.
What convinces me is three things: the historical information (river melt dates, flower blooming dates, advancing CO2 dip each year in the Hawaiian data); the melting ice (Greenland, arctic ice cap, glaciers) tell us that things are indeed getting warmer; and the basic mechanism -- CO2 is a greenhouse gas, you would expect it to have an effect.
The historical info and the glacier melts are relatively independent of changes in temperature measurement methodology, or urban heat islands, or changes in tracking hurricanes (etc).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499421</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499363</id>
	<title>Irony and Science</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246110540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Disclaimer: I am software person who happens to work with a group of people who deal with, among other issues, climate change.  I am somewhat informed on the subject.  One of my colleagues was a member of the IPCC.  His Nobel certificate is hanging on his wall, even though all he did was contribute a couple of equations.
<br> <br>
Unbelievably, despite the fact that I am working on a deliverable for this coming week, I took the time to a) RTFM on CNET, and b) download the PDF of the author's report.
<br> <br>
I read through the table of contents, and thought it was worth scanning through portions of the document.
<br> <br>
<b>Ironic Item One</b> <br> <br>
In the executive summary, the author chides the EPA as an organization for relying on decades of work by the IPCC, and thousands of person-hours involved in climate science that were brought to bear on the IPCC reports over the last several years.  The author points out that the IPCC reports did not include the most recent findings regarding, among several phenomena, solar sunspot cycles, cosmic rays, and the melting of Greenland's ice sheet.  The author supports his contention that sunspot cycles and cosmic rays affect Earth's climate by citing one or two, non-peer-reviewed postings to web sites.
<br> <br>
Interestingly the most recent peer-reviewed findings regarding all of these items indicate that a) sunspot cycles have nothing to do with global mean temperatures; b) cosmic rays have nothing to do with global mean temperatures; c) Greenland's ice sheet continues to melt at a fairly good clip.
<br> <br>
<b>Ironic, and damaging, Item Two</b>
<br> <br>
Scanning through the report, the reader comes to page 64 of the report, 79 of the PDF, and finds this heading:<blockquote><div><p> <i>Contrast between Continuing Improvements in US Health and Welfare and their Alleged Endangerment Described in the draft TSD</i></p></div>
</blockquote><p>
The author then goes on to point out how the following aspects of life in the US have improved over the last century or so, despite rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations:</p><ul>
<li> Crop yields, including Corn and Wheat</li>
<li> Average Annual Heat-Related Mortality</li>
<li> Ozone Air Quality</li>
</ul><p>
Then, the kicker comes on page 66; I quote:</p><blockquote><div><p> <i>Perhaps, most significant of all, the average lifespan of Americans has increased (Figure 2-5) [ Graph of Mean lifespan in US, 1890-2010, omitted ]. <br>
In fact, there is no better way to obtain a good picture of how human health and welfare may trend in the future under increases in greenhouse gas emissions than to assess how we have fared in the past during a period of increasing greenhouse gas emissions.</i></p></div>
</blockquote><p>

While the author does cite a number of actual scientific reports, the text quoted here and the failure to consider the entire constellation of improvements wrought by technology over the last century render his entire report ridiculous.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Disclaimer : I am software person who happens to work with a group of people who deal with , among other issues , climate change .
I am somewhat informed on the subject .
One of my colleagues was a member of the IPCC .
His Nobel certificate is hanging on his wall , even though all he did was contribute a couple of equations .
Unbelievably , despite the fact that I am working on a deliverable for this coming week , I took the time to a ) RTFM on CNET , and b ) download the PDF of the author 's report .
I read through the table of contents , and thought it was worth scanning through portions of the document .
Ironic Item One In the executive summary , the author chides the EPA as an organization for relying on decades of work by the IPCC , and thousands of person-hours involved in climate science that were brought to bear on the IPCC reports over the last several years .
The author points out that the IPCC reports did not include the most recent findings regarding , among several phenomena , solar sunspot cycles , cosmic rays , and the melting of Greenland 's ice sheet .
The author supports his contention that sunspot cycles and cosmic rays affect Earth 's climate by citing one or two , non-peer-reviewed postings to web sites .
Interestingly the most recent peer-reviewed findings regarding all of these items indicate that a ) sunspot cycles have nothing to do with global mean temperatures ; b ) cosmic rays have nothing to do with global mean temperatures ; c ) Greenland 's ice sheet continues to melt at a fairly good clip .
Ironic , and damaging , Item Two Scanning through the report , the reader comes to page 64 of the report , 79 of the PDF , and finds this heading : Contrast between Continuing Improvements in US Health and Welfare and their Alleged Endangerment Described in the draft TSD The author then goes on to point out how the following aspects of life in the US have improved over the last century or so , despite rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations : Crop yields , including Corn and Wheat Average Annual Heat-Related Mortality Ozone Air Quality Then , the kicker comes on page 66 ; I quote : Perhaps , most significant of all , the average lifespan of Americans has increased ( Figure 2-5 ) [ Graph of Mean lifespan in US , 1890-2010 , omitted ] .
In fact , there is no better way to obtain a good picture of how human health and welfare may trend in the future under increases in greenhouse gas emissions than to assess how we have fared in the past during a period of increasing greenhouse gas emissions .
While the author does cite a number of actual scientific reports , the text quoted here and the failure to consider the entire constellation of improvements wrought by technology over the last century render his entire report ridiculous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Disclaimer: I am software person who happens to work with a group of people who deal with, among other issues, climate change.
I am somewhat informed on the subject.
One of my colleagues was a member of the IPCC.
His Nobel certificate is hanging on his wall, even though all he did was contribute a couple of equations.
Unbelievably, despite the fact that I am working on a deliverable for this coming week, I took the time to a) RTFM on CNET, and b) download the PDF of the author's report.
I read through the table of contents, and thought it was worth scanning through portions of the document.
Ironic Item One  
In the executive summary, the author chides the EPA as an organization for relying on decades of work by the IPCC, and thousands of person-hours involved in climate science that were brought to bear on the IPCC reports over the last several years.
The author points out that the IPCC reports did not include the most recent findings regarding, among several phenomena, solar sunspot cycles, cosmic rays, and the melting of Greenland's ice sheet.
The author supports his contention that sunspot cycles and cosmic rays affect Earth's climate by citing one or two, non-peer-reviewed postings to web sites.
Interestingly the most recent peer-reviewed findings regarding all of these items indicate that a) sunspot cycles have nothing to do with global mean temperatures; b) cosmic rays have nothing to do with global mean temperatures; c) Greenland's ice sheet continues to melt at a fairly good clip.
Ironic, and damaging, Item Two
 
Scanning through the report, the reader comes to page 64 of the report, 79 of the PDF, and finds this heading: Contrast between Continuing Improvements in US Health and Welfare and their Alleged Endangerment Described in the draft TSD

The author then goes on to point out how the following aspects of life in the US have improved over the last century or so, despite rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations:
 Crop yields, including Corn and Wheat
 Average Annual Heat-Related Mortality
 Ozone Air Quality

Then, the kicker comes on page 66; I quote: Perhaps, most significant of all, the average lifespan of Americans has increased (Figure 2-5) [ Graph of Mean lifespan in US, 1890-2010, omitted ].
In fact, there is no better way to obtain a good picture of how human health and welfare may trend in the future under increases in greenhouse gas emissions than to assess how we have fared in the past during a period of increasing greenhouse gas emissions.
While the author does cite a number of actual scientific reports, the text quoted here and the failure to consider the entire constellation of improvements wrought by technology over the last century render his entire report ridiculous.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499961</id>
	<title>Re:Did anybody read his paper?</title>
	<author>dr2chase</author>
	<datestamp>1246115160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's an observation of noisy data.  What makes it a wingnut claim is that we haven't exceeded the warmest year ever, yet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's an observation of noisy data .
What makes it a wingnut claim is that we have n't exceeded the warmest year ever , yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's an observation of noisy data.
What makes it a wingnut claim is that we haven't exceeded the warmest year ever, yet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499315</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499239</id>
	<title>I dunno...</title>
	<author>IonOtter</author>
	<datestamp>1246109640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This man has been <a href="http://carlineconomics.googlepages.com/" title="googlepages.com">working for the EPA since 1971.</a> [googlepages.com]  Hell, he helped BUILD the place.</p><p>So what if he's "just an economist"?  According to my degree, I'm "just a fish farmer", yet I'm working for a company and doing stuff that keeps the telcom grid alive.  Nine years of military communications experience will do that for you.  Makes me wonder what 38 years of experience working for climate scientists would do for an economist?</p><p>It's not exactly like he's going to just pull this stuff out of his backside after 38 years of service.  Nobody that manages to survive THAT long, through seven presidents-five or whom were hostile to the EPA-is going to just buck the trend without a pretty darn good reason.</p><p>I'd say it's worth paying attention to the man.  Even if he's on the verge of retirement, 38 years of experience is nothing to sneeze at.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This man has been working for the EPA since 1971 .
[ googlepages.com ] Hell , he helped BUILD the place.So what if he 's " just an economist " ?
According to my degree , I 'm " just a fish farmer " , yet I 'm working for a company and doing stuff that keeps the telcom grid alive .
Nine years of military communications experience will do that for you .
Makes me wonder what 38 years of experience working for climate scientists would do for an economist ? It 's not exactly like he 's going to just pull this stuff out of his backside after 38 years of service .
Nobody that manages to survive THAT long , through seven presidents-five or whom were hostile to the EPA-is going to just buck the trend without a pretty darn good reason.I 'd say it 's worth paying attention to the man .
Even if he 's on the verge of retirement , 38 years of experience is nothing to sneeze at .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This man has been working for the EPA since 1971.
[googlepages.com]  Hell, he helped BUILD the place.So what if he's "just an economist"?
According to my degree, I'm "just a fish farmer", yet I'm working for a company and doing stuff that keeps the telcom grid alive.
Nine years of military communications experience will do that for you.
Makes me wonder what 38 years of experience working for climate scientists would do for an economist?It's not exactly like he's going to just pull this stuff out of his backside after 38 years of service.
Nobody that manages to survive THAT long, through seven presidents-five or whom were hostile to the EPA-is going to just buck the trend without a pretty darn good reason.I'd say it's worth paying attention to the man.
Even if he's on the verge of retirement, 38 years of experience is nothing to sneeze at.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28503649</id>
	<title>Re:Irony and Science</title>
	<author>(arg!)Styopa</author>
	<datestamp>1246202880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Then, the kicker comes on page 66; I quote:</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Perhaps, most significant of all, the average lifespan of Americans has increased (Figure 2-5) [ Graph of Mean lifespan in US, 1890-2010, omitted ].<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; In fact, there is no better way to obtain a good picture of how human health and welfare may trend in the future under increases in greenhouse gas emissions than to assess how we have fared in the past during a period of increasing greenhouse gas emissions.</p><p>While the author does cite a number of actual scientific reports, the text quoted here and the failure to consider the entire constellation of improvements wrought by technology over the last century render his entire report ridiculous."</p><p>You're right - it's the old "correlation doesn't equal causation" trope....one could with almost equal validity assert that ninjas were protecting us from global warming, since a decrease in ninjas over time has correlated to an increase in global temps.  (The hitch being, of course, that it's REALLY hard to count ninjas.)</p><p>Of course, the critics of AGW might make the same assertions of faulty, overgeneralized cause-effect relationships of the IPCC report and the anthropogenic theory of global warming in general.  It's like most of the "look at the recent data" justifications, it's just a matter of cherry-picking data ranges that support your point:<br>"Look, global warming is real!  Look at the trend!"<br>"Yeah, but this year it's cold"<br>"Stupid, this year is weather, we're talking about CLIMATE"<br>"But it really hasn't been warming in the last 10 years"<br>"But it has over the last 100 years!"<br>"But it hasn't over the last 250."<br>"But it has over the last 1000."<br>"But it hasn't over the last 10,000"</p><p>ad infinitum ad nauseum.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Then , the kicker comes on page 66 ; I quote :         Perhaps , most significant of all , the average lifespan of Americans has increased ( Figure 2-5 ) [ Graph of Mean lifespan in US , 1890-2010 , omitted ] .
        In fact , there is no better way to obtain a good picture of how human health and welfare may trend in the future under increases in greenhouse gas emissions than to assess how we have fared in the past during a period of increasing greenhouse gas emissions.While the author does cite a number of actual scientific reports , the text quoted here and the failure to consider the entire constellation of improvements wrought by technology over the last century render his entire report ridiculous .
" You 're right - it 's the old " correlation does n't equal causation " trope....one could with almost equal validity assert that ninjas were protecting us from global warming , since a decrease in ninjas over time has correlated to an increase in global temps .
( The hitch being , of course , that it 's REALLY hard to count ninjas .
) Of course , the critics of AGW might make the same assertions of faulty , overgeneralized cause-effect relationships of the IPCC report and the anthropogenic theory of global warming in general .
It 's like most of the " look at the recent data " justifications , it 's just a matter of cherry-picking data ranges that support your point : " Look , global warming is real !
Look at the trend !
" " Yeah , but this year it 's cold " " Stupid , this year is weather , we 're talking about CLIMATE " " But it really has n't been warming in the last 10 years " " But it has over the last 100 years !
" " But it has n't over the last 250 .
" " But it has over the last 1000 .
" " But it has n't over the last 10,000 " ad infinitum ad nauseum .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Then, the kicker comes on page 66; I quote:
        Perhaps, most significant of all, the average lifespan of Americans has increased (Figure 2-5) [ Graph of Mean lifespan in US, 1890-2010, omitted ].
        In fact, there is no better way to obtain a good picture of how human health and welfare may trend in the future under increases in greenhouse gas emissions than to assess how we have fared in the past during a period of increasing greenhouse gas emissions.While the author does cite a number of actual scientific reports, the text quoted here and the failure to consider the entire constellation of improvements wrought by technology over the last century render his entire report ridiculous.
"You're right - it's the old "correlation doesn't equal causation" trope....one could with almost equal validity assert that ninjas were protecting us from global warming, since a decrease in ninjas over time has correlated to an increase in global temps.
(The hitch being, of course, that it's REALLY hard to count ninjas.
)Of course, the critics of AGW might make the same assertions of faulty, overgeneralized cause-effect relationships of the IPCC report and the anthropogenic theory of global warming in general.
It's like most of the "look at the recent data" justifications, it's just a matter of cherry-picking data ranges that support your point:"Look, global warming is real!
Look at the trend!
""Yeah, but this year it's cold""Stupid, this year is weather, we're talking about CLIMATE""But it really hasn't been warming in the last 10 years""But it has over the last 100 years!
""But it hasn't over the last 250.
""But it has over the last 1000.
""But it hasn't over the last 10,000"ad infinitum ad nauseum.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499363</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500375</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah...</title>
	<author>microbox</author>
	<datestamp>1246118700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>There will ALWAYS be skepticism on a scientific theory as controversial as this.</i> <br>
<br>
The theory isn't controversial amongst *scientists*.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There will ALWAYS be skepticism on a scientific theory as controversial as this .
The theory is n't controversial amongst * scientists * .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There will ALWAYS be skepticism on a scientific theory as controversial as this.
The theory isn't controversial amongst *scientists*.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499025</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28509943</id>
	<title>What a real climate scientist says about this</title>
	<author>Wantok</author>
	<datestamp>1246211340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gavin Schmidt, notable NASA climate scientist, provides a nice reality check on this story, concluding with this:</p><p>"So in summary, what we have is a ragbag collection of un-peer reviewed web pages, an unhealthy dose of sunstroke, a dash of astrology and more cherries than you can poke a cocktail stick at. Seriously, if that's the best they can do, the EPA's ruling is on pretty safe ground."</p><p><a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/bubkes/" title="realclimate.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/bubkes/</a> [realclimate.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gavin Schmidt , notable NASA climate scientist , provides a nice reality check on this story , concluding with this : " So in summary , what we have is a ragbag collection of un-peer reviewed web pages , an unhealthy dose of sunstroke , a dash of astrology and more cherries than you can poke a cocktail stick at .
Seriously , if that 's the best they can do , the EPA 's ruling is on pretty safe ground .
" http : //www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/bubkes/ [ realclimate.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gavin Schmidt, notable NASA climate scientist, provides a nice reality check on this story, concluding with this:"So in summary, what we have is a ragbag collection of un-peer reviewed web pages, an unhealthy dose of sunstroke, a dash of astrology and more cherries than you can poke a cocktail stick at.
Seriously, if that's the best they can do, the EPA's ruling is on pretty safe ground.
"http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/bubkes/ [realclimate.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28502657</id>
	<title>Debunked by climate scientists</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246193160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/bubkes/" title="realclimate.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/bubkes/</a> [realclimate.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/bubkes/ [ realclimate.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/bubkes/ [realclimate.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499315</id>
	<title>Re:Did anybody read his paper?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246110240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>"No warming in 11 years", in particular, is a wingnut claim</i></p><p>Er, no, actually, that's observation of the data.</p><p>It rather says quite a bit about this topic that a demonstrably factual statement is attempted to be labelled "a wingnut claim" doesn't it now?</p><p><a href="http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS\%20Essay/GlobalTroposphereTemperaturesAverage.jpg" title="friendsofscience.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS\%20Essay/GlobalTroposphereTemperaturesAverage.jpg</a> [friendsofscience.org]</p><p>Even if you throw out the 11-year old peak El Ni&#241;o as a complete freak because since you have your AGW-&#252;ber-alles blinders on and therefore can make no sense of it (whilst the magnetic/solar theorists -- aka, REAL scientists and not humanity-hating Chicken Littles -- are pointing out that event is exactly is what one expects as a cycle climax<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but I digress) there still is no way to interpret the 2002-present data as anything  but a sustained downward trend, is there now?</p><p>But sure would be nice if you could provide some sensible AGW-centric explanation for the way that C02 continues to climb monotonically whilst temperatures decline. The 'weather is not climate' thing is getting too old to believe by now if you have any kind of a brain, yes? And if not, just exactly how many years does the trend in the graph have to continue before you accept reality?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" No warming in 11 years " , in particular , is a wingnut claimEr , no , actually , that 's observation of the data.It rather says quite a bit about this topic that a demonstrably factual statement is attempted to be labelled " a wingnut claim " does n't it now ? http : //www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS \ % 20Essay/GlobalTroposphereTemperaturesAverage.jpg [ friendsofscience.org ] Even if you throw out the 11-year old peak El Ni   o as a complete freak because since you have your AGW-   ber-alles blinders on and therefore can make no sense of it ( whilst the magnetic/solar theorists -- aka , REAL scientists and not humanity-hating Chicken Littles -- are pointing out that event is exactly is what one expects as a cycle climax ... but I digress ) there still is no way to interpret the 2002-present data as anything but a sustained downward trend , is there now ? But sure would be nice if you could provide some sensible AGW-centric explanation for the way that C02 continues to climb monotonically whilst temperatures decline .
The 'weather is not climate ' thing is getting too old to believe by now if you have any kind of a brain , yes ?
And if not , just exactly how many years does the trend in the graph have to continue before you accept reality ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"No warming in 11 years", in particular, is a wingnut claimEr, no, actually, that's observation of the data.It rather says quite a bit about this topic that a demonstrably factual statement is attempted to be labelled "a wingnut claim" doesn't it now?http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS\%20Essay/GlobalTroposphereTemperaturesAverage.jpg [friendsofscience.org]Even if you throw out the 11-year old peak El Niño as a complete freak because since you have your AGW-über-alles blinders on and therefore can make no sense of it (whilst the magnetic/solar theorists -- aka, REAL scientists and not humanity-hating Chicken Littles -- are pointing out that event is exactly is what one expects as a cycle climax ... but I digress) there still is no way to interpret the 2002-present data as anything  but a sustained downward trend, is there now?But sure would be nice if you could provide some sensible AGW-centric explanation for the way that C02 continues to climb monotonically whilst temperatures decline.
The 'weather is not climate' thing is getting too old to believe by now if you have any kind of a brain, yes?
And if not, just exactly how many years does the trend in the graph have to continue before you accept reality?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499161</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500067</id>
	<title>It doesn't matter, really.</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1246116000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Democrats have made up their mind.  The laws will be passed.</p><p>No matter what the rest of the world does, they are going to follow this religion and pretty much wreck everyone's standard of living to make themselves feel good about their earth worship.  Things will eventually change when the whole truth comes out.   The public is made aware of how much of an economic disaster this is.  Some day the whole truth will come out, that we won't know if this works for another 400 years.</p><p>The entire US economy is about to be ruined.  Hopefully these green people won't mind plowing fields themselves, because that's where we are headed.</p><p>Teaching people that they richer when they have less energy.  What a colossal lie.  What a treason.  What a waste.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Democrats have made up their mind .
The laws will be passed.No matter what the rest of the world does , they are going to follow this religion and pretty much wreck everyone 's standard of living to make themselves feel good about their earth worship .
Things will eventually change when the whole truth comes out .
The public is made aware of how much of an economic disaster this is .
Some day the whole truth will come out , that we wo n't know if this works for another 400 years.The entire US economy is about to be ruined .
Hopefully these green people wo n't mind plowing fields themselves , because that 's where we are headed.Teaching people that they richer when they have less energy .
What a colossal lie .
What a treason .
What a waste .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Democrats have made up their mind.
The laws will be passed.No matter what the rest of the world does, they are going to follow this religion and pretty much wreck everyone's standard of living to make themselves feel good about their earth worship.
Things will eventually change when the whole truth comes out.
The public is made aware of how much of an economic disaster this is.
Some day the whole truth will come out, that we won't know if this works for another 400 years.The entire US economy is about to be ruined.
Hopefully these green people won't mind plowing fields themselves, because that's where we are headed.Teaching people that they richer when they have less energy.
What a colossal lie.
What a treason.
What a waste.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499397</id>
	<title>problem with head-in-sand ostrich deniers</title>
	<author>Uberbah</author>
	<datestamp>1246110780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...they keep latching on to some tidbit of information and then beat it to death as if it "proves" that climate change is a hoax based on weak science.  So there might be a faulty sensor in Hawaii: B. F. D.  Does nothing to change the fact that there is a mountain of other evidence to rely on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...they keep latching on to some tidbit of information and then beat it to death as if it " proves " that climate change is a hoax based on weak science .
So there might be a faulty sensor in Hawaii : B. F. D. Does nothing to change the fact that there is a mountain of other evidence to rely on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...they keep latching on to some tidbit of information and then beat it to death as if it "proves" that climate change is a hoax based on weak science.
So there might be a faulty sensor in Hawaii: B. F. D.  Does nothing to change the fact that there is a mountain of other evidence to rely on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499153</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499473</id>
	<title>Same on both sides of the fence</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246111260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This just serves to remind us, 'liberal' and 'conservative' alike, that political maneuvering and groupthink look pretty much exactly the same and have the same consequences, regardless on which side of the ideological fence it occurs.</p><p>Groupthink is groupthink, and it's ALWAYS bad.</p><p>That's why, as a liberal, I preferred Dennis Kucinich and am wary of Obama; Obama is far too good at mixing up the Kool-Aid and fomenting groupthink.  Kucinich is a plain talker, and it apparently makes him unpopular for saying things that rattle people's delusions and make them uncomfortable.  Obama NEVER does that.  He's a playa.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This just serves to remind us , 'liberal ' and 'conservative ' alike , that political maneuvering and groupthink look pretty much exactly the same and have the same consequences , regardless on which side of the ideological fence it occurs.Groupthink is groupthink , and it 's ALWAYS bad.That 's why , as a liberal , I preferred Dennis Kucinich and am wary of Obama ; Obama is far too good at mixing up the Kool-Aid and fomenting groupthink .
Kucinich is a plain talker , and it apparently makes him unpopular for saying things that rattle people 's delusions and make them uncomfortable .
Obama NEVER does that .
He 's a playa .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This just serves to remind us, 'liberal' and 'conservative' alike, that political maneuvering and groupthink look pretty much exactly the same and have the same consequences, regardless on which side of the ideological fence it occurs.Groupthink is groupthink, and it's ALWAYS bad.That's why, as a liberal, I preferred Dennis Kucinich and am wary of Obama; Obama is far too good at mixing up the Kool-Aid and fomenting groupthink.
Kucinich is a plain talker, and it apparently makes him unpopular for saying things that rattle people's delusions and make them uncomfortable.
Obama NEVER does that.
He's a playa.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28498993</id>
	<title>And we want the gov to run health care?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246107660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I am sorry sir, your prostate cancer is not a "covered" disease.   You will die of old age before the cancer kills you!" says the bureaucrat, with a copies of several scientific studies stating otherwise laying in his trash can.</p><p>On the other hand, the same reply from a corporate doctor paid to lie for their bottom line has the same effect.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I am sorry sir , your prostate cancer is not a " covered " disease .
You will die of old age before the cancer kills you !
" says the bureaucrat , with a copies of several scientific studies stating otherwise laying in his trash can.On the other hand , the same reply from a corporate doctor paid to lie for their bottom line has the same effect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I am sorry sir, your prostate cancer is not a "covered" disease.
You will die of old age before the cancer kills you!
" says the bureaucrat, with a copies of several scientific studies stating otherwise laying in his trash can.On the other hand, the same reply from a corporate doctor paid to lie for their bottom line has the same effect.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28523617</id>
	<title>Re:I agree</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246290780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That may well be the case, but quashing this because it doesn't help the "legal or policy case for this decision" is just plain wrong.  In fact, I would argue that legalities and policy have absolutely no place in this decision.  Talk about the tail wagging the dog.  Personally, I'm still waiting for a peer reviewed document on the topic.  Does one exist?  Experts debating the issue, within the domain of the problem would be a better grounds making policy.  And doesn't the fact that EPA, if this is all true, tried to silence this in the manner that it did bother you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That may well be the case , but quashing this because it does n't help the " legal or policy case for this decision " is just plain wrong .
In fact , I would argue that legalities and policy have absolutely no place in this decision .
Talk about the tail wagging the dog .
Personally , I 'm still waiting for a peer reviewed document on the topic .
Does one exist ?
Experts debating the issue , within the domain of the problem would be a better grounds making policy .
And does n't the fact that EPA , if this is all true , tried to silence this in the manner that it did bother you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That may well be the case, but quashing this because it doesn't help the "legal or policy case for this decision" is just plain wrong.
In fact, I would argue that legalities and policy have absolutely no place in this decision.
Talk about the tail wagging the dog.
Personally, I'm still waiting for a peer reviewed document on the topic.
Does one exist?
Experts debating the issue, within the domain of the problem would be a better grounds making policy.
And doesn't the fact that EPA, if this is all true, tried to silence this in the manner that it did bother you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499031</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499509</id>
	<title>Sad facts, but inescapable</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246111500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you believe in AGW, or accept the idea there is some sort of concensus among climate scientists there is one little fact that keeps popping up.</p><p>Climate change is being caused by people.  Fewer people, less climate change.</p><p>Sure, if we could reduce the impact of all of those people it might get better.  But do you understand that each and every human outputs about the same heat as a 75 watt lightbulb?  Oh, and if they are doing anything it goes up to almost 200 watts.</p><p>Let's see, 6 billion people... that would be about 450,000,000,000 watts of energy being released every hour.  Now, it takes a awful lot of energy to affect the planet's temperature, but regardless of anything else <b>don't you think that 450 BILLION watts might make a difference?</b></p><p>We could easily turn this down to 200 billion watts within a few years.  This might make all the difference in the world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you believe in AGW , or accept the idea there is some sort of concensus among climate scientists there is one little fact that keeps popping up.Climate change is being caused by people .
Fewer people , less climate change.Sure , if we could reduce the impact of all of those people it might get better .
But do you understand that each and every human outputs about the same heat as a 75 watt lightbulb ?
Oh , and if they are doing anything it goes up to almost 200 watts.Let 's see , 6 billion people... that would be about 450,000,000,000 watts of energy being released every hour .
Now , it takes a awful lot of energy to affect the planet 's temperature , but regardless of anything else do n't you think that 450 BILLION watts might make a difference ? We could easily turn this down to 200 billion watts within a few years .
This might make all the difference in the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you believe in AGW, or accept the idea there is some sort of concensus among climate scientists there is one little fact that keeps popping up.Climate change is being caused by people.
Fewer people, less climate change.Sure, if we could reduce the impact of all of those people it might get better.
But do you understand that each and every human outputs about the same heat as a 75 watt lightbulb?
Oh, and if they are doing anything it goes up to almost 200 watts.Let's see, 6 billion people... that would be about 450,000,000,000 watts of energy being released every hour.
Now, it takes a awful lot of energy to affect the planet's temperature, but regardless of anything else don't you think that 450 BILLION watts might make a difference?We could easily turn this down to 200 billion watts within a few years.
This might make all the difference in the world.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28501771</id>
	<title>squashed?</title>
	<author>rusl</author>
	<datestamp>1246221000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>well they didn't squash it very well, obviously.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>well they did n't squash it very well , obviously .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>well they didn't squash it very well, obviously.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28501139</id>
	<title>Re:The Administration modded this guy troll too!</title>
	<author>Eclipse-now</author>
	<datestamp>1246125360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thing is mate, doesn't the very sound, repeatable, demonstrable, falsifiable, testable science of spectrometry also tell us things like how various molecules refract certain wavelengths of energy? So we have Co2 at one level, methane 21 times Co2, and some PFC's at 9000 times Co2!

<br> <br>

I mean, wavelengths of energy interacting with molecules... this isn't science we've used anywhere ELSE is it?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)  (Woops, there goes the internet). And YES Co2 is a small part of the atmopshere, but the Radiative Forcing Equation tells us how much extra energy Co2 traps, and so.... what next? Are you about to disprove spectrometry and have the internet disappear in a puff of logic?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thing is mate , does n't the very sound , repeatable , demonstrable , falsifiable , testable science of spectrometry also tell us things like how various molecules refract certain wavelengths of energy ?
So we have Co2 at one level , methane 21 times Co2 , and some PFC 's at 9000 times Co2 !
I mean , wavelengths of energy interacting with molecules... this is n't science we 've used anywhere ELSE is it ?
; - ) ( Woops , there goes the internet ) .
And YES Co2 is a small part of the atmopshere , but the Radiative Forcing Equation tells us how much extra energy Co2 traps , and so.... what next ?
Are you about to disprove spectrometry and have the internet disappear in a puff of logic ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thing is mate, doesn't the very sound, repeatable, demonstrable, falsifiable, testable science of spectrometry also tell us things like how various molecules refract certain wavelengths of energy?
So we have Co2 at one level, methane 21 times Co2, and some PFC's at 9000 times Co2!
I mean, wavelengths of energy interacting with molecules... this isn't science we've used anywhere ELSE is it?
;-)  (Woops, there goes the internet).
And YES Co2 is a small part of the atmopshere, but the Radiative Forcing Equation tells us how much extra energy Co2 traps, and so.... what next?
Are you about to disprove spectrometry and have the internet disappear in a puff of logic?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499497</id>
	<title>Re:Problems with the US Temperature Record</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246111500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Black top isn't melting glaciers. I know people don't want to change their lifestyles but I'm a few years shy of 50 and I've seen massive changes in my life time and most of that in the last 15 years. Statistics can be made to support different agendas but the brutal truth is there has been a frightening change unlike anything in recorded history and the only thing that mirrors it is man made CO2. Say you don't care but arguing the facts is pointless. I've heard excuses from sunspots to volcanoes cause global warming. Well there hasn't been a dramatic increase in volcanic activity and quiet sunspots cause cooler temperatures not higher ones. Eskimo verbal history goes back thousands of years and they have never seen anything like this. Don't trust that? Well glacier history goes back about a million years and there's no record of a melt or CO2 level like this and it's all happened in a 150 years which is a blink in climate time frames. Say you don't care but burying our heads won't help the mess we've caused.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Black top is n't melting glaciers .
I know people do n't want to change their lifestyles but I 'm a few years shy of 50 and I 've seen massive changes in my life time and most of that in the last 15 years .
Statistics can be made to support different agendas but the brutal truth is there has been a frightening change unlike anything in recorded history and the only thing that mirrors it is man made CO2 .
Say you do n't care but arguing the facts is pointless .
I 've heard excuses from sunspots to volcanoes cause global warming .
Well there has n't been a dramatic increase in volcanic activity and quiet sunspots cause cooler temperatures not higher ones .
Eskimo verbal history goes back thousands of years and they have never seen anything like this .
Do n't trust that ?
Well glacier history goes back about a million years and there 's no record of a melt or CO2 level like this and it 's all happened in a 150 years which is a blink in climate time frames .
Say you do n't care but burying our heads wo n't help the mess we 've caused .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Black top isn't melting glaciers.
I know people don't want to change their lifestyles but I'm a few years shy of 50 and I've seen massive changes in my life time and most of that in the last 15 years.
Statistics can be made to support different agendas but the brutal truth is there has been a frightening change unlike anything in recorded history and the only thing that mirrors it is man made CO2.
Say you don't care but arguing the facts is pointless.
I've heard excuses from sunspots to volcanoes cause global warming.
Well there hasn't been a dramatic increase in volcanic activity and quiet sunspots cause cooler temperatures not higher ones.
Eskimo verbal history goes back thousands of years and they have never seen anything like this.
Don't trust that?
Well glacier history goes back about a million years and there's no record of a melt or CO2 level like this and it's all happened in a 150 years which is a blink in climate time frames.
Say you don't care but burying our heads won't help the mess we've caused.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499153</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499401</id>
	<title>RealClimate cannot be trusted</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246110780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The main guys at RealClimate are Hansen fanboys to an extreme degree (one of them works under him), and can't be trusted to make an unbiased review.</p><p>They have a very simple way of dealing with contrary scientific opinion, and that is to block the poster from their site.  It has happened repeatedly.</p><p>The facts in this area are confused enough already.  Adding the totally corrupt opinion at RealClimate to the mix does not help.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The main guys at RealClimate are Hansen fanboys to an extreme degree ( one of them works under him ) , and ca n't be trusted to make an unbiased review.They have a very simple way of dealing with contrary scientific opinion , and that is to block the poster from their site .
It has happened repeatedly.The facts in this area are confused enough already .
Adding the totally corrupt opinion at RealClimate to the mix does not help .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The main guys at RealClimate are Hansen fanboys to an extreme degree (one of them works under him), and can't be trusted to make an unbiased review.They have a very simple way of dealing with contrary scientific opinion, and that is to block the poster from their site.
It has happened repeatedly.The facts in this area are confused enough already.
Adding the totally corrupt opinion at RealClimate to the mix does not help.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499093</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499165</id>
	<title>Re:And we want the gov to run health care?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246109040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hey, they're doing a fine job in the patent office.  Or the IRS, which will give you advice and then audit you for following it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , they 're doing a fine job in the patent office .
Or the IRS , which will give you advice and then audit you for following it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, they're doing a fine job in the patent office.
Or the IRS, which will give you advice and then audit you for following it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28498993</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499483</id>
	<title>Oh this "best fit"</title>
	<author>Nicolas MONNET</author>
	<datestamp>1246111380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Haven't had time to find out what proctological study they pulled their data out of, but one thing's sticking out like a sore thumb: their "best fit" (the violet line). Basically they're applying a formula meant to find the line that fit bests a set of points that look like they're on a straight line<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... to something that's evidently NOTHING like a straight line at all.<br>It would be completely retarded and incompetent, if it wasn't so obvious that they are lying scumbags and know that they can get away with such gross manipulation since their audience is composed mainly of retards, amoebas and lower life forms like conservatives and creationists.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have n't had time to find out what proctological study they pulled their data out of , but one thing 's sticking out like a sore thumb : their " best fit " ( the violet line ) .
Basically they 're applying a formula meant to find the line that fit bests a set of points that look like they 're on a straight line ... to something that 's evidently NOTHING like a straight line at all.It would be completely retarded and incompetent , if it was n't so obvious that they are lying scumbags and know that they can get away with such gross manipulation since their audience is composed mainly of retards , amoebas and lower life forms like conservatives and creationists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Haven't had time to find out what proctological study they pulled their data out of, but one thing's sticking out like a sore thumb: their "best fit" (the violet line).
Basically they're applying a formula meant to find the line that fit bests a set of points that look like they're on a straight line ... to something that's evidently NOTHING like a straight line at all.It would be completely retarded and incompetent, if it wasn't so obvious that they are lying scumbags and know that they can get away with such gross manipulation since their audience is composed mainly of retards, amoebas and lower life forms like conservatives and creationists.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499315</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499425</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246110900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So the world is still flat?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So the world is still flat ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the world is still flat?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499025</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28502241</id>
	<title>Skeptical.</title>
	<author>crhylove</author>
	<datestamp>1246187220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Color me Skeptical.</p><p>I used to be on the environmentalist side of the global warming debate.</p><p>But now the same guys that installed a Monsanto guy as head of Department of Agriculture are telling me global warming is real.</p><p>Suddenly I'm doubting the whole thing, and suspect this is more about stripping individuals of their rights further, which seems to be the primary task of both the Republican and Democratic parties and the corporations that run them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Color me Skeptical.I used to be on the environmentalist side of the global warming debate.But now the same guys that installed a Monsanto guy as head of Department of Agriculture are telling me global warming is real.Suddenly I 'm doubting the whole thing , and suspect this is more about stripping individuals of their rights further , which seems to be the primary task of both the Republican and Democratic parties and the corporations that run them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Color me Skeptical.I used to be on the environmentalist side of the global warming debate.But now the same guys that installed a Monsanto guy as head of Department of Agriculture are telling me global warming is real.Suddenly I'm doubting the whole thing, and suspect this is more about stripping individuals of their rights further, which seems to be the primary task of both the Republican and Democratic parties and the corporations that run them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499093</id>
	<title>There's less here than meets the eye</title>
	<author>Emor dNilapasi</author>
	<datestamp>1246108560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This has already been addressed at <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/bubkes/" title="realclimate.org" rel="nofollow">RealClimate</a> [realclimate.org].  The short answer is that the data on which the analysis rests is questionable, as is the analysis itself.  But if all you really want is en excuse to engage in a bit of gratuitous government- or Obama-bashing, then please don't let me stop you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This has already been addressed at RealClimate [ realclimate.org ] .
The short answer is that the data on which the analysis rests is questionable , as is the analysis itself .
But if all you really want is en excuse to engage in a bit of gratuitous government- or Obama-bashing , then please do n't let me stop you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This has already been addressed at RealClimate [realclimate.org].
The short answer is that the data on which the analysis rests is questionable, as is the analysis itself.
But if all you really want is en excuse to engage in a bit of gratuitous government- or Obama-bashing, then please don't let me stop you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28502867</id>
	<title>Re:Biased?</title>
	<author>jo\_ham</author>
	<datestamp>1246195800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But he's not pushing any agenda himself, he is merely point out fallacies and ludicrous conclusions drawn by the original author of the report.</p><p>If I wrote a report that said "the average lifespan and quality of life of Americans has increased during the same period that CO2 concentrations have gone up, therefore quality of life is directly related to it" in a report that is meant to be about climate change and its effects on the Earth, you don't need to be a scientist or even an expert in the field to say "umm, what does that even have to do with the topic?"</p><p>While quality of life and lifespans in general is important, it's not really in the same sphere of science as the global climate system as it relates to global warming, unless you make the assertion that global warming doesn't matter because American quality of life continues to rise because fewer people per year die from heat stroke (how about those overpowered AC units eh?!).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But he 's not pushing any agenda himself , he is merely point out fallacies and ludicrous conclusions drawn by the original author of the report.If I wrote a report that said " the average lifespan and quality of life of Americans has increased during the same period that CO2 concentrations have gone up , therefore quality of life is directly related to it " in a report that is meant to be about climate change and its effects on the Earth , you do n't need to be a scientist or even an expert in the field to say " umm , what does that even have to do with the topic ?
" While quality of life and lifespans in general is important , it 's not really in the same sphere of science as the global climate system as it relates to global warming , unless you make the assertion that global warming does n't matter because American quality of life continues to rise because fewer people per year die from heat stroke ( how about those overpowered AC units eh ? !
) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But he's not pushing any agenda himself, he is merely point out fallacies and ludicrous conclusions drawn by the original author of the report.If I wrote a report that said "the average lifespan and quality of life of Americans has increased during the same period that CO2 concentrations have gone up, therefore quality of life is directly related to it" in a report that is meant to be about climate change and its effects on the Earth, you don't need to be a scientist or even an expert in the field to say "umm, what does that even have to do with the topic?
"While quality of life and lifespans in general is important, it's not really in the same sphere of science as the global climate system as it relates to global warming, unless you make the assertion that global warming doesn't matter because American quality of life continues to rise because fewer people per year die from heat stroke (how about those overpowered AC units eh?!
).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500487</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499171</id>
	<title>Re:Did anybody read his paper?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246109100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You will need to remember, these are people with agendas.  They will use the data that supports their position and ignore the rest.  Oh look, polar regions have had a warming trend? Excellent, let's use that<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.4 degree difference as our main argument.  Let's also not mention that the earth tends to trend in one direction or another for long periods of time.  [either cooling down, or warming up].   <p><div class="quote"><p>Vienna - Plants grow better and absorb more carbon dioxide under hazy skies, a team of European researchers said Wednesday</p></div><p> <a href="http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/265464,dirty-skies-make-plants-grow-slow-down-climate-change.html" title="earthtimes.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/265464,dirty-skies-make-plants-grow-slow-down-climate-change.html</a> [earthtimes.org]  Lets also not mention that more carbon will make more plants grow bigger and faster.  It really makes no sense why the US has this anti-carbon obsession... Maybe someone can explain it to me?

The EPA's job is to 'regulate'  I guess they would feel useless if they had nothing to do...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You will need to remember , these are people with agendas .
They will use the data that supports their position and ignore the rest .
Oh look , polar regions have had a warming trend ?
Excellent , let 's use that .4 degree difference as our main argument .
Let 's also not mention that the earth tends to trend in one direction or another for long periods of time .
[ either cooling down , or warming up ] .
Vienna - Plants grow better and absorb more carbon dioxide under hazy skies , a team of European researchers said Wednesday http : //www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/265464,dirty-skies-make-plants-grow-slow-down-climate-change.html [ earthtimes.org ] Lets also not mention that more carbon will make more plants grow bigger and faster .
It really makes no sense why the US has this anti-carbon obsession... Maybe someone can explain it to me ?
The EPA 's job is to 'regulate ' I guess they would feel useless if they had nothing to do.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You will need to remember, these are people with agendas.
They will use the data that supports their position and ignore the rest.
Oh look, polar regions have had a warming trend?
Excellent, let's use that .4 degree difference as our main argument.
Let's also not mention that the earth tends to trend in one direction or another for long periods of time.
[either cooling down, or warming up].
Vienna - Plants grow better and absorb more carbon dioxide under hazy skies, a team of European researchers said Wednesday http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/265464,dirty-skies-make-plants-grow-slow-down-climate-change.html [earthtimes.org]  Lets also not mention that more carbon will make more plants grow bigger and faster.
It really makes no sense why the US has this anti-carbon obsession... Maybe someone can explain it to me?
The EPA's job is to 'regulate'  I guess they would feel useless if they had nothing to do...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499039</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28502771</id>
	<title>Re:Did anybody read his paper?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246194420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hi moron. You're a blowhard and contribute nothing to the conversation. The glaciers are not melting. Go back into your cave.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hi moron .
You 're a blowhard and contribute nothing to the conversation .
The glaciers are not melting .
Go back into your cave .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hi moron.
You're a blowhard and contribute nothing to the conversation.
The glaciers are not melting.
Go back into your cave.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499569</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499199</id>
	<title>Global Warming isn't man-made.</title>
	<author>NRAdude</author>
	<datestamp>1246109340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>  The unknown seasons and cycles of the sun also cause atmospheric changes, for which U.S. Navy and U.S. Airforce have been spraying Aluminum Oxide and another couple of dangerous chemicals in the atmosphere to artificially stimulate moisture and cloud formation as well as reflect sunlight reaching the surfact of planet Earth.</p><p>WHAT EVERYONE SHOULD LOOK INTO IS: As large heavenly bodies travel out in the solar-system, their gravitational pull causes geothermal activity.  Looking at the magnetic poles, North is currently centered in Siberia again and is pointing right at Planet X/Nibiru a dead sun that re-lives when it reaches our Sun every 5,000 years of its orbit.</p><p>Researching Adolph Hitler would reveal that he was searching for artifacts that would've proved similar feats of survival of former populations; apparently he found levitation equipment to raise structure high enough to evade the rising seas.  I doubt a ship were to survive the sea unless it were configured to submerge perhaps into one of the canyons formed by a historic iceberg and river like that one over in Newport Beach by the Santa Ana River or the Maryanas Trench.</p><p>Anyone with any thoughts on this?</p><p>When there are extreme weather imbalances, it is always caused by uncontrolled forces.  Man has only a 1\% immediate effect on this planet through the atmosphere and we are so-well insulated that nothing we passively do is causing any effect that lasts beyond a week or two.  If all populations shut down their combustion engines, we would be in deep shit because then we'ld know what this planet would realy behave bi-polar if not for our work of insulation.</p><p>Planet X, December 21 of Year 2012 is going to put every country under-water except for Coloradan republics and Tibet (aka Roofs of the Heavens).</p><p>If anything disrupts the rotation of Planet Earth itself, then that 500,000 square-mile bulge of water forced to the equator will recover all the floodplains for as long as gravity has been weakened by rotation rate.</p><p>Planet X is said to be 4-times the size of Planet Earth and 10-times the gravity, which is why Magnetic North has moved back to Siberia.  All Ocean floors where magma forms and displaces crust have recorded longitudinal lines that prove when the Magnetic Poles have switched or been disrupted. All areas of this planet with unusual phenomenons in Time and Space have rock formations that suggest they were one the site of a former magnetic North or South pole; Bermuda Triangle and China Sea are examples of former Pole locations.</p><p>Happy to help.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The unknown seasons and cycles of the sun also cause atmospheric changes , for which U.S. Navy and U.S. Airforce have been spraying Aluminum Oxide and another couple of dangerous chemicals in the atmosphere to artificially stimulate moisture and cloud formation as well as reflect sunlight reaching the surfact of planet Earth.WHAT EVERYONE SHOULD LOOK INTO IS : As large heavenly bodies travel out in the solar-system , their gravitational pull causes geothermal activity .
Looking at the magnetic poles , North is currently centered in Siberia again and is pointing right at Planet X/Nibiru a dead sun that re-lives when it reaches our Sun every 5,000 years of its orbit.Researching Adolph Hitler would reveal that he was searching for artifacts that would 've proved similar feats of survival of former populations ; apparently he found levitation equipment to raise structure high enough to evade the rising seas .
I doubt a ship were to survive the sea unless it were configured to submerge perhaps into one of the canyons formed by a historic iceberg and river like that one over in Newport Beach by the Santa Ana River or the Maryanas Trench.Anyone with any thoughts on this ? When there are extreme weather imbalances , it is always caused by uncontrolled forces .
Man has only a 1 \ % immediate effect on this planet through the atmosphere and we are so-well insulated that nothing we passively do is causing any effect that lasts beyond a week or two .
If all populations shut down their combustion engines , we would be in deep shit because then we'ld know what this planet would realy behave bi-polar if not for our work of insulation.Planet X , December 21 of Year 2012 is going to put every country under-water except for Coloradan republics and Tibet ( aka Roofs of the Heavens ) .If anything disrupts the rotation of Planet Earth itself , then that 500,000 square-mile bulge of water forced to the equator will recover all the floodplains for as long as gravity has been weakened by rotation rate.Planet X is said to be 4-times the size of Planet Earth and 10-times the gravity , which is why Magnetic North has moved back to Siberia .
All Ocean floors where magma forms and displaces crust have recorded longitudinal lines that prove when the Magnetic Poles have switched or been disrupted .
All areas of this planet with unusual phenomenons in Time and Space have rock formations that suggest they were one the site of a former magnetic North or South pole ; Bermuda Triangle and China Sea are examples of former Pole locations.Happy to help .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  The unknown seasons and cycles of the sun also cause atmospheric changes, for which U.S. Navy and U.S. Airforce have been spraying Aluminum Oxide and another couple of dangerous chemicals in the atmosphere to artificially stimulate moisture and cloud formation as well as reflect sunlight reaching the surfact of planet Earth.WHAT EVERYONE SHOULD LOOK INTO IS: As large heavenly bodies travel out in the solar-system, their gravitational pull causes geothermal activity.
Looking at the magnetic poles, North is currently centered in Siberia again and is pointing right at Planet X/Nibiru a dead sun that re-lives when it reaches our Sun every 5,000 years of its orbit.Researching Adolph Hitler would reveal that he was searching for artifacts that would've proved similar feats of survival of former populations; apparently he found levitation equipment to raise structure high enough to evade the rising seas.
I doubt a ship were to survive the sea unless it were configured to submerge perhaps into one of the canyons formed by a historic iceberg and river like that one over in Newport Beach by the Santa Ana River or the Maryanas Trench.Anyone with any thoughts on this?When there are extreme weather imbalances, it is always caused by uncontrolled forces.
Man has only a 1\% immediate effect on this planet through the atmosphere and we are so-well insulated that nothing we passively do is causing any effect that lasts beyond a week or two.
If all populations shut down their combustion engines, we would be in deep shit because then we'ld know what this planet would realy behave bi-polar if not for our work of insulation.Planet X, December 21 of Year 2012 is going to put every country under-water except for Coloradan republics and Tibet (aka Roofs of the Heavens).If anything disrupts the rotation of Planet Earth itself, then that 500,000 square-mile bulge of water forced to the equator will recover all the floodplains for as long as gravity has been weakened by rotation rate.Planet X is said to be 4-times the size of Planet Earth and 10-times the gravity, which is why Magnetic North has moved back to Siberia.
All Ocean floors where magma forms and displaces crust have recorded longitudinal lines that prove when the Magnetic Poles have switched or been disrupted.
All areas of this planet with unusual phenomenons in Time and Space have rock formations that suggest they were one the site of a former magnetic North or South pole; Bermuda Triangle and China Sea are examples of former Pole locations.Happy to help.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500279</id>
	<title>Re:The Administration modded this guy troll too!</title>
	<author>microbox</author>
	<datestamp>1246117980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>I made a post very critical of carbon emissions not long ago, think it ended up scoring (1, Troll)</i> <br>
<br>
Copy your post and sources into a reply and I'll tear it to pieces on the merits of argumentation. That's if you dare<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I made a post very critical of carbon emissions not long ago , think it ended up scoring ( 1 , Troll ) Copy your post and sources into a reply and I 'll tear it to pieces on the merits of argumentation .
That 's if you dare ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I made a post very critical of carbon emissions not long ago, think it ended up scoring (1, Troll) 

Copy your post and sources into a reply and I'll tear it to pieces on the merits of argumentation.
That's if you dare ;-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28514145</id>
	<title>Mod wars</title>
	<author>thethibs</author>
	<datestamp>1246290960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now this is funny.</p><p>Two climate-related messages and both are the subject of mod wars between the skeptics and those who consider the posts blasphemy.</p><p>The score so far is skeptics:0, disciples:1.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now this is funny.Two climate-related messages and both are the subject of mod wars between the skeptics and those who consider the posts blasphemy.The score so far is skeptics : 0 , disciples : 1 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now this is funny.Two climate-related messages and both are the subject of mod wars between the skeptics and those who consider the posts blasphemy.The score so far is skeptics:0, disciples:1.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499583</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499195</id>
	<title>Re:Did anybody read his paper?</title>
	<author>timmarhy</author>
	<datestamp>1246109280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>the problem is, how did they measure the temperature, are the devices accurate and was the data collected in a consistent manner?<p>
if you play with a dataset long enough you can get it to spit out almost any answer you want. it's one of my fears with global warming, that it's so agenda driven that the numbers are being bent in one sides favour.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the problem is , how did they measure the temperature , are the devices accurate and was the data collected in a consistent manner ?
if you play with a dataset long enough you can get it to spit out almost any answer you want .
it 's one of my fears with global warming , that it 's so agenda driven that the numbers are being bent in one sides favour .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the problem is, how did they measure the temperature, are the devices accurate and was the data collected in a consistent manner?
if you play with a dataset long enough you can get it to spit out almost any answer you want.
it's one of my fears with global warming, that it's so agenda driven that the numbers are being bent in one sides favour.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499039</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28501325</id>
	<title>icecap.us -- filled with strawman arguments</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246127520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You don't have to read very far into icecap.us to realize these guys are a fraud. The <a href="http://icecap.us/index.php/go/faqs-and-myths" title="icecap.us" rel="nofollow">http://icecap.us/index.php/go/faqs-and-myths</a> [icecap.us] is filled with strawman arguments like these:</p><p># CO2 is a pollutant.</p><p>(Who claimed it was a pollutant?)</p><p># CO2 is the most important greenhouse gas.</p><p>(Who claimed it was?)</p><p># The greenhouse effect is a bad thing.</p><p>The greenhouse effect is necessary for life on earth as we know it, were it not for the greenhouse effect, temperatures on Earth would be about 60 degrees F (33C) colder than they are at present. The global warming discussions center on the claims that human enhancement of the greenhouse will raise temperatures, and that these will be large compared with natural variations. (http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/ and Sherwood B. Idso, Craig D. Idso and Keith E. Idso, "The Specter of Species Extinction: Will Global Warming Decimate Earth's Biosphere?,<br><a href="http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/150.pdf" title="marshall.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/150.pdf</a> [marshall.org])</p><p># Modeling the earth's climate is nearly an exact science.</p><p>(Who claimed it was?)</p><p># Summers will be extremely hot and dry.</p><p>(Who claimed it was? Some people prefer to call this effect 'climate change', because the effect on the climate is unknown).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't have to read very far into icecap.us to realize these guys are a fraud .
The http : //icecap.us/index.php/go/faqs-and-myths [ icecap.us ] is filled with strawman arguments like these : # CO2 is a pollutant .
( Who claimed it was a pollutant ?
) # CO2 is the most important greenhouse gas .
( Who claimed it was ?
) # The greenhouse effect is a bad thing.The greenhouse effect is necessary for life on earth as we know it , were it not for the greenhouse effect , temperatures on Earth would be about 60 degrees F ( 33C ) colder than they are at present .
The global warming discussions center on the claims that human enhancement of the greenhouse will raise temperatures , and that these will be large compared with natural variations .
( http : //www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/ and Sherwood B. Idso , Craig D. Idso and Keith E. Idso , " The Specter of Species Extinction : Will Global Warming Decimate Earth 's Biosphere ? ,http : //www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/150.pdf [ marshall.org ] ) # Modeling the earth 's climate is nearly an exact science .
( Who claimed it was ?
) # Summers will be extremely hot and dry .
( Who claimed it was ?
Some people prefer to call this effect 'climate change ' , because the effect on the climate is unknown ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't have to read very far into icecap.us to realize these guys are a fraud.
The http://icecap.us/index.php/go/faqs-and-myths [icecap.us] is filled with strawman arguments like these:# CO2 is a pollutant.
(Who claimed it was a pollutant?
)# CO2 is the most important greenhouse gas.
(Who claimed it was?
)# The greenhouse effect is a bad thing.The greenhouse effect is necessary for life on earth as we know it, were it not for the greenhouse effect, temperatures on Earth would be about 60 degrees F (33C) colder than they are at present.
The global warming discussions center on the claims that human enhancement of the greenhouse will raise temperatures, and that these will be large compared with natural variations.
(http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/ and Sherwood B. Idso, Craig D. Idso and Keith E. Idso, "The Specter of Species Extinction: Will Global Warming Decimate Earth's Biosphere?,http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/150.pdf [marshall.org])# Modeling the earth's climate is nearly an exact science.
(Who claimed it was?
)# Summers will be extremely hot and dry.
(Who claimed it was?
Some people prefer to call this effect 'climate change', because the effect on the climate is unknown).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499791</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28498967</id>
	<title>I wonder....</title>
	<author>Darkness404</author>
	<datestamp>1246107300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wonder how many of these reports on other things (crime, drugs, copyright, etc) have been censored too in order to only give the government's point of view?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder how many of these reports on other things ( crime , drugs , copyright , etc ) have been censored too in order to only give the government 's point of view ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder how many of these reports on other things (crime, drugs, copyright, etc) have been censored too in order to only give the government's point of view?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500251</id>
	<title>Re:The Administration modded this guy troll too!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246117740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're forgetting one thing....higher temperatures can be a problem as much as lower.  It's a matter of Too hot, too cold, and just right...applied to the whole world.</p><p>That's kind of a big gamble to take.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're forgetting one thing....higher temperatures can be a problem as much as lower .
It 's a matter of Too hot , too cold , and just right...applied to the whole world.That 's kind of a big gamble to take .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're forgetting one thing....higher temperatures can be a problem as much as lower.
It's a matter of Too hot, too cold, and just right...applied to the whole world.That's kind of a big gamble to take.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499399</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28501143</id>
	<title>Re:Did anybody read his paper?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246125360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Considering how many lies FoS have published in the past maybe you might want to go the Hadley Center or to NCDC and get the raw data and plot the results yourself using something simple like Excel. Then using your own graphs you can that theree has not been a significant decline in temperatures. You might also learn that CO2 has been rising exponential and the temperatures continue to rise as well. Oh I get it you want to use pick your choice of any two years and then draw a straight line connecting the two points. The only humanity haters are those that continue to repeat the mantra of the market will take care of everything (like it did for the stock market) and "I've got mine screw you"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Considering how many lies FoS have published in the past maybe you might want to go the Hadley Center or to NCDC and get the raw data and plot the results yourself using something simple like Excel .
Then using your own graphs you can that theree has not been a significant decline in temperatures .
You might also learn that CO2 has been rising exponential and the temperatures continue to rise as well .
Oh I get it you want to use pick your choice of any two years and then draw a straight line connecting the two points .
The only humanity haters are those that continue to repeat the mantra of the market will take care of everything ( like it did for the stock market ) and " I 've got mine screw you "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Considering how many lies FoS have published in the past maybe you might want to go the Hadley Center or to NCDC and get the raw data and plot the results yourself using something simple like Excel.
Then using your own graphs you can that theree has not been a significant decline in temperatures.
You might also learn that CO2 has been rising exponential and the temperatures continue to rise as well.
Oh I get it you want to use pick your choice of any two years and then draw a straight line connecting the two points.
The only humanity haters are those that continue to repeat the mantra of the market will take care of everything (like it did for the stock market) and "I've got mine screw you"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499315</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28503207</id>
	<title>Re:They said he's not a climate scientist</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1246199400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So now all I have to do is prove that climate science is a subset of economics and the "how dare they say he isn't a climate scientist" outrage will be justified.</p> </div><p>Any proposed fix to climate has a heavy economic impact. Some proposals would be similarly transforming human society as the original industrial revolution. We have a choice between doing nothing and a variety of mitigation approaches, each with their own costs and benefits. It's not that strange that economics is very relevant to climate change. In fact, I consider the ignorance of economic consequences one of the key problems with current climate study.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So now all I have to do is prove that climate science is a subset of economics and the " how dare they say he is n't a climate scientist " outrage will be justified .
Any proposed fix to climate has a heavy economic impact .
Some proposals would be similarly transforming human society as the original industrial revolution .
We have a choice between doing nothing and a variety of mitigation approaches , each with their own costs and benefits .
It 's not that strange that economics is very relevant to climate change .
In fact , I consider the ignorance of economic consequences one of the key problems with current climate study .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So now all I have to do is prove that climate science is a subset of economics and the "how dare they say he isn't a climate scientist" outrage will be justified.
Any proposed fix to climate has a heavy economic impact.
Some proposals would be similarly transforming human society as the original industrial revolution.
We have a choice between doing nothing and a variety of mitigation approaches, each with their own costs and benefits.
It's not that strange that economics is very relevant to climate change.
In fact, I consider the ignorance of economic consequences one of the key problems with current climate study.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28502121</id>
	<title>Hold-over from Bush era?</title>
	<author>searob</author>
	<datestamp>1246184880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think that person was put in place by the Bush Administration and is a loyal Republican.  Most credible scientists agree that global warming is real.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that person was put in place by the Bush Administration and is a loyal Republican .
Most credible scientists agree that global warming is real .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that person was put in place by the Bush Administration and is a loyal Republican.
Most credible scientists agree that global warming is real.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28498951</id>
	<title>News Flash!  Civil Servants Corrupt!  News @ 11:00</title>
	<author>R2.0</author>
	<datestamp>1246107240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, under the old boss, he leaned one way, and under the new boss he leans another.</p><p>Color me shocked.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , under the old boss , he leaned one way , and under the new boss he leans another.Color me shocked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, under the old boss, he leaned one way, and under the new boss he leans another.Color me shocked.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28509501</id>
	<title>Re:Climate change denialism</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246207320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're delusional. 0bama is pushing through whatever agrees with his existing notions, as rapidly as possible.
<p>
A major backlash is building.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're delusional .
0bama is pushing through whatever agrees with his existing notions , as rapidly as possible .
A major backlash is building .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're delusional.
0bama is pushing through whatever agrees with his existing notions, as rapidly as possible.
A major backlash is building.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499293</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28501811</id>
	<title>And this never happens in the US ... ?</title>
	<author>Nicolas MONNET</author>
	<datestamp>1246222140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No waiting list in France. Except for transplants, but that's for a lack of materials.</p><p>The UK probably has the most indigent health system in Europe. They spend much less on average, probably not as much as is really necessary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No waiting list in France .
Except for transplants , but that 's for a lack of materials.The UK probably has the most indigent health system in Europe .
They spend much less on average , probably not as much as is really necessary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No waiting list in France.
Except for transplants, but that's for a lack of materials.The UK probably has the most indigent health system in Europe.
They spend much less on average, probably not as much as is really necessary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499831</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499031</id>
	<title>I agree</title>
	<author>grep\_rocks</author>
	<datestamp>1246108020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I hate to be a troll - but I agree with the EPA, a PhD in economics is not the same as being a climate scientist - unless he has decided to dig into the climate computer models - which I doubt - I am not sure what the substance of his report would be - economic impact?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hate to be a troll - but I agree with the EPA , a PhD in economics is not the same as being a climate scientist - unless he has decided to dig into the climate computer models - which I doubt - I am not sure what the substance of his report would be - economic impact ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hate to be a troll - but I agree with the EPA, a PhD in economics is not the same as being a climate scientist - unless he has decided to dig into the climate computer models - which I doubt - I am not sure what the substance of his report would be - economic impact?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499739</id>
	<title>Re:I agree</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246113240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Personally, I majored in  mechanical engineering as an undergrad. I studied materials science for my masters degree. I did my PhD in polymeric materials. And yet, my current work is completely biological (adult stem cells I might add). A higher degree merely gives you the ability to conduct proper research, regardless of the field. Scientists overlap their studies constantly. While some backgrounds are more suitable for some study than others, I wouldn't just throw away the findings on climate change because his degree is in economics. Either way, it's all math.</p><p>Now, have you actually read his report? I'm willing to bet the best scientific whistleblowers would be the ones in that lie outside of the field unbiased by the errata in the training of their "more suitable" counterparts.</p><p>Furthermore, WHAT degree does the EPA official have to give him the expertise to dismiss such a report in the first place?!?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , I majored in mechanical engineering as an undergrad .
I studied materials science for my masters degree .
I did my PhD in polymeric materials .
And yet , my current work is completely biological ( adult stem cells I might add ) .
A higher degree merely gives you the ability to conduct proper research , regardless of the field .
Scientists overlap their studies constantly .
While some backgrounds are more suitable for some study than others , I would n't just throw away the findings on climate change because his degree is in economics .
Either way , it 's all math.Now , have you actually read his report ?
I 'm willing to bet the best scientific whistleblowers would be the ones in that lie outside of the field unbiased by the errata in the training of their " more suitable " counterparts.Furthermore , WHAT degree does the EPA official have to give him the expertise to dismiss such a report in the first place ? !
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, I majored in  mechanical engineering as an undergrad.
I studied materials science for my masters degree.
I did my PhD in polymeric materials.
And yet, my current work is completely biological (adult stem cells I might add).
A higher degree merely gives you the ability to conduct proper research, regardless of the field.
Scientists overlap their studies constantly.
While some backgrounds are more suitable for some study than others, I wouldn't just throw away the findings on climate change because his degree is in economics.
Either way, it's all math.Now, have you actually read his report?
I'm willing to bet the best scientific whistleblowers would be the ones in that lie outside of the field unbiased by the errata in the training of their "more suitable" counterparts.Furthermore, WHAT degree does the EPA official have to give him the expertise to dismiss such a report in the first place?!
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499031</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500139</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah...</title>
	<author>ShakaUVM</author>
	<datestamp>1246116600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>And maybe this paper was given the bum's rush, but I think it was less "conspiracy to silence critics of the almighty environmentalists" and more "oh, God, let's just get on with this already."</i></p><p>Funny, when the Bush administration quashed pro-global warming papers, you were all howling about it.</p><p>I'm not sure the EPA should be in the business of quashing papers at all, if you ask me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And maybe this paper was given the bum 's rush , but I think it was less " conspiracy to silence critics of the almighty environmentalists " and more " oh , God , let 's just get on with this already .
" Funny , when the Bush administration quashed pro-global warming papers , you were all howling about it.I 'm not sure the EPA should be in the business of quashing papers at all , if you ask me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And maybe this paper was given the bum's rush, but I think it was less "conspiracy to silence critics of the almighty environmentalists" and more "oh, God, let's just get on with this already.
"Funny, when the Bush administration quashed pro-global warming papers, you were all howling about it.I'm not sure the EPA should be in the business of quashing papers at all, if you ask me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499025</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499229</id>
	<title>Re:They said he's not a climate scientist</title>
	<author>Moridineas</author>
	<datestamp>1246109520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>  he's [sec] seems to have spent most of his career writing position papers for economics think tanks</p></div><p>Or working for the EPA for 38 years?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>he 's [ sec ] seems to have spent most of his career writing position papers for economics think tanksOr working for the EPA for 38 years ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  he's [sec] seems to have spent most of his career writing position papers for economics think tanksOr working for the EPA for 38 years?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500917</id>
	<title>Well worth reading.</title>
	<author>Futurepower(R)</author>
	<datestamp>1246123380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>2nd Vote: MOD PARENT UP.</htmltext>
<tokenext>2nd Vote : MOD PARENT UP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2nd Vote: MOD PARENT UP.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499421</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499793</id>
	<title>Re:The Administration modded this guy troll too!</title>
	<author>yourassOA</author>
	<datestamp>1246113660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's funny how anything not pro global warming is instantly modded troll and here I thought the people here were supposed to be smart open minded people but they censor anyone who doesn't believe the crap on CNN.<br> Global warming is a scam.<br>9/11 was allowed to happen.<br> Electric cars are a bad idea.<br>GWB is a war criminal.<br> Obama is GWB's evil twin.(transparent government my ass that why he covers up sick freak who like to torture people.)<br> Wake up and smell the bullshit you arn't Obamas's buddy he won't help you out for turning a blind eye on his and GWB crimes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's funny how anything not pro global warming is instantly modded troll and here I thought the people here were supposed to be smart open minded people but they censor anyone who does n't believe the crap on CNN .
Global warming is a scam.9/11 was allowed to happen .
Electric cars are a bad idea.GWB is a war criminal .
Obama is GWB 's evil twin .
( transparent government my ass that why he covers up sick freak who like to torture people .
) Wake up and smell the bullshit you ar n't Obamas 's buddy he wo n't help you out for turning a blind eye on his and GWB crimes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's funny how anything not pro global warming is instantly modded troll and here I thought the people here were supposed to be smart open minded people but they censor anyone who doesn't believe the crap on CNN.
Global warming is a scam.9/11 was allowed to happen.
Electric cars are a bad idea.GWB is a war criminal.
Obama is GWB's evil twin.
(transparent government my ass that why he covers up sick freak who like to torture people.
) Wake up and smell the bullshit you arn't Obamas's buddy he won't help you out for turning a blind eye on his and GWB crimes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28502169</id>
	<title>Re:I agree</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246185780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I concur. Only ignorance can make people believe that a BS in Physics makes you a scientist, or that economics is a science at all. As for studying "climate computer models", how about first getting a real PhD in a real science relevant to the field? (Hint: climate models are tricky PDEs, and appropriate numerical methods take much more that a PhD to get comfortable with).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I concur .
Only ignorance can make people believe that a BS in Physics makes you a scientist , or that economics is a science at all .
As for studying " climate computer models " , how about first getting a real PhD in a real science relevant to the field ?
( Hint : climate models are tricky PDEs , and appropriate numerical methods take much more that a PhD to get comfortable with ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I concur.
Only ignorance can make people believe that a BS in Physics makes you a scientist, or that economics is a science at all.
As for studying "climate computer models", how about first getting a real PhD in a real science relevant to the field?
(Hint: climate models are tricky PDEs, and appropriate numerical methods take much more that a PhD to get comfortable with).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499031</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28502489</id>
	<title>Re:I dunno...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246190820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I'd say it's worth paying attention to the man. Even if he's on the verge of retirement, 38 years of experience is nothing to sneeze at.</p></div></blockquote><p>Sure thing.</p><p>But we have to pay proportional attention to the vast number of the 40+ year-in-the-industry people that study climate science for a living that disagree on the fundamentals here, as well.</p><p>There are many people that have spent literally their entire lives on this stuff; as a whole, I think it's pretty unambiguous that they think the effect is real.  Lacking the skill/experience/time to look into this myself, I'm more comfortable assuming confirmation bias on the part of the handful of people that disagree with the "consensus" than I am assuming that the whole field is a big conspiracy or circle jerk.</p><p>It's possible I'm wrong, but when it comes to scientific fields, I know from my areas of expertise (physics and statistics) that a) people outside them are <em>heinously</em> unqualified to understand the issues involved, and b) when a large majority of the people in the field say that something is settled, they've at least done their homework, and the only thing that could break that sort of consensus would be an actual revolution or breakthrough in the field, not an economist saying "Gee whiz, I don't think that's right!"</p><p>Maybe I'm crazy and climate science is shit as a science, but I don't know enough to evaluate that, either, so I have to do what Bayes would have done and hold it up against the sciences that I do know.  And in that case, I'll side with the experts, thank you very much.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd say it 's worth paying attention to the man .
Even if he 's on the verge of retirement , 38 years of experience is nothing to sneeze at.Sure thing.But we have to pay proportional attention to the vast number of the 40 + year-in-the-industry people that study climate science for a living that disagree on the fundamentals here , as well.There are many people that have spent literally their entire lives on this stuff ; as a whole , I think it 's pretty unambiguous that they think the effect is real .
Lacking the skill/experience/time to look into this myself , I 'm more comfortable assuming confirmation bias on the part of the handful of people that disagree with the " consensus " than I am assuming that the whole field is a big conspiracy or circle jerk.It 's possible I 'm wrong , but when it comes to scientific fields , I know from my areas of expertise ( physics and statistics ) that a ) people outside them are heinously unqualified to understand the issues involved , and b ) when a large majority of the people in the field say that something is settled , they 've at least done their homework , and the only thing that could break that sort of consensus would be an actual revolution or breakthrough in the field , not an economist saying " Gee whiz , I do n't think that 's right !
" Maybe I 'm crazy and climate science is shit as a science , but I do n't know enough to evaluate that , either , so I have to do what Bayes would have done and hold it up against the sciences that I do know .
And in that case , I 'll side with the experts , thank you very much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd say it's worth paying attention to the man.
Even if he's on the verge of retirement, 38 years of experience is nothing to sneeze at.Sure thing.But we have to pay proportional attention to the vast number of the 40+ year-in-the-industry people that study climate science for a living that disagree on the fundamentals here, as well.There are many people that have spent literally their entire lives on this stuff; as a whole, I think it's pretty unambiguous that they think the effect is real.
Lacking the skill/experience/time to look into this myself, I'm more comfortable assuming confirmation bias on the part of the handful of people that disagree with the "consensus" than I am assuming that the whole field is a big conspiracy or circle jerk.It's possible I'm wrong, but when it comes to scientific fields, I know from my areas of expertise (physics and statistics) that a) people outside them are heinously unqualified to understand the issues involved, and b) when a large majority of the people in the field say that something is settled, they've at least done their homework, and the only thing that could break that sort of consensus would be an actual revolution or breakthrough in the field, not an economist saying "Gee whiz, I don't think that's right!
"Maybe I'm crazy and climate science is shit as a science, but I don't know enough to evaluate that, either, so I have to do what Bayes would have done and hold it up against the sciences that I do know.
And in that case, I'll side with the experts, thank you very much.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499239</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499569</id>
	<title>Re:Did anybody read his paper?</title>
	<author>jd</author>
	<datestamp>1246111860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can you give me a hard problem? Something at least partially challenging? You know the rules of physics and chemistry better than this. There will be no rise in temperature in any area undergoing a phase change, until the change is complete. The heat is entirely taken up by the phase change itself.</p><p>Since the world's glaciers and ice sheets are demonstrably melting, we have a phase change. None of the regions in which the phase change is taking place will be rising in temperature for the same reason that water with melting ice will not rise in temperature.</p><p>BUT THEY ARE ALL WARMING!!!</p><p>You are confusing temperature with heat. The two are NOT the same! The two are proportional IF AND ONLY IF no phase change is taking place.</p><p>In order to create the kinds of phase change being observed, an enormous amount of heat is involved, but without any corresponding rise in temperature. This is very basic stuff.</p><p>Ok, so what about the fall in temperature? What about it? Temperature is only proportional to heat for a specific material, including a specific mix of gasses. As water evaporation increases, you are altering the composition of the atmosphere. Ergo, an absolute temperature means bugger all. You must calculate the heat present (based on the gasses/vapour) and then talk about the change in heat.</p><p>This is really basic stuff and I shouldn't have to be telling you this. You learned it in school and the laws of physics haven't changed since. Not even Scotty could change the laws of physics, so don't think that believers or skeptics could do so.</p><p>And as I've said before, the only person I regard as a credible voice in all of this is James Lovelock. Since he believes that Global Warming is real, man-made and far too advanced to be stopped (merely limited in impact), and as he's been entirely correct on all prior predictions, his conclusion is the one I will be going with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can you give me a hard problem ?
Something at least partially challenging ?
You know the rules of physics and chemistry better than this .
There will be no rise in temperature in any area undergoing a phase change , until the change is complete .
The heat is entirely taken up by the phase change itself.Since the world 's glaciers and ice sheets are demonstrably melting , we have a phase change .
None of the regions in which the phase change is taking place will be rising in temperature for the same reason that water with melting ice will not rise in temperature.BUT THEY ARE ALL WARMING ! !
! You are confusing temperature with heat .
The two are NOT the same !
The two are proportional IF AND ONLY IF no phase change is taking place.In order to create the kinds of phase change being observed , an enormous amount of heat is involved , but without any corresponding rise in temperature .
This is very basic stuff.Ok , so what about the fall in temperature ?
What about it ?
Temperature is only proportional to heat for a specific material , including a specific mix of gasses .
As water evaporation increases , you are altering the composition of the atmosphere .
Ergo , an absolute temperature means bugger all .
You must calculate the heat present ( based on the gasses/vapour ) and then talk about the change in heat.This is really basic stuff and I should n't have to be telling you this .
You learned it in school and the laws of physics have n't changed since .
Not even Scotty could change the laws of physics , so do n't think that believers or skeptics could do so.And as I 've said before , the only person I regard as a credible voice in all of this is James Lovelock .
Since he believes that Global Warming is real , man-made and far too advanced to be stopped ( merely limited in impact ) , and as he 's been entirely correct on all prior predictions , his conclusion is the one I will be going with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can you give me a hard problem?
Something at least partially challenging?
You know the rules of physics and chemistry better than this.
There will be no rise in temperature in any area undergoing a phase change, until the change is complete.
The heat is entirely taken up by the phase change itself.Since the world's glaciers and ice sheets are demonstrably melting, we have a phase change.
None of the regions in which the phase change is taking place will be rising in temperature for the same reason that water with melting ice will not rise in temperature.BUT THEY ARE ALL WARMING!!
!You are confusing temperature with heat.
The two are NOT the same!
The two are proportional IF AND ONLY IF no phase change is taking place.In order to create the kinds of phase change being observed, an enormous amount of heat is involved, but without any corresponding rise in temperature.
This is very basic stuff.Ok, so what about the fall in temperature?
What about it?
Temperature is only proportional to heat for a specific material, including a specific mix of gasses.
As water evaporation increases, you are altering the composition of the atmosphere.
Ergo, an absolute temperature means bugger all.
You must calculate the heat present (based on the gasses/vapour) and then talk about the change in heat.This is really basic stuff and I shouldn't have to be telling you this.
You learned it in school and the laws of physics haven't changed since.
Not even Scotty could change the laws of physics, so don't think that believers or skeptics could do so.And as I've said before, the only person I regard as a credible voice in all of this is James Lovelock.
Since he believes that Global Warming is real, man-made and far too advanced to be stopped (merely limited in impact), and as he's been entirely correct on all prior predictions, his conclusion is the one I will be going with.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499315</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499901</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246114620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What this amounts to is a parallel currency (the carbon credit) by which the government will control the means of production. It's all back-door power-grab bullshit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What this amounts to is a parallel currency ( the carbon credit ) by which the government will control the means of production .
It 's all back-door power-grab bullshit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What this amounts to is a parallel currency (the carbon credit) by which the government will control the means of production.
It's all back-door power-grab bullshit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499135</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28504333</id>
	<title>What rigorous, precise physical studies?</title>
	<author>coopex</author>
	<datestamp>1246208280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You can't seriously be talking about climate models with hand waving arguments about averaging so that they can only be tested in 2100, but horrible things will happen if we don't assume them correct and act accordingly.  Has the IPCC even put out the calculated standard deviation of global temperature yearly, 10 years, etc, based on the observed global temps?  Are these questions about basic facts and circular reasoning so unreasonable to expect from science?</htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't seriously be talking about climate models with hand waving arguments about averaging so that they can only be tested in 2100 , but horrible things will happen if we do n't assume them correct and act accordingly .
Has the IPCC even put out the calculated standard deviation of global temperature yearly , 10 years , etc , based on the observed global temps ?
Are these questions about basic facts and circular reasoning so unreasonable to expect from science ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't seriously be talking about climate models with hand waving arguments about averaging so that they can only be tested in 2100, but horrible things will happen if we don't assume them correct and act accordingly.
Has the IPCC even put out the calculated standard deviation of global temperature yearly, 10 years, etc, based on the observed global temps?
Are these questions about basic facts and circular reasoning so unreasonable to expect from science?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499313</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499833</id>
	<title>Re:Irony and Science</title>
	<author>flyingrobots</author>
	<datestamp>1246114140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why have temperatures since 2001 basically flalined?  And why is there so many adjustments and modifications made to the data resulting in so much disparity between the pretty graphs 'proving' we're warming?
<br> <br>
I mention it in a previous post <a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1179253&amp;cid=27373533" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow"> here </a> [slashdot.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why have temperatures since 2001 basically flalined ?
And why is there so many adjustments and modifications made to the data resulting in so much disparity between the pretty graphs 'proving ' we 're warming ?
I mention it in a previous post here [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why have temperatures since 2001 basically flalined?
And why is there so many adjustments and modifications made to the data resulting in so much disparity between the pretty graphs 'proving' we're warming?
I mention it in a previous post  here  [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499363</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499655</id>
	<title>Re:I dunno...</title>
	<author>mellon</author>
	<datestamp>1246112580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The EPA is not a scientific body of climate scientists.   They do employ climate scientists, but their bailiwick extends far beyond that, and indeed until recently they hadn't done any regulation relating to climate - they had been concentrating on clean air, clean water, stuff like that.   So no, the fact that you've worked at the EPA for 40 years does not automatically make you qualified to render opinions on climate science.   Statistically, it's very unlikely that a person would develop that particular skill set as a result of working at the EPA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The EPA is not a scientific body of climate scientists .
They do employ climate scientists , but their bailiwick extends far beyond that , and indeed until recently they had n't done any regulation relating to climate - they had been concentrating on clean air , clean water , stuff like that .
So no , the fact that you 've worked at the EPA for 40 years does not automatically make you qualified to render opinions on climate science .
Statistically , it 's very unlikely that a person would develop that particular skill set as a result of working at the EPA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The EPA is not a scientific body of climate scientists.
They do employ climate scientists, but their bailiwick extends far beyond that, and indeed until recently they hadn't done any regulation relating to climate - they had been concentrating on clean air, clean water, stuff like that.
So no, the fact that you've worked at the EPA for 40 years does not automatically make you qualified to render opinions on climate science.
Statistically, it's very unlikely that a person would develop that particular skill set as a result of working at the EPA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499239</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500237</id>
	<title>Re:The Administration modded this guy troll too!</title>
	<author>allthingscode</author>
	<datestamp>1246117620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A higher average temperature means that areas that were able to grow crops will now be dryer, pushing growing areas to cooler places.  Yes, higher average temps may mean that it stays 70 degrees for a longer period of time, but it also means that you will hit 100+ more often, drying the ground and drying plants.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A higher average temperature means that areas that were able to grow crops will now be dryer , pushing growing areas to cooler places .
Yes , higher average temps may mean that it stays 70 degrees for a longer period of time , but it also means that you will hit 100 + more often , drying the ground and drying plants .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A higher average temperature means that areas that were able to grow crops will now be dryer, pushing growing areas to cooler places.
Yes, higher average temps may mean that it stays 70 degrees for a longer period of time, but it also means that you will hit 100+ more often, drying the ground and drying plants.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499399</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499301</id>
	<title>Re:Did anybody read his paper?</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1246110120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Also, his credentials don't make him a scientific authority: a PhD in economics makes you an authority on economics, not climatology. A BS in physics give you a bit more authority than the average Joe on physics, not climatology.</p><p>In short, they were right to attack his credentials, because on this issue he doesn't have any.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , his credentials do n't make him a scientific authority : a PhD in economics makes you an authority on economics , not climatology .
A BS in physics give you a bit more authority than the average Joe on physics , not climatology.In short , they were right to attack his credentials , because on this issue he does n't have any .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, his credentials don't make him a scientific authority: a PhD in economics makes you an authority on economics, not climatology.
A BS in physics give you a bit more authority than the average Joe on physics, not climatology.In short, they were right to attack his credentials, because on this issue he doesn't have any.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499039</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499551
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_106</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499421
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28501729
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499093
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499401
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499031
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28509175
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500301
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499301
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28498967
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499227
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499421
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28502665
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_111</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499239
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500597
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_113</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499229
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28501227
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499363
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499943
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500243
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500871
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500237
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28498993
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499377
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499831
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28501811
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28501043
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499483
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28501155
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28501969
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500047
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28498967
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500219
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_105</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499239
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499655
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499421
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500111
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28502337
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_119</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499569
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28517035
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499493
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500277
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499313
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28504333
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499153
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499497
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499569
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28502771
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499103
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499421
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500917
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499425
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28498951
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499109
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28501139
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499421
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500111
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500933
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499685
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28507307
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499237
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499135
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499667
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499031
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28501249
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499031
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28523617
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500139
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499137
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28501507
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499239
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499605
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_117</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500593
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499819
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499239
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28511133
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_120</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499421
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28509103
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499421
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28505237
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499363
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28503649
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499363
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28502187
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500245
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499363
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499511
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500119
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28502295
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499293
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28509501
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499421
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28505085
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_109</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500355
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28507355
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499239
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28502489
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499031
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499657
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_114</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28501143
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499363
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28501755
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500279
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499421
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500587
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499363
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499833
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499413
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_104</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499569
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500289
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499031
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28507213
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499319
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28508591
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499363
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28501983
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499259
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28505885
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500291
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499961
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499407
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500905
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499137
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28501543
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500545
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499153
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499397
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499135
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499901
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28503207
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499421
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499975
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28509927
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_112</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499293
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500261
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499421
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500391
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28514145
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_103</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499363
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28502867
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28501055
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500997
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_102</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499171
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28498993
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499377
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28501175
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499363
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499501
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499421
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28501243
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499137
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500317
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28503797
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499031
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499739
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28498967
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28503161
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_118</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28501887
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_121</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499793
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28502229
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499153
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499643
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28501959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28502529
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499553
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500719
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_108</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499421
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500271
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499293
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28501127
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499793
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500607
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499135
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28504697
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500375
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499031
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28502169
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500251
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_115</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499363
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28501281
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499239
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500941
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499791
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28501325
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499569
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500695
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28501299
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28501959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28502755
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499195
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499153
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499433
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500189
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28498993
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499165
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_116</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499031
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28523329
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499123
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_107</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499153
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499785
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28502637
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_27_2314213_110</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499363
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28502571
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_2314213.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28502121
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_2314213.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499319
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28508591
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_2314213.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499239
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28511133
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499605
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28502489
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500941
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499655
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500597
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_2314213.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499057
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_2314213.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500355
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28507355
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_2314213.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28498967
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499227
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500219
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28503161
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_2314213.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499015
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500245
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500905
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499399
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500291
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500251
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28502637
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500237
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500279
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499137
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500317
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28501543
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28501507
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28501139
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499793
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500607
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28502229
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28509927
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499313
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28504333
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_2314213.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499583
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28514145
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_2314213.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499153
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499433
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499397
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499497
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499785
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499643
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_2314213.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499293
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500261
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28509501
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28501127
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_2314213.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500067
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_2314213.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499187
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_2314213.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500045
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_2314213.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499035
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_2314213.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499363
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499833
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28502571
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28501281
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500487
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28502187
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28502867
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499511
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28503649
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28501755
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499943
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499501
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28501983
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_2314213.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28498951
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499109
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_2314213.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499509
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28501155
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500243
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500871
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500119
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_2314213.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28502261
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_2314213.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499259
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28505885
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_2314213.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499031
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28523329
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28509175
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28502169
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28507213
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28501249
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499657
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499739
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28523617
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_2314213.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499093
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499401
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_2314213.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499245
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_2314213.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499519
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_2314213.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28501959
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28502529
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28502755
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_2314213.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499025
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499145
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28501969
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28501887
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500593
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499425
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499123
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499551
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499103
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500375
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499237
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499407
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499135
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499455
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28504697
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499667
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499901
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500139
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_2314213.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28498993
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499377
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28501175
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499831
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28501811
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499165
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_2314213.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28501171
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_2314213.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499179
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_2314213.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499039
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499791
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28501325
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499161
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499421
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28502665
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28505085
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28509103
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500391
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28505237
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500271
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28501729
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500917
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499975
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500111
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500933
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28502337
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28501243
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500587
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499315
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499961
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499569
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28502771
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500289
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28517035
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500695
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28501299
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28501143
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500277
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500047
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499413
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500545
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500719
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28501043
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499483
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499493
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28503797
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499553
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500189
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499301
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500301
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499195
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499171
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499819
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28500997
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_2314213.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499075
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28503207
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499685
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28502295
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499229
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28501227
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28501055
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_27_2314213.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28499473
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_27_2314213.28507307
</commentlist>
</conversation>
