<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_20_1747257</id>
	<title>Climatic Research Unit Hacked, Files Leaked</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1258746660000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>huckamania was one of many readers to write with the news that the University of East Anglia's Hadley Climatic Research Unit was <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8370282.stm">hacked, and internal documents released</a>. Some <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-news-story-hadley-cru-has-apparently-been-hacked-hundreds-of-files-released/#more-12937">discussion and analysis of the leaked items</a> can be found at Watts Up With That. The CRU has confirmed that a breach occurred, but not that all <a href="http://www.megaupload.com/?d=U44FST89">61 MB of released material</a> is genuine. Some of the emails would seem to raise concerns about the science as practiced &mdash; or at least beg an explanation. From the Watts Up link: <i>"[The CRU] is widely recognized as one of the world's leading institutions concerned with the study of natural and anthropogenic climate change. Consisting of a staff of around thirty research scientists and students, the Unit has developed a number of the data sets widely used in climate research, including the global temperature record used to monitor the state of the climate system, as well as statistical software packages and climate models. An unknown person put postings on some climate skeptic websites that advertised an FTP file on a Russian FTP server. Here is the message that was placed on the Air Vent today: 'We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to be kept under wraps. We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents.' The file was large, about 61 megabytes, containing hundreds of files. It contained data, code, and emails apparently from the CRU. If proved legitimate, these bombshells could spell trouble for the AGW crowd."</i> Reader brandaman supplied the link to the archive of pilfered data. Reader aretae characterized the emails as revealing "...lots of intrigue, data manipulation, attempting to shut out opposing points of view out of scientific journals. Almost makes you think it's a religion. Anyone surprised?" And reader bugnuts adds, for context: "These emails are certainly taken out of context, whether they are legitimate or fraudulent, which adds to the confusion."</htmltext>
<tokenext>huckamania was one of many readers to write with the news that the University of East Anglia 's Hadley Climatic Research Unit was hacked , and internal documents released .
Some discussion and analysis of the leaked items can be found at Watts Up With That .
The CRU has confirmed that a breach occurred , but not that all 61 MB of released material is genuine .
Some of the emails would seem to raise concerns about the science as practiced    or at least beg an explanation .
From the Watts Up link : " [ The CRU ] is widely recognized as one of the world 's leading institutions concerned with the study of natural and anthropogenic climate change .
Consisting of a staff of around thirty research scientists and students , the Unit has developed a number of the data sets widely used in climate research , including the global temperature record used to monitor the state of the climate system , as well as statistical software packages and climate models .
An unknown person put postings on some climate skeptic websites that advertised an FTP file on a Russian FTP server .
Here is the message that was placed on the Air Vent today : 'We feel that climate science is , in the current situation , too important to be kept under wraps .
We hereby release a random selection of correspondence , code , and documents .
' The file was large , about 61 megabytes , containing hundreds of files .
It contained data , code , and emails apparently from the CRU .
If proved legitimate , these bombshells could spell trouble for the AGW crowd .
" Reader brandaman supplied the link to the archive of pilfered data .
Reader aretae characterized the emails as revealing " ...lots of intrigue , data manipulation , attempting to shut out opposing points of view out of scientific journals .
Almost makes you think it 's a religion .
Anyone surprised ?
" And reader bugnuts adds , for context : " These emails are certainly taken out of context , whether they are legitimate or fraudulent , which adds to the confusion .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>huckamania was one of many readers to write with the news that the University of East Anglia's Hadley Climatic Research Unit was hacked, and internal documents released.
Some discussion and analysis of the leaked items can be found at Watts Up With That.
The CRU has confirmed that a breach occurred, but not that all 61 MB of released material is genuine.
Some of the emails would seem to raise concerns about the science as practiced — or at least beg an explanation.
From the Watts Up link: "[The CRU] is widely recognized as one of the world's leading institutions concerned with the study of natural and anthropogenic climate change.
Consisting of a staff of around thirty research scientists and students, the Unit has developed a number of the data sets widely used in climate research, including the global temperature record used to monitor the state of the climate system, as well as statistical software packages and climate models.
An unknown person put postings on some climate skeptic websites that advertised an FTP file on a Russian FTP server.
Here is the message that was placed on the Air Vent today: 'We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to be kept under wraps.
We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents.
' The file was large, about 61 megabytes, containing hundreds of files.
It contained data, code, and emails apparently from the CRU.
If proved legitimate, these bombshells could spell trouble for the AGW crowd.
" Reader brandaman supplied the link to the archive of pilfered data.
Reader aretae characterized the emails as revealing "...lots of intrigue, data manipulation, attempting to shut out opposing points of view out of scientific journals.
Almost makes you think it's a religion.
Anyone surprised?
" And reader bugnuts adds, for context: "These emails are certainly taken out of context, whether they are legitimate or fraudulent, which adds to the confusion.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30178962</id>
	<title>The actual scandal is this...</title>
	<author>NikFromNYC</author>
	<datestamp>1258717740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree that even snide and conniving scientists can be good ones as long as they merely massage charts to look good rather than fudge data. But beyond their FOIA resistance and all of the politics of how much CO2 is warming (or will be) there is one glaring problem. Temperature doesn't seem to be going up beyond what is totally normal. By that I mean actual  temperature measured by THERMOMETERS not by tree rings.

The temperature records in fact DO go back far enough to judge what is going on. Not many stations, but the ones that do exist MATCH the modern multi-1000s of station data quite perfectly:

<a href="http://i45.tinypic.com/iwq8a1.jpg" title="tinypic.com" rel="nofollow">http://i45.tinypic.com/iwq8a1.jpg</a> [tinypic.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree that even snide and conniving scientists can be good ones as long as they merely massage charts to look good rather than fudge data .
But beyond their FOIA resistance and all of the politics of how much CO2 is warming ( or will be ) there is one glaring problem .
Temperature does n't seem to be going up beyond what is totally normal .
By that I mean actual temperature measured by THERMOMETERS not by tree rings .
The temperature records in fact DO go back far enough to judge what is going on .
Not many stations , but the ones that do exist MATCH the modern multi-1000s of station data quite perfectly : http : //i45.tinypic.com/iwq8a1.jpg [ tinypic.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree that even snide and conniving scientists can be good ones as long as they merely massage charts to look good rather than fudge data.
But beyond their FOIA resistance and all of the politics of how much CO2 is warming (or will be) there is one glaring problem.
Temperature doesn't seem to be going up beyond what is totally normal.
By that I mean actual  temperature measured by THERMOMETERS not by tree rings.
The temperature records in fact DO go back far enough to judge what is going on.
Not many stations, but the ones that do exist MATCH the modern multi-1000s of station data quite perfectly:

http://i45.tinypic.com/iwq8a1.jpg [tinypic.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177766</id>
	<title>Re:Utter bullshit.</title>
	<author>steelfood</author>
	<datestamp>1258713360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, pieces of truth is not the truth. It's why you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in a court of law. Pieces of truth may be truthful in and of themselves, but it's easy to pick and choose the pieces of truth to support a conclusion that the whole truth might refute.</p><p>It's like saying, somebody attacked me and "I pushed him away and he died of blood loss when bumped his head on a pipe because the ambulance took 15 minutes to arrive after I immediately called 911" versus saying "I pushed him away and he died when he bumped his head on the pipe." One's pretty much manslaughter, the other's not so clear.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , pieces of truth is not the truth .
It 's why you swear to tell the truth , the whole truth , and nothing but the truth in a court of law .
Pieces of truth may be truthful in and of themselves , but it 's easy to pick and choose the pieces of truth to support a conclusion that the whole truth might refute.It 's like saying , somebody attacked me and " I pushed him away and he died of blood loss when bumped his head on a pipe because the ambulance took 15 minutes to arrive after I immediately called 911 " versus saying " I pushed him away and he died when he bumped his head on the pipe .
" One 's pretty much manslaughter , the other 's not so clear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, pieces of truth is not the truth.
It's why you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in a court of law.
Pieces of truth may be truthful in and of themselves, but it's easy to pick and choose the pieces of truth to support a conclusion that the whole truth might refute.It's like saying, somebody attacked me and "I pushed him away and he died of blood loss when bumped his head on a pipe because the ambulance took 15 minutes to arrive after I immediately called 911" versus saying "I pushed him away and he died when he bumped his head on the pipe.
" One's pretty much manslaughter, the other's not so clear.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30185892</id>
	<title>Re:Your opinion is being manipulated</title>
	<author>presidenteloco</author>
	<datestamp>1258828980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find it troubling and enlightening that a truthful post like the parent of this reply is modded down to troll.</p><p>I find it particularly scary that a post which is merely pointing out the obvious; that<br>powerful interests deliberately manipulate the popular media and the stories they carry,<br>would be considered merely provocative propaganda.</p><p>If people by and large are believing that the big stories of the day just come to them randomly,<br>that is a very frightening situation, because it means that you don't have democracy. You<br>have a mass of gullible, highly influenceable sheep, who can be heavily influenced as to how<br>to vote, without even realizing they are being heavily influenced.</p><p>I know this partly from personal experience. I was quite a while back an environmental<br>activist fighting deforestation in my region. We had planning meetings. We planned (non-violent but dramatic)<br>protests with the purpose of capturing media attention. That worked.<br>In conjunction with each protest, we fed carefully crafted one-page press releases to the local<br>and national media, and often, we watched, satisfied, as our press releases, lightly edited, became<br>the headline news of the next day on TV and newspapers.</p><p>And we weren't professionals at this. We weren't even very good at it. But it worked like a charm.<br>Probably around 1/3 of the prominant news stories on any given day are fed to lazy media organizations<br>by interest groups. Most of those groups, and the ones with the most funding by far, work for large<br>corporate interests. This is not a troll for **** sake. This is just obvious basic present day reality.<br>Please wake up. Look around.</p><p>The upcoming failure of the Copenhagen climate meetings is now well known and<br>openly admitted by the world leaders.</p><p>In short, every part of the parent post is true and useful information. If that is a troll, I am truly<br>frightened about our society.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it troubling and enlightening that a truthful post like the parent of this reply is modded down to troll.I find it particularly scary that a post which is merely pointing out the obvious ; thatpowerful interests deliberately manipulate the popular media and the stories they carry,would be considered merely provocative propaganda.If people by and large are believing that the big stories of the day just come to them randomly,that is a very frightening situation , because it means that you do n't have democracy .
Youhave a mass of gullible , highly influenceable sheep , who can be heavily influenced as to howto vote , without even realizing they are being heavily influenced.I know this partly from personal experience .
I was quite a while back an environmentalactivist fighting deforestation in my region .
We had planning meetings .
We planned ( non-violent but dramatic ) protests with the purpose of capturing media attention .
That worked.In conjunction with each protest , we fed carefully crafted one-page press releases to the localand national media , and often , we watched , satisfied , as our press releases , lightly edited , becamethe headline news of the next day on TV and newspapers.And we were n't professionals at this .
We were n't even very good at it .
But it worked like a charm.Probably around 1/3 of the prominant news stories on any given day are fed to lazy media organizationsby interest groups .
Most of those groups , and the ones with the most funding by far , work for largecorporate interests .
This is not a troll for * * * * sake .
This is just obvious basic present day reality.Please wake up .
Look around.The upcoming failure of the Copenhagen climate meetings is now well known andopenly admitted by the world leaders.In short , every part of the parent post is true and useful information .
If that is a troll , I am trulyfrightened about our society .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it troubling and enlightening that a truthful post like the parent of this reply is modded down to troll.I find it particularly scary that a post which is merely pointing out the obvious; thatpowerful interests deliberately manipulate the popular media and the stories they carry,would be considered merely provocative propaganda.If people by and large are believing that the big stories of the day just come to them randomly,that is a very frightening situation, because it means that you don't have democracy.
Youhave a mass of gullible, highly influenceable sheep, who can be heavily influenced as to howto vote, without even realizing they are being heavily influenced.I know this partly from personal experience.
I was quite a while back an environmentalactivist fighting deforestation in my region.
We had planning meetings.
We planned (non-violent but dramatic)protests with the purpose of capturing media attention.
That worked.In conjunction with each protest, we fed carefully crafted one-page press releases to the localand national media, and often, we watched, satisfied, as our press releases, lightly edited, becamethe headline news of the next day on TV and newspapers.And we weren't professionals at this.
We weren't even very good at it.
But it worked like a charm.Probably around 1/3 of the prominant news stories on any given day are fed to lazy media organizationsby interest groups.
Most of those groups, and the ones with the most funding by far, work for largecorporate interests.
This is not a troll for **** sake.
This is just obvious basic present day reality.Please wake up.
Look around.The upcoming failure of the Copenhagen climate meetings is now well known andopenly admitted by the world leaders.In short, every part of the parent post is true and useful information.
If that is a troll, I am trulyfrightened about our society.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176642</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30182260</id>
	<title>Link to Wikileaks</title>
	<author>kenb215</author>
	<datestamp>1258743300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The files are now up at Wikileaks.
<br>
<a href="http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Climatic\_Research\_Unit\_emails\%2C\_data\%2C\_models\%2C\_1996-2009" title="wikileaks.org" rel="nofollow">http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Climatic\_Research\_Unit\_emails\%2C\_data\%2C\_models\%2C\_1996-2009</a> [wikileaks.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>The files are now up at Wikileaks .
http : //wikileaks.org/wiki/Climatic \ _Research \ _Unit \ _emails \ % 2C \ _data \ % 2C \ _models \ % 2C \ _1996-2009 [ wikileaks.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The files are now up at Wikileaks.
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Climatic\_Research\_Unit\_emails\%2C\_data\%2C\_models\%2C\_1996-2009 [wikileaks.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176774</id>
	<title>secrecy and data hiding</title>
	<author>zerosomething</author>
	<datestamp>1258710120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The primary issue is that most climate science has not truly been scrutinize and reviewed. I've been reading the files and it's very damming. It's almost as bad as cold fusion. For example. In note 1075403821.txt Timo Hmeranta states.</p><p> <i>
One other thing about the CC paper - just found another email - is that McKittrick says it is standard practice in Econometrics journals to give all the data and codes !!  According to legal advice IPR overrides this.</i>
</p><p>
So they are going to hide behind Intelectual Property Rights to keep their data from being reviewed!. Holy Fucking Shit! How can science do that and still remain respectable?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The primary issue is that most climate science has not truly been scrutinize and reviewed .
I 've been reading the files and it 's very damming .
It 's almost as bad as cold fusion .
For example .
In note 1075403821.txt Timo Hmeranta states .
One other thing about the CC paper - just found another email - is that McKittrick says it is standard practice in Econometrics journals to give all the data and codes ! !
According to legal advice IPR overrides this .
So they are going to hide behind Intelectual Property Rights to keep their data from being reviewed ! .
Holy Fucking Shit !
How can science do that and still remain respectable ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The primary issue is that most climate science has not truly been scrutinize and reviewed.
I've been reading the files and it's very damming.
It's almost as bad as cold fusion.
For example.
In note 1075403821.txt Timo Hmeranta states.
One other thing about the CC paper - just found another email - is that McKittrick says it is standard practice in Econometrics journals to give all the data and codes !!
According to legal advice IPR overrides this.
So they are going to hide behind Intelectual Property Rights to keep their data from being reviewed!.
Holy Fucking Shit!
How can science do that and still remain respectable?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30230816</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing to see here, move on</title>
	<author>zstlaw</author>
	<datestamp>1257157980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Any institution will have jerks.  And of course you will only see the most salacious emails.  Compare it to this one which I found linked from a skeptic site as an example of how they were suppressing skeptics.</p><p>Email chain by department head - <a href="http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1065&amp;filename=1256765544.txt" title="eastangliaemails.com">http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1065&amp;filename=1256765544.txt</a> [eastangliaemails.com] Sonja is a former colleague who quit to work for a skeptic organization she is editor for a skeptic magazine and Phil is writing to complain that she keeps usign the university's name on her publications/talks despite working elsewhere.</p><p>At 18:45 27/10/2009, Graham F Haughton wrote:<br>&gt;<br>&gt;Dear Phil, sorry to hear this. I don't see much<br>&gt;of her these days, but when I do see Sonja next<br>&gt;I'll try and have a quiet word with her about<br>&gt;the way the affiliation to us is used, but at<br>&gt;the moment in fairness she is entitled to use it<br>&gt;in the way she does. Fortunately I don't get to<br>&gt;see many of these email exchanges but I do<br>&gt;occasionally hear about them or see them and<br>&gt;frankly am rarely convinced by what I read. But<br>&gt;as with all academics, I'd want to protect<br>&gt;another academic's freedom to be contrary and<br>&gt;critical, even if I personally believe she is<br>&gt;probably wrong. I agree with you that it'd be<br>&gt;better for these exchanges to be conducted<br>&gt;through the peer review process but these forms<br>&gt;of e-communication are now part of the public<br>&gt;debate and its difficult to do much about it<br>&gt;other than to defend your position in this and<br>&gt;other fora, or just ignore it as being, in your words, malicious.<br>&gt;<br>&gt;I can understand your frustration and I am<br>&gt;pretty sure I'd be feeling exactly the same in<br>&gt;your shoes, but I am not sure at the moment that<br>&gt;I can do much more. If you think I can and<br>&gt;should do more then feel free to ring and I am happy to discuss the matter.<br>&gt;<br>&gt;Graham</p><p>Sounds like the head of the department is really cracking down on those skeptics.  Boy he squelches them every chance he can, doesn't he?  Despite having pro-climate stance he respects that she disagrees and feels that people should be able to debate.</p><p>It is also worth noting that he organizes conservation activities at the school.  If he was part of a large scale climate hoax why would he be hot to reduce the school's environmental impact?  Sounds to me he genuinely believes in climate change, is more knowledgeable than anyone posting here, and respects others with different opinion.  Yes there will be mean spirited comments in some emails and people who massage data.</p><p>I will be happy if the full data becomes public so all researchers can analyze it. But while I see lots of sloppiness in evidence I see no "marching plan" from the "carbon cap industry".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Any institution will have jerks .
And of course you will only see the most salacious emails .
Compare it to this one which I found linked from a skeptic site as an example of how they were suppressing skeptics.Email chain by department head - http : //www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php ? eid = 1065&amp;filename = 1256765544.txt [ eastangliaemails.com ] Sonja is a former colleague who quit to work for a skeptic organization she is editor for a skeptic magazine and Phil is writing to complain that she keeps usign the university 's name on her publications/talks despite working elsewhere.At 18 : 45 27/10/2009 , Graham F Haughton wrote : &gt; &gt; Dear Phil , sorry to hear this .
I do n't see much &gt; of her these days , but when I do see Sonja next &gt; I 'll try and have a quiet word with her about &gt; the way the affiliation to us is used , but at &gt; the moment in fairness she is entitled to use it &gt; in the way she does .
Fortunately I do n't get to &gt; see many of these email exchanges but I do &gt; occasionally hear about them or see them and &gt; frankly am rarely convinced by what I read .
But &gt; as with all academics , I 'd want to protect &gt; another academic 's freedom to be contrary and &gt; critical , even if I personally believe she is &gt; probably wrong .
I agree with you that it 'd be &gt; better for these exchanges to be conducted &gt; through the peer review process but these forms &gt; of e-communication are now part of the public &gt; debate and its difficult to do much about it &gt; other than to defend your position in this and &gt; other fora , or just ignore it as being , in your words , malicious. &gt; &gt; I can understand your frustration and I am &gt; pretty sure I 'd be feeling exactly the same in &gt; your shoes , but I am not sure at the moment that &gt; I can do much more .
If you think I can and &gt; should do more then feel free to ring and I am happy to discuss the matter. &gt; &gt; GrahamSounds like the head of the department is really cracking down on those skeptics .
Boy he squelches them every chance he can , does n't he ?
Despite having pro-climate stance he respects that she disagrees and feels that people should be able to debate.It is also worth noting that he organizes conservation activities at the school .
If he was part of a large scale climate hoax why would he be hot to reduce the school 's environmental impact ?
Sounds to me he genuinely believes in climate change , is more knowledgeable than anyone posting here , and respects others with different opinion .
Yes there will be mean spirited comments in some emails and people who massage data.I will be happy if the full data becomes public so all researchers can analyze it .
But while I see lots of sloppiness in evidence I see no " marching plan " from the " carbon cap industry " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any institution will have jerks.
And of course you will only see the most salacious emails.
Compare it to this one which I found linked from a skeptic site as an example of how they were suppressing skeptics.Email chain by department head - http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1065&amp;filename=1256765544.txt [eastangliaemails.com] Sonja is a former colleague who quit to work for a skeptic organization she is editor for a skeptic magazine and Phil is writing to complain that she keeps usign the university's name on her publications/talks despite working elsewhere.At 18:45 27/10/2009, Graham F Haughton wrote:&gt;&gt;Dear Phil, sorry to hear this.
I don't see much&gt;of her these days, but when I do see Sonja next&gt;I'll try and have a quiet word with her about&gt;the way the affiliation to us is used, but at&gt;the moment in fairness she is entitled to use it&gt;in the way she does.
Fortunately I don't get to&gt;see many of these email exchanges but I do&gt;occasionally hear about them or see them and&gt;frankly am rarely convinced by what I read.
But&gt;as with all academics, I'd want to protect&gt;another academic's freedom to be contrary and&gt;critical, even if I personally believe she is&gt;probably wrong.
I agree with you that it'd be&gt;better for these exchanges to be conducted&gt;through the peer review process but these forms&gt;of e-communication are now part of the public&gt;debate and its difficult to do much about it&gt;other than to defend your position in this and&gt;other fora, or just ignore it as being, in your words, malicious.&gt;&gt;I can understand your frustration and I am&gt;pretty sure I'd be feeling exactly the same in&gt;your shoes, but I am not sure at the moment that&gt;I can do much more.
If you think I can and&gt;should do more then feel free to ring and I am happy to discuss the matter.&gt;&gt;GrahamSounds like the head of the department is really cracking down on those skeptics.
Boy he squelches them every chance he can, doesn't he?
Despite having pro-climate stance he respects that she disagrees and feels that people should be able to debate.It is also worth noting that he organizes conservation activities at the school.
If he was part of a large scale climate hoax why would he be hot to reduce the school's environmental impact?
Sounds to me he genuinely believes in climate change, is more knowledgeable than anyone posting here, and respects others with different opinion.
Yes there will be mean spirited comments in some emails and people who massage data.I will be happy if the full data becomes public so all researchers can analyze it.
But while I see lots of sloppiness in evidence I see no "marching plan" from the "carbon cap industry".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176624</id>
	<title>Re:Why is climate science being politicized?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258709640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You've clearly not been paying attention - GW has gone beyond a political issue and turned into a religious one for some of the far right. Apparently, Jeebus has a sad if you can't drive a giant Hummer the two blocks to church on Sunday.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 've clearly not been paying attention - GW has gone beyond a political issue and turned into a religious one for some of the far right .
Apparently , Jeebus has a sad if you ca n't drive a giant Hummer the two blocks to church on Sunday .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You've clearly not been paying attention - GW has gone beyond a political issue and turned into a religious one for some of the far right.
Apparently, Jeebus has a sad if you can't drive a giant Hummer the two blocks to church on Sunday.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30180004</id>
	<title>Re:Anthropogenic Causes</title>
	<author>bugnuts</author>
	<datestamp>1258722720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is Richard S Lindzen using this leak, without using supporting scientific data, to make an anti-AGW claim?</p><p>If so, then yes he's an idiot.  Reread what I said: <i>"some idiot media personality will make claims to the contrary due to this."</i></p><p>Since he made that statement before this leak, it doesn't meet the criterion I stated.</p><p>I notice you and I both submitted this article, while you claimed the leak made the AGW beliefs out as a religion, and now you're simply using this opportunity to further your anti-AGW stance by misstating the point I made.</p><p>If the science supports anti-AGW, I'll change my viewpoint.  Right now, your link is a minority.  And I'm not a climate scientist, so I can't interpret the data myself.  However, it seems really wrong to me that temperatures, despite fluctuating to similar temperatures in the past, have changed <i>dramatically faster</i> than in the known and inferred several hundred-thousands of years of the planet.</p><p>There's no question that there are fluctuations in average temperature; the point is that there aren't natural fluctuations of the magnitude seen in such a short period without a catastrophic event preceding it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is Richard S Lindzen using this leak , without using supporting scientific data , to make an anti-AGW claim ? If so , then yes he 's an idiot .
Reread what I said : " some idiot media personality will make claims to the contrary due to this .
" Since he made that statement before this leak , it does n't meet the criterion I stated.I notice you and I both submitted this article , while you claimed the leak made the AGW beliefs out as a religion , and now you 're simply using this opportunity to further your anti-AGW stance by misstating the point I made.If the science supports anti-AGW , I 'll change my viewpoint .
Right now , your link is a minority .
And I 'm not a climate scientist , so I ca n't interpret the data myself .
However , it seems really wrong to me that temperatures , despite fluctuating to similar temperatures in the past , have changed dramatically faster than in the known and inferred several hundred-thousands of years of the planet.There 's no question that there are fluctuations in average temperature ; the point is that there are n't natural fluctuations of the magnitude seen in such a short period without a catastrophic event preceding it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is Richard S Lindzen using this leak, without using supporting scientific data, to make an anti-AGW claim?If so, then yes he's an idiot.
Reread what I said: "some idiot media personality will make claims to the contrary due to this.
"Since he made that statement before this leak, it doesn't meet the criterion I stated.I notice you and I both submitted this article, while you claimed the leak made the AGW beliefs out as a religion, and now you're simply using this opportunity to further your anti-AGW stance by misstating the point I made.If the science supports anti-AGW, I'll change my viewpoint.
Right now, your link is a minority.
And I'm not a climate scientist, so I can't interpret the data myself.
However, it seems really wrong to me that temperatures, despite fluctuating to similar temperatures in the past, have changed dramatically faster than in the known and inferred several hundred-thousands of years of the planet.There's no question that there are fluctuations in average temperature; the point is that there aren't natural fluctuations of the magnitude seen in such a short period without a catastrophic event preceding it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30180756</id>
	<title>Re:Anthropogenic Causes</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1258727280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Skeptics will cling to disproved data, hoping it somehow becomes true if they believe it hard enough.</p></div><p>Skepticism is a part of science. The climate change deniers aren't skeptics, they are people with a political agenda.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Skeptics will cling to disproved data , hoping it somehow becomes true if they believe it hard enough.Skepticism is a part of science .
The climate change deniers are n't skeptics , they are people with a political agenda .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Skeptics will cling to disproved data, hoping it somehow becomes true if they believe it hard enough.Skepticism is a part of science.
The climate change deniers aren't skeptics, they are people with a political agenda.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30178690</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing to see here, move on</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258716600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So if someone laments that windows7 sucks, that Ballmer is planning on burying Google, and that Miscrosoft is funding an astroturfing campaign, then we should reform all of technology?</p><p>Perhaps you meant scientific publishing? Or the scientific community? Or scientific funding?</p><p>But to tear down all of science? That's over the line.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So if someone laments that windows7 sucks , that Ballmer is planning on burying Google , and that Miscrosoft is funding an astroturfing campaign , then we should reform all of technology ? Perhaps you meant scientific publishing ?
Or the scientific community ?
Or scientific funding ? But to tear down all of science ?
That 's over the line .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So if someone laments that windows7 sucks, that Ballmer is planning on burying Google, and that Miscrosoft is funding an astroturfing campaign, then we should reform all of technology?Perhaps you meant scientific publishing?
Or the scientific community?
Or scientific funding?But to tear down all of science?
That's over the line.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176360</id>
	<title>Re:I would just like to point out....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258708620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Al Gore, is that you, dude?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Al Gore , is that you , dude ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Al Gore, is that you, dude?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176092</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176316</id>
	<title>The dog ate it?</title>
	<author>Vinegar Joe</author>
	<datestamp>1258708440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is this the same CRU that when asked to release the original raw data used in its climate analysis claimed it had all been lost?</p><p><a href="http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/08/we-lost-original-data.html" title="blogspot.com">http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/08/we-lost-original-data.html</a> [blogspot.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this the same CRU that when asked to release the original raw data used in its climate analysis claimed it had all been lost ? http : //rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/08/we-lost-original-data.html [ blogspot.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this the same CRU that when asked to release the original raw data used in its climate analysis claimed it had all been lost?http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/08/we-lost-original-data.html [blogspot.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30183434</id>
	<title>Re:The shame of it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258808220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Excellent point. We will wait while you publish all your emails for the last 20 years here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Excellent point .
We will wait while you publish all your emails for the last 20 years here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Excellent point.
We will wait while you publish all your emails for the last 20 years here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30178088</id>
	<title>propaganda is pieces of the truth</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1258714440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>propaganda never lies. it takes nuggets of truths out of context, in a vacuum of any other facts, and extrapolates dubious far off conclusions that find support in people's prejudices. half-truths, or rather 0.01\% truths, are not anything remotely like the truth of complex situations, which climate science obviously is</p><p>pieces of the truth is never the truth. of course no one will shut up, even if they are only armed with pieces of the truth, but that's not something to celebrate, that's something to be despondent about, as its the root cause of the majority of problems in this world</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>propaganda never lies .
it takes nuggets of truths out of context , in a vacuum of any other facts , and extrapolates dubious far off conclusions that find support in people 's prejudices .
half-truths , or rather 0.01 \ % truths , are not anything remotely like the truth of complex situations , which climate science obviously ispieces of the truth is never the truth .
of course no one will shut up , even if they are only armed with pieces of the truth , but that 's not something to celebrate , that 's something to be despondent about , as its the root cause of the majority of problems in this world</tokentext>
<sentencetext>propaganda never lies.
it takes nuggets of truths out of context, in a vacuum of any other facts, and extrapolates dubious far off conclusions that find support in people's prejudices.
half-truths, or rather 0.01\% truths, are not anything remotely like the truth of complex situations, which climate science obviously ispieces of the truth is never the truth.
of course no one will shut up, even if they are only armed with pieces of the truth, but that's not something to celebrate, that's something to be despondent about, as its the root cause of the majority of problems in this world</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30180480</id>
	<title>Re:Scepticism is universal</title>
	<author>n8r0n</author>
	<datestamp>1258725480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, a healthy bit of skepticism is ALWAYS a good thing.  Especially when it causes us to sit on our asses while we destroy our own habitat.  Wake the hell up!</p><p>Can we get past the stupid psychological crap and just focus on some actual data?  Instead of rationalizing your sit-on-my-ass attitude by claiming that skepticism is always good, why don't you read through some of the data and propose an alternate conclusion?  Otherwise, save the human interpersonal dynamics nonsense for the oprah.com message boards.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , a healthy bit of skepticism is ALWAYS a good thing .
Especially when it causes us to sit on our asses while we destroy our own habitat .
Wake the hell up ! Can we get past the stupid psychological crap and just focus on some actual data ?
Instead of rationalizing your sit-on-my-ass attitude by claiming that skepticism is always good , why do n't you read through some of the data and propose an alternate conclusion ?
Otherwise , save the human interpersonal dynamics nonsense for the oprah.com message boards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, a healthy bit of skepticism is ALWAYS a good thing.
Especially when it causes us to sit on our asses while we destroy our own habitat.
Wake the hell up!Can we get past the stupid psychological crap and just focus on some actual data?
Instead of rationalizing your sit-on-my-ass attitude by claiming that skepticism is always good, why don't you read through some of the data and propose an alternate conclusion?
Otherwise, save the human interpersonal dynamics nonsense for the oprah.com message boards.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176106</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176804</id>
	<title>0880476729.txt is interesting:</title>
	<author>inviolet</author>
	<datestamp>1258710240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>[...header information omitted...]<br>Subject: Re: ATTENTION. Invitation to influence Kyoto.<br>Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 11:52:09 -0700 (MST)</p><p>Dear Eleven,</p><p>I was very disturbed by your recent letter, and your attempt to get<br>others to endorse it.  Not only do I disagree with the content of<br>this letter, but I also believe that you have severely distorted the<br>IPCC "view" when you say that "the latest IPCC assessment makes a<br>convincing economic case for immediate control of emissions."  In contrast<br>to the one-sided opinion expressed in your letter, IPCC WGIII SAR and TP3<br>review the literature and the issues in a balanced way presenting<br>arguments in support of both "immediate control" and the spectrum of more<br>cost-effective options.  It is not IPCC's role to make "convincing cases"<br>for any particular policy option; nor does it.  However, most IPCC readers<br>would draw the conclusion that the balance of economic evidence favors the<br>emissions trajectories given in the WRE paper.  This is contrary to your<br>statement.</p><p>This is a complex issue, and your misrepresentation of it does you a<br>dis-service.  To someone like me, who knows the science, it is<br>apparent that you are presenting a personal view, not an informed,<br>balanced scientific assessment.  What is unfortunate is that this will not<br>be apparent to the vast majority of scientists you have contacted.  In<br>issues like this, scientists have an added responsibility to keep their<br>personal views separate from the science, and to make it clear to others<br>when they diverge from the objectivity they (hopefully) adhere to in their<br>scientific research.  I think you have failed to do this.</p><p>[...]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>[ ...header information omitted... ] Subject : Re : ATTENTION .
Invitation to influence Kyoto.Date : Tue , 25 Nov 1997 11 : 52 : 09 -0700 ( MST ) Dear Eleven,I was very disturbed by your recent letter , and your attempt to getothers to endorse it .
Not only do I disagree with the content ofthis letter , but I also believe that you have severely distorted theIPCC " view " when you say that " the latest IPCC assessment makes aconvincing economic case for immediate control of emissions .
" In contrastto the one-sided opinion expressed in your letter , IPCC WGIII SAR and TP3review the literature and the issues in a balanced way presentingarguments in support of both " immediate control " and the spectrum of morecost-effective options .
It is not IPCC 's role to make " convincing cases " for any particular policy option ; nor does it .
However , most IPCC readerswould draw the conclusion that the balance of economic evidence favors theemissions trajectories given in the WRE paper .
This is contrary to yourstatement.This is a complex issue , and your misrepresentation of it does you adis-service .
To someone like me , who knows the science , it isapparent that you are presenting a personal view , not an informed,balanced scientific assessment .
What is unfortunate is that this will notbe apparent to the vast majority of scientists you have contacted .
Inissues like this , scientists have an added responsibility to keep theirpersonal views separate from the science , and to make it clear to otherswhen they diverge from the objectivity they ( hopefully ) adhere to in theirscientific research .
I think you have failed to do this. [ .. .
]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[...header information omitted...]Subject: Re: ATTENTION.
Invitation to influence Kyoto.Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 11:52:09 -0700 (MST)Dear Eleven,I was very disturbed by your recent letter, and your attempt to getothers to endorse it.
Not only do I disagree with the content ofthis letter, but I also believe that you have severely distorted theIPCC "view" when you say that "the latest IPCC assessment makes aconvincing economic case for immediate control of emissions.
"  In contrastto the one-sided opinion expressed in your letter, IPCC WGIII SAR and TP3review the literature and the issues in a balanced way presentingarguments in support of both "immediate control" and the spectrum of morecost-effective options.
It is not IPCC's role to make "convincing cases"for any particular policy option; nor does it.
However, most IPCC readerswould draw the conclusion that the balance of economic evidence favors theemissions trajectories given in the WRE paper.
This is contrary to yourstatement.This is a complex issue, and your misrepresentation of it does you adis-service.
To someone like me, who knows the science, it isapparent that you are presenting a personal view, not an informed,balanced scientific assessment.
What is unfortunate is that this will notbe apparent to the vast majority of scientists you have contacted.
Inissues like this, scientists have an added responsibility to keep theirpersonal views separate from the science, and to make it clear to otherswhen they diverge from the objectivity they (hopefully) adhere to in theirscientific research.
I think you have failed to do this.[...
]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177000</id>
	<title>The shame of it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258710720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>isn't that these files and this correspondence got hacked.</p><p>The shame of it is that hacking was necessary at all.</p><p>Transparency, People. We're debating public policy and making decisions for the benefit of all Mankind. Credibility is only hindered by opacity and closed data.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is n't that these files and this correspondence got hacked.The shame of it is that hacking was necessary at all.Transparency , People .
We 're debating public policy and making decisions for the benefit of all Mankind .
Credibility is only hindered by opacity and closed data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>isn't that these files and this correspondence got hacked.The shame of it is that hacking was necessary at all.Transparency, People.
We're debating public policy and making decisions for the benefit of all Mankind.
Credibility is only hindered by opacity and closed data.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30178174</id>
	<title>Open your eyes and the problem is settled</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258714680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The local people in the north have an oral history going back thousands of years and they have never seen an ice free pole or this level of melting. They have 32 names for snow, http://ming.tv/flemming2.php/\_\_show\_article/\_a000010-001436.htm<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,so if there are experts on the north pole climate my money is on them. Drowning Polar Bears are a fact. Photographs documenting glaciers receding are a fact. The massive amount of CO2 we release is a fact and it goes into the atmosphere. Saying we "can't" affect weather is being ignorant. Simply building roads and cities affects weather. I've lived in Phoenix and trust me it's 10 degrees hotter in the city than the desert because of the concrete, a simple fact. Saying it's all Mother Nature is ignoring the fact that the increases in temperature and the melting of the ice is mirroring industrial development. The bulk of weather researchers are in agreement the only dispute is the level of change. I think it's telling that the extreme numbers from ten years ago are the conservative ones today. That should worry people. The scary 800lb Gorilla is Arctic methane and no one has numbers yet on that and no one is willing to even make a prediction on it's affect. It has the potential to dwarf what we are contributing. If large amounts of methane are starting to be released it's already too late and everything we do will have little affect. It's not the end of the world it's a time of extreme weather, bad droughts and flooding and you can kiss the coastal cities goodbye. A simple fact.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The local people in the north have an oral history going back thousands of years and they have never seen an ice free pole or this level of melting .
They have 32 names for snow , http : //ming.tv/flemming2.php/ \ _ \ _show \ _article/ \ _a000010-001436.htm ,so if there are experts on the north pole climate my money is on them .
Drowning Polar Bears are a fact .
Photographs documenting glaciers receding are a fact .
The massive amount of CO2 we release is a fact and it goes into the atmosphere .
Saying we " ca n't " affect weather is being ignorant .
Simply building roads and cities affects weather .
I 've lived in Phoenix and trust me it 's 10 degrees hotter in the city than the desert because of the concrete , a simple fact .
Saying it 's all Mother Nature is ignoring the fact that the increases in temperature and the melting of the ice is mirroring industrial development .
The bulk of weather researchers are in agreement the only dispute is the level of change .
I think it 's telling that the extreme numbers from ten years ago are the conservative ones today .
That should worry people .
The scary 800lb Gorilla is Arctic methane and no one has numbers yet on that and no one is willing to even make a prediction on it 's affect .
It has the potential to dwarf what we are contributing .
If large amounts of methane are starting to be released it 's already too late and everything we do will have little affect .
It 's not the end of the world it 's a time of extreme weather , bad droughts and flooding and you can kiss the coastal cities goodbye .
A simple fact .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The local people in the north have an oral history going back thousands of years and they have never seen an ice free pole or this level of melting.
They have 32 names for snow, http://ming.tv/flemming2.php/\_\_show\_article/\_a000010-001436.htm ,so if there are experts on the north pole climate my money is on them.
Drowning Polar Bears are a fact.
Photographs documenting glaciers receding are a fact.
The massive amount of CO2 we release is a fact and it goes into the atmosphere.
Saying we "can't" affect weather is being ignorant.
Simply building roads and cities affects weather.
I've lived in Phoenix and trust me it's 10 degrees hotter in the city than the desert because of the concrete, a simple fact.
Saying it's all Mother Nature is ignoring the fact that the increases in temperature and the melting of the ice is mirroring industrial development.
The bulk of weather researchers are in agreement the only dispute is the level of change.
I think it's telling that the extreme numbers from ten years ago are the conservative ones today.
That should worry people.
The scary 800lb Gorilla is Arctic methane and no one has numbers yet on that and no one is willing to even make a prediction on it's affect.
It has the potential to dwarf what we are contributing.
If large amounts of methane are starting to be released it's already too late and everything we do will have little affect.
It's not the end of the world it's a time of extreme weather, bad droughts and flooding and you can kiss the coastal cities goodbye.
A simple fact.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30192272</id>
	<title>Re:They flipped Finnish data upside down</title>
	<author>Alsee</author>
	<datestamp>1258889760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't speak Finnish, but based on the graphs themselves and the English transcript, this is a perfect example of how wrong the denialists are.</p><p>If you have something like a graph of cloud cover with 0\% percent at the bottom and 100\% at the top, and you are looking at something like how much sunlight reaches the ground, then it is COMPLETELY CORRECT to "flip that graph upside down" putting 100\% cloud cover at the bottom and 0\% cloud cover at the top. The first graph curves down with increased sunlight. When you flip the graph "upsidedown" it is still COMPLETELY CORRECT, and easier to read curving upwards with increased sunlight reaching the ground.</p><p>(1)It is a trivial undisputed fact that we are dumping gigatons of CO2 (and related gases) into the atmosphere.</p><p>(2)It is a trivial and undisputed fact that the levels of CO2 (and related gases) have increased dramatically - due to those human emissions.</p><p>(3)It is a trivial and undisputed physics that CO2 (and related gases) *do* trap infrared thermal radiation.</p><p>1,2,3 case closed. It is a trivial and indisputable fact that the human-caused heat trapping effect is real. Measuring the size of the effect can be challenging, predicting the future size of the effect can be very difficult, predicting the complex secondary results of that effect can be extremely difficult, and there can be ADDITIONAL climate influences occurring in parallel, but it is impossible for any <b>well informed</b> and clearly thinking person to deny the the existence and reality of that effect.</p><p>Many denialists are good intelligent sincere people who have been badly misinformed by fanatical denialist activists. "Flipping the graph upside down" was not some mistake, it was not some deception, it was not some conspiracy, it was completely legitimate and completely appropriate. If you have a graph with high temperature at the bottom and low temperature at the top, it is correct and way easier to read if you flip it "upside down".</p><p>The climate change denialists in your linked video are IDIOTS. They are so clueless they can't even read a graph, much less grasp the science behind it. They are wildly ideological with a flaming bias, grasping on to deluded shreds of "evidence" that there is some sort of conspiracy going on.</p><p>No, there is no grand conspiracy by scientists to hoax the planet. Anyone who considers it to be a reasonable premise needs to take their meds.</p><p>-</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't speak Finnish , but based on the graphs themselves and the English transcript , this is a perfect example of how wrong the denialists are.If you have something like a graph of cloud cover with 0 \ % percent at the bottom and 100 \ % at the top , and you are looking at something like how much sunlight reaches the ground , then it is COMPLETELY CORRECT to " flip that graph upside down " putting 100 \ % cloud cover at the bottom and 0 \ % cloud cover at the top .
The first graph curves down with increased sunlight .
When you flip the graph " upsidedown " it is still COMPLETELY CORRECT , and easier to read curving upwards with increased sunlight reaching the ground .
( 1 ) It is a trivial undisputed fact that we are dumping gigatons of CO2 ( and related gases ) into the atmosphere .
( 2 ) It is a trivial and undisputed fact that the levels of CO2 ( and related gases ) have increased dramatically - due to those human emissions .
( 3 ) It is a trivial and undisputed physics that CO2 ( and related gases ) * do * trap infrared thermal radiation.1,2,3 case closed .
It is a trivial and indisputable fact that the human-caused heat trapping effect is real .
Measuring the size of the effect can be challenging , predicting the future size of the effect can be very difficult , predicting the complex secondary results of that effect can be extremely difficult , and there can be ADDITIONAL climate influences occurring in parallel , but it is impossible for any well informed and clearly thinking person to deny the the existence and reality of that effect.Many denialists are good intelligent sincere people who have been badly misinformed by fanatical denialist activists .
" Flipping the graph upside down " was not some mistake , it was not some deception , it was not some conspiracy , it was completely legitimate and completely appropriate .
If you have a graph with high temperature at the bottom and low temperature at the top , it is correct and way easier to read if you flip it " upside down " .The climate change denialists in your linked video are IDIOTS .
They are so clueless they ca n't even read a graph , much less grasp the science behind it .
They are wildly ideological with a flaming bias , grasping on to deluded shreds of " evidence " that there is some sort of conspiracy going on.No , there is no grand conspiracy by scientists to hoax the planet .
Anyone who considers it to be a reasonable premise needs to take their meds.-</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't speak Finnish, but based on the graphs themselves and the English transcript, this is a perfect example of how wrong the denialists are.If you have something like a graph of cloud cover with 0\% percent at the bottom and 100\% at the top, and you are looking at something like how much sunlight reaches the ground, then it is COMPLETELY CORRECT to "flip that graph upside down" putting 100\% cloud cover at the bottom and 0\% cloud cover at the top.
The first graph curves down with increased sunlight.
When you flip the graph "upsidedown" it is still COMPLETELY CORRECT, and easier to read curving upwards with increased sunlight reaching the ground.
(1)It is a trivial undisputed fact that we are dumping gigatons of CO2 (and related gases) into the atmosphere.
(2)It is a trivial and undisputed fact that the levels of CO2 (and related gases) have increased dramatically - due to those human emissions.
(3)It is a trivial and undisputed physics that CO2 (and related gases) *do* trap infrared thermal radiation.1,2,3 case closed.
It is a trivial and indisputable fact that the human-caused heat trapping effect is real.
Measuring the size of the effect can be challenging, predicting the future size of the effect can be very difficult, predicting the complex secondary results of that effect can be extremely difficult, and there can be ADDITIONAL climate influences occurring in parallel, but it is impossible for any well informed and clearly thinking person to deny the the existence and reality of that effect.Many denialists are good intelligent sincere people who have been badly misinformed by fanatical denialist activists.
"Flipping the graph upside down" was not some mistake, it was not some deception, it was not some conspiracy, it was completely legitimate and completely appropriate.
If you have a graph with high temperature at the bottom and low temperature at the top, it is correct and way easier to read if you flip it "upside down".The climate change denialists in your linked video are IDIOTS.
They are so clueless they can't even read a graph, much less grasp the science behind it.
They are wildly ideological with a flaming bias, grasping on to deluded shreds of "evidence" that there is some sort of conspiracy going on.No, there is no grand conspiracy by scientists to hoax the planet.
Anyone who considers it to be a reasonable premise needs to take their meds.-</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30182302</id>
	<title>Re:You don't have to hack to get information</title>
	<author>introspekt.i</author>
	<datestamp>1258743840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>..Or maybe just reading a lot.  School is expensive, and I know tons of idiots with a B.S., M.S., PhD, MD, JD.....the list goes on.</htmltext>
<tokenext>..Or maybe just reading a lot .
School is expensive , and I know tons of idiots with a B.S. , M.S. , PhD , MD , JD.....the list goes on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>..Or maybe just reading a lot.
School is expensive, and I know tons of idiots with a B.S., M.S., PhD, MD, JD.....the list goes on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30179470</id>
	<title>Re:Utter bullshit.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258720020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You do realize that some of the emails are about hiding data from public view, obstructing freedom of information requests</p></div><p>Freedom of information requests might apply to the US government, but not a UK university, or necessarily any other university.  And even if they did, there isn't anything immediately sinister about a scientist protecting raw data.</p><p>Even data gathered using public funds can be used exclusively by the scientists who gathered it, for a period of time before it becomes "public domain" according to the rules of the granting agency.  The idea is to balance the right of the public to see what they paid for, with the opportunity for the scientists to be the first to analyze the data they worked so hard to acquire, before others try their hand at it.</p><p>Consider also that often there are very few people who are qualified to analyze data from a specific experiment, because of the complexity of the instruments and methodologies involved.  Usually one has to be on the team that gathered the data, or closely allied with that team.  Other investigators usually have to rely on so-called "data products" that are derived from the raw data with processing algorithms created by<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... the original investigators.</p><p>To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, the practice of science often comes down to "trust but verify."  Any scientist is free to conduct their own independent research to "verify" the findings of another.  However, one often has to "trust" how another scientist manages and presents their findings because it's simply too much of a hassle to stare over their shoulder as they explain every page of their handwritten notes.  Any scientist who betrays this "trust" becomes a paraiah and is unlikely to practice science anymore.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You do realize that some of the emails are about hiding data from public view , obstructing freedom of information requestsFreedom of information requests might apply to the US government , but not a UK university , or necessarily any other university .
And even if they did , there is n't anything immediately sinister about a scientist protecting raw data.Even data gathered using public funds can be used exclusively by the scientists who gathered it , for a period of time before it becomes " public domain " according to the rules of the granting agency .
The idea is to balance the right of the public to see what they paid for , with the opportunity for the scientists to be the first to analyze the data they worked so hard to acquire , before others try their hand at it.Consider also that often there are very few people who are qualified to analyze data from a specific experiment , because of the complexity of the instruments and methodologies involved .
Usually one has to be on the team that gathered the data , or closely allied with that team .
Other investigators usually have to rely on so-called " data products " that are derived from the raw data with processing algorithms created by ... the original investigators.To paraphrase Ronald Reagan , the practice of science often comes down to " trust but verify .
" Any scientist is free to conduct their own independent research to " verify " the findings of another .
However , one often has to " trust " how another scientist manages and presents their findings because it 's simply too much of a hassle to stare over their shoulder as they explain every page of their handwritten notes .
Any scientist who betrays this " trust " becomes a paraiah and is unlikely to practice science anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You do realize that some of the emails are about hiding data from public view, obstructing freedom of information requestsFreedom of information requests might apply to the US government, but not a UK university, or necessarily any other university.
And even if they did, there isn't anything immediately sinister about a scientist protecting raw data.Even data gathered using public funds can be used exclusively by the scientists who gathered it, for a period of time before it becomes "public domain" according to the rules of the granting agency.
The idea is to balance the right of the public to see what they paid for, with the opportunity for the scientists to be the first to analyze the data they worked so hard to acquire, before others try their hand at it.Consider also that often there are very few people who are qualified to analyze data from a specific experiment, because of the complexity of the instruments and methodologies involved.
Usually one has to be on the team that gathered the data, or closely allied with that team.
Other investigators usually have to rely on so-called "data products" that are derived from the raw data with processing algorithms created by ... the original investigators.To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, the practice of science often comes down to "trust but verify.
"  Any scientist is free to conduct their own independent research to "verify" the findings of another.
However, one often has to "trust" how another scientist manages and presents their findings because it's simply too much of a hassle to stare over their shoulder as they explain every page of their handwritten notes.
Any scientist who betrays this "trust" becomes a paraiah and is unlikely to practice science anymore.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30178400</id>
	<title>Re:Utter bullshit.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258715520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Publicly funded scientists should be forced to open up their data and methodology, with prison terms for them if they don't.</p></div><p>Why always the predilection for throwing folks in prison over any offense? <strong>That</strong>'s unsustainable policy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Publicly funded scientists should be forced to open up their data and methodology , with prison terms for them if they do n't.Why always the predilection for throwing folks in prison over any offense ?
That 's unsustainable policy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Publicly funded scientists should be forced to open up their data and methodology, with prison terms for them if they don't.Why always the predilection for throwing folks in prison over any offense?
That's unsustainable policy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176854</id>
	<title>100\% Bullshit</title>
	<author>sexconker</author>
	<datestamp>1258710360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This story is 100\% bullshit.</p><p>Oh wait - it's global warmi... I mean, global climate change, that's bullshit.</p><p>Pure.<br>Political.<br>Bull.<br>Shit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This story is 100 \ % bullshit.Oh wait - it 's global warmi... I mean , global climate change , that 's bullshit.Pure.Political.Bull.Shit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This story is 100\% bullshit.Oh wait - it's global warmi... I mean, global climate change, that's bullshit.Pure.Political.Bull.Shit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30183798</id>
	<title>Re:Anthropogenic Causes</title>
	<author>florescent\_beige</author>
	<datestamp>1258814460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That now prolonged ocean cooling is fatal to the &ldquo;official&rdquo; theory that &ldquo;global warming&rdquo; will happen</p></div><p> <a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gGAa00xryzkYa7FUhfip-CDPM\_tgD9BITAG00" title="google.com">Horseypucks</a> [google.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That now prolonged ocean cooling is fatal to the    official    theory that    global warming    will happen Horseypucks [ google.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That now prolonged ocean cooling is fatal to the “official” theory that “global warming” will happen Horseypucks [google.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30182166</id>
	<title>Re:Why is this in the politics section?</title>
	<author>Le Marteau</author>
	<datestamp>1258741200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Neither those defending global warming, nor those questioning it believe this should be a political issue</p><p>Show me an advocate of AGW, and 99 times out of 100, I'll be able to show you someone who wants to pass legislation to control the actions of people, corporations and nations.   I'd have to say it's HIGHLY political.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Neither those defending global warming , nor those questioning it believe this should be a political issueShow me an advocate of AGW , and 99 times out of 100 , I 'll be able to show you someone who wants to pass legislation to control the actions of people , corporations and nations .
I 'd have to say it 's HIGHLY political .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Neither those defending global warming, nor those questioning it believe this should be a political issueShow me an advocate of AGW, and 99 times out of 100, I'll be able to show you someone who wants to pass legislation to control the actions of people, corporations and nations.
I'd have to say it's HIGHLY political.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30179972</id>
	<title>My take, for what it's worth</title>
	<author>Nova Express</author>
	<datestamp>1258722600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.battleswarmblog.com/?p=135" title="battleswarmblog.com">Embarassing and suggestive, but not a smoking gun.</a> [battleswarmblog.com]</p><p>Now to go back and add the Slashdot megaupload link to my post...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Embarassing and suggestive , but not a smoking gun .
[ battleswarmblog.com ] Now to go back and add the Slashdot megaupload link to my post.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Embarassing and suggestive, but not a smoking gun.
[battleswarmblog.com]Now to go back and add the Slashdot megaupload link to my post...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30180046</id>
	<title>Re:This does not falsify AGW</title>
	<author>LynnwoodRooster</author>
	<datestamp>1258722900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The important thing to note about this story is that, even if it's all true and all of the emails are genuine, and even if it completely discredits every scientist involved and all of the work they've ever done, <b>this does not falsify AGW theory</b>.</p></div><p>
Yes, it does.  The theory no longer holds as it was moved from the point of being a hypothesis by the use of false data and known-invalid processes, and the truth was hidden.
</p><p>
A theory is only as strong as the people, data, and process to support it.  Eliminate the reliability of the researchers or the data, and you have removed the support of the theory.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The important thing to note about this story is that , even if it 's all true and all of the emails are genuine , and even if it completely discredits every scientist involved and all of the work they 've ever done , this does not falsify AGW theory .
Yes , it does .
The theory no longer holds as it was moved from the point of being a hypothesis by the use of false data and known-invalid processes , and the truth was hidden .
A theory is only as strong as the people , data , and process to support it .
Eliminate the reliability of the researchers or the data , and you have removed the support of the theory .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The important thing to note about this story is that, even if it's all true and all of the emails are genuine, and even if it completely discredits every scientist involved and all of the work they've ever done, this does not falsify AGW theory.
Yes, it does.
The theory no longer holds as it was moved from the point of being a hypothesis by the use of false data and known-invalid processes, and the truth was hidden.
A theory is only as strong as the people, data, and process to support it.
Eliminate the reliability of the researchers or the data, and you have removed the support of the theory.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176332</id>
	<title>You don't need to retrace a murderer's whole day</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258708560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>to rightfully convict him of a crime he committed in a matter of minutes.  Prosecutors tend to "cherry pick" the incriminating evidence too.</p><p>Oh, and it is very much how policy is made.  Come to terms with that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>to rightfully convict him of a crime he committed in a matter of minutes .
Prosecutors tend to " cherry pick " the incriminating evidence too.Oh , and it is very much how policy is made .
Come to terms with that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>to rightfully convict him of a crime he committed in a matter of minutes.
Prosecutors tend to "cherry pick" the incriminating evidence too.Oh, and it is very much how policy is made.
Come to terms with that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176002</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30185876</id>
	<title>Re:This does not falsify AGW</title>
	<author>Rockoon</author>
	<datestamp>1258828860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The important thing to note about this story is that, even if it's all true and all of the emails are genuine, and even if it completely discredits every scientist involved and all of the work they've ever done, this does not falsify AGW theory.</p></div><p>
What is the minimum set of real world observations that might falsify the AGW theory?<br>
<br>
Is there such a set? If it rains more then thats global warming but if it rains less then thats global warming too. If there is less ice over there then thats global warming but if there is more ice over there then thats global warming too. If there are more hurricanes this year then thats global warming, but if there are less hurricanes this year than thats global warming too.<br>
<br>
Its been cooling since 1998 but thats not enough, and no other observations are allowed to invalidate global warming because global warming supposedly explains all of them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The important thing to note about this story is that , even if it 's all true and all of the emails are genuine , and even if it completely discredits every scientist involved and all of the work they 've ever done , this does not falsify AGW theory .
What is the minimum set of real world observations that might falsify the AGW theory ?
Is there such a set ?
If it rains more then thats global warming but if it rains less then thats global warming too .
If there is less ice over there then thats global warming but if there is more ice over there then thats global warming too .
If there are more hurricanes this year then thats global warming , but if there are less hurricanes this year than thats global warming too .
Its been cooling since 1998 but thats not enough , and no other observations are allowed to invalidate global warming because global warming supposedly explains all of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The important thing to note about this story is that, even if it's all true and all of the emails are genuine, and even if it completely discredits every scientist involved and all of the work they've ever done, this does not falsify AGW theory.
What is the minimum set of real world observations that might falsify the AGW theory?
Is there such a set?
If it rains more then thats global warming but if it rains less then thats global warming too.
If there is less ice over there then thats global warming but if there is more ice over there then thats global warming too.
If there are more hurricanes this year then thats global warming, but if there are less hurricanes this year than thats global warming too.
Its been cooling since 1998 but thats not enough, and no other observations are allowed to invalidate global warming because global warming supposedly explains all of them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177746</id>
	<title>Re:Utter bullshit.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258713300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Other e-mails routinely discuss efforts to manipulate and massage the data to account for various political difficulties the data are causing them. For example, one e-mail discusses using a particular modifier to minimize a warming "blip" in the 1940s</i></p><p>Yeah, because if there's one thing the Global Warming Scientific Conspiracy wants to do most, it's to <em>minimize</em> evidence of global warming.</p><p>In fact, the 1940s warming blip has been discussed in the literature for some time now, as part of a debate over whether it's real or a data artifact.  One of the most recent discussions of this debate is in <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7195/abs/nature06982.html" title="nature.com" rel="nofollow">this paper</a> [nature.com], one of the authors of which is from the UK CRU group.  Here they suggest that it is in fact a data artifact, and ought to be corrected so reflect less ocean warming than previously believed.</p><p>For some reason, skeptics froth at the mouth about how the surface temperature record ought to be revised downward due to supposed biases, but when climate scientists develop a downward revision due to actual  biases, suddenly it's "damning evidence" from "fear mongerers".</p><p>More <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/#comment-142000" title="realclimate.org" rel="nofollow">here</a> [realclimate.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Other e-mails routinely discuss efforts to manipulate and massage the data to account for various political difficulties the data are causing them .
For example , one e-mail discusses using a particular modifier to minimize a warming " blip " in the 1940sYeah , because if there 's one thing the Global Warming Scientific Conspiracy wants to do most , it 's to minimize evidence of global warming.In fact , the 1940s warming blip has been discussed in the literature for some time now , as part of a debate over whether it 's real or a data artifact .
One of the most recent discussions of this debate is in this paper [ nature.com ] , one of the authors of which is from the UK CRU group .
Here they suggest that it is in fact a data artifact , and ought to be corrected so reflect less ocean warming than previously believed.For some reason , skeptics froth at the mouth about how the surface temperature record ought to be revised downward due to supposed biases , but when climate scientists develop a downward revision due to actual biases , suddenly it 's " damning evidence " from " fear mongerers " .More here [ realclimate.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Other e-mails routinely discuss efforts to manipulate and massage the data to account for various political difficulties the data are causing them.
For example, one e-mail discusses using a particular modifier to minimize a warming "blip" in the 1940sYeah, because if there's one thing the Global Warming Scientific Conspiracy wants to do most, it's to minimize evidence of global warming.In fact, the 1940s warming blip has been discussed in the literature for some time now, as part of a debate over whether it's real or a data artifact.
One of the most recent discussions of this debate is in this paper [nature.com], one of the authors of which is from the UK CRU group.
Here they suggest that it is in fact a data artifact, and ought to be corrected so reflect less ocean warming than previously believed.For some reason, skeptics froth at the mouth about how the surface temperature record ought to be revised downward due to supposed biases, but when climate scientists develop a downward revision due to actual  biases, suddenly it's "damning evidence" from "fear mongerers".More here [realclimate.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30179982</id>
	<title>Re:Anthropogenic Causes</title>
	<author>DarthPlagueisTheWiz</author>
	<datestamp>1258722660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Isn't there a bias in all of us that want global warming to be a myth?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't there a bias in all of us that want global warming to be a myth ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't there a bias in all of us that want global warming to be a myth?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177120</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176502</id>
	<title>Re:I would just like to point out....</title>
	<author>Areyoukiddingme</author>
	<datestamp>1258709160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's a very real possibility that the research that generated the data was funded with public money.  In which case it's not so much stolen as it is repossessed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a very real possibility that the research that generated the data was funded with public money .
In which case it 's not so much stolen as it is repossessed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a very real possibility that the research that generated the data was funded with public money.
In which case it's not so much stolen as it is repossessed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176092</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177120</id>
	<title>Re:Anthropogenic Causes</title>
	<author>sexconker</author>
	<datestamp>1258711200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The very fact that this reveals some scientists are doubting some results is exactly what should happen in science.</p></div><p>No, this reveals that some "scientists" are disappointed with the results and are actively withholding data and actively altering what data they do reveal in an effort to support the conclusion they want.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>There is no doubt that the earth is warmer</p></div><p>I doubt this.  Warmer than what?<br>Seems to me the earth was much warmer in the past and was plenty hospitable to various manners of life and has gone through more extreme changes on it's own accord, before humans even came into the picture.</p><p>The earth's climate is changing, as it tends to do.<br>Humans are not affecting it in any measurable way.<br>The change will be extremely slow and gradual.<br>The change will not destroy the planet.<br>The change may be an inconvenience for people, and certain species may go extinct.<br>There is nothing humans can do to stop it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The very fact that this reveals some scientists are doubting some results is exactly what should happen in science.No , this reveals that some " scientists " are disappointed with the results and are actively withholding data and actively altering what data they do reveal in an effort to support the conclusion they want.There is no doubt that the earth is warmerI doubt this .
Warmer than what ? Seems to me the earth was much warmer in the past and was plenty hospitable to various manners of life and has gone through more extreme changes on it 's own accord , before humans even came into the picture.The earth 's climate is changing , as it tends to do.Humans are not affecting it in any measurable way.The change will be extremely slow and gradual.The change will not destroy the planet.The change may be an inconvenience for people , and certain species may go extinct.There is nothing humans can do to stop it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The very fact that this reveals some scientists are doubting some results is exactly what should happen in science.No, this reveals that some "scientists" are disappointed with the results and are actively withholding data and actively altering what data they do reveal in an effort to support the conclusion they want.There is no doubt that the earth is warmerI doubt this.
Warmer than what?Seems to me the earth was much warmer in the past and was plenty hospitable to various manners of life and has gone through more extreme changes on it's own accord, before humans even came into the picture.The earth's climate is changing, as it tends to do.Humans are not affecting it in any measurable way.The change will be extremely slow and gradual.The change will not destroy the planet.The change may be an inconvenience for people, and certain species may go extinct.There is nothing humans can do to stop it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30178590</id>
	<title>Re:I would just like to point out....</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1258716240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not stealing, it's copyright infringement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not stealing , it 's copyright infringement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not stealing, it's copyright infringement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176482</id>
	<title>Oh, yes, this is the conspiracy of all time</title>
	<author>WindBourne</author>
	<datestamp>1258709040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It involves THOUSANDS of scientists all over the world as well as Glaciers, Polar Bear, Penguins, Shells, Hurricanes, etc. Yup, this little bitty batch of emails from many Gigs of email truly prove it. Why over on fox news and Chevron web site, they have the full story all about it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It involves THOUSANDS of scientists all over the world as well as Glaciers , Polar Bear , Penguins , Shells , Hurricanes , etc .
Yup , this little bitty batch of emails from many Gigs of email truly prove it .
Why over on fox news and Chevron web site , they have the full story all about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It involves THOUSANDS of scientists all over the world as well as Glaciers, Polar Bear, Penguins, Shells, Hurricanes, etc.
Yup, this little bitty batch of emails from many Gigs of email truly prove it.
Why over on fox news and Chevron web site, they have the full story all about it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30178704</id>
	<title>What's the goal of the global warming conspiracy?</title>
	<author>tpg0007</author>
	<datestamp>1258716600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let's assume for a moment that human-induced global warming is hogwash.

What then is the aim of this vast global conspiracy?

Are they in cahoots with the powerful, money-grabbing solar energy industry? Is it a scheme to push new age, carbon-reducing snake oil products? Do they just hate people and want to reduce our standard of living out of spite?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's assume for a moment that human-induced global warming is hogwash .
What then is the aim of this vast global conspiracy ?
Are they in cahoots with the powerful , money-grabbing solar energy industry ?
Is it a scheme to push new age , carbon-reducing snake oil products ?
Do they just hate people and want to reduce our standard of living out of spite ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's assume for a moment that human-induced global warming is hogwash.
What then is the aim of this vast global conspiracy?
Are they in cahoots with the powerful, money-grabbing solar energy industry?
Is it a scheme to push new age, carbon-reducing snake oil products?
Do they just hate people and want to reduce our standard of living out of spite?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176688</id>
	<title>Re:I would just like to point out....</title>
	<author>Ex-MislTech</author>
	<datestamp>1258709880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, as long as it fits the Agenda of the Agenda 21 crowd then we must supress<br>what woul harm the movement to help Agenda 21 happen.</p><p>LOL</p><p>Bunch of genocidal globalist scum.</p><p>Google the georgia guidestones, limits to growth, club of rome ( gore is a member ),<br>CFR, bilderberg, and you will start to understand what is going on behind closed doors.</p><p>If you will not admit the bilderberg meetings are going on,<br>and US officials attend in violation of the logan act then you are an IDIOT.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , as long as it fits the Agenda of the Agenda 21 crowd then we must supresswhat woul harm the movement to help Agenda 21 happen.LOLBunch of genocidal globalist scum.Google the georgia guidestones , limits to growth , club of rome ( gore is a member ) ,CFR , bilderberg , and you will start to understand what is going on behind closed doors.If you will not admit the bilderberg meetings are going on,and US officials attend in violation of the logan act then you are an IDIOT .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, as long as it fits the Agenda of the Agenda 21 crowd then we must supresswhat woul harm the movement to help Agenda 21 happen.LOLBunch of genocidal globalist scum.Google the georgia guidestones, limits to growth, club of rome ( gore is a member ),CFR, bilderberg, and you will start to understand what is going on behind closed doors.If you will not admit the bilderberg meetings are going on,and US officials attend in violation of the logan act then you are an IDIOT.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30179040</id>
	<title>Re:Utter bullshit.</title>
	<author>Cyberax</author>
	<datestamp>1258718040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"That man is Steve McIntyre."</p><p>And I literally LOLed. He's been caught manipulating data, disregarding evidence and so on.</p><p>SURE he's 'open about the data and methodology', yep. Only excluding the cases where he's clearly wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" That man is Steve McIntyre .
" And I literally LOLed .
He 's been caught manipulating data , disregarding evidence and so on.SURE he 's 'open about the data and methodology ' , yep .
Only excluding the cases where he 's clearly wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"That man is Steve McIntyre.
"And I literally LOLed.
He's been caught manipulating data, disregarding evidence and so on.SURE he's 'open about the data and methodology', yep.
Only excluding the cases where he's clearly wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30179142</id>
	<title>Re:My heart goes out to those researchers.</title>
	<author>etymxris</author>
	<datestamp>1258718580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually it's a bit different for coding. Most of us programmers work in a corporate environment where we expect all our emails to be read by our superiors. Code is not expected to be perfect, otherwise we would never have to worry about maintenance. Comments like, "this works but I don't know why" are common but hardly damning. They are a flag to go back and do further analysis if there's time. But we're paid to make working solutions, not generate solutions that are mathematically certain to work.</p><p>Insulting coworkers in the code is a no-no, and I've never seen it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually it 's a bit different for coding .
Most of us programmers work in a corporate environment where we expect all our emails to be read by our superiors .
Code is not expected to be perfect , otherwise we would never have to worry about maintenance .
Comments like , " this works but I do n't know why " are common but hardly damning .
They are a flag to go back and do further analysis if there 's time .
But we 're paid to make working solutions , not generate solutions that are mathematically certain to work.Insulting coworkers in the code is a no-no , and I 've never seen it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually it's a bit different for coding.
Most of us programmers work in a corporate environment where we expect all our emails to be read by our superiors.
Code is not expected to be perfect, otherwise we would never have to worry about maintenance.
Comments like, "this works but I don't know why" are common but hardly damning.
They are a flag to go back and do further analysis if there's time.
But we're paid to make working solutions, not generate solutions that are mathematically certain to work.Insulting coworkers in the code is a no-no, and I've never seen it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30175978</id>
	<title>Some Funny Things About This Event</title>
	<author>eldavojohn</author>
	<datestamp>1258750320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The CRU has confirmed that a breach occurred, but not that all 61 MB of released material is genuine.</p></div><p>Rarely do I have enough time to generate 61 MB (let alone 61 compressed MB) of data, code and e-mails that serves my political/religious purposes.  So if this is tampered data or correspondence, there would almost certainly be conflicting items inside such a large repository.  I'm not saying it isn't possible, it just decreases the odds that this is a hoax.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>'We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to be kept under wraps. We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents'</p></div><p>Why?  Why a random sampling?  If you're going to serve up 61 MB zipped, it might as well be 61 GB zipped.  Why not release both sets ("the good stuff.tar.gz" and "everything including the inane 'what's for lunch today?' e-mails.tar.gz")?  <br> <br>

It's borderline hilarious that the claim is made that this is 'too important to be kept under wraps' followed immediately by the 'we'll decide what you see' cloaked by the equally hilarious word "random."  Random?  Really?  You want me to believe that you printed everything out and put it on a big spinning wheel, blindfolded yourself and then threw darts at it?  I mean, come on.  Nothing in the political world is random.  You would have done yourself much more justice saying you've released what you feel is relevant.  <br> <br>

Being one, I know first hand that hackers are highly disorganized.  But come on, why not torrent the whole set or wikileaks it or something?  I mean, I'm almost waiting for a high quality Ford Fusion ad in PDF to surface right in the middle of the compressed file saying, "Doesn't this worry you enough to go green?"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The CRU has confirmed that a breach occurred , but not that all 61 MB of released material is genuine.Rarely do I have enough time to generate 61 MB ( let alone 61 compressed MB ) of data , code and e-mails that serves my political/religious purposes .
So if this is tampered data or correspondence , there would almost certainly be conflicting items inside such a large repository .
I 'm not saying it is n't possible , it just decreases the odds that this is a hoax .
'We feel that climate science is , in the current situation , too important to be kept under wraps .
We hereby release a random selection of correspondence , code , and documents'Why ?
Why a random sampling ?
If you 're going to serve up 61 MB zipped , it might as well be 61 GB zipped .
Why not release both sets ( " the good stuff.tar.gz " and " everything including the inane 'what 's for lunch today ?
' e-mails.tar.gz " ) ?
It 's borderline hilarious that the claim is made that this is 'too important to be kept under wraps ' followed immediately by the 'we 'll decide what you see ' cloaked by the equally hilarious word " random .
" Random ?
Really ? You want me to believe that you printed everything out and put it on a big spinning wheel , blindfolded yourself and then threw darts at it ?
I mean , come on .
Nothing in the political world is random .
You would have done yourself much more justice saying you 've released what you feel is relevant .
Being one , I know first hand that hackers are highly disorganized .
But come on , why not torrent the whole set or wikileaks it or something ?
I mean , I 'm almost waiting for a high quality Ford Fusion ad in PDF to surface right in the middle of the compressed file saying , " Does n't this worry you enough to go green ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The CRU has confirmed that a breach occurred, but not that all 61 MB of released material is genuine.Rarely do I have enough time to generate 61 MB (let alone 61 compressed MB) of data, code and e-mails that serves my political/religious purposes.
So if this is tampered data or correspondence, there would almost certainly be conflicting items inside such a large repository.
I'm not saying it isn't possible, it just decreases the odds that this is a hoax.
'We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to be kept under wraps.
We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents'Why?
Why a random sampling?
If you're going to serve up 61 MB zipped, it might as well be 61 GB zipped.
Why not release both sets ("the good stuff.tar.gz" and "everything including the inane 'what's for lunch today?
' e-mails.tar.gz")?
It's borderline hilarious that the claim is made that this is 'too important to be kept under wraps' followed immediately by the 'we'll decide what you see' cloaked by the equally hilarious word "random.
"  Random?
Really?  You want me to believe that you printed everything out and put it on a big spinning wheel, blindfolded yourself and then threw darts at it?
I mean, come on.
Nothing in the political world is random.
You would have done yourself much more justice saying you've released what you feel is relevant.
Being one, I know first hand that hackers are highly disorganized.
But come on, why not torrent the whole set or wikileaks it or something?
I mean, I'm almost waiting for a high quality Ford Fusion ad in PDF to surface right in the middle of the compressed file saying, "Doesn't this worry you enough to go green?
"
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30180632</id>
	<title>Innocent e-mails, taken out of context</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258726320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, this is all shameful. The e-mails and data files were STOLEN and therefore cannot and should not ever EVER be used to expose malfeasance, because that would be unethical.</p><p>And who among us could have all of his e-mails being read and a few isolated lapses being taken out of context? Why, my good friend the late Anthony Soprano, a legitimate businessman in New Jersey, used to write to me on occasion, and if you didn't understand the peculiar jargon of the waste disposal industry, you might even think that these e-mails were somehow incriminating:</p><p>* "Big Pussy is the mole, that fucking rat. I want you to squish him like a bug." Sanitary landfills have a well-known vermin problem, and references to rats, moles, and bugs and their rapid rate of reproduction are common in the waste disposal industry.</p><p>* Paulie Walnuts, I'm making you capo of my old crew. I like a man who can do what needs to be done." This refers to Mr. Soprano promoting me within his disposal business. "Capo" is an Italian humorou slang term that means "legitimate business executive."</p><p>* "Paulie, we've got to go  to Miami to lay low. The Feds are asking questions about how I whacked Willie Overall, way back when." William Overall was a business competitor of Mr. Soprano's who got into trouble with the Environmental Protection Agency for illegal waste disposal methods, and Mr' Soprano inadvertently caused Mr. Overall to go bankrupt when he "whacked"  him -- that is, became a whistleblower -- to the EPA.</p><p>See how devastating an innocent remark can sound if taken out of context? So let's have some sympathy for the good people at Hadley, OK? That way nobody gets hurt.</p><p>-- Peter Paul "Paulie Walnuts" Gualtieri</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , this is all shameful .
The e-mails and data files were STOLEN and therefore can not and should not ever EVER be used to expose malfeasance , because that would be unethical.And who among us could have all of his e-mails being read and a few isolated lapses being taken out of context ?
Why , my good friend the late Anthony Soprano , a legitimate businessman in New Jersey , used to write to me on occasion , and if you did n't understand the peculiar jargon of the waste disposal industry , you might even think that these e-mails were somehow incriminating : * " Big Pussy is the mole , that fucking rat .
I want you to squish him like a bug .
" Sanitary landfills have a well-known vermin problem , and references to rats , moles , and bugs and their rapid rate of reproduction are common in the waste disposal industry .
* Paulie Walnuts , I 'm making you capo of my old crew .
I like a man who can do what needs to be done .
" This refers to Mr. Soprano promoting me within his disposal business .
" Capo " is an Italian humorou slang term that means " legitimate business executive .
" * " Paulie , we 've got to go to Miami to lay low .
The Feds are asking questions about how I whacked Willie Overall , way back when .
" William Overall was a business competitor of Mr. Soprano 's who got into trouble with the Environmental Protection Agency for illegal waste disposal methods , and Mr ' Soprano inadvertently caused Mr. Overall to go bankrupt when he " whacked " him -- that is , became a whistleblower -- to the EPA.See how devastating an innocent remark can sound if taken out of context ?
So let 's have some sympathy for the good people at Hadley , OK ?
That way nobody gets hurt.-- Peter Paul " Paulie Walnuts " Gualtieri</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, this is all shameful.
The e-mails and data files were STOLEN and therefore cannot and should not ever EVER be used to expose malfeasance, because that would be unethical.And who among us could have all of his e-mails being read and a few isolated lapses being taken out of context?
Why, my good friend the late Anthony Soprano, a legitimate businessman in New Jersey, used to write to me on occasion, and if you didn't understand the peculiar jargon of the waste disposal industry, you might even think that these e-mails were somehow incriminating:* "Big Pussy is the mole, that fucking rat.
I want you to squish him like a bug.
" Sanitary landfills have a well-known vermin problem, and references to rats, moles, and bugs and their rapid rate of reproduction are common in the waste disposal industry.
* Paulie Walnuts, I'm making you capo of my old crew.
I like a man who can do what needs to be done.
" This refers to Mr. Soprano promoting me within his disposal business.
"Capo" is an Italian humorou slang term that means "legitimate business executive.
"* "Paulie, we've got to go  to Miami to lay low.
The Feds are asking questions about how I whacked Willie Overall, way back when.
" William Overall was a business competitor of Mr. Soprano's who got into trouble with the Environmental Protection Agency for illegal waste disposal methods, and Mr' Soprano inadvertently caused Mr. Overall to go bankrupt when he "whacked"  him -- that is, became a whistleblower -- to the EPA.See how devastating an innocent remark can sound if taken out of context?
So let's have some sympathy for the good people at Hadley, OK?
That way nobody gets hurt.-- Peter Paul "Paulie Walnuts" Gualtieri</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176092</id>
	<title>I would just like to point out....</title>
	<author>Slash.Poop</author>
	<datestamp>1258707660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would just like to point out that it is COMPLETELY inappropriate for slashDot to post a link to what is, according to the story, STOLEN DATA. Yes, I know it is out on the internet so anyone could find it.<br> <br>
But seriously slashDot it seems highly inappropriate for you to give people easy access to stolen data.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would just like to point out that it is COMPLETELY inappropriate for slashDot to post a link to what is , according to the story , STOLEN DATA .
Yes , I know it is out on the internet so anyone could find it .
But seriously slashDot it seems highly inappropriate for you to give people easy access to stolen data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would just like to point out that it is COMPLETELY inappropriate for slashDot to post a link to what is, according to the story, STOLEN DATA.
Yes, I know it is out on the internet so anyone could find it.
But seriously slashDot it seems highly inappropriate for you to give people easy access to stolen data.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30197808</id>
	<title>Re:The dog ate it?</title>
	<author>himi</author>
	<datestamp>1258896900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, it is - this was data from the 1980s, that had been stored on tape at best or not even archived in many cases, since no one at the time thought that it would be worth the money and effort required to archive it effectively. Understandable, really, given that everyone<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/aside/ from the wingnut deniers are pretty much happy with the processed data that<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/was/ archived.</p><p>himi</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , it is - this was data from the 1980s , that had been stored on tape at best or not even archived in many cases , since no one at the time thought that it would be worth the money and effort required to archive it effectively .
Understandable , really , given that everyone /aside/ from the wingnut deniers are pretty much happy with the processed data that /was/ archived.himi</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, it is - this was data from the 1980s, that had been stored on tape at best or not even archived in many cases, since no one at the time thought that it would be worth the money and effort required to archive it effectively.
Understandable, really, given that everyone /aside/ from the wingnut deniers are pretty much happy with the processed data that /was/ archived.himi</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177494</id>
	<title>Re:Utter bullshit.</title>
	<author>hrimhari</author>
	<datestamp>1258712340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Pieces of the truth are still the truth.</p></div><p>Even when they are out of their original context, leading to a different idea than the entire truth is about?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Pieces of the truth are still the truth.Even when they are out of their original context , leading to a different idea than the entire truth is about ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pieces of the truth are still the truth.Even when they are out of their original context, leading to a different idea than the entire truth is about?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176918</id>
	<title>Re:Why is climate science being politicized?</title>
	<author>zerosomething</author>
	<datestamp>1258710540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But the data is in question and they work very hard to keep you from ever seeing it and how it's analyzed. That's what in these files. There attempts to keep analysis out. It's political because If we really are warming the planet we have to severely control human behavior. That's what political. The warming is seen as another way to control behavior. Tell you what you can and cant do tall you what you can and can't eat.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But the data is in question and they work very hard to keep you from ever seeing it and how it 's analyzed .
That 's what in these files .
There attempts to keep analysis out .
It 's political because If we really are warming the planet we have to severely control human behavior .
That 's what political .
The warming is seen as another way to control behavior .
Tell you what you can and cant do tall you what you can and ca n't eat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But the data is in question and they work very hard to keep you from ever seeing it and how it's analyzed.
That's what in these files.
There attempts to keep analysis out.
It's political because If we really are warming the planet we have to severely control human behavior.
That's what political.
The warming is seen as another way to control behavior.
Tell you what you can and cant do tall you what you can and can't eat.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30179074</id>
	<title>Re:Anthropogenic Causes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258718220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Is Richard S. Lindzen of the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT an idiot media personality?"</p><p>Yes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Is Richard S. Lindzen of the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT an idiot media personality ?
" Yes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Is Richard S. Lindzen of the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT an idiot media personality?
"Yes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176798</id>
	<title>Re:I would just like to point out....</title>
	<author>BJ\_Covert\_Action</author>
	<datestamp>1258710240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, that's one point of view, but I know that I am not alone in considering 'stealing' to only be inappropriate when it deprives another entity of something (i.e. I steal candy from a baby). If the 'stolen data' was copied rather than deleted from the original source, then the original researchers aren't deprived of anything (except maybe the power that exclusive information affords people). That being said, why lose sleep over it? Furthermore, why cry foul on a news aggregation site that is, in fact, linking to an aggregation of new, interesting information (aka news). I mean, I guess you could make a case about this possibly depriving the original researchers of their integrity. I suppose you could say that it only muddies the waters of an already dirty lake. I suppose you could come up with all sorts of moral/ethical/relative reasons as to why this is a terrible thing for slashdot to do, but so far as I can tell, it primarily just brings more exposure to a very interesting happenstance.
<br> <br>
That being said, I hope you can understand that other people who don't share your strict sense of values or morals or ethics or whatever may not see it as being some horrible act. In fact, some may even find it to be a refreshing act of misplaced-but-at-least-attempted rebellion which is somewhat refreshing in an era where those who scream the loudest but perform the least activity get awarded time and again. Furthermore, I hope you can understand these things without having to stick your nose in the air and convince yourself that you are better than anyone who doesn't see a moral issue with this. The human race is not homogeneous. We all have different ideals and values. You can argue for eternity over which values are 'best,' but I think the idea of 'best' goes beyond both subjective and objective reasoning. Call me a moral relativist if you want, but I sure hope your blood pressure doesn't go due to your shock and outrage over information getting leaked on the internet and being reported on a news site....</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , that 's one point of view , but I know that I am not alone in considering 'stealing ' to only be inappropriate when it deprives another entity of something ( i.e .
I steal candy from a baby ) .
If the 'stolen data ' was copied rather than deleted from the original source , then the original researchers are n't deprived of anything ( except maybe the power that exclusive information affords people ) .
That being said , why lose sleep over it ?
Furthermore , why cry foul on a news aggregation site that is , in fact , linking to an aggregation of new , interesting information ( aka news ) .
I mean , I guess you could make a case about this possibly depriving the original researchers of their integrity .
I suppose you could say that it only muddies the waters of an already dirty lake .
I suppose you could come up with all sorts of moral/ethical/relative reasons as to why this is a terrible thing for slashdot to do , but so far as I can tell , it primarily just brings more exposure to a very interesting happenstance .
That being said , I hope you can understand that other people who do n't share your strict sense of values or morals or ethics or whatever may not see it as being some horrible act .
In fact , some may even find it to be a refreshing act of misplaced-but-at-least-attempted rebellion which is somewhat refreshing in an era where those who scream the loudest but perform the least activity get awarded time and again .
Furthermore , I hope you can understand these things without having to stick your nose in the air and convince yourself that you are better than anyone who does n't see a moral issue with this .
The human race is not homogeneous .
We all have different ideals and values .
You can argue for eternity over which values are 'best, ' but I think the idea of 'best ' goes beyond both subjective and objective reasoning .
Call me a moral relativist if you want , but I sure hope your blood pressure does n't go due to your shock and outrage over information getting leaked on the internet and being reported on a news site... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, that's one point of view, but I know that I am not alone in considering 'stealing' to only be inappropriate when it deprives another entity of something (i.e.
I steal candy from a baby).
If the 'stolen data' was copied rather than deleted from the original source, then the original researchers aren't deprived of anything (except maybe the power that exclusive information affords people).
That being said, why lose sleep over it?
Furthermore, why cry foul on a news aggregation site that is, in fact, linking to an aggregation of new, interesting information (aka news).
I mean, I guess you could make a case about this possibly depriving the original researchers of their integrity.
I suppose you could say that it only muddies the waters of an already dirty lake.
I suppose you could come up with all sorts of moral/ethical/relative reasons as to why this is a terrible thing for slashdot to do, but so far as I can tell, it primarily just brings more exposure to a very interesting happenstance.
That being said, I hope you can understand that other people who don't share your strict sense of values or morals or ethics or whatever may not see it as being some horrible act.
In fact, some may even find it to be a refreshing act of misplaced-but-at-least-attempted rebellion which is somewhat refreshing in an era where those who scream the loudest but perform the least activity get awarded time and again.
Furthermore, I hope you can understand these things without having to stick your nose in the air and convince yourself that you are better than anyone who doesn't see a moral issue with this.
The human race is not homogeneous.
We all have different ideals and values.
You can argue for eternity over which values are 'best,' but I think the idea of 'best' goes beyond both subjective and objective reasoning.
Call me a moral relativist if you want, but I sure hope your blood pressure doesn't go due to your shock and outrage over information getting leaked on the internet and being reported on a news site....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176092</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30186928</id>
	<title>Re:They flipped Finnish data upside down</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258835460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>English transcription of "MOT: Climate catastrophe cancelled" can be found at<br>http://ohjelmat.yle.fi/mot/viime\_viikon\_mot/transcript\_english</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>English transcription of " MOT : Climate catastrophe cancelled " can be found athttp : //ohjelmat.yle.fi/mot/viime \ _viikon \ _mot/transcript \ _english</tokentext>
<sentencetext>English transcription of "MOT: Climate catastrophe cancelled" can be found athttp://ohjelmat.yle.fi/mot/viime\_viikon\_mot/transcript\_english</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30180106</id>
	<title>Re:My heart goes out to those researchers.</title>
	<author>LynnwoodRooster</author>
	<datestamp>1258723320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If these guys had been on the up-and-up about sharing their data and methodologies from the beginning, these e-mails would be harmless.  When you have 10+ years of stonewalling, hiding data, lying about data, refusing to show your work, and then these kinds of e-mails pop out, well, you kiss it all goodbye...</htmltext>
<tokenext>If these guys had been on the up-and-up about sharing their data and methodologies from the beginning , these e-mails would be harmless .
When you have 10 + years of stonewalling , hiding data , lying about data , refusing to show your work , and then these kinds of e-mails pop out , well , you kiss it all goodbye.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If these guys had been on the up-and-up about sharing their data and methodologies from the beginning, these e-mails would be harmless.
When you have 10+ years of stonewalling, hiding data, lying about data, refusing to show your work, and then these kinds of e-mails pop out, well, you kiss it all goodbye...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177016</id>
	<title>Re:Utter bullshit.</title>
	<author>OutSourcingIsTreason</author>
	<datestamp>1258710780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd like to see the email from Exxon-Mobil to you saying "the check's in the mail."</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd like to see the email from Exxon-Mobil to you saying " the check 's in the mail .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd like to see the email from Exxon-Mobil to you saying "the check's in the mail.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30181884</id>
	<title>hockey stick chaos</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258737960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=1037</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php ? eid = 1037</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=1037</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176146</id>
	<title>Re:Utter bullshit.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258707900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Email isn't science but that doesn't mean it isn't interesting.  If the email says "Hey Bob, your algorithm didn't produce the level of warming we were expecting, we need you to rework it so it is in line with our expectations" that would say a lot about how the 'science' is being done.  Furthermore, random chunks of data isn't science, but it does have the possibility of revealing any number of things, anything from numbers not matching what is published to problems with software to inconsistent data.</p><p>I'm not saying that is what the leaked information says, nor am I saying that the leak is real; there isn't enough information to know that yet.  But your instant dismissal of this because it isn't every piece of data ever collected is a little disconcerting in my opinion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Email is n't science but that does n't mean it is n't interesting .
If the email says " Hey Bob , your algorithm did n't produce the level of warming we were expecting , we need you to rework it so it is in line with our expectations " that would say a lot about how the 'science ' is being done .
Furthermore , random chunks of data is n't science , but it does have the possibility of revealing any number of things , anything from numbers not matching what is published to problems with software to inconsistent data.I 'm not saying that is what the leaked information says , nor am I saying that the leak is real ; there is n't enough information to know that yet .
But your instant dismissal of this because it is n't every piece of data ever collected is a little disconcerting in my opinion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Email isn't science but that doesn't mean it isn't interesting.
If the email says "Hey Bob, your algorithm didn't produce the level of warming we were expecting, we need you to rework it so it is in line with our expectations" that would say a lot about how the 'science' is being done.
Furthermore, random chunks of data isn't science, but it does have the possibility of revealing any number of things, anything from numbers not matching what is published to problems with software to inconsistent data.I'm not saying that is what the leaked information says, nor am I saying that the leak is real; there isn't enough information to know that yet.
But your instant dismissal of this because it isn't every piece of data ever collected is a little disconcerting in my opinion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176002</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177342</id>
	<title>Re:Your opinion is being manipulated</title>
	<author>Burnhard</author>
	<datestamp>1258711920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>So this PR campaign is softening up the target of your mind to make it easier for you to accept that failure.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>

I'm kind-of a little gob-smacked that you can think this.  The PR has been all "warming" for a decade or more.  Press releases for every paper, no-matter how ridiculous, linking {fill in the blank} to Global Warming have been routinely published, discussed and editorialised in mainstream media publications, with utter credulity and no raised eyebrow whatsoever.  The sceptics have generally been dismissed or ignored.<br>
<br>
I've noticed recently, however, say over the last year or so, that comments sections on "warmist" mainstream media articles are overwhelmed with sceptics.  The public just don't believe it any more and the newspapers and media are starting to reflect that.  I would say that the "warmists" have overplayed their hand, with barely credible predictions of disaster, exaggeration, blatant spin and a seeming inability to accept any criticism.  Their proposed policy responses to this (possibly) imaginary problem are unrealistic.  I don't think the general public are up for rolling back the industrial revolution, or enacting an economic scorched Earth policy for the benefit of one half of one degree, within the bounds of natural variation and quite possibly outside of the bounds of measurement error.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So this PR campaign is softening up the target of your mind to make it easier for you to accept that failure .
I 'm kind-of a little gob-smacked that you can think this .
The PR has been all " warming " for a decade or more .
Press releases for every paper , no-matter how ridiculous , linking { fill in the blank } to Global Warming have been routinely published , discussed and editorialised in mainstream media publications , with utter credulity and no raised eyebrow whatsoever .
The sceptics have generally been dismissed or ignored .
I 've noticed recently , however , say over the last year or so , that comments sections on " warmist " mainstream media articles are overwhelmed with sceptics .
The public just do n't believe it any more and the newspapers and media are starting to reflect that .
I would say that the " warmists " have overplayed their hand , with barely credible predictions of disaster , exaggeration , blatant spin and a seeming inability to accept any criticism .
Their proposed policy responses to this ( possibly ) imaginary problem are unrealistic .
I do n't think the general public are up for rolling back the industrial revolution , or enacting an economic scorched Earth policy for the benefit of one half of one degree , within the bounds of natural variation and quite possibly outside of the bounds of measurement error .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So this PR campaign is softening up the target of your mind to make it easier for you to accept that failure.
I'm kind-of a little gob-smacked that you can think this.
The PR has been all "warming" for a decade or more.
Press releases for every paper, no-matter how ridiculous, linking {fill in the blank} to Global Warming have been routinely published, discussed and editorialised in mainstream media publications, with utter credulity and no raised eyebrow whatsoever.
The sceptics have generally been dismissed or ignored.
I've noticed recently, however, say over the last year or so, that comments sections on "warmist" mainstream media articles are overwhelmed with sceptics.
The public just don't believe it any more and the newspapers and media are starting to reflect that.
I would say that the "warmists" have overplayed their hand, with barely credible predictions of disaster, exaggeration, blatant spin and a seeming inability to accept any criticism.
Their proposed policy responses to this (possibly) imaginary problem are unrealistic.
I don't think the general public are up for rolling back the industrial revolution, or enacting an economic scorched Earth policy for the benefit of one half of one degree, within the bounds of natural variation and quite possibly outside of the bounds of measurement error.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176642</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176568</id>
	<title>Nothing to see here, move on</title>
	<author>JoeBuck</author>
	<datestamp>1258709400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I review papers for technical conferences. I regularly try to keep papers out of the publications. It's a necessary part of the job, because the acceptance rate is typically 25\%, and because most of the papers are junk. Scientific publications are not free speech platforms; to be published, an article has to meet the standards and it has to advance the state of the art of the field.
<p>
The bar for skeptics is always going to be higher. Otherwise we'd have to rewrite the chemistry textbooks every time some student messes up his lab assignment, because this will produce data that contradicts the theory.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I review papers for technical conferences .
I regularly try to keep papers out of the publications .
It 's a necessary part of the job , because the acceptance rate is typically 25 \ % , and because most of the papers are junk .
Scientific publications are not free speech platforms ; to be published , an article has to meet the standards and it has to advance the state of the art of the field .
The bar for skeptics is always going to be higher .
Otherwise we 'd have to rewrite the chemistry textbooks every time some student messes up his lab assignment , because this will produce data that contradicts the theory .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I review papers for technical conferences.
I regularly try to keep papers out of the publications.
It's a necessary part of the job, because the acceptance rate is typically 25\%, and because most of the papers are junk.
Scientific publications are not free speech platforms; to be published, an article has to meet the standards and it has to advance the state of the art of the field.
The bar for skeptics is always going to be higher.
Otherwise we'd have to rewrite the chemistry textbooks every time some student messes up his lab assignment, because this will produce data that contradicts the theory.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30180908</id>
	<title>Re:secrecy and data hiding</title>
	<author>chrb</author>
	<datestamp>1258728420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So they are going to hide behind Intelectual Property Rights to keep their data from being reviewed!. Holy Fucking Shit! How can science do that and still remain respectable?</p></div><p>You have a point. Unfortunately tech corporations like Intel and biotechs like GlaxoSmithKline do not release their raw data either. Science and "Intellectual Property Rights" are unfortunately linked. What is your solution - a law mandating that every scientist must conduct open and free research? Keep in mind that you'd really have to do away with IPR completely to separate it from pure science.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So they are going to hide behind Intelectual Property Rights to keep their data from being reviewed ! .
Holy Fucking Shit !
How can science do that and still remain respectable ? You have a point .
Unfortunately tech corporations like Intel and biotechs like GlaxoSmithKline do not release their raw data either .
Science and " Intellectual Property Rights " are unfortunately linked .
What is your solution - a law mandating that every scientist must conduct open and free research ?
Keep in mind that you 'd really have to do away with IPR completely to separate it from pure science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So they are going to hide behind Intelectual Property Rights to keep their data from being reviewed!.
Holy Fucking Shit!
How can science do that and still remain respectable?You have a point.
Unfortunately tech corporations like Intel and biotechs like GlaxoSmithKline do not release their raw data either.
Science and "Intellectual Property Rights" are unfortunately linked.
What is your solution - a law mandating that every scientist must conduct open and free research?
Keep in mind that you'd really have to do away with IPR completely to separate it from pure science.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30185958</id>
	<title>DMCA</title>
	<author>toddhisattva</author>
	<datestamp>1258829340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Surely, once the liars file a DMCA request to hide their fraud, the Slashdot crowd will turn on them?</p><p>Proprietary science, closed source software, and legal threats....</p><p>This work was never *meant* to be repeated.</p><p>This work <b>is not science</b>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Surely , once the liars file a DMCA request to hide their fraud , the Slashdot crowd will turn on them ? Proprietary science , closed source software , and legal threats....This work was never * meant * to be repeated.This work is not science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Surely, once the liars file a DMCA request to hide their fraud, the Slashdot crowd will turn on them?Proprietary science, closed source software, and legal threats....This work was never *meant* to be repeated.This work is not science.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177610</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing to see here, move on</title>
	<author>Dobeln</author>
	<datestamp>1258712760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They aren't discussing the merits of papers. They are trying to get people (journal editors) fired, based on their perceived loyalty (or lack thereof) to 'the cause'.</p><p>Of course, that is when they aren't deleting data in order to prevent if from falling into the wrong hands, or conspiring to avoid the law in order to keep their data under wraps. Data that has now sadly been lost forever in a mysterious accidental deletion.</p><p>Or celebrating the deaths of "sceptics" (clearly these people are a bunch of dispassionate scientists).</p><p>And so on.</p><p>If this is Science as Usual (TM), then Science needs serious reform.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are n't discussing the merits of papers .
They are trying to get people ( journal editors ) fired , based on their perceived loyalty ( or lack thereof ) to 'the cause'.Of course , that is when they are n't deleting data in order to prevent if from falling into the wrong hands , or conspiring to avoid the law in order to keep their data under wraps .
Data that has now sadly been lost forever in a mysterious accidental deletion.Or celebrating the deaths of " sceptics " ( clearly these people are a bunch of dispassionate scientists ) .And so on.If this is Science as Usual ( TM ) , then Science needs serious reform .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They aren't discussing the merits of papers.
They are trying to get people (journal editors) fired, based on their perceived loyalty (or lack thereof) to 'the cause'.Of course, that is when they aren't deleting data in order to prevent if from falling into the wrong hands, or conspiring to avoid the law in order to keep their data under wraps.
Data that has now sadly been lost forever in a mysterious accidental deletion.Or celebrating the deaths of "sceptics" (clearly these people are a bunch of dispassionate scientists).And so on.If this is Science as Usual (TM), then Science needs serious reform.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177714</id>
	<title>Re:Utter bullshit.</title>
	<author>Rary</author>
	<datestamp>1258713180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If the email says "Hey Bob, your algorithm didn't produce the level of warming we were expecting, we need you to rework it so it is in line with our expectations" that would say a lot about how the 'science' is being done.</p></div><p>What if the person sending the email to Bob is someone testing Bob's algorithm in a controlled test scenario where the outcome is already known, and therefore the algorithm not meeting expectations actually means that the algorithm is wrong and needs to be reworked? Then the quote wouldn't be quite the smoking gun, would it?</p><p>That's why context is essential.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the email says " Hey Bob , your algorithm did n't produce the level of warming we were expecting , we need you to rework it so it is in line with our expectations " that would say a lot about how the 'science ' is being done.What if the person sending the email to Bob is someone testing Bob 's algorithm in a controlled test scenario where the outcome is already known , and therefore the algorithm not meeting expectations actually means that the algorithm is wrong and needs to be reworked ?
Then the quote would n't be quite the smoking gun , would it ? That 's why context is essential .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the email says "Hey Bob, your algorithm didn't produce the level of warming we were expecting, we need you to rework it so it is in line with our expectations" that would say a lot about how the 'science' is being done.What if the person sending the email to Bob is someone testing Bob's algorithm in a controlled test scenario where the outcome is already known, and therefore the algorithm not meeting expectations actually means that the algorithm is wrong and needs to be reworked?
Then the quote wouldn't be quite the smoking gun, would it?That's why context is essential.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177366</id>
	<title>Re:Utter bullshit.</title>
	<author>BobMcD</author>
	<datestamp>1258711980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Let's see ALL the data, and let's not see the E-mail at all -- E-mail isn't data.</p></div><p>You do realize that some of the emails are about hiding data from public view, obstructing freedom of information requests, and campaign to discredit a peer reviewed journal that published something that disagreed with their public stance, right?</p></div><p>It seems to me that this would be the point of raising the objection.  Its a classic double standard.  On the one hand we can freely draw conclusions about the nature of the Earth's changes in temperature using a relatively limited set of data.  On the other hand we are forbidden to draw conclusions about the content of these emails because we do not have the complete, unmodified, set of data.</p><p>They are smart enough to correctly draw conclusions, but no one else may do so.</p><p>Classic stuff, there.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's see ALL the data , and let 's not see the E-mail at all -- E-mail is n't data.You do realize that some of the emails are about hiding data from public view , obstructing freedom of information requests , and campaign to discredit a peer reviewed journal that published something that disagreed with their public stance , right ? It seems to me that this would be the point of raising the objection .
Its a classic double standard .
On the one hand we can freely draw conclusions about the nature of the Earth 's changes in temperature using a relatively limited set of data .
On the other hand we are forbidden to draw conclusions about the content of these emails because we do not have the complete , unmodified , set of data.They are smart enough to correctly draw conclusions , but no one else may do so.Classic stuff , there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's see ALL the data, and let's not see the E-mail at all -- E-mail isn't data.You do realize that some of the emails are about hiding data from public view, obstructing freedom of information requests, and campaign to discredit a peer reviewed journal that published something that disagreed with their public stance, right?It seems to me that this would be the point of raising the objection.
Its a classic double standard.
On the one hand we can freely draw conclusions about the nature of the Earth's changes in temperature using a relatively limited set of data.
On the other hand we are forbidden to draw conclusions about the content of these emails because we do not have the complete, unmodified, set of data.They are smart enough to correctly draw conclusions, but no one else may do so.Classic stuff, there.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30187960</id>
	<title>Re:They flipped Finnish data upside down</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258798860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Those graphs actually show the same data. In both, the trend is from 60 toward 160. o\_O;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Those graphs actually show the same data .
In both , the trend is from 60 toward 160. o \ _O ;</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those graphs actually show the same data.
In both, the trend is from 60 toward 160. o\_O;</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30179564</id>
	<title>Re:Utter bullshit.</title>
	<author>kindbud</author>
	<datestamp>1258720500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>You do realize that some of the emails are about hiding data from public view, obstructing freedom of information requests, and campaign to discredit a peer reviewed journal that published something that disagreed with their public stance, right?</i></p><p>You realize the previous administration did all that and more in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, and it drew far less criticism than this?</p><p>Americans don't deserve a free, open, democratic republic, nor do they want one.  They want more than anything else to fall to their knees at the feet of authority, miracle and mystery.  The American experiment has failed, and everyone is doing everything they can to cover up that fact, or to avoid having to admit it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do realize that some of the emails are about hiding data from public view , obstructing freedom of information requests , and campaign to discredit a peer reviewed journal that published something that disagreed with their public stance , right ? You realize the previous administration did all that and more in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq , and it drew far less criticism than this ? Americans do n't deserve a free , open , democratic republic , nor do they want one .
They want more than anything else to fall to their knees at the feet of authority , miracle and mystery .
The American experiment has failed , and everyone is doing everything they can to cover up that fact , or to avoid having to admit it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You do realize that some of the emails are about hiding data from public view, obstructing freedom of information requests, and campaign to discredit a peer reviewed journal that published something that disagreed with their public stance, right?You realize the previous administration did all that and more in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, and it drew far less criticism than this?Americans don't deserve a free, open, democratic republic, nor do they want one.
They want more than anything else to fall to their knees at the feet of authority, miracle and mystery.
The American experiment has failed, and everyone is doing everything they can to cover up that fact, or to avoid having to admit it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30202980</id>
	<title>Re:Utter bullshit.</title>
	<author>freejung</author>
	<datestamp>1258997100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What you are not mentioning is the other factor revealed in these emails -- these scientists were under sustained, concerted attack by opponents with no scruples and no intellectual integrity. The reluctance to release source data is bad, I agree, but you have to consider what they are up against. They knew that any information released would be twisted by their opponents to discredit the science, just as these emails are.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What you are not mentioning is the other factor revealed in these emails -- these scientists were under sustained , concerted attack by opponents with no scruples and no intellectual integrity .
The reluctance to release source data is bad , I agree , but you have to consider what they are up against .
They knew that any information released would be twisted by their opponents to discredit the science , just as these emails are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What you are not mentioning is the other factor revealed in these emails -- these scientists were under sustained, concerted attack by opponents with no scruples and no intellectual integrity.
The reluctance to release source data is bad, I agree, but you have to consider what they are up against.
They knew that any information released would be twisted by their opponents to discredit the science, just as these emails are.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30183636</id>
	<title>Re:My heart goes out to those researchers.</title>
	<author>rogerz</author>
	<datestamp>1258811940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your examples pertain to fixing software. And, it is true that it is not unethical to fix software. That much of AGW theory rests on software simulations is a topic for another post.<br>But, what \_is\_ unethical is to fix or conceal <b>data</b>, and there is plenty of evidence for this emerging from these emails (if they are legitimate).  In real science, you make all of the raw data available and - if necessary - use logic to justify why some of it should be adjusted/eliminated/ignored.  If you are concealing any of the raw data, then you not doing science - you are doing politics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your examples pertain to fixing software .
And , it is true that it is not unethical to fix software .
That much of AGW theory rests on software simulations is a topic for another post.But , what \ _is \ _ unethical is to fix or conceal data , and there is plenty of evidence for this emerging from these emails ( if they are legitimate ) .
In real science , you make all of the raw data available and - if necessary - use logic to justify why some of it should be adjusted/eliminated/ignored .
If you are concealing any of the raw data , then you not doing science - you are doing politics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your examples pertain to fixing software.
And, it is true that it is not unethical to fix software.
That much of AGW theory rests on software simulations is a topic for another post.But, what \_is\_ unethical is to fix or conceal data, and there is plenty of evidence for this emerging from these emails (if they are legitimate).
In real science, you make all of the raw data available and - if necessary - use logic to justify why some of it should be adjusted/eliminated/ignored.
If you are concealing any of the raw data, then you not doing science - you are doing politics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176642</id>
	<title>Your opinion is being manipulated</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258709700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>in advance of the upcoming Copenhagen climate conference, there is clearly a campaign<br>on to discredit evidence for global warming. Watch for a continuing stream of new news stories<br>on the issue, questioning the science, in the next few weeks. I have already noticed two very<br>blatant examples in the last few days.</p><p>One science that is more certain, I will admit, these days than the science of global climate is the science<br>of swaying public opinion through careful PR and "news" management. It's scary good. You have<br>to be on the lookout for it at all times. Anytime you find yourself agreeing with the most recent<br>conventional wisdom, give yourself a slap, and start looking for who is feeding you that conventional<br>wisdom and why. Hint. Follow the money.</p><p>Copenhagen is apparently going to be a total failure. The politicians are all gutless wimps.<br>So this PR campaign is softening up the target of your mind to make it easier for you to accept<br>that failure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>in advance of the upcoming Copenhagen climate conference , there is clearly a campaignon to discredit evidence for global warming .
Watch for a continuing stream of new news storieson the issue , questioning the science , in the next few weeks .
I have already noticed two veryblatant examples in the last few days.One science that is more certain , I will admit , these days than the science of global climate is the scienceof swaying public opinion through careful PR and " news " management .
It 's scary good .
You haveto be on the lookout for it at all times .
Anytime you find yourself agreeing with the most recentconventional wisdom , give yourself a slap , and start looking for who is feeding you that conventionalwisdom and why .
Hint. Follow the money.Copenhagen is apparently going to be a total failure .
The politicians are all gutless wimps.So this PR campaign is softening up the target of your mind to make it easier for you to acceptthat failure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in advance of the upcoming Copenhagen climate conference, there is clearly a campaignon to discredit evidence for global warming.
Watch for a continuing stream of new news storieson the issue, questioning the science, in the next few weeks.
I have already noticed two veryblatant examples in the last few days.One science that is more certain, I will admit, these days than the science of global climate is the scienceof swaying public opinion through careful PR and "news" management.
It's scary good.
You haveto be on the lookout for it at all times.
Anytime you find yourself agreeing with the most recentconventional wisdom, give yourself a slap, and start looking for who is feeding you that conventionalwisdom and why.
Hint. Follow the money.Copenhagen is apparently going to be a total failure.
The politicians are all gutless wimps.So this PR campaign is softening up the target of your mind to make it easier for you to acceptthat failure.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30233086</id>
	<title>What happened to this headline:</title>
	<author>one2meny</author>
	<datestamp>1257175080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://rss.slashdot.org/~r/slashdot/eqWf/~3/Ltx1dUIvKyA/Hacked-Climate-Emails-Stoke-Debate" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://rss.slashdot.org/~r/slashdot/eqWf/~3/Ltx1dUIvKyA/Hacked-Climate-Emails-Stoke-Debate</a> [slashdot.org]

It disappeared completely from Slashdot.  Why?</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //rss.slashdot.org/ ~ r/slashdot/eqWf/ ~ 3/Ltx1dUIvKyA/Hacked-Climate-Emails-Stoke-Debate [ slashdot.org ] It disappeared completely from Slashdot .
Why ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://rss.slashdot.org/~r/slashdot/eqWf/~3/Ltx1dUIvKyA/Hacked-Climate-Emails-Stoke-Debate [slashdot.org]

It disappeared completely from Slashdot.
Why?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30222672</id>
	<title>Ponzi Scheme and Astrology</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259082420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Climate "science" is a form of astrology, Global Warming is its Ponzi Scheme and the practioners are charlatans.</p><p>Collusion, deciet. forgery, grand thieft (from the treasuries of nations) are evident, and obvious.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Climate " science " is a form of astrology , Global Warming is its Ponzi Scheme and the practioners are charlatans.Collusion , deciet .
forgery , grand thieft ( from the treasuries of nations ) are evident , and obvious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Climate "science" is a form of astrology, Global Warming is its Ponzi Scheme and the practioners are charlatans.Collusion, deciet.
forgery, grand thieft (from the treasuries of nations) are evident, and obvious.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177228</id>
	<title>Re:A new low for the slashdot anti-intellectualism</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258711560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Follow slashdot for a sufficient amount of time and you will see that whatever is "commonly accepted wisdom" is countered here by the kids who like to think they're smarter than everyone else and that they can see through the conspiracy -- although admittedly IIRC the Iraq War was pretty popular around 2002-03. It is a fairly typical right wing political reaction to just resist everything everyone else seems to be accepting in particular if it requires some sort of collective action, even if it actually was the rational thing to do.</p><p>The older I get, the less intellectual respect I have for most of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. tbh.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Follow slashdot for a sufficient amount of time and you will see that whatever is " commonly accepted wisdom " is countered here by the kids who like to think they 're smarter than everyone else and that they can see through the conspiracy -- although admittedly IIRC the Iraq War was pretty popular around 2002-03 .
It is a fairly typical right wing political reaction to just resist everything everyone else seems to be accepting in particular if it requires some sort of collective action , even if it actually was the rational thing to do.The older I get , the less intellectual respect I have for most of / .
tbh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Follow slashdot for a sufficient amount of time and you will see that whatever is "commonly accepted wisdom" is countered here by the kids who like to think they're smarter than everyone else and that they can see through the conspiracy -- although admittedly IIRC the Iraq War was pretty popular around 2002-03.
It is a fairly typical right wing political reaction to just resist everything everyone else seems to be accepting in particular if it requires some sort of collective action, even if it actually was the rational thing to do.The older I get, the less intellectual respect I have for most of /.
tbh.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177374</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing to see here, move on</title>
	<author>Rockoon</author>
	<datestamp>1258712040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Are you really telling us that you reject papers only because they contain data that does not fit the prevailing theory?<br>
<br>
Well holy fucking shit. That other poster is right, you are a fucking scumbag.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you really telling us that you reject papers only because they contain data that does not fit the prevailing theory ?
Well holy fucking shit .
That other poster is right , you are a fucking scumbag .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you really telling us that you reject papers only because they contain data that does not fit the prevailing theory?
Well holy fucking shit.
That other poster is right, you are a fucking scumbag.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30181366</id>
	<title>bad models</title>
	<author>kolyag</author>
	<datestamp>1258732380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The main reason my late dad among other two dozen top meteorologists signed that letter to a prior POTUS Bush (Barbara's husband) not to sign Kyoto agreement, as he explained to me, has been that we simply do not know. We would not probably know it for a very long time to come, more likely in our lifetime than not. The atmosphere and the ocean are too complex objects and the data cannot be reliably gathered, as one cannot get vertical data everywhere.

And as far as 'global warming' or 'global cooling' crowds are concerned, they are not really taken seriously, as the models they are running and base their conclusions on, are very well known to be inacurate compared to the real thing. The data that needs to be gathered from all over the globe including oceans and atmospheric layers up and down to feed these models is simply not available and would like not be available.

So it is a bogus, and "everybody knows the books are cooked".</htmltext>
<tokenext>The main reason my late dad among other two dozen top meteorologists signed that letter to a prior POTUS Bush ( Barbara 's husband ) not to sign Kyoto agreement , as he explained to me , has been that we simply do not know .
We would not probably know it for a very long time to come , more likely in our lifetime than not .
The atmosphere and the ocean are too complex objects and the data can not be reliably gathered , as one can not get vertical data everywhere .
And as far as 'global warming ' or 'global cooling ' crowds are concerned , they are not really taken seriously , as the models they are running and base their conclusions on , are very well known to be inacurate compared to the real thing .
The data that needs to be gathered from all over the globe including oceans and atmospheric layers up and down to feed these models is simply not available and would like not be available .
So it is a bogus , and " everybody knows the books are cooked " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The main reason my late dad among other two dozen top meteorologists signed that letter to a prior POTUS Bush (Barbara's husband) not to sign Kyoto agreement, as he explained to me, has been that we simply do not know.
We would not probably know it for a very long time to come, more likely in our lifetime than not.
The atmosphere and the ocean are too complex objects and the data cannot be reliably gathered, as one cannot get vertical data everywhere.
And as far as 'global warming' or 'global cooling' crowds are concerned, they are not really taken seriously, as the models they are running and base their conclusions on, are very well known to be inacurate compared to the real thing.
The data that needs to be gathered from all over the globe including oceans and atmospheric layers up and down to feed these models is simply not available and would like not be available.
So it is a bogus, and "everybody knows the books are cooked".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30194632</id>
	<title>Didn't see any big issue myself</title>
	<author>mattr</author>
	<datestamp>1258914360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just skimmed 50 text files that picked up on searches of a few phrases I made up. Certainly no scientific analysis. But from what I have seen, I don't see a conspiracy as suggested by the Air website which seems pretty wacky and unscientific and reactionary. Could be me but..</p><p>I met a researcher who contributed to one of the larger climate reports, and listened to his talk and that of other researchers. His key point, which everyone seemed to agree on, is that while there remains much to learn and there are various opinions, EVERY REPUTABLE SCIENTIST AGREES that temperatures are going up quickly. They only differ on how fast.  The hockey stick graph is apparently correct. The only question is, will we have massive destruction of our way of life in the next 20-30 years or not. Basically by 2050 you want to be on high ground IIRC.</p><p>This man was from Melbourne. In the U.S. perhaps <a href="http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/research/topics/global-warming" title="columbia.edu">Lamont-Doherty</a> [columbia.edu] is a good place to ask perhaps.</p><p>That said, I attended another much smaller group talk, this was a polar survey (joint Swedish and Japanese teams) and if I understand correctly, they found a flow of different temperature water from one hemisphere to another that was very significant. I think the answer is you have to find a scientist you feel you can trust as a person, and then ask his opinion. Don't start with a reactionary type who has just absorbed 176MB uncompressed of data.</p><p>People also seem to think remediation (focusing solar power, seeding clouds) is a scary idea. You don't know what input will mess with a chaotic system in feedback, is my understanding. And there is a risk of scary events like poison gas suddenly bubbling from under the oceans or other things. To me this means we must take major steps now just to reduce our input of greenhouse gases, as we cannot afford to wait until we understand it better. Not when our major cities are on COASTS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just skimmed 50 text files that picked up on searches of a few phrases I made up .
Certainly no scientific analysis .
But from what I have seen , I do n't see a conspiracy as suggested by the Air website which seems pretty wacky and unscientific and reactionary .
Could be me but..I met a researcher who contributed to one of the larger climate reports , and listened to his talk and that of other researchers .
His key point , which everyone seemed to agree on , is that while there remains much to learn and there are various opinions , EVERY REPUTABLE SCIENTIST AGREES that temperatures are going up quickly .
They only differ on how fast .
The hockey stick graph is apparently correct .
The only question is , will we have massive destruction of our way of life in the next 20-30 years or not .
Basically by 2050 you want to be on high ground IIRC.This man was from Melbourne .
In the U.S. perhaps Lamont-Doherty [ columbia.edu ] is a good place to ask perhaps.That said , I attended another much smaller group talk , this was a polar survey ( joint Swedish and Japanese teams ) and if I understand correctly , they found a flow of different temperature water from one hemisphere to another that was very significant .
I think the answer is you have to find a scientist you feel you can trust as a person , and then ask his opinion .
Do n't start with a reactionary type who has just absorbed 176MB uncompressed of data.People also seem to think remediation ( focusing solar power , seeding clouds ) is a scary idea .
You do n't know what input will mess with a chaotic system in feedback , is my understanding .
And there is a risk of scary events like poison gas suddenly bubbling from under the oceans or other things .
To me this means we must take major steps now just to reduce our input of greenhouse gases , as we can not afford to wait until we understand it better .
Not when our major cities are on COASTS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just skimmed 50 text files that picked up on searches of a few phrases I made up.
Certainly no scientific analysis.
But from what I have seen, I don't see a conspiracy as suggested by the Air website which seems pretty wacky and unscientific and reactionary.
Could be me but..I met a researcher who contributed to one of the larger climate reports, and listened to his talk and that of other researchers.
His key point, which everyone seemed to agree on, is that while there remains much to learn and there are various opinions, EVERY REPUTABLE SCIENTIST AGREES that temperatures are going up quickly.
They only differ on how fast.
The hockey stick graph is apparently correct.
The only question is, will we have massive destruction of our way of life in the next 20-30 years or not.
Basically by 2050 you want to be on high ground IIRC.This man was from Melbourne.
In the U.S. perhaps Lamont-Doherty [columbia.edu] is a good place to ask perhaps.That said, I attended another much smaller group talk, this was a polar survey (joint Swedish and Japanese teams) and if I understand correctly, they found a flow of different temperature water from one hemisphere to another that was very significant.
I think the answer is you have to find a scientist you feel you can trust as a person, and then ask his opinion.
Don't start with a reactionary type who has just absorbed 176MB uncompressed of data.People also seem to think remediation (focusing solar power, seeding clouds) is a scary idea.
You don't know what input will mess with a chaotic system in feedback, is my understanding.
And there is a risk of scary events like poison gas suddenly bubbling from under the oceans or other things.
To me this means we must take major steps now just to reduce our input of greenhouse gases, as we cannot afford to wait until we understand it better.
Not when our major cities are on COASTS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30183826</id>
	<title>Re:What's the goal of the global warming conspirac</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258814880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's the aim? Well first off, it's not a "vast global conspiracy" - it's a bandwagon. Second, at the lowest level it's about "my career" or at worst "my survival". Almost all research is these days grant funded, and most major grants come from governments - funding sources that aren't particularly hot on the details of the science but are hugely risk-averse about the money. So you don't get a grant by challenging the accepted paradigm, because that might end up as an embarrassing waste of resources. And if you don't get a grant your promotion or job may be at risk, so you tend to fall in with the conventional wisdom. It's a self-fulfilling mechanism that has driven faiths, cults and politics for millennia, and it works well in establishing consensus, regardless of whether the consensus is actually right or wrong factually.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's the aim ?
Well first off , it 's not a " vast global conspiracy " - it 's a bandwagon .
Second , at the lowest level it 's about " my career " or at worst " my survival " .
Almost all research is these days grant funded , and most major grants come from governments - funding sources that are n't particularly hot on the details of the science but are hugely risk-averse about the money .
So you do n't get a grant by challenging the accepted paradigm , because that might end up as an embarrassing waste of resources .
And if you do n't get a grant your promotion or job may be at risk , so you tend to fall in with the conventional wisdom .
It 's a self-fulfilling mechanism that has driven faiths , cults and politics for millennia , and it works well in establishing consensus , regardless of whether the consensus is actually right or wrong factually .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's the aim?
Well first off, it's not a "vast global conspiracy" - it's a bandwagon.
Second, at the lowest level it's about "my career" or at worst "my survival".
Almost all research is these days grant funded, and most major grants come from governments - funding sources that aren't particularly hot on the details of the science but are hugely risk-averse about the money.
So you don't get a grant by challenging the accepted paradigm, because that might end up as an embarrassing waste of resources.
And if you don't get a grant your promotion or job may be at risk, so you tend to fall in with the conventional wisdom.
It's a self-fulfilling mechanism that has driven faiths, cults and politics for millennia, and it works well in establishing consensus, regardless of whether the consensus is actually right or wrong factually.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30178704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176198</id>
	<title>More links</title>
	<author>Wonko the Sane</author>
	<datestamp>1258708080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The forgot <a href="http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/5171206/Hadley\_CRU\_Files\_(FOI2009.zip)" title="thepiratebay.org">bittorrent</a> [thepiratebay.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The forgot bittorrent [ thepiratebay.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The forgot bittorrent [thepiratebay.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177130</id>
	<title>Re:Why is climate science being politicized?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258711260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why? The one word answer is money.  There is a lot of cash riding on both sides of the issue.  Old energy vs. new energy, conservative vs. liberal, taxpayers vs. big government.</p><p>Some of the proposed solutions include what is essentially redistribution of wealth - massive subsidies for the developing world to avoid ramping up CO2 emissions.  Even if it works, the people whose wealth is to be redistributed are not likely to buy in voluntarily.  Predictably, they will use their democratic rights.  On the other side, there is a group of people who simply want the redistribution of wealth to take place -- with or without CO2 reduction, with or without a climate problem in the first place.</p><p>Some people are skeptical of the science, some are skeptical of the proposed solutions.  I hope global warming is a hoax, because the proposed solutions are a combination of ineffective and counterproductive measures.  For example, any serious attempt to implement "cap and trade" will simply push CO2 production to the countries with the least regulation.</p><p>One of the key factors feeding the skepticism is that there is ZERO emphasis on measures we can take that don't somehow involve increased costs and taxation.  We could eat less meat.  Office workers could in some cases work from home.  Reducing population growth would be a biggie as well.  For some mysterious reason, there is a whole lot less emphasis on measures that don't also include a big money grab.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why ?
The one word answer is money .
There is a lot of cash riding on both sides of the issue .
Old energy vs. new energy , conservative vs. liberal , taxpayers vs. big government.Some of the proposed solutions include what is essentially redistribution of wealth - massive subsidies for the developing world to avoid ramping up CO2 emissions .
Even if it works , the people whose wealth is to be redistributed are not likely to buy in voluntarily .
Predictably , they will use their democratic rights .
On the other side , there is a group of people who simply want the redistribution of wealth to take place -- with or without CO2 reduction , with or without a climate problem in the first place.Some people are skeptical of the science , some are skeptical of the proposed solutions .
I hope global warming is a hoax , because the proposed solutions are a combination of ineffective and counterproductive measures .
For example , any serious attempt to implement " cap and trade " will simply push CO2 production to the countries with the least regulation.One of the key factors feeding the skepticism is that there is ZERO emphasis on measures we can take that do n't somehow involve increased costs and taxation .
We could eat less meat .
Office workers could in some cases work from home .
Reducing population growth would be a biggie as well .
For some mysterious reason , there is a whole lot less emphasis on measures that do n't also include a big money grab .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why?
The one word answer is money.
There is a lot of cash riding on both sides of the issue.
Old energy vs. new energy, conservative vs. liberal, taxpayers vs. big government.Some of the proposed solutions include what is essentially redistribution of wealth - massive subsidies for the developing world to avoid ramping up CO2 emissions.
Even if it works, the people whose wealth is to be redistributed are not likely to buy in voluntarily.
Predictably, they will use their democratic rights.
On the other side, there is a group of people who simply want the redistribution of wealth to take place -- with or without CO2 reduction, with or without a climate problem in the first place.Some people are skeptical of the science, some are skeptical of the proposed solutions.
I hope global warming is a hoax, because the proposed solutions are a combination of ineffective and counterproductive measures.
For example, any serious attempt to implement "cap and trade" will simply push CO2 production to the countries with the least regulation.One of the key factors feeding the skepticism is that there is ZERO emphasis on measures we can take that don't somehow involve increased costs and taxation.
We could eat less meat.
Office workers could in some cases work from home.
Reducing population growth would be a biggie as well.
For some mysterious reason, there is a whole lot less emphasis on measures that don't also include a big money grab.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30180476</id>
	<title>Re:Imagine a Beowulf cluster leaks....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258725480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From same file: "OH FUCK THIS. It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I'm hitting yet another problem"</p><p>The guy sounds really depressed, made me feel bad for him, and for myself being such a voyeur<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From same file : " OH FUCK THIS .
It 's Sunday evening , I 've worked all weekend , and just when I thought it was done I 'm hitting yet another problem " The guy sounds really depressed , made me feel bad for him , and for myself being such a voyeur .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From same file: "OH FUCK THIS.
It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I'm hitting yet another problem"The guy sounds really depressed, made me feel bad for him, and for myself being such a voyeur ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176142</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30178884</id>
	<title>context and fraud</title>
	<author>pabarge</author>
	<datestamp>1258717440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"These emails are certainly taken out of context"

Ah yes. Because nothing makes out and out fraud more palatable than "context".</htmltext>
<tokenext>" These emails are certainly taken out of context " Ah yes .
Because nothing makes out and out fraud more palatable than " context " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"These emails are certainly taken out of context"

Ah yes.
Because nothing makes out and out fraud more palatable than "context".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30179152</id>
	<title>Data</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258718580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What some folks don't get is that "data" isn't released until the principal investigators are through with it. Period. If a particular scientist has a data set on which they're basing three or four research projects, they're not (and shouldn't have to) going to release that data they've sweated to collect and analyze, just so some other scientist can take it and beat them to the punch, or publication as it were. (theft over toil)</p><p>If their data isn't available, and you want to refute their work, go out there and do the work and get your own data.</p><p>Obviously some folks are just too lazy, or too unethical to do so.</p><p>Doug McGee<br>Biologist<br>(didn't want to register)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What some folks do n't get is that " data " is n't released until the principal investigators are through with it .
Period. If a particular scientist has a data set on which they 're basing three or four research projects , they 're not ( and should n't have to ) going to release that data they 've sweated to collect and analyze , just so some other scientist can take it and beat them to the punch , or publication as it were .
( theft over toil ) If their data is n't available , and you want to refute their work , go out there and do the work and get your own data.Obviously some folks are just too lazy , or too unethical to do so.Doug McGeeBiologist ( did n't want to register )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What some folks don't get is that "data" isn't released until the principal investigators are through with it.
Period. If a particular scientist has a data set on which they're basing three or four research projects, they're not (and shouldn't have to) going to release that data they've sweated to collect and analyze, just so some other scientist can take it and beat them to the punch, or publication as it were.
(theft over toil)If their data isn't available, and you want to refute their work, go out there and do the work and get your own data.Obviously some folks are just too lazy, or too unethical to do so.Doug McGeeBiologist(didn't want to register)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30178132</id>
	<title>Re:Why is climate science being politicized?</title>
	<author>dave562</author>
	<datestamp>1258714560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is being politicized because the tools to control "global warming" are really the foundation for global economic control.  Climate change is the boogyman that people can point to and demand action.  Who in their right mind wants to come down on the side of "destroying the planet"?  That's worse than being a terrorist pedophile for heaven's sake!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is being politicized because the tools to control " global warming " are really the foundation for global economic control .
Climate change is the boogyman that people can point to and demand action .
Who in their right mind wants to come down on the side of " destroying the planet " ?
That 's worse than being a terrorist pedophile for heaven 's sake !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is being politicized because the tools to control "global warming" are really the foundation for global economic control.
Climate change is the boogyman that people can point to and demand action.
Who in their right mind wants to come down on the side of "destroying the planet"?
That's worse than being a terrorist pedophile for heaven's sake!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30178142</id>
	<title>You make it sound like there's only one campaign</title>
	<author>Quila</author>
	<datestamp>1258714620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You forget the massive PR campaign being waged on the side of the GW proponents.</p><p>Al Gore's been running around publicizing his new book in advance of Copenhagen.</p><p>You know, that book with the massive scientific impossibilities in the picture of what the Earth would look like due to GW.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You forget the massive PR campaign being waged on the side of the GW proponents.Al Gore 's been running around publicizing his new book in advance of Copenhagen.You know , that book with the massive scientific impossibilities in the picture of what the Earth would look like due to GW .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forget the massive PR campaign being waged on the side of the GW proponents.Al Gore's been running around publicizing his new book in advance of Copenhagen.You know, that book with the massive scientific impossibilities in the picture of what the Earth would look like due to GW.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176642</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176600</id>
	<title>Re:Utter bullshit.</title>
	<author>Ex-MislTech</author>
	<datestamp>1258709520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pieces of the truth are still the truth.</p><p>I agree we should see all the data.</p><p>As for your demanding them to STFU, I think we will stick with the 1st amendment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pieces of the truth are still the truth.I agree we should see all the data.As for your demanding them to STFU , I think we will stick with the 1st amendment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pieces of the truth are still the truth.I agree we should see all the data.As for your demanding them to STFU, I think we will stick with the 1st amendment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176002</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30181030</id>
	<title>HARRY\_READ\_ME.TXT</title>
	<author>motionview</author>
	<datestamp>1258729320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Take a look at the file HARRY\_READ\_ME.TXT.  Regardless of your political position on AGW, this is not software that we bet the world economy on.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Take a look at the file HARRY \ _READ \ _ME.TXT .
Regardless of your political position on AGW , this is not software that we bet the world economy on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Take a look at the file HARRY\_READ\_ME.TXT.
Regardless of your political position on AGW, this is not software that we bet the world economy on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30180852</id>
	<title>Re:My heart goes out to those researchers.</title>
	<author>mdmkolbe</author>
	<datestamp>1258728000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I am constantly joking around with other lab denizens about fudging stuff, and removing data that doesn't fit the expectations.</p></div><p>Some things are so wrong you shouldn't even joke about them.  (Yes, I work in research.  No, we don't joke about those things.  There are lots of better things to joke about.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am constantly joking around with other lab denizens about fudging stuff , and removing data that does n't fit the expectations.Some things are so wrong you should n't even joke about them .
( Yes , I work in research .
No , we do n't joke about those things .
There are lots of better things to joke about .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am constantly joking around with other lab denizens about fudging stuff, and removing data that doesn't fit the expectations.Some things are so wrong you shouldn't even joke about them.
(Yes, I work in research.
No, we don't joke about those things.
There are lots of better things to joke about.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30179694</id>
	<title>Re:secrecy and data hiding</title>
	<author>Dread\_ed</author>
	<datestamp>1258721220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would say the primary issue is that climatologists use computer models that are inacurate* and politicians are using these models to tax us, restrict commerce, justify transgressions against our freedoms, and restructure the world economy.</p><p>*By inacurate I mean that if you feed historical data into the models you cannot extrapolate results that match with previously observed temperatures going forward.  The models consistently return temperatures that are higher than the observed temperatures for a given year, decade, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would say the primary issue is that climatologists use computer models that are inacurate * and politicians are using these models to tax us , restrict commerce , justify transgressions against our freedoms , and restructure the world economy .
* By inacurate I mean that if you feed historical data into the models you can not extrapolate results that match with previously observed temperatures going forward .
The models consistently return temperatures that are higher than the observed temperatures for a given year , decade , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would say the primary issue is that climatologists use computer models that are inacurate* and politicians are using these models to tax us, restrict commerce, justify transgressions against our freedoms, and restructure the world economy.
*By inacurate I mean that if you feed historical data into the models you cannot extrapolate results that match with previously observed temperatures going forward.
The models consistently return temperatures that are higher than the observed temperatures for a given year, decade, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30178290</id>
	<title>Simple test for all you Anti Global Warming people</title>
	<author>euxneks</author>
	<datestamp>1258715100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some steps for all those people who are skeptical of either global warming or that pollution is harming our environment.</p><ul> <li>Go huff the exhaust from a tree or electric motor</li><li>Go huff a gasoline or diesel engine's exhaust.</li><li>Which one smells/feels better?</li></ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some steps for all those people who are skeptical of either global warming or that pollution is harming our environment .
Go huff the exhaust from a tree or electric motorGo huff a gasoline or diesel engine 's exhaust.Which one smells/feels better ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some steps for all those people who are skeptical of either global warming or that pollution is harming our environment.
Go huff the exhaust from a tree or electric motorGo huff a gasoline or diesel engine's exhaust.Which one smells/feels better?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30196512</id>
	<title>Ice Cores, Fresh water vs salt water, Glaciers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258886520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is much great discussion above, and I am going to save this and read through it to see who is stretching facts and who is not, for instance, the idea that a CO2 bubble can move after it has been frozen and encased in multiple layers of ice is over the top and literally crazy talk.  The reason Ice Cores are such great tools for determining the make up of the atmosphere at that time in the planets history is because they are so EXACT.  So attempting to suggest that they can migrate is FUD!

</p><p>The changes in ocean current flows around the planet based on the content of fresh water (glacial melt) and salt water has significantly changed.  Its getting worse.  We know if the flow changes, Great Britain freezes hard core as do many other places in the world, of course severe winters have happened many times and are cyclical in nature, unlike the CO2 core samples which scientists have proven are NOT CYCLICAL.  CO2 content has just gotten more concentrated, there are no cycles based on Ice Cores.

</p><p>Those that measure glacier melting and retreating have been alarmed, because they have been measuring this for decades, made hypothesis es as to what will happen in the future and so far in the past two or three years have publicly stated that their earlier estimates were WAY OFF.  That the amount of melt and retreating, combined with lack of re-freezing in the winter (smaller and smaller areas freeze solid each year which is problematic for many different reasons) is much more severe than previously thought.  Thus they now believe in Global Warming theories.

</p><p>What do we have to do, wait until people on the coast have to live in Tree houses as the oceans move inland due to rising sea levels?  How much more difficult will it be to make significant changes that even have the hopes of changing things for the better as such changes take decades to measure?

</p><p>Why is that independent Scientist, not associated with a political party, are so blatantly shouted down, ignored and their research suppressed?

</p><p>And multiple people have made excellent points about moving from oil to solar and wind and even if Global Warming was not true, the US would gain in development of the new technologies, not just creating many new jobs but reducing our dependence on foreign oil, which all agree is one of the largest national security risks for the United States today.  Heck if we moved everything but our military and perhaps the Airlines off oil, would we produce enough oil domestically to maintain our nation's defense?  If not we better get started sooner rather than later finding alternative fuel sources as anything else is most certainly dangerous and I would suggest violates a politicians oath of office to protect the United States from all enemies foreign and domestic.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Reminds me of that quote about encountering or seeing the enemy and discovering that the enemy is us.</p></div><p>I do not own an oil company, oil field or make money from them, if I did perhaps I would want to keep the status quo to enrich myself at the expense of my neighbors...perhaps.

</p><p>Regardless, the point of the article as I see it, is that documents were stolen, the validity of all the documents now being "discovered" are very much in question, yet that does not prevent one specific political party from attempting to divert our attention to this and from other issues.  We need to pay attention to those slanting the date for their own ends...what is it that they do not want us to pay attention to?  Health Care perhaps?

</p><p>Business as usual will not save Americans and the United States.  That one political party who refuses to change in order to help Americans needs to get a clue.

</p><p>One political party started this mess, the other political party went along with it; they are both guilty of not serving and protecting Americans.  The more they fight politically against each other, at the expense of American citizens, the more I come to despise them.

</p><p>Do not think by refusing to work together to fix things it will help get your party elected, it will NOT!

</p><p>If you are NOT part of the solution, you are part of the problem.  Do not be part of the problem!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is much great discussion above , and I am going to save this and read through it to see who is stretching facts and who is not , for instance , the idea that a CO2 bubble can move after it has been frozen and encased in multiple layers of ice is over the top and literally crazy talk .
The reason Ice Cores are such great tools for determining the make up of the atmosphere at that time in the planets history is because they are so EXACT .
So attempting to suggest that they can migrate is FUD !
The changes in ocean current flows around the planet based on the content of fresh water ( glacial melt ) and salt water has significantly changed .
Its getting worse .
We know if the flow changes , Great Britain freezes hard core as do many other places in the world , of course severe winters have happened many times and are cyclical in nature , unlike the CO2 core samples which scientists have proven are NOT CYCLICAL .
CO2 content has just gotten more concentrated , there are no cycles based on Ice Cores .
Those that measure glacier melting and retreating have been alarmed , because they have been measuring this for decades , made hypothesis es as to what will happen in the future and so far in the past two or three years have publicly stated that their earlier estimates were WAY OFF .
That the amount of melt and retreating , combined with lack of re-freezing in the winter ( smaller and smaller areas freeze solid each year which is problematic for many different reasons ) is much more severe than previously thought .
Thus they now believe in Global Warming theories .
What do we have to do , wait until people on the coast have to live in Tree houses as the oceans move inland due to rising sea levels ?
How much more difficult will it be to make significant changes that even have the hopes of changing things for the better as such changes take decades to measure ?
Why is that independent Scientist , not associated with a political party , are so blatantly shouted down , ignored and their research suppressed ?
And multiple people have made excellent points about moving from oil to solar and wind and even if Global Warming was not true , the US would gain in development of the new technologies , not just creating many new jobs but reducing our dependence on foreign oil , which all agree is one of the largest national security risks for the United States today .
Heck if we moved everything but our military and perhaps the Airlines off oil , would we produce enough oil domestically to maintain our nation 's defense ?
If not we better get started sooner rather than later finding alternative fuel sources as anything else is most certainly dangerous and I would suggest violates a politicians oath of office to protect the United States from all enemies foreign and domestic.Reminds me of that quote about encountering or seeing the enemy and discovering that the enemy is us.I do not own an oil company , oil field or make money from them , if I did perhaps I would want to keep the status quo to enrich myself at the expense of my neighbors...perhaps .
Regardless , the point of the article as I see it , is that documents were stolen , the validity of all the documents now being " discovered " are very much in question , yet that does not prevent one specific political party from attempting to divert our attention to this and from other issues .
We need to pay attention to those slanting the date for their own ends...what is it that they do not want us to pay attention to ?
Health Care perhaps ?
Business as usual will not save Americans and the United States .
That one political party who refuses to change in order to help Americans needs to get a clue .
One political party started this mess , the other political party went along with it ; they are both guilty of not serving and protecting Americans .
The more they fight politically against each other , at the expense of American citizens , the more I come to despise them .
Do not think by refusing to work together to fix things it will help get your party elected , it will NOT !
If you are NOT part of the solution , you are part of the problem .
Do not be part of the problem !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is much great discussion above, and I am going to save this and read through it to see who is stretching facts and who is not, for instance, the idea that a CO2 bubble can move after it has been frozen and encased in multiple layers of ice is over the top and literally crazy talk.
The reason Ice Cores are such great tools for determining the make up of the atmosphere at that time in the planets history is because they are so EXACT.
So attempting to suggest that they can migrate is FUD!
The changes in ocean current flows around the planet based on the content of fresh water (glacial melt) and salt water has significantly changed.
Its getting worse.
We know if the flow changes, Great Britain freezes hard core as do many other places in the world, of course severe winters have happened many times and are cyclical in nature, unlike the CO2 core samples which scientists have proven are NOT CYCLICAL.
CO2 content has just gotten more concentrated, there are no cycles based on Ice Cores.
Those that measure glacier melting and retreating have been alarmed, because they have been measuring this for decades, made hypothesis es as to what will happen in the future and so far in the past two or three years have publicly stated that their earlier estimates were WAY OFF.
That the amount of melt and retreating, combined with lack of re-freezing in the winter (smaller and smaller areas freeze solid each year which is problematic for many different reasons) is much more severe than previously thought.
Thus they now believe in Global Warming theories.
What do we have to do, wait until people on the coast have to live in Tree houses as the oceans move inland due to rising sea levels?
How much more difficult will it be to make significant changes that even have the hopes of changing things for the better as such changes take decades to measure?
Why is that independent Scientist, not associated with a political party, are so blatantly shouted down, ignored and their research suppressed?
And multiple people have made excellent points about moving from oil to solar and wind and even if Global Warming was not true, the US would gain in development of the new technologies, not just creating many new jobs but reducing our dependence on foreign oil, which all agree is one of the largest national security risks for the United States today.
Heck if we moved everything but our military and perhaps the Airlines off oil, would we produce enough oil domestically to maintain our nation's defense?
If not we better get started sooner rather than later finding alternative fuel sources as anything else is most certainly dangerous and I would suggest violates a politicians oath of office to protect the United States from all enemies foreign and domestic.Reminds me of that quote about encountering or seeing the enemy and discovering that the enemy is us.I do not own an oil company, oil field or make money from them, if I did perhaps I would want to keep the status quo to enrich myself at the expense of my neighbors...perhaps.
Regardless, the point of the article as I see it, is that documents were stolen, the validity of all the documents now being "discovered" are very much in question, yet that does not prevent one specific political party from attempting to divert our attention to this and from other issues.
We need to pay attention to those slanting the date for their own ends...what is it that they do not want us to pay attention to?
Health Care perhaps?
Business as usual will not save Americans and the United States.
That one political party who refuses to change in order to help Americans needs to get a clue.
One political party started this mess, the other political party went along with it; they are both guilty of not serving and protecting Americans.
The more they fight politically against each other, at the expense of American citizens, the more I come to despise them.
Do not think by refusing to work together to fix things it will help get your party elected, it will NOT!
If you are NOT part of the solution, you are part of the problem.
Do not be part of the problem!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176430</id>
	<title>Anthropogenic Causes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258708800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Many people who doubted AGW (humans causing the hockey stick graph, or the graph itself) are claiming this is some sort of smoking gun.  I claim it's scientists being scientists, and failing at being politicians.</p><p>The very fact that this reveals some scientists are doubting some results is exactly what should happen in science.  This is why <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11654-climate-myths-many-leading-scientists-question-climate-change.html" title="newscientist.com">there is a consensus</a> [newscientist.com] among scientists.  Doubting is a part of science and skeptics alike, but discovering the reasons for the doubt and changing a viewpoint when good, conflicting data are found are hallmarks of the scientist.  Skeptics will cling to disproved data, hoping it somehow becomes true if they believe it hard enough.</p><p>There is no doubt that the earth is warmer, but mark my words: some idiot media personality will make claims to the contrary due to this.  They thrive on confusion, and there's nothing more confusing (and humorous) than watching scientists wrestle with politics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Many people who doubted AGW ( humans causing the hockey stick graph , or the graph itself ) are claiming this is some sort of smoking gun .
I claim it 's scientists being scientists , and failing at being politicians.The very fact that this reveals some scientists are doubting some results is exactly what should happen in science .
This is why there is a consensus [ newscientist.com ] among scientists .
Doubting is a part of science and skeptics alike , but discovering the reasons for the doubt and changing a viewpoint when good , conflicting data are found are hallmarks of the scientist .
Skeptics will cling to disproved data , hoping it somehow becomes true if they believe it hard enough.There is no doubt that the earth is warmer , but mark my words : some idiot media personality will make claims to the contrary due to this .
They thrive on confusion , and there 's nothing more confusing ( and humorous ) than watching scientists wrestle with politics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many people who doubted AGW (humans causing the hockey stick graph, or the graph itself) are claiming this is some sort of smoking gun.
I claim it's scientists being scientists, and failing at being politicians.The very fact that this reveals some scientists are doubting some results is exactly what should happen in science.
This is why there is a consensus [newscientist.com] among scientists.
Doubting is a part of science and skeptics alike, but discovering the reasons for the doubt and changing a viewpoint when good, conflicting data are found are hallmarks of the scientist.
Skeptics will cling to disproved data, hoping it somehow becomes true if they believe it hard enough.There is no doubt that the earth is warmer, but mark my words: some idiot media personality will make claims to the contrary due to this.
They thrive on confusion, and there's nothing more confusing (and humorous) than watching scientists wrestle with politics.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30185354</id>
	<title>OK for a grad student,</title>
	<author>pigwiggle</author>
	<datestamp>1258825740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>which I assume you are from the anemic publication record.  You aren't a PI, and shouldn't be held to those standards.  If you go on to postdoc or a permanent position in research you will need to get your act together.  Your colleagues wont respect you if you are so cavalier about mistakes and inconvenient measurements or results.  If your code generated published data it should be very high quality - good enough for anyone to pick up and use.  Better yet, freely available.  It's standard practice.  Don't know what you do, but my field is very competitive and full of very bright people.  What we do is nerve rackingly complicated.  If any of these folks get a whiff of incompetence or sloppiness they wont work with you.  I wouldn't.  Errata are embarrassing and have the potential to end your career.</p><p>A couple of years ago I had the displeasure of being part of a very political and mean spirited proposed comment/reply to one of my very first first-author papers.  One of the putative commenting authors mistakenly replied all when she clearly meant to reply only to her cohorts.  It went to me, my then advisor, the journal editor, all of her colleagues - everyone involved.  She looked very foolish.  That was the end of it.</p><p>If you want to be a professional scientists, act professional.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>which I assume you are from the anemic publication record .
You are n't a PI , and should n't be held to those standards .
If you go on to postdoc or a permanent position in research you will need to get your act together .
Your colleagues wont respect you if you are so cavalier about mistakes and inconvenient measurements or results .
If your code generated published data it should be very high quality - good enough for anyone to pick up and use .
Better yet , freely available .
It 's standard practice .
Do n't know what you do , but my field is very competitive and full of very bright people .
What we do is nerve rackingly complicated .
If any of these folks get a whiff of incompetence or sloppiness they wont work with you .
I would n't .
Errata are embarrassing and have the potential to end your career.A couple of years ago I had the displeasure of being part of a very political and mean spirited proposed comment/reply to one of my very first first-author papers .
One of the putative commenting authors mistakenly replied all when she clearly meant to reply only to her cohorts .
It went to me , my then advisor , the journal editor , all of her colleagues - everyone involved .
She looked very foolish .
That was the end of it.If you want to be a professional scientists , act professional .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>which I assume you are from the anemic publication record.
You aren't a PI, and shouldn't be held to those standards.
If you go on to postdoc or a permanent position in research you will need to get your act together.
Your colleagues wont respect you if you are so cavalier about mistakes and inconvenient measurements or results.
If your code generated published data it should be very high quality - good enough for anyone to pick up and use.
Better yet, freely available.
It's standard practice.
Don't know what you do, but my field is very competitive and full of very bright people.
What we do is nerve rackingly complicated.
If any of these folks get a whiff of incompetence or sloppiness they wont work with you.
I wouldn't.
Errata are embarrassing and have the potential to end your career.A couple of years ago I had the displeasure of being part of a very political and mean spirited proposed comment/reply to one of my very first first-author papers.
One of the putative commenting authors mistakenly replied all when she clearly meant to reply only to her cohorts.
It went to me, my then advisor, the journal editor, all of her colleagues - everyone involved.
She looked very foolish.
That was the end of it.If you want to be a professional scientists, act professional.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176914</id>
	<title>illuminati damage control</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258710540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>here it comes!</p><p>"it was taken out of context!"</p><p>"this is utter bullshit!, random emails showing it's a hoax is not how science is done!"</p><p>"61 megs of data was cooked up and hoaxed!"</p><p>You global warming shills better get to work because you are out of a career now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>here it comes !
" it was taken out of context !
" " this is utter bullshit ! , random emails showing it 's a hoax is not how science is done !
" " 61 megs of data was cooked up and hoaxed !
" You global warming shills better get to work because you are out of a career now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>here it comes!
"it was taken out of context!
""this is utter bullshit!, random emails showing it's a hoax is not how science is done!
""61 megs of data was cooked up and hoaxed!
"You global warming shills better get to work because you are out of a career now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176858</id>
	<title>Re:All the GOREY details right here!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258710360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tis a thing of beauty, one of the founders of green peace even said<br>that green movement had been hijacked by disaffected communists<br>as a tool to further their agenda.</p><p>You can see it in things like Agenda 21 as well, And the Georgia Guidestones.</p><p>They do not even try to hide it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>T is a thing of beauty , one of the founders of green peace even saidthat green movement had been hijacked by disaffected communistsas a tool to further their agenda.You can see it in things like Agenda 21 as well , And the Georgia Guidestones.They do not even try to hide it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tis a thing of beauty, one of the founders of green peace even saidthat green movement had been hijacked by disaffected communistsas a tool to further their agenda.You can see it in things like Agenda 21 as well, And the Georgia Guidestones.They do not even try to hide it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176226</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177002</id>
	<title>Re:Why is climate science being politicized?</title>
	<author>geoffrobinson</author>
	<datestamp>1258710720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because the potential answer to this question could mean unheard of control over the lives of billions of people and trillions of dollars in costs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because the potential answer to this question could mean unheard of control over the lives of billions of people and trillions of dollars in costs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because the potential answer to this question could mean unheard of control over the lives of billions of people and trillions of dollars in costs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30212646</id>
	<title>Follow the money ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259072280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've never read a research paper that isn't result in, "more research is needed."</p><p>See, anyone "in the field of study" earns their living by scaring others into paying them to do research<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... to scare them more.  If there isn't anything scary, there's no need for more research and the so-called "scientists" can't pay their mortgage and send their children to college.</p><p>If data is created as part of any public funding, the raw data needs to be released publicly - WITH calibration information.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've never read a research paper that is n't result in , " more research is needed .
" See , anyone " in the field of study " earns their living by scaring others into paying them to do research ... to scare them more .
If there is n't anything scary , there 's no need for more research and the so-called " scientists " ca n't pay their mortgage and send their children to college.If data is created as part of any public funding , the raw data needs to be released publicly - WITH calibration information .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've never read a research paper that isn't result in, "more research is needed.
"See, anyone "in the field of study" earns their living by scaring others into paying them to do research ... to scare them more.
If there isn't anything scary, there's no need for more research and the so-called "scientists" can't pay their mortgage and send their children to college.If data is created as part of any public funding, the raw data needs to be released publicly - WITH calibration information.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30181838</id>
	<title>Re:What I want to see</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258737420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because you can't pass carbon taxes and tyrannical Big Brother programs if people realize that it's all a big load of crap and scare mongering.</p><p>Let's just hope this sort of thing gets out before they can pass all of these new "carbon taxes".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because you ca n't pass carbon taxes and tyrannical Big Brother programs if people realize that it 's all a big load of crap and scare mongering.Let 's just hope this sort of thing gets out before they can pass all of these new " carbon taxes " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because you can't pass carbon taxes and tyrannical Big Brother programs if people realize that it's all a big load of crap and scare mongering.Let's just hope this sort of thing gets out before they can pass all of these new "carbon taxes".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177712</id>
	<title>Re:A new low for the slashdot anti-intellectualism</title>
	<author>bonch</author>
	<datestamp>1258713180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of the dumbest arguments I've seen on Slashdot in a while.  I may as well ask when militant environmentalists are going to start bombing buildings and sabotaging construction sites to save the planet...wait, that's already happened before.</p><p>When people criticize global warming as a religion, they're referring to Al Gore types who refuse to acknowledge any contradicting viewpoints or data.  It has a become a religion like Christianity--there's an Eden (the planet before humans came along) that was ruined by sin (industrialization), and we're in for a Judgement Day (natural disaster) if we don't repent (recycle, buy carbon credits from Al Gore's company, feel guilty for existing, and so on).</p><p>I believe it was Michael Crichton who once argued that this formula of belief is so common among groups that it must be innate to the human brain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the dumbest arguments I 've seen on Slashdot in a while .
I may as well ask when militant environmentalists are going to start bombing buildings and sabotaging construction sites to save the planet...wait , that 's already happened before.When people criticize global warming as a religion , they 're referring to Al Gore types who refuse to acknowledge any contradicting viewpoints or data .
It has a become a religion like Christianity--there 's an Eden ( the planet before humans came along ) that was ruined by sin ( industrialization ) , and we 're in for a Judgement Day ( natural disaster ) if we do n't repent ( recycle , buy carbon credits from Al Gore 's company , feel guilty for existing , and so on ) .I believe it was Michael Crichton who once argued that this formula of belief is so common among groups that it must be innate to the human brain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the dumbest arguments I've seen on Slashdot in a while.
I may as well ask when militant environmentalists are going to start bombing buildings and sabotaging construction sites to save the planet...wait, that's already happened before.When people criticize global warming as a religion, they're referring to Al Gore types who refuse to acknowledge any contradicting viewpoints or data.
It has a become a religion like Christianity--there's an Eden (the planet before humans came along) that was ruined by sin (industrialization), and we're in for a Judgement Day (natural disaster) if we don't repent (recycle, buy carbon credits from Al Gore's company, feel guilty for existing, and so on).I believe it was Michael Crichton who once argued that this formula of belief is so common among groups that it must be innate to the human brain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176324</id>
	<title>Re:I would just like to point out....</title>
	<author>Jhon</author>
	<datestamp>1258708500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But it's OK for slashdot to publish stores re: <a href="http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/09/17/1949222" title="slashdot.org">Sarah Palin's</a> [slashdot.org] email getting hacked -- and linked to "what is, according to the story, STOLEN DATA", as you say.</p><p>I think it's all news worthy.  Don't you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But it 's OK for slashdot to publish stores re : Sarah Palin 's [ slashdot.org ] email getting hacked -- and linked to " what is , according to the story , STOLEN DATA " , as you say.I think it 's all news worthy .
Do n't you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But it's OK for slashdot to publish stores re: Sarah Palin's [slashdot.org] email getting hacked -- and linked to "what is, according to the story, STOLEN DATA", as you say.I think it's all news worthy.
Don't you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176092</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30178402</id>
	<title>Re:Anthropogenic Causes</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1258715520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is why there is a consensus among scientists.</p></div><p>Consensus isn't science.  At one time there was a strong consensus that blacks were less intelligent that whites.  We reject that idea now.<br> <br>
The idea of consensus governing is so dangerous to the foundations of science because rejecting consensus is what got science going in the first place.  We had Galileo and Copernicus as famous examples.  In those days people would argue that something was true for no other reason than that Aristotle said it.  That was the ultimate proof!<br> <br>
Then in later years, people realized, it doesn't matter who said it, how smart they were, or how many there were, they can still be wrong. And that is just as true today as it was in the days of Galileo.  When the Royal Society in London was founded, it used as its motto to believe "on the words of no one."  You had to present your evidence.<br> <br>
We need to keep the same standard today. If your argument can't stand on evidence alone, if you have to talk about 'consensus,' then you have lost touch with science and have entered the realm of those who we call religious: trust in a higher authority is what we know as faith.  For me, I say, show me the evidence.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why there is a consensus among scientists.Consensus is n't science .
At one time there was a strong consensus that blacks were less intelligent that whites .
We reject that idea now .
The idea of consensus governing is so dangerous to the foundations of science because rejecting consensus is what got science going in the first place .
We had Galileo and Copernicus as famous examples .
In those days people would argue that something was true for no other reason than that Aristotle said it .
That was the ultimate proof !
Then in later years , people realized , it does n't matter who said it , how smart they were , or how many there were , they can still be wrong .
And that is just as true today as it was in the days of Galileo .
When the Royal Society in London was founded , it used as its motto to believe " on the words of no one .
" You had to present your evidence .
We need to keep the same standard today .
If your argument ca n't stand on evidence alone , if you have to talk about 'consensus, ' then you have lost touch with science and have entered the realm of those who we call religious : trust in a higher authority is what we know as faith .
For me , I say , show me the evidence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why there is a consensus among scientists.Consensus isn't science.
At one time there was a strong consensus that blacks were less intelligent that whites.
We reject that idea now.
The idea of consensus governing is so dangerous to the foundations of science because rejecting consensus is what got science going in the first place.
We had Galileo and Copernicus as famous examples.
In those days people would argue that something was true for no other reason than that Aristotle said it.
That was the ultimate proof!
Then in later years, people realized, it doesn't matter who said it, how smart they were, or how many there were, they can still be wrong.
And that is just as true today as it was in the days of Galileo.
When the Royal Society in London was founded, it used as its motto to believe "on the words of no one.
"  You had to present your evidence.
We need to keep the same standard today.
If your argument can't stand on evidence alone, if you have to talk about 'consensus,' then you have lost touch with science and have entered the realm of those who we call religious: trust in a higher authority is what we know as faith.
For me, I say, show me the evidence.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30181810</id>
	<title>Re:Utter bullshit.</title>
	<author>4D6963</author>
	<datestamp>1258737120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>You do realize that some of the emails are about hiding data from public view, obstructing freedom of information requests</i> </p><p>Yeah, I mean why would a legitimate scientist working on a hot topic wouldn't want to release all his work and data all the time to a bunch of nosey asswipes who'll look hard into whatever they've done to see only what they want to see and prove, and then harass the said scientists with questioning, criticism and even threats? I don't see it.

</p><p> <i>and campaign to discredit a peer reviewed journal that published something that disagreed with their public stance, right?</i> </p><p>Oh I know that one, cause the editors at that journals decided to push their political agenda with the journal rather than fairly reviewing and rejecting/publishing papers for their pure scientific value, and therefore the journal in question stopped being a scientific publication but rather a vector of propaganda?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do realize that some of the emails are about hiding data from public view , obstructing freedom of information requests Yeah , I mean why would a legitimate scientist working on a hot topic would n't want to release all his work and data all the time to a bunch of nosey asswipes who 'll look hard into whatever they 've done to see only what they want to see and prove , and then harass the said scientists with questioning , criticism and even threats ?
I do n't see it .
and campaign to discredit a peer reviewed journal that published something that disagreed with their public stance , right ?
Oh I know that one , cause the editors at that journals decided to push their political agenda with the journal rather than fairly reviewing and rejecting/publishing papers for their pure scientific value , and therefore the journal in question stopped being a scientific publication but rather a vector of propaganda ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> You do realize that some of the emails are about hiding data from public view, obstructing freedom of information requests Yeah, I mean why would a legitimate scientist working on a hot topic wouldn't want to release all his work and data all the time to a bunch of nosey asswipes who'll look hard into whatever they've done to see only what they want to see and prove, and then harass the said scientists with questioning, criticism and even threats?
I don't see it.
and campaign to discredit a peer reviewed journal that published something that disagreed with their public stance, right?
Oh I know that one, cause the editors at that journals decided to push their political agenda with the journal rather than fairly reviewing and rejecting/publishing papers for their pure scientific value, and therefore the journal in question stopped being a scientific publication but rather a vector of propaganda?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176142</id>
	<title>Imagine a Beowulf cluster leaks....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258707900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>From HARRY\_READ\_ME.txt, one of the leaked files.
<br> <br><nobr> <wbr></nobr><i>...This could be a result of my mis-setting of the parameters on Tim's
programs (although I have followed his recommendations wherever
possible), or it could be a result of <b>Tim using the Beowulf 1
cluster for the f90 work. Beowulf 1 is now integrated in to the
latest Beowulf cluster so it may not be practical to test that
theory.</b>
</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>From HARRY \ _READ \ _ME.txt , one of the leaked files .
...This could be a result of my mis-setting of the parameters on Tim 's programs ( although I have followed his recommendations wherever possible ) , or it could be a result of Tim using the Beowulf 1 cluster for the f90 work .
Beowulf 1 is now integrated in to the latest Beowulf cluster so it may not be practical to test that theory .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From HARRY\_READ\_ME.txt, one of the leaked files.
...This could be a result of my mis-setting of the parameters on Tim's
programs (although I have followed his recommendations wherever
possible), or it could be a result of Tim using the Beowulf 1
cluster for the f90 work.
Beowulf 1 is now integrated in to the
latest Beowulf cluster so it may not be practical to test that
theory.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30179974</id>
	<title>Climate Change we can't control</title>
	<author>cmcmark76</author>
	<datestamp>1258722660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While we can't control climate change we still must develop alternate means of energy production or we will learn to freeze!

Please see:

<a href="http://www.helium.com/items/1552529-alternative-energy" title="helium.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.helium.com/items/1552529-alternative-energy</a> [helium.com]

Thanks for reading another starving writer article!</htmltext>
<tokenext>While we ca n't control climate change we still must develop alternate means of energy production or we will learn to freeze !
Please see : http : //www.helium.com/items/1552529-alternative-energy [ helium.com ] Thanks for reading another starving writer article !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While we can't control climate change we still must develop alternate means of energy production or we will learn to freeze!
Please see:

http://www.helium.com/items/1552529-alternative-energy [helium.com]

Thanks for reading another starving writer article!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177036</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, yes, this is the conspiracy of all time</title>
	<author>Ex-MislTech</author>
	<datestamp>1258710840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you might want to read this and give it some more thought.</p><p><a href="http://tinyurl.com/2jorjm" title="tinyurl.com">http://tinyurl.com/2jorjm</a> [tinyurl.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you might want to read this and give it some more thought.http : //tinyurl.com/2jorjm [ tinyurl.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you might want to read this and give it some more thought.http://tinyurl.com/2jorjm [tinyurl.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30180048</id>
	<title>Re:In the spirit of transparency</title>
	<author>arcticinfantry</author>
	<datestamp>1258722900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Last time I checked, Steve and Anthony weren't trying to shake down the planet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Last time I checked , Steve and Anthony were n't trying to shake down the planet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Last time I checked, Steve and Anthony weren't trying to shake down the planet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30313072</id>
	<title>Al Gore's Nobel Peace prize</title>
	<author>splankton</author>
	<datestamp>1259865840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wonder if Al Gore will have to give his Nobel Peace Prize back<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... nah the Nobel Peace prize is worthless anymore anyways</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if Al Gore will have to give his Nobel Peace Prize back ... nah the Nobel Peace prize is worthless anymore anyways</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if Al Gore will have to give his Nobel Peace Prize back ... nah the Nobel Peace prize is worthless anymore anyways</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30236266</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing to see here, move on</title>
	<author>MaDeR</author>
	<datestamp>1259245020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, troll. He is telling you that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , troll .
He is telling you that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, troll.
He is telling you that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177374</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30179574</id>
	<title>Re:What's the goal of the global warming conspirac</title>
	<author>cdrguru</author>
	<datestamp>1258720560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is for your own good, and there are some people that know it.  These enlightened ones, often called things like "people looking out for the betterment of the planet" are there with a job to do and they are doing it.  We are in the process of discarding the industrial base of the US because of their influence.  We haven't built a major power plant in the US since the 1970s because of their influence.  Many regulations have been passed - all for our own good - because of their influence.</p><p>Besides, who signed off on the US being able to hog most of the planet's resources anyway?  I am sure there are many that believe the US needs to be taken down a peg or two so as to preserve the remaining resources for the rest of the planet.  Certainly doing so as part of an enviornmental movement can't be all bad.  Especially if you aren't going to be affected because you are either too poor or too rich.</p><p>The problem is that these folks never seem to be able to explain how this really helps much or what the final end point of this might be.  The simple solution - fewer people - is starting to get some favor but not much.  Especially when it is pretty obvious that we can't really wait for hundreds or thousands of years for the population to shrink gradually.  No, only a major war or global genocide would actually help much, and nobody really wants to come out and admit that would be part of a plan for goodness.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is for your own good , and there are some people that know it .
These enlightened ones , often called things like " people looking out for the betterment of the planet " are there with a job to do and they are doing it .
We are in the process of discarding the industrial base of the US because of their influence .
We have n't built a major power plant in the US since the 1970s because of their influence .
Many regulations have been passed - all for our own good - because of their influence.Besides , who signed off on the US being able to hog most of the planet 's resources anyway ?
I am sure there are many that believe the US needs to be taken down a peg or two so as to preserve the remaining resources for the rest of the planet .
Certainly doing so as part of an enviornmental movement ca n't be all bad .
Especially if you are n't going to be affected because you are either too poor or too rich.The problem is that these folks never seem to be able to explain how this really helps much or what the final end point of this might be .
The simple solution - fewer people - is starting to get some favor but not much .
Especially when it is pretty obvious that we ca n't really wait for hundreds or thousands of years for the population to shrink gradually .
No , only a major war or global genocide would actually help much , and nobody really wants to come out and admit that would be part of a plan for goodness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is for your own good, and there are some people that know it.
These enlightened ones, often called things like "people looking out for the betterment of the planet" are there with a job to do and they are doing it.
We are in the process of discarding the industrial base of the US because of their influence.
We haven't built a major power plant in the US since the 1970s because of their influence.
Many regulations have been passed - all for our own good - because of their influence.Besides, who signed off on the US being able to hog most of the planet's resources anyway?
I am sure there are many that believe the US needs to be taken down a peg or two so as to preserve the remaining resources for the rest of the planet.
Certainly doing so as part of an enviornmental movement can't be all bad.
Especially if you aren't going to be affected because you are either too poor or too rich.The problem is that these folks never seem to be able to explain how this really helps much or what the final end point of this might be.
The simple solution - fewer people - is starting to get some favor but not much.
Especially when it is pretty obvious that we can't really wait for hundreds or thousands of years for the population to shrink gradually.
No, only a major war or global genocide would actually help much, and nobody really wants to come out and admit that would be part of a plan for goodness.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30178704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30179134</id>
	<title>Re:What I want to see</title>
	<author>Martin Blank</author>
	<datestamp>1258718520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It takes about two years to compile the data.  The IEA released 2007 numbers not long ago, and the 2006 numbers were released in 2008.</p><p>Incidentally, the US production of CO2 went up in 2007 from 5778.5Gt to 5853.5Gt from 2006 to 2007.  The trend is, and has been since at least 2000, definitely upward in the United States.  It's not as sharp as Iran, Venezuela, Canada, or Mexico, but it is most definitely higher.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It takes about two years to compile the data .
The IEA released 2007 numbers not long ago , and the 2006 numbers were released in 2008.Incidentally , the US production of CO2 went up in 2007 from 5778.5Gt to 5853.5Gt from 2006 to 2007 .
The trend is , and has been since at least 2000 , definitely upward in the United States .
It 's not as sharp as Iran , Venezuela , Canada , or Mexico , but it is most definitely higher .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It takes about two years to compile the data.
The IEA released 2007 numbers not long ago, and the 2006 numbers were released in 2008.Incidentally, the US production of CO2 went up in 2007 from 5778.5Gt to 5853.5Gt from 2006 to 2007.
The trend is, and has been since at least 2000, definitely upward in the United States.
It's not as sharp as Iran, Venezuela, Canada, or Mexico, but it is most definitely higher.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177136</id>
	<title>Re:Oh, yes, this is the conspiracy of all time</title>
	<author>Rockoon</author>
	<datestamp>1258711260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, there is an email about those thousands. Perhaps you should read about how one of these guys gave instructions to another to not check any credentials when gathering their list of thousands. Saying that they can't afford to wait, that they must get as many names as possible out before Kyoto.<br>
<br>
The people these emails are from (and its not that many, really) are the same people that keep repeating "consensus." These people cite each others research while recommending that each other play the role of peer reviewer for the journals.<br>
<br>
The guys in these emails don't do science, but they do publish a lot. What they (Mann, Jones, Briffa, Wang, Hansen, and a few others) do is they take other peoples data, then do shit with it.. but wont tell anyone but themselves what they are doing with it and they never use all of the data and wont tell you which data they used. Mostly what they do should boil down to STATISTICS, but none of these guys are expert statisticians. Not a single one of them.<br>
<br>
These guys run various climate-related panels, institutions, and so forth (such as the IPCC, the NOAA,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..) because they publish more than anyone else in the field. They can publish more because they dont actually do that whole pesky scientific method shit like going out and collecting ice cores, measuring tree rings, digging holes, or checking up on the global surface station network.<br>
<br>
Have they been caught red handed? Probably. They have certainly been caught obstructing freedom of information requests (with a group of them emailing each other making sure they ALL deleted their shit.) Will this matter? Probably not. Politicians don't give a shit whats true and whats not. Global Warming is a chance to regulate everybody on the planet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , there is an email about those thousands .
Perhaps you should read about how one of these guys gave instructions to another to not check any credentials when gathering their list of thousands .
Saying that they ca n't afford to wait , that they must get as many names as possible out before Kyoto .
The people these emails are from ( and its not that many , really ) are the same people that keep repeating " consensus .
" These people cite each others research while recommending that each other play the role of peer reviewer for the journals .
The guys in these emails do n't do science , but they do publish a lot .
What they ( Mann , Jones , Briffa , Wang , Hansen , and a few others ) do is they take other peoples data , then do shit with it.. but wont tell anyone but themselves what they are doing with it and they never use all of the data and wont tell you which data they used .
Mostly what they do should boil down to STATISTICS , but none of these guys are expert statisticians .
Not a single one of them .
These guys run various climate-related panels , institutions , and so forth ( such as the IPCC , the NOAA , .. ) because they publish more than anyone else in the field .
They can publish more because they dont actually do that whole pesky scientific method shit like going out and collecting ice cores , measuring tree rings , digging holes , or checking up on the global surface station network .
Have they been caught red handed ?
Probably. They have certainly been caught obstructing freedom of information requests ( with a group of them emailing each other making sure they ALL deleted their shit .
) Will this matter ?
Probably not .
Politicians do n't give a shit whats true and whats not .
Global Warming is a chance to regulate everybody on the planet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, there is an email about those thousands.
Perhaps you should read about how one of these guys gave instructions to another to not check any credentials when gathering their list of thousands.
Saying that they can't afford to wait, that they must get as many names as possible out before Kyoto.
The people these emails are from (and its not that many, really) are the same people that keep repeating "consensus.
" These people cite each others research while recommending that each other play the role of peer reviewer for the journals.
The guys in these emails don't do science, but they do publish a lot.
What they (Mann, Jones, Briffa, Wang, Hansen, and a few others) do is they take other peoples data, then do shit with it.. but wont tell anyone but themselves what they are doing with it and they never use all of the data and wont tell you which data they used.
Mostly what they do should boil down to STATISTICS, but none of these guys are expert statisticians.
Not a single one of them.
These guys run various climate-related panels, institutions, and so forth (such as the IPCC, the NOAA, ..) because they publish more than anyone else in the field.
They can publish more because they dont actually do that whole pesky scientific method shit like going out and collecting ice cores, measuring tree rings, digging holes, or checking up on the global surface station network.
Have they been caught red handed?
Probably. They have certainly been caught obstructing freedom of information requests (with a group of them emailing each other making sure they ALL deleted their shit.
) Will this matter?
Probably not.
Politicians don't give a shit whats true and whats not.
Global Warming is a chance to regulate everybody on the planet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30180280</id>
	<title>Give Me Six Lines...</title>
	<author>kjfitz</author>
	<datestamp>1258724160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Give me six lines written by the most honorable of men, and I will find an excuse in them to hang him." Cardinal Richelieu</p><p>I suspect that these emails will be a global Rorschach test.  Skeptics will see in them whatever they wish to find.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Give me six lines written by the most honorable of men , and I will find an excuse in them to hang him .
" Cardinal RichelieuI suspect that these emails will be a global Rorschach test .
Skeptics will see in them whatever they wish to find .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Give me six lines written by the most honorable of men, and I will find an excuse in them to hang him.
" Cardinal RichelieuI suspect that these emails will be a global Rorschach test.
Skeptics will see in them whatever they wish to find.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176108</id>
	<title>Oversight</title>
	<author>gorfie</author>
	<datestamp>1258707720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This certainly highlights the need for oversight in organizations where their output (summaries, trends, studies, statements, etc.) are used to formulate government policy.  The fact that there exists evidence suggesting that opposing points were knowingly ignored and/or oppressed is disturbing.  Not to mention the fact that data was potentially manipulated to support a pre-existing point of view.  We need more transparency.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This certainly highlights the need for oversight in organizations where their output ( summaries , trends , studies , statements , etc .
) are used to formulate government policy .
The fact that there exists evidence suggesting that opposing points were knowingly ignored and/or oppressed is disturbing .
Not to mention the fact that data was potentially manipulated to support a pre-existing point of view .
We need more transparency .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This certainly highlights the need for oversight in organizations where their output (summaries, trends, studies, statements, etc.
) are used to formulate government policy.
The fact that there exists evidence suggesting that opposing points were knowingly ignored and/or oppressed is disturbing.
Not to mention the fact that data was potentially manipulated to support a pre-existing point of view.
We need more transparency.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30178218</id>
	<title>Re:A new low for the slashdot anti-intellectualism</title>
	<author>Clandestine\_Blaze</author>
	<datestamp>1258714860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I say opinion because 30,000 scientists have said they feel that Gore<br>has lied and distorted the facts.</p></div><p>Out of those 30,000 scientists, how many have a background in climatology?</p><p><a href="http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications\_of\_signers.php" title="petitionproject.org">http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications\_of\_signers.php</a> [petitionproject.org]</p><p>3,804 out of the 30,000 are into "Atmosphere, Earth, &amp; Environment", and of those, 39 are into climatology. 39 out of 30,000 scientists are experts into climatology. That's about a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.1\%.</p><p>I'm certain that a holder of a PhD in physics or chemistry would be more qualified than me, a computer consultant, or Al Gore, a politician, but simply saying 30,000 scientists without mentioning their qualifications is disingenuous. It leads the readers out here to believe that those scientists are all 100\% knowledgeable in climatology, which is simply not true.</p><p>Now, do we have any numbers regarding how many scientists agree with Al Gore?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The weather balloon data does not show warming at higher altitudes thus it is not Global Warming.</p></div><p>You mean <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2005-08-11-global-warming-data\_x.htm" title="usatoday.com"> this data?</a> [usatoday.com] </p><p><div class="quote"><p>After examining the satellite data, collected since 1979 by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration weather satellites, Carl Mears and Frank Wentz of Remote Sensing Systems in Santa Rosa, Calif., found that the satellites had drifted in orbit, throwing off the timing of temperature measures. Essentially, the satellites were increasingly reporting nighttime temperatures as daytime ones, leading to a false cooling trend. The team also found a math error in the calculations.</p></div><p>This data doesn't prove that it's man-made, but it certainly takes away the argument that warming isn't happening. It could be cyclical. It could be, as you say, the sun.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I say opinion because 30,000 scientists have said they feel that Gorehas lied and distorted the facts.Out of those 30,000 scientists , how many have a background in climatology ? http : //www.petitionproject.org/qualifications \ _of \ _signers.php [ petitionproject.org ] 3,804 out of the 30,000 are into " Atmosphere , Earth , &amp; Environment " , and of those , 39 are into climatology .
39 out of 30,000 scientists are experts into climatology .
That 's about a .1 \ % .I 'm certain that a holder of a PhD in physics or chemistry would be more qualified than me , a computer consultant , or Al Gore , a politician , but simply saying 30,000 scientists without mentioning their qualifications is disingenuous .
It leads the readers out here to believe that those scientists are all 100 \ % knowledgeable in climatology , which is simply not true.Now , do we have any numbers regarding how many scientists agree with Al Gore ? The weather balloon data does not show warming at higher altitudes thus it is not Global Warming.You mean this data ?
[ usatoday.com ] After examining the satellite data , collected since 1979 by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration weather satellites , Carl Mears and Frank Wentz of Remote Sensing Systems in Santa Rosa , Calif. , found that the satellites had drifted in orbit , throwing off the timing of temperature measures .
Essentially , the satellites were increasingly reporting nighttime temperatures as daytime ones , leading to a false cooling trend .
The team also found a math error in the calculations.This data does n't prove that it 's man-made , but it certainly takes away the argument that warming is n't happening .
It could be cyclical .
It could be , as you say , the sun .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I say opinion because 30,000 scientists have said they feel that Gorehas lied and distorted the facts.Out of those 30,000 scientists, how many have a background in climatology?http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications\_of\_signers.php [petitionproject.org]3,804 out of the 30,000 are into "Atmosphere, Earth, &amp; Environment", and of those, 39 are into climatology.
39 out of 30,000 scientists are experts into climatology.
That's about a .1\%.I'm certain that a holder of a PhD in physics or chemistry would be more qualified than me, a computer consultant, or Al Gore, a politician, but simply saying 30,000 scientists without mentioning their qualifications is disingenuous.
It leads the readers out here to believe that those scientists are all 100\% knowledgeable in climatology, which is simply not true.Now, do we have any numbers regarding how many scientists agree with Al Gore?The weather balloon data does not show warming at higher altitudes thus it is not Global Warming.You mean  this data?
[usatoday.com] After examining the satellite data, collected since 1979 by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration weather satellites, Carl Mears and Frank Wentz of Remote Sensing Systems in Santa Rosa, Calif., found that the satellites had drifted in orbit, throwing off the timing of temperature measures.
Essentially, the satellites were increasingly reporting nighttime temperatures as daytime ones, leading to a false cooling trend.
The team also found a math error in the calculations.This data doesn't prove that it's man-made, but it certainly takes away the argument that warming isn't happening.
It could be cyclical.
It could be, as you say, the sun.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177280</id>
	<title>My god. What blind bullshit.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258711680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My god. What blind bullshit. You don't even acknowledge it:</p><p>"I'm not saying that is what the leaked information says, nor am I saying that the leak is real;"</p><p>THEN WHY THE FUCK DID YOU SAY:</p><p>"If the email says "Hey Bob, your algorithm didn't produce the level of warming we were expecting, we need you to rework it so it is in line with our expectations" that would say a lot about how the 'science' is being done."</p><p>?????</p><p>It would be interesting if it said "I love you dearly MozeeToby and I want your babies". I'm not saying that it DOES say that, so I guess that it isn't actually interesting since that would have made it interesting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My god .
What blind bullshit .
You do n't even acknowledge it : " I 'm not saying that is what the leaked information says , nor am I saying that the leak is real ; " THEN WHY THE FUCK DID YOU SAY : " If the email says " Hey Bob , your algorithm did n't produce the level of warming we were expecting , we need you to rework it so it is in line with our expectations " that would say a lot about how the 'science ' is being done. " ? ? ? ?
? It would be interesting if it said " I love you dearly MozeeToby and I want your babies " .
I 'm not saying that it DOES say that , so I guess that it is n't actually interesting since that would have made it interesting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My god.
What blind bullshit.
You don't even acknowledge it:"I'm not saying that is what the leaked information says, nor am I saying that the leak is real;"THEN WHY THE FUCK DID YOU SAY:"If the email says "Hey Bob, your algorithm didn't produce the level of warming we were expecting, we need you to rework it so it is in line with our expectations" that would say a lot about how the 'science' is being done."????
?It would be interesting if it said "I love you dearly MozeeToby and I want your babies".
I'm not saying that it DOES say that, so I guess that it isn't actually interesting since that would have made it interesting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30234224</id>
	<title>Climate Gate code, comments exposed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257188100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>comments in the code are as revealing of massive fraud and coverup as the set of emails:<br>http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/climategate-hide-the-decline-codified/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>comments in the code are as revealing of massive fraud and coverup as the set of emails : http : //wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/climategate-hide-the-decline-codified/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>comments in the code are as revealing of massive fraud and coverup as the set of emails:http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/climategate-hide-the-decline-codified/</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30182586</id>
	<title>Re:I would just like to point out....</title>
	<author>LynnwoodRooster</author>
	<datestamp>1258834860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. - I thought our mantra was that data wants to be free?  Shouldn't we be considered liberators for posting it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is / .
- I thought our mantra was that data wants to be free ?
Should n't we be considered liberators for posting it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is /.
- I thought our mantra was that data wants to be free?
Shouldn't we be considered liberators for posting it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176092</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30178204</id>
	<title>Open Source</title>
	<author>toddhisattva</author>
	<datestamp>1258714800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why did they hide the source in the first place?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why did they hide the source in the first place ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why did they hide the source in the first place?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177730</id>
	<title>This does not falsify AGW</title>
	<author>freejung</author>
	<datestamp>1258713180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The important thing to note about this story is that, even if it's all true and all of the emails are genuine, and even if it completely discredits every scientist involved and all of the work they've ever done, <b>this does not falsify AGW theory</b>.
</p><p>
The great thing about a robust scientific theory is that it's not dependent on any one line of evidence or the work of any particular individual or group. Most of the research this calls into question are proxy studies of the temperature over the last couple of millennia. This is only one of many lines of evidence supporting AGW, and it is not the primary line of evidence.
</p><p>
Even if you throw out every piece of research done by every scientist mentioned in this data, there will still be plenty of evidence to show that global warming is real and created by human activity.</p><p>
So ultimately this is a tempest in a teacup. The deniers will make a huge deal about it, and it may have an impact on public opinion, but it will have very close to zero impact on actual science.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The important thing to note about this story is that , even if it 's all true and all of the emails are genuine , and even if it completely discredits every scientist involved and all of the work they 've ever done , this does not falsify AGW theory .
The great thing about a robust scientific theory is that it 's not dependent on any one line of evidence or the work of any particular individual or group .
Most of the research this calls into question are proxy studies of the temperature over the last couple of millennia .
This is only one of many lines of evidence supporting AGW , and it is not the primary line of evidence .
Even if you throw out every piece of research done by every scientist mentioned in this data , there will still be plenty of evidence to show that global warming is real and created by human activity .
So ultimately this is a tempest in a teacup .
The deniers will make a huge deal about it , and it may have an impact on public opinion , but it will have very close to zero impact on actual science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The important thing to note about this story is that, even if it's all true and all of the emails are genuine, and even if it completely discredits every scientist involved and all of the work they've ever done, this does not falsify AGW theory.
The great thing about a robust scientific theory is that it's not dependent on any one line of evidence or the work of any particular individual or group.
Most of the research this calls into question are proxy studies of the temperature over the last couple of millennia.
This is only one of many lines of evidence supporting AGW, and it is not the primary line of evidence.
Even if you throw out every piece of research done by every scientist mentioned in this data, there will still be plenty of evidence to show that global warming is real and created by human activity.
So ultimately this is a tempest in a teacup.
The deniers will make a huge deal about it, and it may have an impact on public opinion, but it will have very close to zero impact on actual science.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176964</id>
	<title>Re:The dog ate it?</title>
	<author>pkphilip</author>
	<datestamp>1258710600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, it is the same CRU. Fact is, they have refused requests to release data by other scientists (not just Steven McIntyre).</p><p>This is a good opportunity for someone to step in and demand that the actual data be released. CRU's claim of having lost data is completely untenable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , it is the same CRU .
Fact is , they have refused requests to release data by other scientists ( not just Steven McIntyre ) .This is a good opportunity for someone to step in and demand that the actual data be released .
CRU 's claim of having lost data is completely untenable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, it is the same CRU.
Fact is, they have refused requests to release data by other scientists (not just Steven McIntyre).This is a good opportunity for someone to step in and demand that the actual data be released.
CRU's claim of having lost data is completely untenable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177472</id>
	<title>You don't have to hack to get information</title>
	<author>BitHive</author>
	<datestamp>1258712280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you think climate science is important and want to know more about it maybe you should spend some time GOING TO FUCKING SCHOOL.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you think climate science is important and want to know more about it maybe you should spend some time GOING TO FUCKING SCHOOL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you think climate science is important and want to know more about it maybe you should spend some time GOING TO FUCKING SCHOOL.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30181930</id>
	<title>Re:Nothing to see here, move on</title>
	<author>4D6963</author>
	<datestamp>1258738500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>They are trying to get people (journal editors) fired, based on their perceived loyalty (or lack thereof) to 'the cause'.</i> </p><p>Yeah, nice spin, here, let me de-spin it for you<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:</p><p> <i>They are trying to get people (journal editors) fired, because it seems apparent that these editors are trying to push a political agenda instead of evaluating papers purely for their scientific merits, while still trying to pass as an apoliticised scientific journal.</i> </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are trying to get people ( journal editors ) fired , based on their perceived loyalty ( or lack thereof ) to 'the cause' .
Yeah , nice spin , here , let me de-spin it for you : They are trying to get people ( journal editors ) fired , because it seems apparent that these editors are trying to push a political agenda instead of evaluating papers purely for their scientific merits , while still trying to pass as an apoliticised scientific journal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> They are trying to get people (journal editors) fired, based on their perceived loyalty (or lack thereof) to 'the cause'.
Yeah, nice spin, here, let me de-spin it for you : They are trying to get people (journal editors) fired, because it seems apparent that these editors are trying to push a political agenda instead of evaluating papers purely for their scientific merits, while still trying to pass as an apoliticised scientific journal. </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30179922</id>
	<title>Re:Anthropogenic Causes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258722360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is the predictions and then there is the REALITY. The hard REALITY that arctic is warming. Want evidence? Just talk to any Inuit living there and how they are basically fucked because permafrost is melting left and right.</p><p>And reading and spreading misinformation is exactly what the fucked-in-the-head idiots do. WHAHWHAHA WHAHAHA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!! WHAHAHAHAAHA!!</p><p>Keep believing in your thruthiness. I'm sure it will become reality if you believe in it hard enough.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is the predictions and then there is the REALITY .
The hard REALITY that arctic is warming .
Want evidence ?
Just talk to any Inuit living there and how they are basically fucked because permafrost is melting left and right.And reading and spreading misinformation is exactly what the fucked-in-the-head idiots do .
WHAHWHAHA WHAHAHA I CA N'T HEAR YOU ! !
WHAHAHAHAAHA ! ! Keep believing in your thruthiness .
I 'm sure it will become reality if you believe in it hard enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is the predictions and then there is the REALITY.
The hard REALITY that arctic is warming.
Want evidence?
Just talk to any Inuit living there and how they are basically fucked because permafrost is melting left and right.And reading and spreading misinformation is exactly what the fucked-in-the-head idiots do.
WHAHWHAHA WHAHAHA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!
WHAHAHAHAAHA!!Keep believing in your thruthiness.
I'm sure it will become reality if you believe in it hard enough.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30185664</id>
	<title>Re:Anthropogenic Causes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258827540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I claim it's scientists being scientists</i> </p><p>Thus proving you aren't a good scientist.  The very fact that they admit to destroying data is proof that what they are doing is not science.  Even if AGW is real (and it might very well be), what they are doing is nothing more than fraud.</p><p>Scientists share their data.  Anything that can't be replicated isn't science.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I claim it 's scientists being scientists Thus proving you are n't a good scientist .
The very fact that they admit to destroying data is proof that what they are doing is not science .
Even if AGW is real ( and it might very well be ) , what they are doing is nothing more than fraud.Scientists share their data .
Anything that ca n't be replicated is n't science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I claim it's scientists being scientists Thus proving you aren't a good scientist.
The very fact that they admit to destroying data is proof that what they are doing is not science.
Even if AGW is real (and it might very well be), what they are doing is nothing more than fraud.Scientists share their data.
Anything that can't be replicated isn't science.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30178228</id>
	<title>Re:Utter bullshit.</title>
	<author>freejung</author>
	<datestamp>1258714920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>So far there has been no claim that any of this data falsifies any peer-reviewed research. I suspect that if there were evidence of that, the skeptics would have jumped all over it by now.

So what it shows is scientists behaving badly and generally being human. This should not come as a huge surprise. It is not, however, likely to have any impact on the actual science.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So far there has been no claim that any of this data falsifies any peer-reviewed research .
I suspect that if there were evidence of that , the skeptics would have jumped all over it by now .
So what it shows is scientists behaving badly and generally being human .
This should not come as a huge surprise .
It is not , however , likely to have any impact on the actual science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So far there has been no claim that any of this data falsifies any peer-reviewed research.
I suspect that if there were evidence of that, the skeptics would have jumped all over it by now.
So what it shows is scientists behaving badly and generally being human.
This should not come as a huge surprise.
It is not, however, likely to have any impact on the actual science.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177810</id>
	<title>"IDIOT"</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1258713480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>aka, not a paranoid schizophrenic</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>aka , not a paranoid schizophrenic</tokentext>
<sentencetext>aka, not a paranoid schizophrenic</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176422</id>
	<title>Why is climate science being politicized?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258708800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>  There is a very disturbing question here of why climate research is being handled like a political football. We don't normally politicize chemistry, or physics, or math, or even oceanography. We could and should be having heated policy discussions about how to address global warming, but the scientific evidence is not really in question, and the researchers behind the evidence are clearly not political operatives. So who has turned the public view of climate research into such a circus, and why?</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a very disturbing question here of why climate research is being handled like a political football .
We do n't normally politicize chemistry , or physics , or math , or even oceanography .
We could and should be having heated policy discussions about how to address global warming , but the scientific evidence is not really in question , and the researchers behind the evidence are clearly not political operatives .
So who has turned the public view of climate research into such a circus , and why ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  There is a very disturbing question here of why climate research is being handled like a political football.
We don't normally politicize chemistry, or physics, or math, or even oceanography.
We could and should be having heated policy discussions about how to address global warming, but the scientific evidence is not really in question, and the researchers behind the evidence are clearly not political operatives.
So who has turned the public view of climate research into such a circus, and why?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30180944</id>
	<title>Re:You don't have to hack to get information</title>
	<author>LordLucless</author>
	<datestamp>1258728720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...which will teach you sorts of interesting things to do with the data that nobody will let you see.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...which will teach you sorts of interesting things to do with the data that nobody will let you see .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...which will teach you sorts of interesting things to do with the data that nobody will let you see.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30188060</id>
	<title>Non-causal smoothing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258799640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Various emails in this data set discuss smoothing procedures used in constructing time series, in particular the "hockey stick" chart. In particular, there is discussion of padding the trailing end of one data series with data points from another data series (which extends further in time than the first) - this padding is done to support smoothing of the first data set. The need for padding on the trailing end implies that a non-causal smoothing filter was used - i.e. the data were smoothed by a sliding window that reaches "into the future". Such a filter is non-causal. I find this very surprising - when you're dealing with time series, in particular, I don't see how one can motivate anything other than a causal filter for smoothing (and such a filter would not require padding on the trailing end).</p><p>Your thoughts?</p><p>If anyone can point me to relevant publications, where hopefully the exact smoothing procedure is described, I'd be grateful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Various emails in this data set discuss smoothing procedures used in constructing time series , in particular the " hockey stick " chart .
In particular , there is discussion of padding the trailing end of one data series with data points from another data series ( which extends further in time than the first ) - this padding is done to support smoothing of the first data set .
The need for padding on the trailing end implies that a non-causal smoothing filter was used - i.e .
the data were smoothed by a sliding window that reaches " into the future " .
Such a filter is non-causal .
I find this very surprising - when you 're dealing with time series , in particular , I do n't see how one can motivate anything other than a causal filter for smoothing ( and such a filter would not require padding on the trailing end ) .Your thoughts ? If anyone can point me to relevant publications , where hopefully the exact smoothing procedure is described , I 'd be grateful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Various emails in this data set discuss smoothing procedures used in constructing time series, in particular the "hockey stick" chart.
In particular, there is discussion of padding the trailing end of one data series with data points from another data series (which extends further in time than the first) - this padding is done to support smoothing of the first data set.
The need for padding on the trailing end implies that a non-causal smoothing filter was used - i.e.
the data were smoothed by a sliding window that reaches "into the future".
Such a filter is non-causal.
I find this very surprising - when you're dealing with time series, in particular, I don't see how one can motivate anything other than a causal filter for smoothing (and such a filter would not require padding on the trailing end).Your thoughts?If anyone can point me to relevant publications, where hopefully the exact smoothing procedure is described, I'd be grateful.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30188788</id>
	<title>Re:What's the goal of the global warming conspirac</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258804500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not a consipiracy.  They're in it for the grant money. As long as it's a horrible thing that could happen, but that we could prevent, then it's something that will have unlimited funding.  It's not a conspiracy, it's a guaranteed paycheck for them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not a consipiracy .
They 're in it for the grant money .
As long as it 's a horrible thing that could happen , but that we could prevent , then it 's something that will have unlimited funding .
It 's not a conspiracy , it 's a guaranteed paycheck for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not a consipiracy.
They're in it for the grant money.
As long as it's a horrible thing that could happen, but that we could prevent, then it's something that will have unlimited funding.
It's not a conspiracy, it's a guaranteed paycheck for them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30178704</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176110</id>
	<title>Wow.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258707720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Something most rational people have been saying for years. Quite funny that it takes an illegal act of hacking to expose the most expensive farce of our time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Something most rational people have been saying for years .
Quite funny that it takes an illegal act of hacking to expose the most expensive farce of our time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Something most rational people have been saying for years.
Quite funny that it takes an illegal act of hacking to expose the most expensive farce of our time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30181056</id>
	<title>Re:My heart goes out to those researchers.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258729560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You, sir, are writing non-sense.</p><p>&gt; I have published only a few papers and would be mortified if my emails got released to the public.<br>Your personal emails, sure. Your work email? Why? Do you really send emails regarding your research work that are embarrassing? How unprofessional would they need to be<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... or is your research itself embarrassing? Oh wait, you'll explain:</p><p>&gt; I am constantly joking around with other lab denizens about fudging stuff, and removing data that doesn't fit the expectations.<br>Sarcasm, I hope (but fear not). Why generate any data at all, if you trust your existing expectations over the data? Comparing results to expectations is good, but if they don't match, you shouldn't "remove the data" - you should re-check your experimental set up, revisit your assumptions, and reconsider your expectations.</p><p>&gt; Not to mention all of the politically incorrect jokes about such-and-such a graph's sexual orientation.<br>Either it is offensive and hence inappropriate (and you should be mortified), or it is not offensive, hence not inappropriate (assuming you still get your work done while joking around), and people will either get a laugh from it or not - so what?</p><p>But hey, all of the above was just about hypothetical jokes mixed into your work email<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... whatever.</p><p>Next, you move on to the example of having someone review code that you wrote in a work environment, and give a number of example comments that would supposedly be embarrassing. Well, sir, embarrassing is the least of your worries<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... if you in fact published papers based on analysis using computer code that included even one of the comments that you list, you should be ashamed. Science is built on trust: as in, when I read a paper, I trust that you don't publish a paper when you know that you still "need to go back and fix this", or when you are "not sure why this works". Your reviewers can't check all your methods in detail (certainly not if you don't provide the source code), so they trust you to make a best effort as well. In any case, if indeed you choose to fool the readers of your work who trust you to do good science, I imagine it is only a matter of time before your trust is lost<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and that's pretty much a career-killer, from what I'm told.</p><p>Then again, maybe you're just making a point and you don't actually practice science in this way<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You , sir , are writing non-sense. &gt; I have published only a few papers and would be mortified if my emails got released to the public.Your personal emails , sure .
Your work email ?
Why ? Do you really send emails regarding your research work that are embarrassing ?
How unprofessional would they need to be ... or is your research itself embarrassing ?
Oh wait , you 'll explain : &gt; I am constantly joking around with other lab denizens about fudging stuff , and removing data that does n't fit the expectations.Sarcasm , I hope ( but fear not ) .
Why generate any data at all , if you trust your existing expectations over the data ?
Comparing results to expectations is good , but if they do n't match , you should n't " remove the data " - you should re-check your experimental set up , revisit your assumptions , and reconsider your expectations. &gt; Not to mention all of the politically incorrect jokes about such-and-such a graph 's sexual orientation.Either it is offensive and hence inappropriate ( and you should be mortified ) , or it is not offensive , hence not inappropriate ( assuming you still get your work done while joking around ) , and people will either get a laugh from it or not - so what ? But hey , all of the above was just about hypothetical jokes mixed into your work email ... whatever.Next , you move on to the example of having someone review code that you wrote in a work environment , and give a number of example comments that would supposedly be embarrassing .
Well , sir , embarrassing is the least of your worries ... if you in fact published papers based on analysis using computer code that included even one of the comments that you list , you should be ashamed .
Science is built on trust : as in , when I read a paper , I trust that you do n't publish a paper when you know that you still " need to go back and fix this " , or when you are " not sure why this works " .
Your reviewers ca n't check all your methods in detail ( certainly not if you do n't provide the source code ) , so they trust you to make a best effort as well .
In any case , if indeed you choose to fool the readers of your work who trust you to do good science , I imagine it is only a matter of time before your trust is lost ... and that 's pretty much a career-killer , from what I 'm told.Then again , maybe you 're just making a point and you do n't actually practice science in this way .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You, sir, are writing non-sense.&gt; I have published only a few papers and would be mortified if my emails got released to the public.Your personal emails, sure.
Your work email?
Why? Do you really send emails regarding your research work that are embarrassing?
How unprofessional would they need to be ... or is your research itself embarrassing?
Oh wait, you'll explain:&gt; I am constantly joking around with other lab denizens about fudging stuff, and removing data that doesn't fit the expectations.Sarcasm, I hope (but fear not).
Why generate any data at all, if you trust your existing expectations over the data?
Comparing results to expectations is good, but if they don't match, you shouldn't "remove the data" - you should re-check your experimental set up, revisit your assumptions, and reconsider your expectations.&gt; Not to mention all of the politically incorrect jokes about such-and-such a graph's sexual orientation.Either it is offensive and hence inappropriate (and you should be mortified), or it is not offensive, hence not inappropriate (assuming you still get your work done while joking around), and people will either get a laugh from it or not - so what?But hey, all of the above was just about hypothetical jokes mixed into your work email ... whatever.Next, you move on to the example of having someone review code that you wrote in a work environment, and give a number of example comments that would supposedly be embarrassing.
Well, sir, embarrassing is the least of your worries ... if you in fact published papers based on analysis using computer code that included even one of the comments that you list, you should be ashamed.
Science is built on trust: as in, when I read a paper, I trust that you don't publish a paper when you know that you still "need to go back and fix this", or when you are "not sure why this works".
Your reviewers can't check all your methods in detail (certainly not if you don't provide the source code), so they trust you to make a best effort as well.
In any case, if indeed you choose to fool the readers of your work who trust you to do good science, I imagine it is only a matter of time before your trust is lost ... and that's pretty much a career-killer, from what I'm told.Then again, maybe you're just making a point and you don't actually practice science in this way ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176272</id>
	<title>Re:I would just like to point out....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258708320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's actually necessary in this case. From a journalistic point of view, it must be given to the reader to prevent speculation and theorizing. It is also perfectly legal for a news site to distribute stolen documents as long as the site wasn't involved in the theft.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's actually necessary in this case .
From a journalistic point of view , it must be given to the reader to prevent speculation and theorizing .
It is also perfectly legal for a news site to distribute stolen documents as long as the site was n't involved in the theft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's actually necessary in this case.
From a journalistic point of view, it must be given to the reader to prevent speculation and theorizing.
It is also perfectly legal for a news site to distribute stolen documents as long as the site wasn't involved in the theft.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176092</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30178894</id>
	<title>Re:Simple test for all you Anti Global Warming peo</title>
	<author>Mashiki</author>
	<datestamp>1258717440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dear idiot parent:</p><p>Go huff pure water vapour.<br>Go huff pure oxygen.</p><p>Tell me how long you live on either one.  I can tell you exactly what will happen in both cases, but I'm not paying for your funeral.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dear idiot parent : Go huff pure water vapour.Go huff pure oxygen.Tell me how long you live on either one .
I can tell you exactly what will happen in both cases , but I 'm not paying for your funeral .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dear idiot parent:Go huff pure water vapour.Go huff pure oxygen.Tell me how long you live on either one.
I can tell you exactly what will happen in both cases, but I'm not paying for your funeral.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30178290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30181816</id>
	<title>Random my arse!</title>
	<author>Black Sabbath</author>
	<datestamp>1258737120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Give me six lines written by the most honorable of men, and I will find an excuse in them to hang him."<br>Cardinal Richelieu</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Give me six lines written by the most honorable of men , and I will find an excuse in them to hang him .
" Cardinal Richelieu</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Give me six lines written by the most honorable of men, and I will find an excuse in them to hang him.
"Cardinal Richelieu</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30178076</id>
	<title>Where exactly are those hurricanes?</title>
	<author>Quila</author>
	<datestamp>1258714380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The GW crowd said that bad year a few years back was because of GW and then *poof*, not much in the area of hurricanes for years.</p><p>In these light years I haven't been hearing "The lack of hurricanes is because of GW."</p><p>I haven't been hearing "GW theory falsely predicted more and stronger hurricanes."</p><p>I have heard things along the lines of "Some GW proponents predicted through a misunderstanding of GW."</p><p>You know what that reminds me of? How the Jehova's Witnesses explain away their failed prophesies of doom.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The GW crowd said that bad year a few years back was because of GW and then * poof * , not much in the area of hurricanes for years.In these light years I have n't been hearing " The lack of hurricanes is because of GW .
" I have n't been hearing " GW theory falsely predicted more and stronger hurricanes .
" I have heard things along the lines of " Some GW proponents predicted through a misunderstanding of GW .
" You know what that reminds me of ?
How the Jehova 's Witnesses explain away their failed prophesies of doom .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The GW crowd said that bad year a few years back was because of GW and then *poof*, not much in the area of hurricanes for years.In these light years I haven't been hearing "The lack of hurricanes is because of GW.
"I haven't been hearing "GW theory falsely predicted more and stronger hurricanes.
"I have heard things along the lines of "Some GW proponents predicted through a misunderstanding of GW.
"You know what that reminds me of?
How the Jehova's Witnesses explain away their failed prophesies of doom.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176482</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176226</id>
	<title>All the GOREY details right here!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258708140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>h ah aha ah ah haaaaaa ha aha aha aha aah ah ahahha aha ahaa h aha aha ahaaaa h aha aha aha cough cough...ha ah aha aha aha aha aha aha aha hh haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa</p><p><a href="http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/" title="telegraph.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/</a> [telegraph.co.uk]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>h ah aha ah ah haaaaaa ha aha aha aha aah ah ahahha aha ahaa h aha aha ahaaaa h aha aha aha cough cough...ha ah aha aha aha aha aha aha aha hh haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahttp : //blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/ [ telegraph.co.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>h ah aha ah ah haaaaaa ha aha aha aha aah ah ahahha aha ahaa h aha aha ahaaaa h aha aha aha cough cough...ha ah aha aha aha aha aha aha aha hh haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahttp://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/ [telegraph.co.uk]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30181906</id>
	<title>Re:Why is climate science being politicized?</title>
	<author>4D6963</author>
	<datestamp>1258738140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because there's something that is true since even before the days of John D. Rockefeller, our sources of energy are hugely important, economically, politically and so forth. Wars have been fought for them, empires have risen and fallen because of them. So it's no surprise that the branch of science that would tell us what's wrong with what we do with our sources of energy and what we should do would be heavily politicised. The future of some of the most powerful companies in the world depend directly on the policies decided by the facts established by scientists in the field of climatology. And this immensely powerful and influential industry's interests are directly at odds with what the scientific consensus established, and with all their weight they're trying to tip the scale in the other direction to make the scientific facts a matter of debate, as to slow down the progress of policies towards addressing the issues highlighted by the scientific community.

</p><p>In other words, by keeping the debate alive when it shouldn't, they're buying themselves time to continue with the profitable business as usual. The funny thing is that in that clash of science versus industrial interests, you find idiots without any direct industrial interest partaking in the fight on the side of the energy industries when they have strictly no interest there. Because you always get some dumbass with a boner for conspiracy theories who can't let go the fact that a scientific consensus could be debated, because that means "OMG teh whoel scientific community is at the source of a huge conspiracy against the interest of our benevolent oil producers!!! Waek up sheeple!!!".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because there 's something that is true since even before the days of John D. Rockefeller , our sources of energy are hugely important , economically , politically and so forth .
Wars have been fought for them , empires have risen and fallen because of them .
So it 's no surprise that the branch of science that would tell us what 's wrong with what we do with our sources of energy and what we should do would be heavily politicised .
The future of some of the most powerful companies in the world depend directly on the policies decided by the facts established by scientists in the field of climatology .
And this immensely powerful and influential industry 's interests are directly at odds with what the scientific consensus established , and with all their weight they 're trying to tip the scale in the other direction to make the scientific facts a matter of debate , as to slow down the progress of policies towards addressing the issues highlighted by the scientific community .
In other words , by keeping the debate alive when it should n't , they 're buying themselves time to continue with the profitable business as usual .
The funny thing is that in that clash of science versus industrial interests , you find idiots without any direct industrial interest partaking in the fight on the side of the energy industries when they have strictly no interest there .
Because you always get some dumbass with a boner for conspiracy theories who ca n't let go the fact that a scientific consensus could be debated , because that means " OMG teh whoel scientific community is at the source of a huge conspiracy against the interest of our benevolent oil producers ! ! !
Waek up sheeple ! ! !
" .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because there's something that is true since even before the days of John D. Rockefeller, our sources of energy are hugely important, economically, politically and so forth.
Wars have been fought for them, empires have risen and fallen because of them.
So it's no surprise that the branch of science that would tell us what's wrong with what we do with our sources of energy and what we should do would be heavily politicised.
The future of some of the most powerful companies in the world depend directly on the policies decided by the facts established by scientists in the field of climatology.
And this immensely powerful and influential industry's interests are directly at odds with what the scientific consensus established, and with all their weight they're trying to tip the scale in the other direction to make the scientific facts a matter of debate, as to slow down the progress of policies towards addressing the issues highlighted by the scientific community.
In other words, by keeping the debate alive when it shouldn't, they're buying themselves time to continue with the profitable business as usual.
The funny thing is that in that clash of science versus industrial interests, you find idiots without any direct industrial interest partaking in the fight on the side of the energy industries when they have strictly no interest there.
Because you always get some dumbass with a boner for conspiracy theories who can't let go the fact that a scientific consensus could be debated, because that means "OMG teh whoel scientific community is at the source of a huge conspiracy against the interest of our benevolent oil producers!!!
Waek up sheeple!!!
".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177444</id>
	<title>Re:Utter bullshit.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258712220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't know about prison terms but I don't think politicians should be allowed to make policy on anything that isn't 100\% open</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know about prison terms but I do n't think politicians should be allowed to make policy on anything that is n't 100 \ % open</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know about prison terms but I don't think politicians should be allowed to make policy on anything that isn't 100\% open</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30184304</id>
	<title>Re:They flipped Finnish data upside down</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258819620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Transcript of this broadcast (in english) is available here:<br>http://ohjelmat.yle.fi/mot/viime\_viikon\_mot/transcript\_english</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Transcript of this broadcast ( in english ) is available here : http : //ohjelmat.yle.fi/mot/viime \ _viikon \ _mot/transcript \ _english</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Transcript of this broadcast (in english) is available here:http://ohjelmat.yle.fi/mot/viime\_viikon\_mot/transcript\_english</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176406</id>
	<title>Re:A new low for the slashdot anti-intellectualism</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258708740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>It was someone in the AGW crowd that suggested Nuremberg style "trials" for the skeptics. Others advocated other harsh treatment of those who dared voice their doubleminus ungood wrongthink. You start saying I'm going to be persecuted or put on some sham trial for having an opinion, yeah, I'm reaching for the ammo, scumbag.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It was someone in the AGW crowd that suggested Nuremberg style " trials " for the skeptics .
Others advocated other harsh treatment of those who dared voice their doubleminus ungood wrongthink .
You start saying I 'm going to be persecuted or put on some sham trial for having an opinion , yeah , I 'm reaching for the ammo , scumbag .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was someone in the AGW crowd that suggested Nuremberg style "trials" for the skeptics.
Others advocated other harsh treatment of those who dared voice their doubleminus ungood wrongthink.
You start saying I'm going to be persecuted or put on some sham trial for having an opinion, yeah, I'm reaching for the ammo, scumbag.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177218</id>
	<title>They flipped Finnish data upside down</title>
	<author>Vuojo</author>
	<datestamp>1258711560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>There was a documentary about climate change hoax on Finnish YLE channel (it's like BBC of Finland) couple of weeks ago. It basically told that the climate data collected from Finland was turned upside down so that it would show warming instead of cooling etc. People who understand Finnish can check it out from Youtube: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gmJiZfyDPE" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gmJiZfyDPE</a> [youtube.com]

People who don't understand Finnish can just check these few seconds where they show how they flipped Finnish data: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suySkDny-zk#t=7m00s" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suySkDny-zk#t=7m00s</a> [youtube.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>There was a documentary about climate change hoax on Finnish YLE channel ( it 's like BBC of Finland ) couple of weeks ago .
It basically told that the climate data collected from Finland was turned upside down so that it would show warming instead of cooling etc .
People who understand Finnish can check it out from Youtube : http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = 1gmJiZfyDPE [ youtube.com ] People who do n't understand Finnish can just check these few seconds where they show how they flipped Finnish data : http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = suySkDny-zk # t = 7m00s [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was a documentary about climate change hoax on Finnish YLE channel (it's like BBC of Finland) couple of weeks ago.
It basically told that the climate data collected from Finland was turned upside down so that it would show warming instead of cooling etc.
People who understand Finnish can check it out from Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gmJiZfyDPE [youtube.com]

People who don't understand Finnish can just check these few seconds where they show how they flipped Finnish data: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suySkDny-zk#t=7m00s [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176802</id>
	<title>Re:Why is climate science being politicized?</title>
	<author>kyliaar</author>
	<datestamp>1258710240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is actually pretty simple.  There are very popular economic theories that indicate that you control the flow of money by controlling what people are afraid of.  Climate science would be a much smaller field with a lot less attention, money for grants and political debates if it wasn't sensationalized.</p><p>Also, look at how scientific data (data obstensibly gained through competent scientists following the scientific methods we learned in high school) winds up being consumed by the public.  Being able to say you are green is a huge factor in marketing consumer products, without any regulations to explain exactly how your product impacts the climate less.</p><p>The real truth of the matter is that climatologists actually understand very little and are operating off modeling systems that can't track all factors and do not accurate predict results.  I have yet to hear of a computer model that can take data from the 80s and accurately roll it forward to mirror today's climate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is actually pretty simple .
There are very popular economic theories that indicate that you control the flow of money by controlling what people are afraid of .
Climate science would be a much smaller field with a lot less attention , money for grants and political debates if it was n't sensationalized.Also , look at how scientific data ( data obstensibly gained through competent scientists following the scientific methods we learned in high school ) winds up being consumed by the public .
Being able to say you are green is a huge factor in marketing consumer products , without any regulations to explain exactly how your product impacts the climate less.The real truth of the matter is that climatologists actually understand very little and are operating off modeling systems that ca n't track all factors and do not accurate predict results .
I have yet to hear of a computer model that can take data from the 80s and accurately roll it forward to mirror today 's climate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is actually pretty simple.
There are very popular economic theories that indicate that you control the flow of money by controlling what people are afraid of.
Climate science would be a much smaller field with a lot less attention, money for grants and political debates if it wasn't sensationalized.Also, look at how scientific data (data obstensibly gained through competent scientists following the scientific methods we learned in high school) winds up being consumed by the public.
Being able to say you are green is a huge factor in marketing consumer products, without any regulations to explain exactly how your product impacts the climate less.The real truth of the matter is that climatologists actually understand very little and are operating off modeling systems that can't track all factors and do not accurate predict results.
I have yet to hear of a computer model that can take data from the 80s and accurately roll it forward to mirror today's climate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30179274</id>
	<title>Decompression Bomb?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258719240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Did anyone else get a Decompression Bomb error on chronnet.exe? Here's my scanner record...<br> <br>
2009-11-20 18:07:38	Error while scanning '/home/michael/Downloads/FOIA/documents/kbtree/stepan/chronnet.exe/HD.RES': The file is a decompression bomb<br> <br>
It could just be an error on the part of the scanner but I wondered if anyone else came across that as well. I'm using Avast BTW.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did anyone else get a Decompression Bomb error on chronnet.exe ?
Here 's my scanner record.. . 2009-11-20 18 : 07 : 38 Error while scanning '/home/michael/Downloads/FOIA/documents/kbtree/stepan/chronnet.exe/HD.RES ' : The file is a decompression bomb It could just be an error on the part of the scanner but I wondered if anyone else came across that as well .
I 'm using Avast BTW .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did anyone else get a Decompression Bomb error on chronnet.exe?
Here's my scanner record... 
2009-11-20 18:07:38	Error while scanning '/home/michael/Downloads/FOIA/documents/kbtree/stepan/chronnet.exe/HD.RES': The file is a decompression bomb 
It could just be an error on the part of the scanner but I wondered if anyone else came across that as well.
I'm using Avast BTW.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30203188</id>
	<title>Re:Anthropogenic Causes</title>
	<author>sexconker</author>
	<datestamp>1258998180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1:  I am a scientist.</p><p>2:  According to the global warming nutjobs, there is a "global consensus among scientists" that global warming is going to kill the planet.</p><p>3:  Even if we entered an ice age tomorrow, humans would survive.  Humans are resourceful, adaptive critters.  The vast majority of them have reverted mentally and physically, but some would survive.  Hell, I would welcome the culling.</p><p>4:  Nope.  Nothing we can do to stop it.  The best shot we've got to mitigate it is to put up space mirrors.  Every attempt (I think we've had 3 major attempts) has failed.  There are no current plans to put up space mirrors.  This is because it's expensive, doesn't generate money or power (the political kind) and could actually work - thus limiting the "need" to impose taxes, fines, and regulations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 : I am a scientist.2 : According to the global warming nutjobs , there is a " global consensus among scientists " that global warming is going to kill the planet.3 : Even if we entered an ice age tomorrow , humans would survive .
Humans are resourceful , adaptive critters .
The vast majority of them have reverted mentally and physically , but some would survive .
Hell , I would welcome the culling.4 : Nope .
Nothing we can do to stop it .
The best shot we 've got to mitigate it is to put up space mirrors .
Every attempt ( I think we 've had 3 major attempts ) has failed .
There are no current plans to put up space mirrors .
This is because it 's expensive , does n't generate money or power ( the political kind ) and could actually work - thus limiting the " need " to impose taxes , fines , and regulations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1:  I am a scientist.2:  According to the global warming nutjobs, there is a "global consensus among scientists" that global warming is going to kill the planet.3:  Even if we entered an ice age tomorrow, humans would survive.
Humans are resourceful, adaptive critters.
The vast majority of them have reverted mentally and physically, but some would survive.
Hell, I would welcome the culling.4:  Nope.
Nothing we can do to stop it.
The best shot we've got to mitigate it is to put up space mirrors.
Every attempt (I think we've had 3 major attempts) has failed.
There are no current plans to put up space mirrors.
This is because it's expensive, doesn't generate money or power (the political kind) and could actually work - thus limiting the "need" to impose taxes, fines, and regulations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30180868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177408</id>
	<title>Re:Utter bullshit.</title>
	<author>Dishevel</author>
	<datestamp>1258712100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We do not need to <b>imprison</b> those "Scientists" that refuse to reveal their data. We can just <b>ignore</b> their conclusions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We do not need to imprison those " Scientists " that refuse to reveal their data .
We can just ignore their conclusions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We do not need to imprison those "Scientists" that refuse to reveal their data.
We can just ignore their conclusions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30178242</id>
	<title>Re:Your opinion is being manipulated</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258714980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>CO2 emissions mitigation policies cost money (as does climate change itself), but they're not going to destroy the economy or "roll back the industrial revolution".  Sheesh .  That's the skeptic scare version of "global warming alarmism".  FUID against climate policy is at least as bad, if not worse, than FUD against climate science.  More <a href="http://www.thebigmoney.com/articles/.../surprise-economists-agree" title="thebigmoney.com" rel="nofollow">here</a> [thebigmoney.com] on the economics of climate policy, and <a href="http://yalepress.yale.edu/bookprinter.asp?isbn=9780300137484" title="yale.edu" rel="nofollow">a good book</a> [yale.edu].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>CO2 emissions mitigation policies cost money ( as does climate change itself ) , but they 're not going to destroy the economy or " roll back the industrial revolution " .
Sheesh .
That 's the skeptic scare version of " global warming alarmism " .
FUID against climate policy is at least as bad , if not worse , than FUD against climate science .
More here [ thebigmoney.com ] on the economics of climate policy , and a good book [ yale.edu ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CO2 emissions mitigation policies cost money (as does climate change itself), but they're not going to destroy the economy or "roll back the industrial revolution".
Sheesh .
That's the skeptic scare version of "global warming alarmism".
FUID against climate policy is at least as bad, if not worse, than FUD against climate science.
More here [thebigmoney.com] on the economics of climate policy, and a good book [yale.edu].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177100</id>
	<title>Re:Utter bullshit.</title>
	<author>Daniel Dvorkin</author>
	<datestamp>1258711080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i> If the email says "Hey Bob, your algorithm didn't produce the level of warming we were expecting, we need you to rework it so it is in line with our expectations" that would say a lot about how the 'science' is being done<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... I'm not saying that is what the leaked information says<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</i></p><p>Oh, that's a neat trick.  Here's another one for you:</p><p>If the email says, "Hey Bob, how did those live babies you ate for breakfast taste," that would say a lot about how Bob needs to be on death row.  But I'm not saying that's what the leaked information says!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the email says " Hey Bob , your algorithm did n't produce the level of warming we were expecting , we need you to rework it so it is in line with our expectations " that would say a lot about how the 'science ' is being done ... I 'm not saying that is what the leaked information says ...Oh , that 's a neat trick .
Here 's another one for you : If the email says , " Hey Bob , how did those live babies you ate for breakfast taste , " that would say a lot about how Bob needs to be on death row .
But I 'm not saying that 's what the leaked information says !</tokentext>
<sentencetext> If the email says "Hey Bob, your algorithm didn't produce the level of warming we were expecting, we need you to rework it so it is in line with our expectations" that would say a lot about how the 'science' is being done ... I'm not saying that is what the leaked information says ...Oh, that's a neat trick.
Here's another one for you:If the email says, "Hey Bob, how did those live babies you ate for breakfast taste," that would say a lot about how Bob needs to be on death row.
But I'm not saying that's what the leaked information says!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30182154</id>
	<title>Re:Utter bullshit.</title>
	<author>quantaman</author>
	<datestamp>1258741140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure there could be a blatant bombshell but that's probably not what will happen.</p><p>My concern is that with something like this you need a lot of experience with the science to evaluate it, and a lot of time to go through the emails to figure out what they're saying.</p><p>You basically need the same level of understanding that you'd get reading a scientific paper, but in this case you don't have a paper, just some random emails.</p><p>So besides someone very skilled and with a lot of time you need someone with a ton of integrity since it's very easy to take private comments out of context.</p><p>Do you honestly think those are the people who will be combing these emails?</p><p>This is a quote-miners dream.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure there could be a blatant bombshell but that 's probably not what will happen.My concern is that with something like this you need a lot of experience with the science to evaluate it , and a lot of time to go through the emails to figure out what they 're saying.You basically need the same level of understanding that you 'd get reading a scientific paper , but in this case you do n't have a paper , just some random emails.So besides someone very skilled and with a lot of time you need someone with a ton of integrity since it 's very easy to take private comments out of context.Do you honestly think those are the people who will be combing these emails ? This is a quote-miners dream .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure there could be a blatant bombshell but that's probably not what will happen.My concern is that with something like this you need a lot of experience with the science to evaluate it, and a lot of time to go through the emails to figure out what they're saying.You basically need the same level of understanding that you'd get reading a scientific paper, but in this case you don't have a paper, just some random emails.So besides someone very skilled and with a lot of time you need someone with a ton of integrity since it's very easy to take private comments out of context.Do you honestly think those are the people who will be combing these emails?This is a quote-miners dream.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30181936</id>
	<title>Re:Utter bullshit.</title>
	<author>metachimp</author>
	<datestamp>1258738560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You just inadvertently demonstrated precisely why E-mail is interesting, but not good to try and base any conclusions on.</p><p>To take your example, that statement could mean, "Tweak your algorithm to arrive at our predetermined conclusion.", as you seem to imply.</p><p>It may also mean:  "Your algorithm does not arrive at the anticipated conclusion.  Could you check to make sure that the inputs were correct, and that it's functioning properly?"</p><p>It might also mean "Your algorithm didn't produce the level of warming we expected.  We need you to re-work it to account for [some factor]"</p><p>Out of context, "the level of warming we expected" produced by the algorithm might be way too high or way too low.  So anyone can derive whatever "expectation" you want from it.  If you want to take an email like that and make it into proof that the science is cooked, go ahead.  Of course, that's not very scientific.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You just inadvertently demonstrated precisely why E-mail is interesting , but not good to try and base any conclusions on.To take your example , that statement could mean , " Tweak your algorithm to arrive at our predetermined conclusion .
" , as you seem to imply.It may also mean : " Your algorithm does not arrive at the anticipated conclusion .
Could you check to make sure that the inputs were correct , and that it 's functioning properly ?
" It might also mean " Your algorithm did n't produce the level of warming we expected .
We need you to re-work it to account for [ some factor ] " Out of context , " the level of warming we expected " produced by the algorithm might be way too high or way too low .
So anyone can derive whatever " expectation " you want from it .
If you want to take an email like that and make it into proof that the science is cooked , go ahead .
Of course , that 's not very scientific .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You just inadvertently demonstrated precisely why E-mail is interesting, but not good to try and base any conclusions on.To take your example, that statement could mean, "Tweak your algorithm to arrive at our predetermined conclusion.
", as you seem to imply.It may also mean:  "Your algorithm does not arrive at the anticipated conclusion.
Could you check to make sure that the inputs were correct, and that it's functioning properly?
"It might also mean "Your algorithm didn't produce the level of warming we expected.
We need you to re-work it to account for [some factor]"Out of context, "the level of warming we expected" produced by the algorithm might be way too high or way too low.
So anyone can derive whatever "expectation" you want from it.
If you want to take an email like that and make it into proof that the science is cooked, go ahead.
Of course, that's not very scientific.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30231642</id>
	<title>Re:My heart goes out to those researchers.</title>
	<author>lennier</author>
	<datestamp>1257163800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Like Cardinal Richelieu said:<br>&ldquo;If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him&rdquo;"</p><p>If those six lines were code, Cardinal Richelieu was apparently a DEFCON presenter.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>And if you look at, say, the Linux kernel mailing lists you can see exactly this sort of honest, robust discussion. Strangely nobody has been arrested yet because of their LKML postings.</p><p>This is why transparency and openness in process right from the beginning is a Good Thing - and if we're talking about science affecting global policy, heck yeah it needed to have been open right from the start.</p><p>Fudging and pretending and then presenting an airbrushed data 'product' at the end - and then basing extremely controversial legislation on top of that product - just doesn't cut it. Any more than having voting machines based on secret code.</p><p>Open the science, all the way. This is the Facebook generation. We're getting used to being honest as a society. It's time publically-funded science caught up with the Linux kernel. (I can't believe I'm even reading the words "intellectual property" next to "climate science").</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Like Cardinal Richelieu said :    If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men , I will find something in them which will hang him    " If those six lines were code , Cardinal Richelieu was apparently a DEFCON presenter .
: ) And if you look at , say , the Linux kernel mailing lists you can see exactly this sort of honest , robust discussion .
Strangely nobody has been arrested yet because of their LKML postings.This is why transparency and openness in process right from the beginning is a Good Thing - and if we 're talking about science affecting global policy , heck yeah it needed to have been open right from the start.Fudging and pretending and then presenting an airbrushed data 'product ' at the end - and then basing extremely controversial legislation on top of that product - just does n't cut it .
Any more than having voting machines based on secret code.Open the science , all the way .
This is the Facebook generation .
We 're getting used to being honest as a society .
It 's time publically-funded science caught up with the Linux kernel .
( I ca n't believe I 'm even reading the words " intellectual property " next to " climate science " ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Like Cardinal Richelieu said:“If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him”"If those six lines were code, Cardinal Richelieu was apparently a DEFCON presenter.
:)And if you look at, say, the Linux kernel mailing lists you can see exactly this sort of honest, robust discussion.
Strangely nobody has been arrested yet because of their LKML postings.This is why transparency and openness in process right from the beginning is a Good Thing - and if we're talking about science affecting global policy, heck yeah it needed to have been open right from the start.Fudging and pretending and then presenting an airbrushed data 'product' at the end - and then basing extremely controversial legislation on top of that product - just doesn't cut it.
Any more than having voting machines based on secret code.Open the science, all the way.
This is the Facebook generation.
We're getting used to being honest as a society.
It's time publically-funded science caught up with the Linux kernel.
(I can't believe I'm even reading the words "intellectual property" next to "climate science").</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30185238</id>
	<title>Re:They flipped Finnish data upside down</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258825200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you would look more carefully you would see that the whole chart is flipped, including the numberings.<br>So the meaning doesn't actually change.<br>I don't speak finnish, but if this is exactly what has happened then the flip didn't change anything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you would look more carefully you would see that the whole chart is flipped , including the numberings.So the meaning does n't actually change.I do n't speak finnish , but if this is exactly what has happened then the flip did n't change anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you would look more carefully you would see that the whole chart is flipped, including the numberings.So the meaning doesn't actually change.I don't speak finnish, but if this is exactly what has happened then the flip didn't change anything.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30179306</id>
	<title>Re:You don't have to hack to get information</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1258719360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nope, it's far easier to let other uneducated and ignorant people tell them how to think~</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nope , it 's far easier to let other uneducated and ignorant people tell them how to think ~</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nope, it's far easier to let other uneducated and ignorant people tell them how to think~</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177216</id>
	<title>Why is this in the politics section?</title>
	<author>thinktech</author>
	<datestamp>1258711500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I actually find it very interesting that Slashdot decided to place this story in the Politics section. Neither those defending global warming, nor those questioning it believe this should be a political issue. The issue is to important to leave any stone unturned. Why exactly is there data that is being repressed by these groups? Isn't that the exact opposite of what they say they're fighting for?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I actually find it very interesting that Slashdot decided to place this story in the Politics section .
Neither those defending global warming , nor those questioning it believe this should be a political issue .
The issue is to important to leave any stone unturned .
Why exactly is there data that is being repressed by these groups ?
Is n't that the exact opposite of what they say they 're fighting for ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I actually find it very interesting that Slashdot decided to place this story in the Politics section.
Neither those defending global warming, nor those questioning it believe this should be a political issue.
The issue is to important to leave any stone unturned.
Why exactly is there data that is being repressed by these groups?
Isn't that the exact opposite of what they say they're fighting for?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176730</id>
	<title>Here is a good run down on this</title>
	<author>BlindRobin</author>
	<datestamp>1258710060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't have the time, or desire to get into this but here:<br>
<a href="http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2009/11/the\_hacked\_climate\_science\_ema.php#more" title="scienceblogs.com" rel="nofollow">http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2009/11/the\_hacked\_climate\_science\_ema.php#more</a> [scienceblogs.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't have the time , or desire to get into this but here : http : //scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2009/11/the \ _hacked \ _climate \ _science \ _ema.php # more [ scienceblogs.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't have the time, or desire to get into this but here:
http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2009/11/the\_hacked\_climate\_science\_ema.php#more [scienceblogs.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30180626</id>
	<title>Re:Utter bullshit.</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1258726260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As for your demanding them to STFU, I think we will stick with the 1st amendment.</p></div><p>I wasn't aware that the First Amendment prohibited citizens from telling other citizens to STFU. In fact, I thought it protected the right to say that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As for your demanding them to STFU , I think we will stick with the 1st amendment.I was n't aware that the First Amendment prohibited citizens from telling other citizens to STFU .
In fact , I thought it protected the right to say that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As for your demanding them to STFU, I think we will stick with the 1st amendment.I wasn't aware that the First Amendment prohibited citizens from telling other citizens to STFU.
In fact, I thought it protected the right to say that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176810</id>
	<title>Re:A new low for the slashdot anti-intellectualism</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258710300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just because someone does not agree with your opinion does not<br>make them a nut job.</p><p>I say opinion because 30,000 scientists have said they feel that Gore<br>has lied and distorted the facts.</p><p>Based on the very good EVIDENCE shown in The Great Global Warming Swindle<br>I'd say there is a plenty of reason to think they are wrong.</p><p>The weather balloon data does not show warming at<br>higher altitudes thus it is not Global Warming.</p><p>When you check the science you see it is the sun.</p><p>So the real question is, what the FUCK is wrong with you ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because someone does not agree with your opinion does notmake them a nut job.I say opinion because 30,000 scientists have said they feel that Gorehas lied and distorted the facts.Based on the very good EVIDENCE shown in The Great Global Warming SwindleI 'd say there is a plenty of reason to think they are wrong.The weather balloon data does not show warming athigher altitudes thus it is not Global Warming.When you check the science you see it is the sun.So the real question is , what the FUCK is wrong with you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because someone does not agree with your opinion does notmake them a nut job.I say opinion because 30,000 scientists have said they feel that Gorehas lied and distorted the facts.Based on the very good EVIDENCE shown in The Great Global Warming SwindleI'd say there is a plenty of reason to think they are wrong.The weather balloon data does not show warming athigher altitudes thus it is not Global Warming.When you check the science you see it is the sun.So the real question is, what the FUCK is wrong with you ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30181858</id>
	<title>Re:Anthropogenic Causes</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258737720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why do they limit their graphs to the past 7.8 and 14.8 years? Are they afraid of including what happened 8 and 15 years ago? How about showing the last 150 years instead of limiting it to just the years that show the trend you want to see.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do they limit their graphs to the past 7.8 and 14.8 years ?
Are they afraid of including what happened 8 and 15 years ago ?
How about showing the last 150 years instead of limiting it to just the years that show the trend you want to see .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do they limit their graphs to the past 7.8 and 14.8 years?
Are they afraid of including what happened 8 and 15 years ago?
How about showing the last 150 years instead of limiting it to just the years that show the trend you want to see.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176958</id>
	<title>Re:Anthropogenic Causes</title>
	<author>brandaman</author>
	<datestamp>1258710600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is Richard S. Lindzen of the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT an idiot media personality?<br>
<a href="http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3771" title="climaterealists.com" rel="nofollow">http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3771</a> [climaterealists.com]

<br> <br>

Also:

"The global surface temperature record, which we update and publish
every month, has shown no statistically-significant &ldquo;global warming&rdquo;
for almost 15 years. Statistically-significant global cooling has now
persisted for very nearly eight years. Even a strong el Nino &ndash; expected
in the coming months &ndash; will be unlikely to reverse the cooling trend.

More significantly, the ARGO bathythermographs deployed
throughout the world&rsquo;s oceans since 2003 show that the top 400
fathoms of the oceans, where it is agreed between all parties that at
least 80\% of all heat caused by manmade &ldquo;global warming&rdquo; must
accumulate, have been cooling over the past six years. That now prolonged
ocean cooling is fatal to the &ldquo;official&rdquo; theory that &ldquo;global
warming&rdquo; will happen on anything other than a minute scale. "
<br>
- SPPI Monthly CO2 Report: July 2009<br>
<a href="http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/co2\_report\_july\_09.pdf" title="scienceand...policy.org" rel="nofollow">http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/co2\_report\_july\_09.pdf</a> [scienceand...policy.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is Richard S. Lindzen of the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT an idiot media personality ?
http : //climaterealists.com/index.php ? id = 3771 [ climaterealists.com ] Also : " The global surface temperature record , which we update and publish every month , has shown no statistically-significant    global warming    for almost 15 years .
Statistically-significant global cooling has now persisted for very nearly eight years .
Even a strong el Nino    expected in the coming months    will be unlikely to reverse the cooling trend .
More significantly , the ARGO bathythermographs deployed throughout the world    s oceans since 2003 show that the top 400 fathoms of the oceans , where it is agreed between all parties that at least 80 \ % of all heat caused by manmade    global warming    must accumulate , have been cooling over the past six years .
That now prolonged ocean cooling is fatal to the    official    theory that    global warming    will happen on anything other than a minute scale .
" - SPPI Monthly CO2 Report : July 2009 http : //scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/co2 \ _report \ _july \ _09.pdf [ scienceand...policy.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is Richard S. Lindzen of the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT an idiot media personality?
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3771 [climaterealists.com]

 

Also:

"The global surface temperature record, which we update and publish
every month, has shown no statistically-significant “global warming”
for almost 15 years.
Statistically-significant global cooling has now
persisted for very nearly eight years.
Even a strong el Nino – expected
in the coming months – will be unlikely to reverse the cooling trend.
More significantly, the ARGO bathythermographs deployed
throughout the world’s oceans since 2003 show that the top 400
fathoms of the oceans, where it is agreed between all parties that at
least 80\% of all heat caused by manmade “global warming” must
accumulate, have been cooling over the past six years.
That now prolonged
ocean cooling is fatal to the “official” theory that “global
warming” will happen on anything other than a minute scale.
"

- SPPI Monthly CO2 Report: July 2009
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/co2\_report\_july\_09.pdf [scienceand...policy.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176176</id>
	<title>Random? by what measure?</title>
	<author>mrmtampa</author>
	<datestamp>1258707960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or cherry picked?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or cherry picked ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or cherry picked?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176106</id>
	<title>Scepticism is universal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258707720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have long felt that there's too much sensationalism surrounding global warming for the crisis to be exactly what it is represented as in the media. I think a healthy dose of scepticism is always a good thing.

Equally so with this. I am sceptical that this is a "random sampling", but rather probably closer to being a carefully selected panorama of all of the nastiest bits. I will read through it, as I am sure a couple people will, but I encourage scepticism.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have long felt that there 's too much sensationalism surrounding global warming for the crisis to be exactly what it is represented as in the media .
I think a healthy dose of scepticism is always a good thing .
Equally so with this .
I am sceptical that this is a " random sampling " , but rather probably closer to being a carefully selected panorama of all of the nastiest bits .
I will read through it , as I am sure a couple people will , but I encourage scepticism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have long felt that there's too much sensationalism surrounding global warming for the crisis to be exactly what it is represented as in the media.
I think a healthy dose of scepticism is always a good thing.
Equally so with this.
I am sceptical that this is a "random sampling", but rather probably closer to being a carefully selected panorama of all of the nastiest bits.
I will read through it, as I am sure a couple people will, but I encourage scepticism.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30188914</id>
	<title>Re:My heart goes out to those researchers.</title>
	<author>Xyrus</author>
	<datestamp>1258805280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Honestly, do you have some sort of support group you and others like you go to reinforce your idiotic rhetoric?</p><p>Let me clue you in. There's this wonderful tool called google that allows you to search the internet. You can enter in terms like "climate model" and "climate data" and, like magic, you'll get a list of resources.</p><p>How about you mosey on over to the GISS ModelE site, where you can *gasp* get the source code for the model, along with the *OMG* data. You can also try reading the IPCC report, which amazingly enough DOES explain the methodologies and data for the production.</p><p>Or, if you weren't like the thousands of armchair scientists out there who think their intuition is more reliable than spending decades dedicated to research in the field, you could actually try enrolling in a degree program in one of the various fields relating to climate, such as atmospherics dynamics. Then you could actually argue the science without sounding like an imbecile.</p><p>But I guess that sounds too much like work.</p><p>~X~</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Honestly , do you have some sort of support group you and others like you go to reinforce your idiotic rhetoric ? Let me clue you in .
There 's this wonderful tool called google that allows you to search the internet .
You can enter in terms like " climate model " and " climate data " and , like magic , you 'll get a list of resources.How about you mosey on over to the GISS ModelE site , where you can * gasp * get the source code for the model , along with the * OMG * data .
You can also try reading the IPCC report , which amazingly enough DOES explain the methodologies and data for the production.Or , if you were n't like the thousands of armchair scientists out there who think their intuition is more reliable than spending decades dedicated to research in the field , you could actually try enrolling in a degree program in one of the various fields relating to climate , such as atmospherics dynamics .
Then you could actually argue the science without sounding like an imbecile.But I guess that sounds too much like work. ~ X ~</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Honestly, do you have some sort of support group you and others like you go to reinforce your idiotic rhetoric?Let me clue you in.
There's this wonderful tool called google that allows you to search the internet.
You can enter in terms like "climate model" and "climate data" and, like magic, you'll get a list of resources.How about you mosey on over to the GISS ModelE site, where you can *gasp* get the source code for the model, along with the *OMG* data.
You can also try reading the IPCC report, which amazingly enough DOES explain the methodologies and data for the production.Or, if you weren't like the thousands of armchair scientists out there who think their intuition is more reliable than spending decades dedicated to research in the field, you could actually try enrolling in a degree program in one of the various fields relating to climate, such as atmospherics dynamics.
Then you could actually argue the science without sounding like an imbecile.But I guess that sounds too much like work.~X~</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30180106</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176820</id>
	<title>more manipulated data</title>
	<author>night\_flyer</author>
	<datestamp>1258710300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>kinda hard to get a good reading of the temperature, when stations are placed next to parking lots, AC vents and other heat generating sources</p><p><a href="http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather\_stations/" title="norcalblogs.com">http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather\_stations/</a> [norcalblogs.com]</p><p>and what happened to the Ice Age they were trying to scare us with in the 80s?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>kinda hard to get a good reading of the temperature , when stations are placed next to parking lots , AC vents and other heat generating sourceshttp : //www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather \ _stations/ [ norcalblogs.com ] and what happened to the Ice Age they were trying to scare us with in the 80s ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>kinda hard to get a good reading of the temperature, when stations are placed next to parking lots, AC vents and other heat generating sourceshttp://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather\_stations/ [norcalblogs.com]and what happened to the Ice Age they were trying to scare us with in the 80s?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30180782</id>
	<title>2007 Acrtic Ice Sheet data....  Sunspot Data.....</title>
	<author>jameskojiro</author>
	<datestamp>1258727580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Funny how they don't like to show the 2008 or 2009 Ice Sheet levels when discussing Global Warming oh I mean "Climate Change"...</p><p>It is also funny how they are finding "Sun Spots" that would only be visible with today's technology (one stinking pixel in a SOHO images) and since mostly reliable sunspot counts have existed for 200+ years we are definetly in a minimum period if you define your parameters based off the instruments used from 200 to 50 years ago to measure them....</p><p>Gee it is getting colder, this last year it barely cracked 100 in Colorado and only for a day or two compared to 2007 when we had a few weeks of above 100 weather.</p><p>We may be contributing to climate change through radiative heating of asphalt etc and a little bit to CO2,  but not as much as some peopel would have you believe, that big ball of hot gas in the daytime sky seems to make a lot more of a difference for the temps on earth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny how they do n't like to show the 2008 or 2009 Ice Sheet levels when discussing Global Warming oh I mean " Climate Change " ...It is also funny how they are finding " Sun Spots " that would only be visible with today 's technology ( one stinking pixel in a SOHO images ) and since mostly reliable sunspot counts have existed for 200 + years we are definetly in a minimum period if you define your parameters based off the instruments used from 200 to 50 years ago to measure them....Gee it is getting colder , this last year it barely cracked 100 in Colorado and only for a day or two compared to 2007 when we had a few weeks of above 100 weather.We may be contributing to climate change through radiative heating of asphalt etc and a little bit to CO2 , but not as much as some peopel would have you believe , that big ball of hot gas in the daytime sky seems to make a lot more of a difference for the temps on earth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny how they don't like to show the 2008 or 2009 Ice Sheet levels when discussing Global Warming oh I mean "Climate Change"...It is also funny how they are finding "Sun Spots" that would only be visible with today's technology (one stinking pixel in a SOHO images) and since mostly reliable sunspot counts have existed for 200+ years we are definetly in a minimum period if you define your parameters based off the instruments used from 200 to 50 years ago to measure them....Gee it is getting colder, this last year it barely cracked 100 in Colorado and only for a day or two compared to 2007 when we had a few weeks of above 100 weather.We may be contributing to climate change through radiative heating of asphalt etc and a little bit to CO2,  but not as much as some peopel would have you believe, that big ball of hot gas in the daytime sky seems to make a lot more of a difference for the temps on earth.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30179212</id>
	<title>Re:secrecy and data hiding</title>
	<author>dachshund</author>
	<datestamp>1258719000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>So they are going to hide behind Intelectual Property Rights to keep their data from being reviewed!. Holy Fucking Shit! How can science do that and still remain respectable?</i> </p><p>I just submitted a Federal grant (different field), with one deliverable being an open source library containing our work.  Even thought we asked for this, we <i>want</i> to disseminate the stuff, our Universities put us through all kinds of hell over the Intellectual Property Rights.  So I have no idea what's going on with this email, but this is one of the things that scientists have to deal with.  It does not imply a worldwide scientific conspiracy.</p><p>(Incidentally, the idea that scientists could organize a worldwide conspiracy --- even if they weren't facing opposition from the most profitable industries on earth --- is one of the most laughably stupid ideas I've ever heard.  The scientists I know can't even remember to throw out their old Chinese food before it rots in the lab fridge.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So they are going to hide behind Intelectual Property Rights to keep their data from being reviewed ! .
Holy Fucking Shit !
How can science do that and still remain respectable ?
I just submitted a Federal grant ( different field ) , with one deliverable being an open source library containing our work .
Even thought we asked for this , we want to disseminate the stuff , our Universities put us through all kinds of hell over the Intellectual Property Rights .
So I have no idea what 's going on with this email , but this is one of the things that scientists have to deal with .
It does not imply a worldwide scientific conspiracy .
( Incidentally , the idea that scientists could organize a worldwide conspiracy --- even if they were n't facing opposition from the most profitable industries on earth --- is one of the most laughably stupid ideas I 've ever heard .
The scientists I know ca n't even remember to throw out their old Chinese food before it rots in the lab fridge .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So they are going to hide behind Intelectual Property Rights to keep their data from being reviewed!.
Holy Fucking Shit!
How can science do that and still remain respectable?
I just submitted a Federal grant (different field), with one deliverable being an open source library containing our work.
Even thought we asked for this, we want to disseminate the stuff, our Universities put us through all kinds of hell over the Intellectual Property Rights.
So I have no idea what's going on with this email, but this is one of the things that scientists have to deal with.
It does not imply a worldwide scientific conspiracy.
(Incidentally, the idea that scientists could organize a worldwide conspiracy --- even if they weren't facing opposition from the most profitable industries on earth --- is one of the most laughably stupid ideas I've ever heard.
The scientists I know can't even remember to throw out their old Chinese food before it rots in the lab fridge.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30179662</id>
	<title>Re:A new low for the slashdot anti-intellectualism</title>
	<author>RiotingPacifist</author>
	<datestamp>1258721100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>TGGWS:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>In an official judgement issued on 21 July 2008 the British media regulator Ofcom declared that the final part of the film dealing with the politics of climate change had broken rules on "due impartiality on matters of major political and industrial controversy and major matters relating to current public policy". Ofcom also backed complaints by Sir David King, stating that his views were misrepresented, and Carl Wunsch, on the points that he had been misled as to its intent, and that the impression had been given that he agreed with the programme's position on climate change. Ofcom further ruled that the IPCC had not been given an adequate chance to respond to adverse claims that its work was politicised and that it had made misleading claims about malaria. However, the regulator said that because "the link between human activity and global warming... became settled before March 2007", in parts 1-4 the audience was not "materially misled so as to cause harm or offence".[67] According to Ofcom the program caused no harm because "the discussion about the causes of global warming was to a very great extent settled by the date of broadcast, meaning that climate change was no longer a matter of political controversy[68].</p></div><p>In fact there is a <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/denialmachine/" title="www.cbc.ca">documentary</a> [www.cbc.ca] debunking the debunking:</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>TGGWS : In an official judgement issued on 21 July 2008 the British media regulator Ofcom declared that the final part of the film dealing with the politics of climate change had broken rules on " due impartiality on matters of major political and industrial controversy and major matters relating to current public policy " .
Ofcom also backed complaints by Sir David King , stating that his views were misrepresented , and Carl Wunsch , on the points that he had been misled as to its intent , and that the impression had been given that he agreed with the programme 's position on climate change .
Ofcom further ruled that the IPCC had not been given an adequate chance to respond to adverse claims that its work was politicised and that it had made misleading claims about malaria .
However , the regulator said that because " the link between human activity and global warming... became settled before March 2007 " , in parts 1-4 the audience was not " materially misled so as to cause harm or offence " .
[ 67 ] According to Ofcom the program caused no harm because " the discussion about the causes of global warming was to a very great extent settled by the date of broadcast , meaning that climate change was no longer a matter of political controversy [ 68 ] .In fact there is a documentary [ www.cbc.ca ] debunking the debunking :</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TGGWS:In an official judgement issued on 21 July 2008 the British media regulator Ofcom declared that the final part of the film dealing with the politics of climate change had broken rules on "due impartiality on matters of major political and industrial controversy and major matters relating to current public policy".
Ofcom also backed complaints by Sir David King, stating that his views were misrepresented, and Carl Wunsch, on the points that he had been misled as to its intent, and that the impression had been given that he agreed with the programme's position on climate change.
Ofcom further ruled that the IPCC had not been given an adequate chance to respond to adverse claims that its work was politicised and that it had made misleading claims about malaria.
However, the regulator said that because "the link between human activity and global warming... became settled before March 2007", in parts 1-4 the audience was not "materially misled so as to cause harm or offence".
[67] According to Ofcom the program caused no harm because "the discussion about the causes of global warming was to a very great extent settled by the date of broadcast, meaning that climate change was no longer a matter of political controversy[68].In fact there is a documentary [www.cbc.ca] debunking the debunking:
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176584</id>
	<title>Re:What I want to see</title>
	<author>Vexorian</author>
	<datestamp>1258709520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Since by your own admission you miss the actual data, I wonder why you ever bother posting a list of countries that you <i>think</i> reduced/increased emissions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Since by your own admission you miss the actual data , I wonder why you ever bother posting a list of countries that you think reduced/increased emissions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since by your own admission you miss the actual data, I wonder why you ever bother posting a list of countries that you think reduced/increased emissions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177078</id>
	<title>Re:Your opinion is being manipulated</title>
	<author>jnaujok</author>
	<datestamp>1258711020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, you're arguing that there's a global conspiracy of skeptics out there trying to convince us that there's a global conspiracy of AGW proponents out there. <br>
<br>
And failing to see the irony in that statement.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , you 're arguing that there 's a global conspiracy of skeptics out there trying to convince us that there 's a global conspiracy of AGW proponents out there .
And failing to see the irony in that statement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, you're arguing that there's a global conspiracy of skeptics out there trying to convince us that there's a global conspiracy of AGW proponents out there.
And failing to see the irony in that statement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176642</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176264</id>
	<title>What I want to see</title>
	<author>WindBourne</author>
	<datestamp>1258708320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>are the new CO2 emissions files, in particular, what each country emits. Everybody has it up until 2006, but after that, it stops. Why? After 2006 is important information. For starters, a number of western countries have dropped emissions (particularly, America), while others have increased greatly (Canada, Australia, South Korea). The real issue that I would like to see is what BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, and China), along with Mexico, Venezuela, Iran, etc have done.</htmltext>
<tokenext>are the new CO2 emissions files , in particular , what each country emits .
Everybody has it up until 2006 , but after that , it stops .
Why ? After 2006 is important information .
For starters , a number of western countries have dropped emissions ( particularly , America ) , while others have increased greatly ( Canada , Australia , South Korea ) .
The real issue that I would like to see is what BRIC ( Brazil , Russia , India , and China ) , along with Mexico , Venezuela , Iran , etc have done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>are the new CO2 emissions files, in particular, what each country emits.
Everybody has it up until 2006, but after that, it stops.
Why? After 2006 is important information.
For starters, a number of western countries have dropped emissions (particularly, America), while others have increased greatly (Canada, Australia, South Korea).
The real issue that I would like to see is what BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, and China), along with Mexico, Venezuela, Iran, etc have done.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176218</id>
	<title>A new low for the slashdot anti-intellectualism</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258708140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What the FUCK is wrong with you people?   If global warming is a "religion", then the anti-global warming folks have formed their own religion and have now apparently started a jihad holy war against it.</p><p>How long before anti-global warming jihadist nut jobs start shooting scientists who they think are part of the "global conspiracy"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What the FUCK is wrong with you people ?
If global warming is a " religion " , then the anti-global warming folks have formed their own religion and have now apparently started a jihad holy war against it.How long before anti-global warming jihadist nut jobs start shooting scientists who they think are part of the " global conspiracy " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the FUCK is wrong with you people?
If global warming is a "religion", then the anti-global warming folks have formed their own religion and have now apparently started a jihad holy war against it.How long before anti-global warming jihadist nut jobs start shooting scientists who they think are part of the "global conspiracy"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177156</id>
	<title>Re:Utter bullshit.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258711320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Email isn't science but that doesn't mean it isn't interesting.  If the email says "Hey Bob, your algorithm didn't produce the level of warming we were expecting, we need you to rework it so it is in line with our expectations" that would say a lot about how the 'science' is being done. </p></div><p>No, it wouldn't, and that is why I rolled my eyes when I saw this.  Because lots of people who have only a vague notion of how scientists work would think that is the case, and trumpet such e-mails as a "gotcha" even if they were meaningless.</p><p>I guarantee you that there were coding or input mistakes on new test models (or new implementations or existing models) that were caught because they produced results that were wildly out of line with expectations, and e-mails worded roughly as you put it circulated.  In my experience, this is one of the quickest ways to catch mistakes: you get a nonsense result.  Sometimes a more experienced person understands immediately that it's nonsense even if you don't.  You get feedback, discuss results, go back and review, re-test or re-analyze.</p><p>The idea that a scientist gets a result that makes no sense, was caused by an error or sloppiness, yet is somehow honor-bound to communicate it to the organization or the world is nonsense.  Scientists don't want to read other people's failed drafts of calculations.  Yet that is all individual e-mails, shorn of context, can demonstrate.  And I'm pretty sure that's what will be picked up by the shrill on various forums.</p><p>It is of course conceivable that e-mail could document fraud and misconduct.  But it's probably not going to look like the one you mocked up; it'd be a series that would have to be compared to the results *and raw work* that were being discussed.  Not going to happen on the internet.</p><p>One question to ask yourself is, if some e-mails hinted at models showing much *higher* warming than is communicated (and I guarantee you some mistakes went that way, too), would you assume that reflected "reality" and scientists were trying to tamp down action on global warming?  If not, you don't have much justification for using out of context results the other way, either.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Email is n't science but that does n't mean it is n't interesting .
If the email says " Hey Bob , your algorithm did n't produce the level of warming we were expecting , we need you to rework it so it is in line with our expectations " that would say a lot about how the 'science ' is being done .
No , it would n't , and that is why I rolled my eyes when I saw this .
Because lots of people who have only a vague notion of how scientists work would think that is the case , and trumpet such e-mails as a " gotcha " even if they were meaningless.I guarantee you that there were coding or input mistakes on new test models ( or new implementations or existing models ) that were caught because they produced results that were wildly out of line with expectations , and e-mails worded roughly as you put it circulated .
In my experience , this is one of the quickest ways to catch mistakes : you get a nonsense result .
Sometimes a more experienced person understands immediately that it 's nonsense even if you do n't .
You get feedback , discuss results , go back and review , re-test or re-analyze.The idea that a scientist gets a result that makes no sense , was caused by an error or sloppiness , yet is somehow honor-bound to communicate it to the organization or the world is nonsense .
Scientists do n't want to read other people 's failed drafts of calculations .
Yet that is all individual e-mails , shorn of context , can demonstrate .
And I 'm pretty sure that 's what will be picked up by the shrill on various forums.It is of course conceivable that e-mail could document fraud and misconduct .
But it 's probably not going to look like the one you mocked up ; it 'd be a series that would have to be compared to the results * and raw work * that were being discussed .
Not going to happen on the internet.One question to ask yourself is , if some e-mails hinted at models showing much * higher * warming than is communicated ( and I guarantee you some mistakes went that way , too ) , would you assume that reflected " reality " and scientists were trying to tamp down action on global warming ?
If not , you do n't have much justification for using out of context results the other way , either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Email isn't science but that doesn't mean it isn't interesting.
If the email says "Hey Bob, your algorithm didn't produce the level of warming we were expecting, we need you to rework it so it is in line with our expectations" that would say a lot about how the 'science' is being done.
No, it wouldn't, and that is why I rolled my eyes when I saw this.
Because lots of people who have only a vague notion of how scientists work would think that is the case, and trumpet such e-mails as a "gotcha" even if they were meaningless.I guarantee you that there were coding or input mistakes on new test models (or new implementations or existing models) that were caught because they produced results that were wildly out of line with expectations, and e-mails worded roughly as you put it circulated.
In my experience, this is one of the quickest ways to catch mistakes: you get a nonsense result.
Sometimes a more experienced person understands immediately that it's nonsense even if you don't.
You get feedback, discuss results, go back and review, re-test or re-analyze.The idea that a scientist gets a result that makes no sense, was caused by an error or sloppiness, yet is somehow honor-bound to communicate it to the organization or the world is nonsense.
Scientists don't want to read other people's failed drafts of calculations.
Yet that is all individual e-mails, shorn of context, can demonstrate.
And I'm pretty sure that's what will be picked up by the shrill on various forums.It is of course conceivable that e-mail could document fraud and misconduct.
But it's probably not going to look like the one you mocked up; it'd be a series that would have to be compared to the results *and raw work* that were being discussed.
Not going to happen on the internet.One question to ask yourself is, if some e-mails hinted at models showing much *higher* warming than is communicated (and I guarantee you some mistakes went that way, too), would you assume that reflected "reality" and scientists were trying to tamp down action on global warming?
If not, you don't have much justification for using out of context results the other way, either.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30178826</id>
	<title>Re:Why is climate science being politicized?</title>
	<author>MrNiceguy\_KS</author>
	<datestamp>1258717200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's certainly arguable that some scientists are behaving as political operatives, including scientists at the Climate Research Unit.  They have behaved in a very unscientific manner - for years refusing to release the raw data behind studies, first by fighting FOIA Requests, then by claiming the original data was lost.  <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/13/cru\_missing/" title="theregister.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/13/cru\_missing/</a> [theregister.co.uk]</p><p>They have also cherry-picked data to produce the desired results.  One study involved tree cores to produce a historical temperature record.  They used data from 12 tree cores, and showed a strong warming trend.  However, the 12 cores chosen were part of a larger set.  Taking data from the entire set showed no warming trend.    <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/29/yamal\_scandal/" title="theregister.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/29/yamal\_scandal/</a> [theregister.co.uk]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's certainly arguable that some scientists are behaving as political operatives , including scientists at the Climate Research Unit .
They have behaved in a very unscientific manner - for years refusing to release the raw data behind studies , first by fighting FOIA Requests , then by claiming the original data was lost .
http : //www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/13/cru \ _missing/ [ theregister.co.uk ] They have also cherry-picked data to produce the desired results .
One study involved tree cores to produce a historical temperature record .
They used data from 12 tree cores , and showed a strong warming trend .
However , the 12 cores chosen were part of a larger set .
Taking data from the entire set showed no warming trend .
http : //www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/29/yamal \ _scandal/ [ theregister.co.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's certainly arguable that some scientists are behaving as political operatives, including scientists at the Climate Research Unit.
They have behaved in a very unscientific manner - for years refusing to release the raw data behind studies, first by fighting FOIA Requests, then by claiming the original data was lost.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/13/cru\_missing/ [theregister.co.uk]They have also cherry-picked data to produce the desired results.
One study involved tree cores to produce a historical temperature record.
They used data from 12 tree cores, and showed a strong warming trend.
However, the 12 cores chosen were part of a larger set.
Taking data from the entire set showed no warming trend.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/29/yamal\_scandal/ [theregister.co.uk]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30179140</id>
	<title>Laughable</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1258718580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They took a random set of information, cherry picked specifically examples.<br>Then they are talking about one system among 1000s.</p><p>This is horrible. Of course global warming deniers are ridiculous.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They took a random set of information , cherry picked specifically examples.Then they are talking about one system among 1000s.This is horrible .
Of course global warming deniers are ridiculous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They took a random set of information, cherry picked specifically examples.Then they are talking about one system among 1000s.This is horrible.
Of course global warming deniers are ridiculous.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30178624</id>
	<title>Re:A new low for the slashdot anti-intellectualism</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1258716360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, I'm just glad the human race is finally going to get what it deserves.  Extinction at the hand of their own stupidity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , I 'm just glad the human race is finally going to get what it deserves .
Extinction at the hand of their own stupidity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, I'm just glad the human race is finally going to get what it deserves.
Extinction at the hand of their own stupidity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30180868</id>
	<title>Re:Anthropogenic Causes</title>
	<author>chrb</author>
	<datestamp>1258728120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You obviously aren't a scientist. A scientist would not make such bold and certain claims that discount the possibility of specific outcomes.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Humans are not affecting it in any measurable way.</p></div><p>How do you know?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The change will be extremely slow and gradual.</p></div><p>How do you know? Isn't it *possible* that the change may be fast?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The change may be an inconvenience for people, and certain species may go extinct.</p></div><p>Why do you discount the possibility of humans going extinct? Is it possible?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>There is nothing humans can do to stop it.</p></div><p>Several mechanisms have already been proposed. How do you know they will all fail? Isn't it possible that some will work?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You obviously are n't a scientist .
A scientist would not make such bold and certain claims that discount the possibility of specific outcomes.Humans are not affecting it in any measurable way.How do you know ? The change will be extremely slow and gradual.How do you know ?
Is n't it * possible * that the change may be fast ? The change may be an inconvenience for people , and certain species may go extinct.Why do you discount the possibility of humans going extinct ?
Is it possible ? There is nothing humans can do to stop it.Several mechanisms have already been proposed .
How do you know they will all fail ?
Is n't it possible that some will work ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You obviously aren't a scientist.
A scientist would not make such bold and certain claims that discount the possibility of specific outcomes.Humans are not affecting it in any measurable way.How do you know?The change will be extremely slow and gradual.How do you know?
Isn't it *possible* that the change may be fast?The change may be an inconvenience for people, and certain species may go extinct.Why do you discount the possibility of humans going extinct?
Is it possible?There is nothing humans can do to stop it.Several mechanisms have already been proposed.
How do you know they will all fail?
Isn't it possible that some will work?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177120</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30183492</id>
	<title>Meh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258809540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I used to be taken in by the global warming stuff, but now I just resent it and openly go against it just to spite those who believe in it.</p><p>I remember back in the early 1990's people were saying we'd run out of oil in 20 years and that the sea would rise a metre by then as well. Obviously I was young and naive, what with being 13 or so years old. For years now people have been ranting and raving about global catastrophe occurring in my lifetime, but it's just not going to happen. Global nuclear war carries an infinitely higher chance of happening and I'm not the least bit worried about that now the iron curtain is gone. What I am worried about now is finding a job after being made redundant this week and where I'm going to live when my lease expires in a couple of weeks because I don't want to commit to what is now a large expenditure on rent again in case I can't find work before I burn through my redundancy payout.</p><p>The more I hear about it now the more I rail against it and the more I can see people clinging to it as a religious dogma. It seems that most are also left-leaning as well and for the most part innumerate and scientifically illiterate. One politician here (Australia) recently said it's the new religion the former communists are clinging to now that communism has fallen and I tend to agree. The government wants to use it to levy a tax on everyone to make up for their profligate spending and refuses to entertain discussion on adopting nuclear energy, which would be a quicker and cheaper way of reducing emissions if they really are a problem. Really though, they're just playing politics with it - why else would they want to include emissions from agriculture in their scheme and berate the opposition for wanting to remove it? I mean, heaven forbid anyone should point out a little thing called the fucking carbon cycle and why it means cows shitting and farting doesn't matter! Just like those vegetarian greeny cunts who've probably never been beyond the city whinge about the "carbon footprint" and "water footprint" of beef. Heaven forbid someone should point out to these self-righteous pricks that beef cattle in Australia are mostly grazed on non-arable land and drink water that has no bearing upon urban or irrigation water supplies, or that only the high grades of beef are grain fed, but only then just to finish them off for a few months at most and they're fed with low-quality grain that isn't desired for producing human food. Or fuck me, what about how in commercial greenhouses we enrich the atmosphere with C02 to increase growth rates?</p><p>Yeah, the climate is changing. It always has and always will. 8,000 years ago the sea was several metres lower than it is today and 20,000 years ago the place where I grew up was covered by a glacier and you can see the scratch marks it left in the bedrock a 20 minute drive away. We're humans though, the most technologically advanced ones to ever walk the earth, and we've used technology to shape the world we currently live in and will continue to develop more advanced technology and continue to shape the world we live in. The only thing we have to worry about is people in power doing dodgy shit to line their pockets or starting wars, because that's what's been the downfall of every past civilisation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I used to be taken in by the global warming stuff , but now I just resent it and openly go against it just to spite those who believe in it.I remember back in the early 1990 's people were saying we 'd run out of oil in 20 years and that the sea would rise a metre by then as well .
Obviously I was young and naive , what with being 13 or so years old .
For years now people have been ranting and raving about global catastrophe occurring in my lifetime , but it 's just not going to happen .
Global nuclear war carries an infinitely higher chance of happening and I 'm not the least bit worried about that now the iron curtain is gone .
What I am worried about now is finding a job after being made redundant this week and where I 'm going to live when my lease expires in a couple of weeks because I do n't want to commit to what is now a large expenditure on rent again in case I ca n't find work before I burn through my redundancy payout.The more I hear about it now the more I rail against it and the more I can see people clinging to it as a religious dogma .
It seems that most are also left-leaning as well and for the most part innumerate and scientifically illiterate .
One politician here ( Australia ) recently said it 's the new religion the former communists are clinging to now that communism has fallen and I tend to agree .
The government wants to use it to levy a tax on everyone to make up for their profligate spending and refuses to entertain discussion on adopting nuclear energy , which would be a quicker and cheaper way of reducing emissions if they really are a problem .
Really though , they 're just playing politics with it - why else would they want to include emissions from agriculture in their scheme and berate the opposition for wanting to remove it ?
I mean , heaven forbid anyone should point out a little thing called the fucking carbon cycle and why it means cows shitting and farting does n't matter !
Just like those vegetarian greeny cunts who 've probably never been beyond the city whinge about the " carbon footprint " and " water footprint " of beef .
Heaven forbid someone should point out to these self-righteous pricks that beef cattle in Australia are mostly grazed on non-arable land and drink water that has no bearing upon urban or irrigation water supplies , or that only the high grades of beef are grain fed , but only then just to finish them off for a few months at most and they 're fed with low-quality grain that is n't desired for producing human food .
Or fuck me , what about how in commercial greenhouses we enrich the atmosphere with C02 to increase growth rates ? Yeah , the climate is changing .
It always has and always will .
8,000 years ago the sea was several metres lower than it is today and 20,000 years ago the place where I grew up was covered by a glacier and you can see the scratch marks it left in the bedrock a 20 minute drive away .
We 're humans though , the most technologically advanced ones to ever walk the earth , and we 've used technology to shape the world we currently live in and will continue to develop more advanced technology and continue to shape the world we live in .
The only thing we have to worry about is people in power doing dodgy shit to line their pockets or starting wars , because that 's what 's been the downfall of every past civilisation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used to be taken in by the global warming stuff, but now I just resent it and openly go against it just to spite those who believe in it.I remember back in the early 1990's people were saying we'd run out of oil in 20 years and that the sea would rise a metre by then as well.
Obviously I was young and naive, what with being 13 or so years old.
For years now people have been ranting and raving about global catastrophe occurring in my lifetime, but it's just not going to happen.
Global nuclear war carries an infinitely higher chance of happening and I'm not the least bit worried about that now the iron curtain is gone.
What I am worried about now is finding a job after being made redundant this week and where I'm going to live when my lease expires in a couple of weeks because I don't want to commit to what is now a large expenditure on rent again in case I can't find work before I burn through my redundancy payout.The more I hear about it now the more I rail against it and the more I can see people clinging to it as a religious dogma.
It seems that most are also left-leaning as well and for the most part innumerate and scientifically illiterate.
One politician here (Australia) recently said it's the new religion the former communists are clinging to now that communism has fallen and I tend to agree.
The government wants to use it to levy a tax on everyone to make up for their profligate spending and refuses to entertain discussion on adopting nuclear energy, which would be a quicker and cheaper way of reducing emissions if they really are a problem.
Really though, they're just playing politics with it - why else would they want to include emissions from agriculture in their scheme and berate the opposition for wanting to remove it?
I mean, heaven forbid anyone should point out a little thing called the fucking carbon cycle and why it means cows shitting and farting doesn't matter!
Just like those vegetarian greeny cunts who've probably never been beyond the city whinge about the "carbon footprint" and "water footprint" of beef.
Heaven forbid someone should point out to these self-righteous pricks that beef cattle in Australia are mostly grazed on non-arable land and drink water that has no bearing upon urban or irrigation water supplies, or that only the high grades of beef are grain fed, but only then just to finish them off for a few months at most and they're fed with low-quality grain that isn't desired for producing human food.
Or fuck me, what about how in commercial greenhouses we enrich the atmosphere with C02 to increase growth rates?Yeah, the climate is changing.
It always has and always will.
8,000 years ago the sea was several metres lower than it is today and 20,000 years ago the place where I grew up was covered by a glacier and you can see the scratch marks it left in the bedrock a 20 minute drive away.
We're humans though, the most technologically advanced ones to ever walk the earth, and we've used technology to shape the world we currently live in and will continue to develop more advanced technology and continue to shape the world we live in.
The only thing we have to worry about is people in power doing dodgy shit to line their pockets or starting wars, because that's what's been the downfall of every past civilisation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177846</id>
	<title>Another good writeup</title>
	<author>Eukariote</author>
	<datestamp>1258713660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Another good writeup on the leaked emails can be found <a href="http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/" title="telegraph.co.uk" rel="nofollow">here</a> [telegraph.co.uk]. Summary: manipulation of evidence, private doubts about whether the world really is heating up, suppression of evidence, fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists, attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period , and communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Another good writeup on the leaked emails can be found here [ telegraph.co.uk ] .
Summary : manipulation of evidence , private doubts about whether the world really is heating up , suppression of evidence , fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists , attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period , and communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another good writeup on the leaked emails can be found here [telegraph.co.uk].
Summary: manipulation of evidence, private doubts about whether the world really is heating up, suppression of evidence, fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists, attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period , and communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30178292</id>
	<title>Re:I would just like to point out....</title>
	<author>locallyunscene</author>
	<datestamp>1258715100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How was this modded interesting? Take the five seconds to look up "the club of rome", "Georgia Guidestone", and "Agenda 21" on wiki. This person needs help, not mod points.
<br> <br>
I'm not being sarcastic or patronizing here; these are seriously paranoid ramblings.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How was this modded interesting ?
Take the five seconds to look up " the club of rome " , " Georgia Guidestone " , and " Agenda 21 " on wiki .
This person needs help , not mod points .
I 'm not being sarcastic or patronizing here ; these are seriously paranoid ramblings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How was this modded interesting?
Take the five seconds to look up "the club of rome", "Georgia Guidestone", and "Agenda 21" on wiki.
This person needs help, not mod points.
I'm not being sarcastic or patronizing here; these are seriously paranoid ramblings.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176688</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30185528</id>
	<title>Re:My heart goes out to those researchers.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258826820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You either missed the point entirely, or you are trying to run cover for these scumbags.  I too have written papers (biological).  We're not talking about off-color jokes, we're talking about:</p><p>1. Going to what ever lengths are necessary to not share the data so as to hide their deceit (the Yamal series)<br>2. Emails which make it clear that the conclusions are predeterminded ('tweak this', 'remove this', etc)<br>3. Being relieved and happy when critics die.</p><p>These guys were getting rich and lavished with prestige from this fraud.  The rest of us might still get anally raped by fat head Al Gore because it's just to good a way to raise taxes 30\% to let these 'inconvenient truths' stand in the way.  But your worried about the liars?  Smoke some more crack there skippy, but first give half of it up in the name of "global climate debt".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You either missed the point entirely , or you are trying to run cover for these scumbags .
I too have written papers ( biological ) .
We 're not talking about off-color jokes , we 're talking about : 1 .
Going to what ever lengths are necessary to not share the data so as to hide their deceit ( the Yamal series ) 2 .
Emails which make it clear that the conclusions are predeterminded ( 'tweak this ' , 'remove this ' , etc ) 3 .
Being relieved and happy when critics die.These guys were getting rich and lavished with prestige from this fraud .
The rest of us might still get anally raped by fat head Al Gore because it 's just to good a way to raise taxes 30 \ % to let these 'inconvenient truths ' stand in the way .
But your worried about the liars ?
Smoke some more crack there skippy , but first give half of it up in the name of " global climate debt " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You either missed the point entirely, or you are trying to run cover for these scumbags.
I too have written papers (biological).
We're not talking about off-color jokes, we're talking about:1.
Going to what ever lengths are necessary to not share the data so as to hide their deceit (the Yamal series)2.
Emails which make it clear that the conclusions are predeterminded ('tweak this', 'remove this', etc)3.
Being relieved and happy when critics die.These guys were getting rich and lavished with prestige from this fraud.
The rest of us might still get anally raped by fat head Al Gore because it's just to good a way to raise taxes 30\% to let these 'inconvenient truths' stand in the way.
But your worried about the liars?
Smoke some more crack there skippy, but first give half of it up in the name of "global climate debt".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177930</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177162</id>
	<title>Re:Why is climate science being politicized?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258711380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's say we're all in a large vehicle that's heading forward. Scientists scan the horizon with advanced instruments and deduce that there's a large sinkhole ahead, that will in likelihood swallow the bottom half of the vehicle. Those actually steering the vehicle live up on top. To execute all the steps to get this huge vehicle to change course and avoid the sinkhole would require them to work very hard. Even if it goes into the sinkhole, they'll be okay, since they're way up top. So they've little inclination to work hard at this one.</p><p>After the scientists fail to convince those steering the vehicle to change course, they start to communicate directly to those down in the hold, riding 3rd or 4th class, letting them know it might be in their longer-term interest to change who is up on the top deck steering. Those on the top deck, who are too lazy to turn the vehicle just for the sake of the well being of those down below, are also resistant to being replaced, of course. So they come up with every way they can to discredit the advice of the scientists.</p><p>Remember, it's the same people who are perfectly happy if those down below have no health care. Compassion is not in their kit. And honesty is for fools they'd say, if they were honest.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's say we 're all in a large vehicle that 's heading forward .
Scientists scan the horizon with advanced instruments and deduce that there 's a large sinkhole ahead , that will in likelihood swallow the bottom half of the vehicle .
Those actually steering the vehicle live up on top .
To execute all the steps to get this huge vehicle to change course and avoid the sinkhole would require them to work very hard .
Even if it goes into the sinkhole , they 'll be okay , since they 're way up top .
So they 've little inclination to work hard at this one.After the scientists fail to convince those steering the vehicle to change course , they start to communicate directly to those down in the hold , riding 3rd or 4th class , letting them know it might be in their longer-term interest to change who is up on the top deck steering .
Those on the top deck , who are too lazy to turn the vehicle just for the sake of the well being of those down below , are also resistant to being replaced , of course .
So they come up with every way they can to discredit the advice of the scientists.Remember , it 's the same people who are perfectly happy if those down below have no health care .
Compassion is not in their kit .
And honesty is for fools they 'd say , if they were honest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's say we're all in a large vehicle that's heading forward.
Scientists scan the horizon with advanced instruments and deduce that there's a large sinkhole ahead, that will in likelihood swallow the bottom half of the vehicle.
Those actually steering the vehicle live up on top.
To execute all the steps to get this huge vehicle to change course and avoid the sinkhole would require them to work very hard.
Even if it goes into the sinkhole, they'll be okay, since they're way up top.
So they've little inclination to work hard at this one.After the scientists fail to convince those steering the vehicle to change course, they start to communicate directly to those down in the hold, riding 3rd or 4th class, letting them know it might be in their longer-term interest to change who is up on the top deck steering.
Those on the top deck, who are too lazy to turn the vehicle just for the sake of the well being of those down below, are also resistant to being replaced, of course.
So they come up with every way they can to discredit the advice of the scientists.Remember, it's the same people who are perfectly happy if those down below have no health care.
Compassion is not in their kit.
And honesty is for fools they'd say, if they were honest.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30179866</id>
	<title>Re:Utter bullshit.</title>
	<author>Cyberllama</author>
	<datestamp>1258722060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is this: The older data was not necessarily collected in a uniform and consistent manner. People in the 1940's did not necessarily understand that the data they were collecting might later be of great significance 60-70 years in the future.  So what scientists are doing here is looking at a bunch of varied data sets that don't necessarily fit together neatly as they might have had every weather station had the *same* equipment and the same set of measurement standards and so forth.  I think a good example someone else mentioned was using black equipment vs white equipment and the amount of sunlight therefore reflected/absorbed.</p><p>So yes, the scientists who study historical climate conditions are massaging the data.  They have no choice. When you see an outlier in these data sets that seems statistically highly improbable, it's a pretty safe bet that the numbers are wrong and need to be adjusted. There is nothing particularly shocking or damning about this -- it's just good science.  It's not ideal, but compared to simply letting bad data in, it's the best possible option.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is this : The older data was not necessarily collected in a uniform and consistent manner .
People in the 1940 's did not necessarily understand that the data they were collecting might later be of great significance 60-70 years in the future .
So what scientists are doing here is looking at a bunch of varied data sets that do n't necessarily fit together neatly as they might have had every weather station had the * same * equipment and the same set of measurement standards and so forth .
I think a good example someone else mentioned was using black equipment vs white equipment and the amount of sunlight therefore reflected/absorbed.So yes , the scientists who study historical climate conditions are massaging the data .
They have no choice .
When you see an outlier in these data sets that seems statistically highly improbable , it 's a pretty safe bet that the numbers are wrong and need to be adjusted .
There is nothing particularly shocking or damning about this -- it 's just good science .
It 's not ideal , but compared to simply letting bad data in , it 's the best possible option .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is this: The older data was not necessarily collected in a uniform and consistent manner.
People in the 1940's did not necessarily understand that the data they were collecting might later be of great significance 60-70 years in the future.
So what scientists are doing here is looking at a bunch of varied data sets that don't necessarily fit together neatly as they might have had every weather station had the *same* equipment and the same set of measurement standards and so forth.
I think a good example someone else mentioned was using black equipment vs white equipment and the amount of sunlight therefore reflected/absorbed.So yes, the scientists who study historical climate conditions are massaging the data.
They have no choice.
When you see an outlier in these data sets that seems statistically highly improbable, it's a pretty safe bet that the numbers are wrong and need to be adjusted.
There is nothing particularly shocking or damning about this -- it's just good science.
It's not ideal, but compared to simply letting bad data in, it's the best possible option.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176246</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30178248</id>
	<title>Re:A new low for the slashdot anti-intellectualism</title>
	<author>andrewagill</author>
	<datestamp>1258714980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I saw the Great Global Warming Swindle.  It's been a while since I've seen it, but the one thing that jumped out at me was the transparently fraudulent graphs.<br>
<br>
<a href="http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2009/07/14/hoax-exposed-the-great-global-warming-swindles-swindle/" title="wordpress.com" rel="nofollow">e.g.</a> [wordpress.com]  Please note the way the charts move about and are shown only briefly in their full context, showing contempt for data in general.  It would give Edward Tufte a heart attack.<br>
<br>
(And yes, Al Gore is fat.  Climate change doesn't depend on Al Gore)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I saw the Great Global Warming Swindle .
It 's been a while since I 've seen it , but the one thing that jumped out at me was the transparently fraudulent graphs .
e.g. [ wordpress.com ] Please note the way the charts move about and are shown only briefly in their full context , showing contempt for data in general .
It would give Edward Tufte a heart attack .
( And yes , Al Gore is fat .
Climate change does n't depend on Al Gore )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I saw the Great Global Warming Swindle.
It's been a while since I've seen it, but the one thing that jumped out at me was the transparently fraudulent graphs.
e.g. [wordpress.com]  Please note the way the charts move about and are shown only briefly in their full context, showing contempt for data in general.
It would give Edward Tufte a heart attack.
(And yes, Al Gore is fat.
Climate change doesn't depend on Al Gore)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30180118</id>
	<title>Re:Anthropogenic Causes</title>
	<author>Omestes</author>
	<datestamp>1258723380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The earth's climate is changing, as it tends to do.<br>Humans are not affecting it in any measurable way.<br>The change will be extremely slow and gradual.<br>The change will not destroy the planet.<br>The change may be an inconvenience for people, and certain species may go extinct.<br>There is nothing humans can do to stop it.</i></p><p>Good, you have a hypothesis.  Now go and actually prove it.  Or at least work to disprove the alternative with, you know, actual data.</p><p>I'm a skeptic, I don't actually know if anthropogenic global warming is happening.  I'm guessing we'll know with reasonable certainty sometime in the next 20-100 years.  I haven't seen any data that conclusively proves or disproves AGW.    Personally though I'm in favor of the reforms presented by the global warming crowd though, even if they haven't convinced me that they are correct.  Why?  Because we have more to lose if they are right and we do nothing, than if they are wrong and we do something.  Also, the solutions presented by them make more sense than the status-quo.  Emitting less is a good idea, as is increased efficiency.  And I really don't see it as my responsibility to ensure the profits of billionaires who don't give one lick about me.  Exxon can fold tomorrow, and I won't shed a tear.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The earth 's climate is changing , as it tends to do.Humans are not affecting it in any measurable way.The change will be extremely slow and gradual.The change will not destroy the planet.The change may be an inconvenience for people , and certain species may go extinct.There is nothing humans can do to stop it.Good , you have a hypothesis .
Now go and actually prove it .
Or at least work to disprove the alternative with , you know , actual data.I 'm a skeptic , I do n't actually know if anthropogenic global warming is happening .
I 'm guessing we 'll know with reasonable certainty sometime in the next 20-100 years .
I have n't seen any data that conclusively proves or disproves AGW .
Personally though I 'm in favor of the reforms presented by the global warming crowd though , even if they have n't convinced me that they are correct .
Why ? Because we have more to lose if they are right and we do nothing , than if they are wrong and we do something .
Also , the solutions presented by them make more sense than the status-quo .
Emitting less is a good idea , as is increased efficiency .
And I really do n't see it as my responsibility to ensure the profits of billionaires who do n't give one lick about me .
Exxon can fold tomorrow , and I wo n't shed a tear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The earth's climate is changing, as it tends to do.Humans are not affecting it in any measurable way.The change will be extremely slow and gradual.The change will not destroy the planet.The change may be an inconvenience for people, and certain species may go extinct.There is nothing humans can do to stop it.Good, you have a hypothesis.
Now go and actually prove it.
Or at least work to disprove the alternative with, you know, actual data.I'm a skeptic, I don't actually know if anthropogenic global warming is happening.
I'm guessing we'll know with reasonable certainty sometime in the next 20-100 years.
I haven't seen any data that conclusively proves or disproves AGW.
Personally though I'm in favor of the reforms presented by the global warming crowd though, even if they haven't convinced me that they are correct.
Why?  Because we have more to lose if they are right and we do nothing, than if they are wrong and we do something.
Also, the solutions presented by them make more sense than the status-quo.
Emitting less is a good idea, as is increased efficiency.
And I really don't see it as my responsibility to ensure the profits of billionaires who don't give one lick about me.
Exxon can fold tomorrow, and I won't shed a tear.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177120</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176704</id>
	<title>Whew!</title>
	<author>Ifni</author>
	<datestamp>1258709940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At least it wasn't the <i>Clima<b>c</b>tic</i> Research Center.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At least it was n't the Climactic Research Center .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least it wasn't the Climactic Research Center.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30181872</id>
	<title>Praise the white hat hacker</title>
	<author>ub3r n3u7r4l1st</author>
	<datestamp>1258737900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>who finally found evidence of Global Warming Fraud.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>who finally found evidence of Global Warming Fraud .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>who finally found evidence of Global Warming Fraud.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177684</id>
	<title>Re:Utter bullshit.</title>
	<author>joe\_frisch</author>
	<datestamp>1258713060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"All data" can be confusing. Honest to god "raw" data is basically useless - do you really want raw digitizer data from a million sensors (if so, join the research collaboration)? Processed data (temperature trends, etc) might be interesting, but people often make mistakes processing data, and then correct the mistakes before they publish. I've done lots of temporary analysis of data that later turned out to be incorrect: either I or someone else found the mistakes.  Looking at unpublished data is sort of like looking at a snapshot of code in development  - you might learn something, but it could give an incorrect idea of the reliability of the final code. Cherry picking data and emails is of course silly - at least where I work (SLAC) people are not careful about what they put in internal emails, and lots of things get said in the middle of a late-shift rant.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" All data " can be confusing .
Honest to god " raw " data is basically useless - do you really want raw digitizer data from a million sensors ( if so , join the research collaboration ) ?
Processed data ( temperature trends , etc ) might be interesting , but people often make mistakes processing data , and then correct the mistakes before they publish .
I 've done lots of temporary analysis of data that later turned out to be incorrect : either I or someone else found the mistakes .
Looking at unpublished data is sort of like looking at a snapshot of code in development - you might learn something , but it could give an incorrect idea of the reliability of the final code .
Cherry picking data and emails is of course silly - at least where I work ( SLAC ) people are not careful about what they put in internal emails , and lots of things get said in the middle of a late-shift rant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"All data" can be confusing.
Honest to god "raw" data is basically useless - do you really want raw digitizer data from a million sensors (if so, join the research collaboration)?
Processed data (temperature trends, etc) might be interesting, but people often make mistakes processing data, and then correct the mistakes before they publish.
I've done lots of temporary analysis of data that later turned out to be incorrect: either I or someone else found the mistakes.
Looking at unpublished data is sort of like looking at a snapshot of code in development  - you might learn something, but it could give an incorrect idea of the reliability of the final code.
Cherry picking data and emails is of course silly - at least where I work (SLAC) people are not careful about what they put in internal emails, and lots of things get said in the middle of a late-shift rant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176414</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177548</id>
	<title>Re:Utter bullshit.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258712520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> "Hey Bob, your algorithm didn't produce the level of warming we were expecting, we need you to rework it so it is in line with our expectations"</p><p>That's a great quote because it can have two meanings. The conspiracy side will say that they want it reworked to reflect party line. Read it objectively and what it likely meant is the Algorithm is flawed because it didn't match the data so it needed to be reworked. Out of context is always meaningless. It's also possible this one was tampered with and it originally said "data" instead of "expectations". Unless the source is trusted the information is ALL suspect.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Hey Bob , your algorithm did n't produce the level of warming we were expecting , we need you to rework it so it is in line with our expectations " That 's a great quote because it can have two meanings .
The conspiracy side will say that they want it reworked to reflect party line .
Read it objectively and what it likely meant is the Algorithm is flawed because it did n't match the data so it needed to be reworked .
Out of context is always meaningless .
It 's also possible this one was tampered with and it originally said " data " instead of " expectations " .
Unless the source is trusted the information is ALL suspect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> "Hey Bob, your algorithm didn't produce the level of warming we were expecting, we need you to rework it so it is in line with our expectations"That's a great quote because it can have two meanings.
The conspiracy side will say that they want it reworked to reflect party line.
Read it objectively and what it likely meant is the Algorithm is flawed because it didn't match the data so it needed to be reworked.
Out of context is always meaningless.
It's also possible this one was tampered with and it originally said "data" instead of "expectations".
Unless the source is trusted the information is ALL suspect.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176728</id>
	<title>Re:Why is climate science being politicized?</title>
	<author>drizek</author>
	<datestamp>1258710060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The people who cause global warming turned the research into a circus, because they stand to profit from it.</p><p>It seems pretty transparent to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The people who cause global warming turned the research into a circus , because they stand to profit from it.It seems pretty transparent to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The people who cause global warming turned the research into a circus, because they stand to profit from it.It seems pretty transparent to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177930</id>
	<title>My heart goes out to those researchers.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258713900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I feel really bad for these researchers.</p><p>I have published only a few papers and would be mortified if my emails got released to the public. I am constantly joking around with other lab denizens about fudging stuff, and removing data that doesn't fit the expectations. The opportunity for out of context quotations is scary to contemplate. Not to mention all of the politically incorrect jokes about such-and-such a graph's sexual orientation.</p><p>If one of these guys said anything like that over the years of emails in this dump, they are in some deep shit for nothing. Image someone going through all of the comments for all of the code you have ever written just looking for any tiny detail to prove you're a hack.</p><p>"just added one to this variable now it works" = screwed.<br>"need to go back and fix this" = screwed.<br>"not sure why this works but it does" = screwed.<br>"Bob is an idiot, I am just going to comment out his code" = screwed.</p><p>Like Cardinal Richelieu said:<br>&ldquo;If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him&rdquo;</p><p>Right or wrong, these guys are gonna get the shaft.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I feel really bad for these researchers.I have published only a few papers and would be mortified if my emails got released to the public .
I am constantly joking around with other lab denizens about fudging stuff , and removing data that does n't fit the expectations .
The opportunity for out of context quotations is scary to contemplate .
Not to mention all of the politically incorrect jokes about such-and-such a graph 's sexual orientation.If one of these guys said anything like that over the years of emails in this dump , they are in some deep shit for nothing .
Image someone going through all of the comments for all of the code you have ever written just looking for any tiny detail to prove you 're a hack .
" just added one to this variable now it works " = screwed .
" need to go back and fix this " = screwed .
" not sure why this works but it does " = screwed .
" Bob is an idiot , I am just going to comment out his code " = screwed.Like Cardinal Richelieu said :    If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men , I will find something in them which will hang him    Right or wrong , these guys are gon na get the shaft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I feel really bad for these researchers.I have published only a few papers and would be mortified if my emails got released to the public.
I am constantly joking around with other lab denizens about fudging stuff, and removing data that doesn't fit the expectations.
The opportunity for out of context quotations is scary to contemplate.
Not to mention all of the politically incorrect jokes about such-and-such a graph's sexual orientation.If one of these guys said anything like that over the years of emails in this dump, they are in some deep shit for nothing.
Image someone going through all of the comments for all of the code you have ever written just looking for any tiny detail to prove you're a hack.
"just added one to this variable now it works" = screwed.
"need to go back and fix this" = screwed.
"not sure why this works but it does" = screwed.
"Bob is an idiot, I am just going to comment out his code" = screwed.Like Cardinal Richelieu said:“If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him”Right or wrong, these guys are gonna get the shaft.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177340</id>
	<title>Not the doubting...</title>
	<author>Dobeln</author>
	<datestamp>1258711920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...but the data deletion conspiracies, the conspiring to disrupt the peer review process in various clever ways, the knowing avoidance of Freedom of Information Act Requests, the slurs against "sceptics", including celebrating their deaths, and so on.</p><p>And that's just from the emails I have read so far.</p><p>"Doubting" indeed. And these assholes have had the nerve to indignantly drape themselves in the flag of science.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...but the data deletion conspiracies , the conspiring to disrupt the peer review process in various clever ways , the knowing avoidance of Freedom of Information Act Requests , the slurs against " sceptics " , including celebrating their deaths , and so on.And that 's just from the emails I have read so far .
" Doubting " indeed .
And these assholes have had the nerve to indignantly drape themselves in the flag of science .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...but the data deletion conspiracies, the conspiring to disrupt the peer review process in various clever ways, the knowing avoidance of Freedom of Information Act Requests, the slurs against "sceptics", including celebrating their deaths, and so on.And that's just from the emails I have read so far.
"Doubting" indeed.
And these assholes have had the nerve to indignantly drape themselves in the flag of science.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176430</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176336</id>
	<title>In the spirit of transparency</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258708560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sure Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre are just about to release their own personal e-mail histories as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre are just about to release their own personal e-mail histories as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre are just about to release their own personal e-mail histories as well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176246</id>
	<title>Re:Utter bullshit.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258708200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Part of the problem is that the global warming proponents whose e-mails were hacked have REFUSED to release the data upon which they rely. In fact, the e-mails discovered are chock-full of references to their efforts to fight against any disclosure of much of their data. Other e-mails routinely discuss efforts to manipulate and massage the data to account for various political difficulties the data are causing them. For example, one e-mail discusses using a particular modifier to minimize a warming "blip" in the 1940s, without making the "blip" go away entirely, because it appears in both the sea temp and the land temp data.

So you're right, e-mail isn't data. But that cuts both ways, and in this case particularly hard against the global warming fear-mongerers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Part of the problem is that the global warming proponents whose e-mails were hacked have REFUSED to release the data upon which they rely .
In fact , the e-mails discovered are chock-full of references to their efforts to fight against any disclosure of much of their data .
Other e-mails routinely discuss efforts to manipulate and massage the data to account for various political difficulties the data are causing them .
For example , one e-mail discusses using a particular modifier to minimize a warming " blip " in the 1940s , without making the " blip " go away entirely , because it appears in both the sea temp and the land temp data .
So you 're right , e-mail is n't data .
But that cuts both ways , and in this case particularly hard against the global warming fear-mongerers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Part of the problem is that the global warming proponents whose e-mails were hacked have REFUSED to release the data upon which they rely.
In fact, the e-mails discovered are chock-full of references to their efforts to fight against any disclosure of much of their data.
Other e-mails routinely discuss efforts to manipulate and massage the data to account for various political difficulties the data are causing them.
For example, one e-mail discusses using a particular modifier to minimize a warming "blip" in the 1940s, without making the "blip" go away entirely, because it appears in both the sea temp and the land temp data.
So you're right, e-mail isn't data.
But that cuts both ways, and in this case particularly hard against the global warming fear-mongerers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176002</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176576</id>
	<title>Re:I would just like to point out....</title>
	<author>Rockoon</author>
	<datestamp>1258709460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm now wondering which one of these guys you are. Seriously.<br>
<br>
This is SLASHDOT, bozo. Information wants to be free.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm now wondering which one of these guys you are .
Seriously . This is SLASHDOT , bozo .
Information wants to be free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm now wondering which one of these guys you are.
Seriously.

This is SLASHDOT, bozo.
Information wants to be free.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176092</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30180282</id>
	<title>Re:The dog ate it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258724160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes it is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes it is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176316</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30178514</id>
	<title>Part and parcel for how dirty the fight ...</title>
	<author>quax</author>
	<datestamp>1258715940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... for what should be settled through scientific debate has become.  <a href="http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1386" title="wunderground.com">Jeff Masters gives another example</a> [wunderground.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... for what should be settled through scientific debate has become .
Jeff Masters gives another example [ wunderground.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... for what should be settled through scientific debate has become.
Jeff Masters gives another example [wunderground.com].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30250066</id>
	<title>Re:A new low for the slashdot anti-intellectualism</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259322120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>im glad you feel that way!<br>now, because you feel so strongly, you go first.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>im glad you feel that way ! now , because you feel so strongly , you go first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>im glad you feel that way!now, because you feel so strongly, you go first.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30178624</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30178676</id>
	<title>Re:Why is climate science being politicized?</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1258716540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>There is a very disturbing question here of why climate research is being handled like a political football. We don't normally politicize chemistry, or physics, or math, or even oceanography</i></p><p>Sure we do.  We politicize science every time the data suggest a conclusion that threatens established power structures.  It happened to Socrates, it happened to Galileo, and it will continue to happen as long as power is concentrated in the hands of people who care more about maintaining their power than anything else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a very disturbing question here of why climate research is being handled like a political football .
We do n't normally politicize chemistry , or physics , or math , or even oceanographySure we do .
We politicize science every time the data suggest a conclusion that threatens established power structures .
It happened to Socrates , it happened to Galileo , and it will continue to happen as long as power is concentrated in the hands of people who care more about maintaining their power than anything else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a very disturbing question here of why climate research is being handled like a political football.
We don't normally politicize chemistry, or physics, or math, or even oceanographySure we do.
We politicize science every time the data suggest a conclusion that threatens established power structures.
It happened to Socrates, it happened to Galileo, and it will continue to happen as long as power is concentrated in the hands of people who care more about maintaining their power than anything else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30181980</id>
	<title>Re:A new low for the slashdot anti-intellectualism</title>
	<author>Greg151</author>
	<datestamp>1258738980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You sir, are an inflammatory idiot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You sir , are an inflammatory idiot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You sir, are an inflammatory idiot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30179900</id>
	<title>Re:I would just like to point out....</title>
	<author>Cyberllama</author>
	<datestamp>1258722240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know about that.  Slashdot posts links to wikileaks all the time.</p><p>The only issue I see here is that someone decides to only leak PART of the data.  That's when you know there's a clear agenda and you're not getting any clearer a picture than if you had no data at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know about that .
Slashdot posts links to wikileaks all the time.The only issue I see here is that someone decides to only leak PART of the data .
That 's when you know there 's a clear agenda and you 're not getting any clearer a picture than if you had no data at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know about that.
Slashdot posts links to wikileaks all the time.The only issue I see here is that someone decides to only leak PART of the data.
That's when you know there's a clear agenda and you're not getting any clearer a picture than if you had no data at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176092</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177282</id>
	<title>Re:Why is climate science being politicized?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258711680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its simple.  On these dudes 'word' we are being asked to pay more for gas/food/electricity/taxes.  All in the name of somehow 'being more green'.  So now instead of paying 50 cents for a new lightbulb I pay 3-10 dollars for something that arguably has worse light.  Yes it is that simple.  It is about someone who thinks they are better than everyone else preaching that sky is falling and we all must 'do something'.  That 'do something' resonated very well with politicians.  They preach the same message.  They must 'do something about xyz, see my opponent will not do abc and xyz.'</p><p>It became a football because of that.  Instead of real science we are getting fiat decelerations and hockey stick graphs.  For basically saying 'prove it' we get yelled down as 'doubters'.  We guess what that is the way science is supposed to work.  In fact the BIGGEST doubter should be the person who came up with the idea.</p><p>Another reason it became political is due to the amounts being asked for are in the trillions (in the end with all the changes being made) not a few hundred thousand.  So yeah it gets the attention of everyone.</p><p>You know I get the 'dont just keep dumping junk into the environment'.  I really do.  It makes sense, stop polluting, pollution sucks.  But the 'OMG the temp went up on average' I think we are arguing about the weather which is a simple proof that we have only a rudimentary idea of how it works.</p><p>My stats teach put it best on the first day 'lies, damn lies, and statistics'.  You can really change the 'average' by just 'throwing' out a few 'out of bounds' things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its simple .
On these dudes 'word ' we are being asked to pay more for gas/food/electricity/taxes .
All in the name of somehow 'being more green' .
So now instead of paying 50 cents for a new lightbulb I pay 3-10 dollars for something that arguably has worse light .
Yes it is that simple .
It is about someone who thinks they are better than everyone else preaching that sky is falling and we all must 'do something' .
That 'do something ' resonated very well with politicians .
They preach the same message .
They must 'do something about xyz , see my opponent will not do abc and xyz .
'It became a football because of that .
Instead of real science we are getting fiat decelerations and hockey stick graphs .
For basically saying 'prove it ' we get yelled down as 'doubters' .
We guess what that is the way science is supposed to work .
In fact the BIGGEST doubter should be the person who came up with the idea.Another reason it became political is due to the amounts being asked for are in the trillions ( in the end with all the changes being made ) not a few hundred thousand .
So yeah it gets the attention of everyone.You know I get the 'dont just keep dumping junk into the environment' .
I really do .
It makes sense , stop polluting , pollution sucks .
But the 'OMG the temp went up on average ' I think we are arguing about the weather which is a simple proof that we have only a rudimentary idea of how it works.My stats teach put it best on the first day 'lies , damn lies , and statistics' .
You can really change the 'average ' by just 'throwing ' out a few 'out of bounds ' things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its simple.
On these dudes 'word' we are being asked to pay more for gas/food/electricity/taxes.
All in the name of somehow 'being more green'.
So now instead of paying 50 cents for a new lightbulb I pay 3-10 dollars for something that arguably has worse light.
Yes it is that simple.
It is about someone who thinks they are better than everyone else preaching that sky is falling and we all must 'do something'.
That 'do something' resonated very well with politicians.
They preach the same message.
They must 'do something about xyz, see my opponent will not do abc and xyz.
'It became a football because of that.
Instead of real science we are getting fiat decelerations and hockey stick graphs.
For basically saying 'prove it' we get yelled down as 'doubters'.
We guess what that is the way science is supposed to work.
In fact the BIGGEST doubter should be the person who came up with the idea.Another reason it became political is due to the amounts being asked for are in the trillions (in the end with all the changes being made) not a few hundred thousand.
So yeah it gets the attention of everyone.You know I get the 'dont just keep dumping junk into the environment'.
I really do.
It makes sense, stop polluting, pollution sucks.
But the 'OMG the temp went up on average' I think we are arguing about the weather which is a simple proof that we have only a rudimentary idea of how it works.My stats teach put it best on the first day 'lies, damn lies, and statistics'.
You can really change the 'average' by just 'throwing' out a few 'out of bounds' things.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176414</id>
	<title>Re:Utter bullshit.</title>
	<author>Rockoon</author>
	<datestamp>1258708800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Let's see ALL the data, and let's not see the E-mail at all -- E-mail isn't data.</p></div><p>
You do realize that some of the emails are about hiding data from public view, obstructing freedom of information requests, and campaign to discredit a peer reviewed journal that published something that disagreed with their public stance, right?<br>
<br>
If there is one thing I know for sure, its that at least one of the skeptics is entirely open about the data and methodology (with source code, only free tools, etc..) he uses, and he even seeks input from anyone willing to help via his blog. That man is Steve McIntyre.<br>
<br>
Publicly funded scientists should be forced to open up their data and methodology, with prison terms for them if they don't. Its time they stopped using public money to boost their own careers while playing fast and loose in their good ol' boy club of like-minded conspirators.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's see ALL the data , and let 's not see the E-mail at all -- E-mail is n't data .
You do realize that some of the emails are about hiding data from public view , obstructing freedom of information requests , and campaign to discredit a peer reviewed journal that published something that disagreed with their public stance , right ?
If there is one thing I know for sure , its that at least one of the skeptics is entirely open about the data and methodology ( with source code , only free tools , etc.. ) he uses , and he even seeks input from anyone willing to help via his blog .
That man is Steve McIntyre .
Publicly funded scientists should be forced to open up their data and methodology , with prison terms for them if they do n't .
Its time they stopped using public money to boost their own careers while playing fast and loose in their good ol ' boy club of like-minded conspirators .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's see ALL the data, and let's not see the E-mail at all -- E-mail isn't data.
You do realize that some of the emails are about hiding data from public view, obstructing freedom of information requests, and campaign to discredit a peer reviewed journal that published something that disagreed with their public stance, right?
If there is one thing I know for sure, its that at least one of the skeptics is entirely open about the data and methodology (with source code, only free tools, etc..) he uses, and he even seeks input from anyone willing to help via his blog.
That man is Steve McIntyre.
Publicly funded scientists should be forced to open up their data and methodology, with prison terms for them if they don't.
Its time they stopped using public money to boost their own careers while playing fast and loose in their good ol' boy club of like-minded conspirators.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176002</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176400</id>
	<title>Re:A new low for the slashdot anti-intellectualism</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258708740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>AGW might or might not be real but so many different religions have gotten their hands into this that it's hard to know what the truth.</p><p>I would not be the least bit surprised if it turned out that the Global Climate Change Movement is nothing more than a front for certain political and social groups that are eager for any excuse they can get their hands on to advance their agenda. It's also possible that the skeptics are a front for Big Business.</p><p>The truth of human CO2 emissions' effect on climate is independent of both of those agendas. Whichever group is correct is so purely by accident.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>AGW might or might not be real but so many different religions have gotten their hands into this that it 's hard to know what the truth.I would not be the least bit surprised if it turned out that the Global Climate Change Movement is nothing more than a front for certain political and social groups that are eager for any excuse they can get their hands on to advance their agenda .
It 's also possible that the skeptics are a front for Big Business.The truth of human CO2 emissions ' effect on climate is independent of both of those agendas .
Whichever group is correct is so purely by accident .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AGW might or might not be real but so many different religions have gotten their hands into this that it's hard to know what the truth.I would not be the least bit surprised if it turned out that the Global Climate Change Movement is nothing more than a front for certain political and social groups that are eager for any excuse they can get their hands on to advance their agenda.
It's also possible that the skeptics are a front for Big Business.The truth of human CO2 emissions' effect on climate is independent of both of those agendas.
Whichever group is correct is so purely by accident.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176952</id>
	<title>Re:Your opinion is being manipulated</title>
	<author>sexconker</author>
	<datestamp>1258710600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is zero evidence for "global warming", or "global climate change" or whatever other bullshit term you nutjobs come up with.</p><p>You dipshits can't even come up with a simple, formal scientific theory.</p><p>Here's a fucking hint:  Man has an infinitesimal degree of influence over the planet's climate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is zero evidence for " global warming " , or " global climate change " or whatever other bullshit term you nutjobs come up with.You dipshits ca n't even come up with a simple , formal scientific theory.Here 's a fucking hint : Man has an infinitesimal degree of influence over the planet 's climate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is zero evidence for "global warming", or "global climate change" or whatever other bullshit term you nutjobs come up with.You dipshits can't even come up with a simple, formal scientific theory.Here's a fucking hint:  Man has an infinitesimal degree of influence over the planet's climate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176642</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176002</id>
	<title>Utter bullshit.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258750560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reading random chunks of leaked data and E-mail is not the way science is done, nor policy made.</p><p>Let's see ALL the data, and let's not see the E-mail at all -- E-mail isn't data.</p><p>Otherwise, STFU, this isn't helping anything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reading random chunks of leaked data and E-mail is not the way science is done , nor policy made.Let 's see ALL the data , and let 's not see the E-mail at all -- E-mail is n't data.Otherwise , STFU , this is n't helping anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reading random chunks of leaked data and E-mail is not the way science is done, nor policy made.Let's see ALL the data, and let's not see the E-mail at all -- E-mail isn't data.Otherwise, STFU, this isn't helping anything.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_113</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30178826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177036
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30183798
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30181810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30182302
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30180756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30178142
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30179040
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_106</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30178218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30181906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30178242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30236266
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30181838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30185892
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30181930
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30178088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_112</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30185664
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30180908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177282
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_111</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30178704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30188788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30179212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30178624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30250066
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177548
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30178402
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30185354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30184304
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_104</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30181056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176798
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176406
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176332
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30182586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30180118
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_117</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30179470
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30180106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30188914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_110</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176400
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30178228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177156
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176952
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30187960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30183636
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30178400
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30180046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177100
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30179900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30179306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30179694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30231642
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_116</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177408
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30192272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177340
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176728
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30180048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_115</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30178704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30179574
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_109</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30179142
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30178292
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30185876
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_108</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30179866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30179564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176360
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30181936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30179074
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30182166
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_114</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30202980
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176106
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30180480
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30179134
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30230816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30180868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30203188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30185528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_105</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30178590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_107</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30178704
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30183826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30181980
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176624
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30180004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30179922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177444
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177280
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30178248
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_102</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176568
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30178690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30178076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30197808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30179662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176802
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30182154
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30183434
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30178132
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30180476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_103</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30180626
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177494
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177766
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30179982
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176576
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30186928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176688
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30180282
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177016
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30185238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30178290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30178894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30178676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30181858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30180944
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176918
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30180852
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_20_1747257_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176414
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1747257.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176774
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30179212
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30179694
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30180908
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1747257.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176264
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176584
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30181838
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30179134
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1747257.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176804
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1747257.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176226
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176858
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1747257.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176316
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30197808
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176964
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30180282
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1747257.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30175978
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1747257.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177472
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30179306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30182302
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30180944
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1747257.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177930
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30183636
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30179142
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30180852
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30185528
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30180106
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30188914
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30231642
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30185354
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30181056
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1747257.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177216
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30182166
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1747257.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176002
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176600
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177766
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30180626
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177494
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30178088
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176332
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176246
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30202980
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30179866
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177746
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176414
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177684
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30179470
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30179564
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177444
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177366
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177408
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30178400
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30181810
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30179040
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176146
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30181936
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30178228
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177100
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177156
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30182154
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177218
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30186928
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30185238
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30192272
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30184304
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30187960
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177548
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177714
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177280
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177016
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1747257.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30179274
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1747257.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176142
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30180476
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1747257.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176092
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176576
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30179900
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176272
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30182586
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176798
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176324
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30178590
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176688
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177810
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30178292
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176360
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176502
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1747257.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176110
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1747257.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176642
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176952
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177342
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30178242
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177078
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30185892
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30178142
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1747257.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30178290
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30178894
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1747257.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176482
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177036
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177136
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30178076
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1747257.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30196512
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1747257.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176106
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30180480
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1747257.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176218
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30181980
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176400
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177712
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177228
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176406
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176810
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30178218
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30178248
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30179662
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30178624
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30250066
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1747257.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176820
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1747257.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176430
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30178402
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30185664
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176958
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30183798
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30179922
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30180004
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30181858
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30179074
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177340
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30180756
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177120
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30180118
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30180868
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30203188
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30179982
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1747257.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177730
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30185876
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30180046
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1747257.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176730
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1747257.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176198
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1747257.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30180782
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1747257.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177000
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30183434
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1747257.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176568
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177610
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30230816
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30178690
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30181930
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177374
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30236266
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1747257.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30178704
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30183826
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30188788
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30179574
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1747257.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176422
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177002
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30178676
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176802
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30178826
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177162
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177282
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176918
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30178132
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30177130
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30181906
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176728
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176624
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1747257.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30176336
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30180048
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_20_1747257.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_20_1747257.30179152
</commentlist>
</conversation>
