<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_22_1254238</id>
	<title>New Research Forecasts Global 6C Increase By End of Century</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1258899360000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="mailto:jamie@slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">jamie</a> writes with this snippet from the UK's Independent:
<i>"The world is now firmly on course for the worst-case scenario in terms of climate change, with average global temperatures <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/world-on-course-for-catastrophic-6deg-rise-reveal-scientists-1822396.html">rising by up to 6C by the end of the century</a>, leading scientists said yesterday. ... [The study] found that there has been a 29 per cent increase in global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel between 2000 and 2008, the last year for which figures are available. On average, the researchers found, there was an annual increase in emissions of just over 3 per cent during the period, compared with an annual increase of 1 per cent between 1990 and 2000. Almost all of the increase this decade occurred after 2000 and resulted from the boom in the Chinese economy. The researchers predict a small decrease this year due to the recession, but further increases from 2010."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>jamie writes with this snippet from the UK 's Independent : " The world is now firmly on course for the worst-case scenario in terms of climate change , with average global temperatures rising by up to 6C by the end of the century , leading scientists said yesterday .
... [ The study ] found that there has been a 29 per cent increase in global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel between 2000 and 2008 , the last year for which figures are available .
On average , the researchers found , there was an annual increase in emissions of just over 3 per cent during the period , compared with an annual increase of 1 per cent between 1990 and 2000 .
Almost all of the increase this decade occurred after 2000 and resulted from the boom in the Chinese economy .
The researchers predict a small decrease this year due to the recession , but further increases from 2010 .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>jamie writes with this snippet from the UK's Independent:
"The world is now firmly on course for the worst-case scenario in terms of climate change, with average global temperatures rising by up to 6C by the end of the century, leading scientists said yesterday.
... [The study] found that there has been a 29 per cent increase in global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel between 2000 and 2008, the last year for which figures are available.
On average, the researchers found, there was an annual increase in emissions of just over 3 per cent during the period, compared with an annual increase of 1 per cent between 1990 and 2000.
Almost all of the increase this decade occurred after 2000 and resulted from the boom in the Chinese economy.
The researchers predict a small decrease this year due to the recession, but further increases from 2010.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194498</id>
	<title>Re:Because we all know....</title>
	<author>ryanjsull</author>
	<datestamp>1258913400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In your example the system's chaotic features can be neglected as you increase the length scale.  I haven't seen anything that shows that this applies to modeling of the earth...

Also chaotic systems become increasingly difficult to predict as the time scale increases... especially global trends.  The problem with climate is that we are dealing with high order non-linear differential equations with very many terms.  The ignorance of even a few of these terms can completely invalidate any predictions of future events and trends.  In the book Chaos Making a New Science it mentions that many attempts at climate models have found only one stable solution and that is a frozen earth that reflects all energy out.  It mentions that people who tried could not find a "normal temperature" for the earth.  Warming trends and ice ages could just be products of the chaotic system we live in... sure adding CO2 might raise temperatures in the short span of a few decades but what will be the result in a few hundred years?  Also, I remember hearing somewhere that water vapor contributes to the greenhouse effect by many orders of magnitude more than CO2... does anybody know how much truth is in this?</htmltext>
<tokenext>In your example the system 's chaotic features can be neglected as you increase the length scale .
I have n't seen anything that shows that this applies to modeling of the earth.. . Also chaotic systems become increasingly difficult to predict as the time scale increases... especially global trends .
The problem with climate is that we are dealing with high order non-linear differential equations with very many terms .
The ignorance of even a few of these terms can completely invalidate any predictions of future events and trends .
In the book Chaos Making a New Science it mentions that many attempts at climate models have found only one stable solution and that is a frozen earth that reflects all energy out .
It mentions that people who tried could not find a " normal temperature " for the earth .
Warming trends and ice ages could just be products of the chaotic system we live in... sure adding CO2 might raise temperatures in the short span of a few decades but what will be the result in a few hundred years ?
Also , I remember hearing somewhere that water vapor contributes to the greenhouse effect by many orders of magnitude more than CO2... does anybody know how much truth is in this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In your example the system's chaotic features can be neglected as you increase the length scale.
I haven't seen anything that shows that this applies to modeling of the earth...

Also chaotic systems become increasingly difficult to predict as the time scale increases... especially global trends.
The problem with climate is that we are dealing with high order non-linear differential equations with very many terms.
The ignorance of even a few of these terms can completely invalidate any predictions of future events and trends.
In the book Chaos Making a New Science it mentions that many attempts at climate models have found only one stable solution and that is a frozen earth that reflects all energy out.
It mentions that people who tried could not find a "normal temperature" for the earth.
Warming trends and ice ages could just be products of the chaotic system we live in... sure adding CO2 might raise temperatures in the short span of a few decades but what will be the result in a few hundred years?
Also, I remember hearing somewhere that water vapor contributes to the greenhouse effect by many orders of magnitude more than CO2... does anybody know how much truth is in this?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193946</id>
	<title>This Decade?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258909800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Almost all of the increase this decade occurred after 2000..."</p><p>Is anyone else as confused by this statement as I am?  I'm pretty sure *everything* that's happened this decade has happened after 2000<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Almost all of the increase this decade occurred after 2000... " Is anyone else as confused by this statement as I am ?
I 'm pretty sure * everything * that 's happened this decade has happened after 2000 .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Almost all of the increase this decade occurred after 2000..."Is anyone else as confused by this statement as I am?
I'm pretty sure *everything* that's happened this decade has happened after 2000 ...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193252</id>
	<title>Re:Falsibility.</title>
	<author>RealGrouchy</author>
	<datestamp>1258904520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apply heat to a glass of ice and the temperature will continue read 0 degrees C until all the ice has turned to water. That doesn't mean there's more energy (heat) in the system.</p><p>- RG&gt;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apply heat to a glass of ice and the temperature will continue read 0 degrees C until all the ice has turned to water .
That does n't mean there 's more energy ( heat ) in the system.- RG &gt;</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apply heat to a glass of ice and the temperature will continue read 0 degrees C until all the ice has turned to water.
That doesn't mean there's more energy (heat) in the system.- RG&gt;</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193132</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30196176</id>
	<title>Release the data!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258883100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Release the data so we can all have a look and verify those conclusions independantly.  Without the raw data its just hear-say.  Anyone can look at anything and come to their own conclusions.</p><p>As demonstrated with the CRU email leak from the weekend, there are many ways to look at data and there are ways to hide behind Freedom of Information laws while calling out doom on top of a soap box.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Release the data so we can all have a look and verify those conclusions independantly .
Without the raw data its just hear-say .
Anyone can look at anything and come to their own conclusions.As demonstrated with the CRU email leak from the weekend , there are many ways to look at data and there are ways to hide behind Freedom of Information laws while calling out doom on top of a soap box .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Release the data so we can all have a look and verify those conclusions independantly.
Without the raw data its just hear-say.
Anyone can look at anything and come to their own conclusions.As demonstrated with the CRU email leak from the weekend, there are many ways to look at data and there are ways to hide behind Freedom of Information laws while calling out doom on top of a soap box.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193600</id>
	<title>Do the science</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258907220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Make a chart yourself.<br>Chart the increase in Carbon Dioxide<br>and the temperatures you can get from Hadley CRU</p><p>If you make this chart, you'll find a poor correlation over the last decade, where this 28\% increase in carbon dioxide occurred.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Make a chart yourself.Chart the increase in Carbon Dioxideand the temperatures you can get from Hadley CRUIf you make this chart , you 'll find a poor correlation over the last decade , where this 28 \ % increase in carbon dioxide occurred .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Make a chart yourself.Chart the increase in Carbon Dioxideand the temperatures you can get from Hadley CRUIf you make this chart, you'll find a poor correlation over the last decade, where this 28\% increase in carbon dioxide occurred.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193680</id>
	<title>A total farce</title>
	<author>kgroombr</author>
	<datestamp>1258907820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And I can find a study that says the world will be colder in a century.  It all depends on the agenda I want to push.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And I can find a study that says the world will be colder in a century .
It all depends on the agenda I want to push .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And I can find a study that says the world will be colder in a century.
It all depends on the agenda I want to push.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30196942</id>
	<title>Re:re Increase or decline?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258889160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Especially people who do not have the faculties to properly understand the idiomatic uses of the English language, and people who are willing to take words and phrases of out of context, as well as people who are willing to formulate their opinions without considering the actual analysis and instead relying on secondhand hysteria generated by others who are also not willing to consider the actual analysis.</p></div><p>In other words Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and their mindless followers?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Especially people who do not have the faculties to properly understand the idiomatic uses of the English language , and people who are willing to take words and phrases of out of context , as well as people who are willing to formulate their opinions without considering the actual analysis and instead relying on secondhand hysteria generated by others who are also not willing to consider the actual analysis.In other words Rush Limbaugh , Glenn Beck , Sarah Palin , and their mindless followers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Especially people who do not have the faculties to properly understand the idiomatic uses of the English language, and people who are willing to take words and phrases of out of context, as well as people who are willing to formulate their opinions without considering the actual analysis and instead relying on secondhand hysteria generated by others who are also not willing to consider the actual analysis.In other words Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and their mindless followers?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193322</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193638</id>
	<title>Re:Falsibility.</title>
	<author>capnkr</author>
	<datestamp>1258907460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And if using the one at your house, would you put the thermometer in the middle of the driveway, or right where the heat pump blasts out the exchange air? Wouldn't make sense to do that, would it?<br> <br>Nonetheless, that is exactly the kind of environment where a lot of the <a href="http://www.surfacestations.org/" title="surfacestations.org">Surface Stations</a> [surfacestations.org] are located. Makes me question the data...</htmltext>
<tokenext>And if using the one at your house , would you put the thermometer in the middle of the driveway , or right where the heat pump blasts out the exchange air ?
Would n't make sense to do that , would it ?
Nonetheless , that is exactly the kind of environment where a lot of the Surface Stations [ surfacestations.org ] are located .
Makes me question the data.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And if using the one at your house, would you put the thermometer in the middle of the driveway, or right where the heat pump blasts out the exchange air?
Wouldn't make sense to do that, would it?
Nonetheless, that is exactly the kind of environment where a lot of the Surface Stations [surfacestations.org] are located.
Makes me question the data...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194776</id>
	<title>Yeah right</title>
	<author>andsens</author>
	<datestamp>1258915440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah... I'm gonna have to call bullshit on this one. That outcast is way beyond the capability of the climatemodels we have today.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah... I 'm gon na have to call bullshit on this one .
That outcast is way beyond the capability of the climatemodels we have today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah... I'm gonna have to call bullshit on this one.
That outcast is way beyond the capability of the climatemodels we have today.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30196952</id>
	<title>Seriously ....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258889280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who gives a flaming fuck?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who gives a flaming fuck ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who gives a flaming fuck?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193318</id>
	<title>Re:re Increase or decline?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258905180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Try reading that again: "adding in the <i>real</i> temps [...] to hide the decline."
</p><p>So, it is some kind of proxy for measuring the historical temperatures (in this case, tree rings), and this proxy data, for some completely different reason (pollution affecting the tree growth, for example??), shows a decline in the last couple of decades.
</p><p>The <i>real</i> temperatures (ie, the ones that are actaully measured, like with a thermometer) show an increase, so use the real measurements for the final 20 years of the data.
</p><p>There would be more of a problem if this wasn't disclosed somewhere.  But even then, it is an argument about how the proxy data is presented.  The <i>real</i> temperature data doesn't show a decline.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Try reading that again : " adding in the real temps [ ... ] to hide the decline .
" So , it is some kind of proxy for measuring the historical temperatures ( in this case , tree rings ) , and this proxy data , for some completely different reason ( pollution affecting the tree growth , for example ? ?
) , shows a decline in the last couple of decades .
The real temperatures ( ie , the ones that are actaully measured , like with a thermometer ) show an increase , so use the real measurements for the final 20 years of the data .
There would be more of a problem if this was n't disclosed somewhere .
But even then , it is an argument about how the proxy data is presented .
The real temperature data does n't show a decline .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Try reading that again: "adding in the real temps [...] to hide the decline.
"
So, it is some kind of proxy for measuring the historical temperatures (in this case, tree rings), and this proxy data, for some completely different reason (pollution affecting the tree growth, for example??
), shows a decline in the last couple of decades.
The real temperatures (ie, the ones that are actaully measured, like with a thermometer) show an increase, so use the real measurements for the final 20 years of the data.
There would be more of a problem if this wasn't disclosed somewhere.
But even then, it is an argument about how the proxy data is presented.
The real temperature data doesn't show a decline.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30213828</id>
	<title>Re:The hack</title>
	<author>sac13</author>
	<datestamp>1259078760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They discussed how to spin their results so as their findings wouldn't be used by the opposition to score political points and they discussed politics (including how to marginalize an opponent).</p></div><p>And you don't find that disturbing?  And if you don't, how would you feel about someone on the other side of the issue from you doing the same thing?</p><p>That clearly illustrates we're dealing entirely with a political issue here masking itself as a scientific one.  Even the "scientists" are acting and scheming like politicians.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They discussed how to spin their results so as their findings would n't be used by the opposition to score political points and they discussed politics ( including how to marginalize an opponent ) .And you do n't find that disturbing ?
And if you do n't , how would you feel about someone on the other side of the issue from you doing the same thing ? That clearly illustrates we 're dealing entirely with a political issue here masking itself as a scientific one .
Even the " scientists " are acting and scheming like politicians .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They discussed how to spin their results so as their findings wouldn't be used by the opposition to score political points and they discussed politics (including how to marginalize an opponent).And you don't find that disturbing?
And if you don't, how would you feel about someone on the other side of the issue from you doing the same thing?That clearly illustrates we're dealing entirely with a political issue here masking itself as a scientific one.
Even the "scientists" are acting and scheming like politicians.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30196332</id>
	<title>Re:The hack</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258884480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Did you even support it in the first place? Your tone makes me suspect not and that the above sentence is a rhetorical flourish to make your refusal sound more reasonable."</p><p>Your tone makes me suspect that you want only the data that supports your cause, so much so you've used rhetorical flourish to admonish a doubter while condoning and even justifying politicization of research data by the same scientists handling it.</p><p>Hell, the latter in itself is bias enough to throw it out.  To use your petty tactics, prove what you (aren't) hiding.  Have Al Gore, Soros, and research scientists separate their economics and their family economics from their political views and data.  That's what should be done anyways.</p><p>btw, I believe global warming is real.  Always have, and more so nowadays given the ocean acidity data has been getting stronger.  I just have my doubts about the solutions and the "economy" of those hamming it up--people like yourself.</p><p>Because real global warming believers tend to a) attack their own data to correct it and b) don't attack but educate, i.e. the research data of those researchers is probably good but let's pretend we ignore them and point them to other good data instead of "doubting" their questioning.</p><p>After all, you don't know if he is or isn't a real doubter, but you believing he isn't a real doubter sidetracked you, probably pissed him off and others looking for info.  It's hard to back people when they are jackasses to everyone that they don't agree with.  You can attack those in your own camp though; you'll quickly find who really understands and who is in it for political or socialization reasons only.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Did you even support it in the first place ?
Your tone makes me suspect not and that the above sentence is a rhetorical flourish to make your refusal sound more reasonable .
" Your tone makes me suspect that you want only the data that supports your cause , so much so you 've used rhetorical flourish to admonish a doubter while condoning and even justifying politicization of research data by the same scientists handling it.Hell , the latter in itself is bias enough to throw it out .
To use your petty tactics , prove what you ( are n't ) hiding .
Have Al Gore , Soros , and research scientists separate their economics and their family economics from their political views and data .
That 's what should be done anyways.btw , I believe global warming is real .
Always have , and more so nowadays given the ocean acidity data has been getting stronger .
I just have my doubts about the solutions and the " economy " of those hamming it up--people like yourself.Because real global warming believers tend to a ) attack their own data to correct it and b ) do n't attack but educate , i.e .
the research data of those researchers is probably good but let 's pretend we ignore them and point them to other good data instead of " doubting " their questioning.After all , you do n't know if he is or is n't a real doubter , but you believing he is n't a real doubter sidetracked you , probably pissed him off and others looking for info .
It 's hard to back people when they are jackasses to everyone that they do n't agree with .
You can attack those in your own camp though ; you 'll quickly find who really understands and who is in it for political or socialization reasons only .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Did you even support it in the first place?
Your tone makes me suspect not and that the above sentence is a rhetorical flourish to make your refusal sound more reasonable.
"Your tone makes me suspect that you want only the data that supports your cause, so much so you've used rhetorical flourish to admonish a doubter while condoning and even justifying politicization of research data by the same scientists handling it.Hell, the latter in itself is bias enough to throw it out.
To use your petty tactics, prove what you (aren't) hiding.
Have Al Gore, Soros, and research scientists separate their economics and their family economics from their political views and data.
That's what should be done anyways.btw, I believe global warming is real.
Always have, and more so nowadays given the ocean acidity data has been getting stronger.
I just have my doubts about the solutions and the "economy" of those hamming it up--people like yourself.Because real global warming believers tend to a) attack their own data to correct it and b) don't attack but educate, i.e.
the research data of those researchers is probably good but let's pretend we ignore them and point them to other good data instead of "doubting" their questioning.After all, you don't know if he is or isn't a real doubter, but you believing he isn't a real doubter sidetracked you, probably pissed him off and others looking for info.
It's hard to back people when they are jackasses to everyone that they don't agree with.
You can attack those in your own camp though; you'll quickly find who really understands and who is in it for political or socialization reasons only.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30195710</id>
	<title>Re:This is being cause by politicians</title>
	<author>amorsen</author>
	<datestamp>1258923000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So Africa doesn't get to industrialize, because the Western world polluted too much before they got their chance? Right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So Africa does n't get to industrialize , because the Western world polluted too much before they got their chance ?
Right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So Africa doesn't get to industrialize, because the Western world polluted too much before they got their chance?
Right.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193370</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously???</title>
	<author>bunratty</author>
	<datestamp>1258905600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>All this has been for naught?</p></div></blockquote><p>
No, it hasn't been for naught. Just think about what the emissions would have been if we haven't been trying to reduce emissions. What we need to do is much more to reduce emissions. We really haven't done much so far.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>All this has been for naught ?
No , it has n't been for naught .
Just think about what the emissions would have been if we have n't been trying to reduce emissions .
What we need to do is much more to reduce emissions .
We really have n't done much so far .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All this has been for naught?
No, it hasn't been for naught.
Just think about what the emissions would have been if we haven't been trying to reduce emissions.
What we need to do is much more to reduce emissions.
We really haven't done much so far.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194672</id>
	<title>Re:Wine production</title>
	<author>daniel.waterfield</author>
	<datestamp>1258914660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well in England at least, we have a pretty good set of vineyards already thanks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well in England at least , we have a pretty good set of vineyards already thanks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well in England at least, we have a pretty good set of vineyards already thanks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193574</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194206</id>
	<title>Re:Falsibility.</title>
	<author>Ambitwistor</author>
	<datestamp>1258911660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Warming rates are projected to increase over time as more CO2 is added to the atmosphere, for obvious reasons; the 21st century average rate is not the same as the current rate.  The 6 C by 2100 projections are the product of very large emissions projections toward the end of the century.  Current warming projections are for about 0.2K/decade, IIRC.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Warming rates are projected to increase over time as more CO2 is added to the atmosphere , for obvious reasons ; the 21st century average rate is not the same as the current rate .
The 6 C by 2100 projections are the product of very large emissions projections toward the end of the century .
Current warming projections are for about 0.2K/decade , IIRC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Warming rates are projected to increase over time as more CO2 is added to the atmosphere, for obvious reasons; the 21st century average rate is not the same as the current rate.
The 6 C by 2100 projections are the product of very large emissions projections toward the end of the century.
Current warming projections are for about 0.2K/decade, IIRC.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193132</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30197596</id>
	<title>Re:Time</title>
	<author>Russ Nelson</author>
	<datestamp>1258894860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes.  Well, of oil, anyway.  We have lots and lots of coal left.  But coal is dangerous to mine (it's killed 1000x as many people as nuclear power), dangerous to transport, and dangerous to burn (coal ash is radioactive).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes .
Well , of oil , anyway .
We have lots and lots of coal left .
But coal is dangerous to mine ( it 's killed 1000x as many people as nuclear power ) , dangerous to transport , and dangerous to burn ( coal ash is radioactive ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes.
Well, of oil, anyway.
We have lots and lots of coal left.
But coal is dangerous to mine (it's killed 1000x as many people as nuclear power), dangerous to transport, and dangerous to burn (coal ash is radioactive).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30195426</id>
	<title>Re:Falsibility.</title>
	<author>Shark</author>
	<datestamp>1258920960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Tell me, if you wanted to measure the temperature outside your house, would you consult a satellite measuring microwave transmissions or a thermometer adjacent to your house?</p></div><p>I thought the argument was that there is greenhouse effect.  I'm not a climatologist but as far as I've studied, greenhouse effect happens in the upper atmosphere first (unless you're at the poles).  If surface temperature is rising faster than atmospheric temperature, what you have isn't greenhouse effect.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Tell me , if you wanted to measure the temperature outside your house , would you consult a satellite measuring microwave transmissions or a thermometer adjacent to your house ? I thought the argument was that there is greenhouse effect .
I 'm not a climatologist but as far as I 've studied , greenhouse effect happens in the upper atmosphere first ( unless you 're at the poles ) .
If surface temperature is rising faster than atmospheric temperature , what you have is n't greenhouse effect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tell me, if you wanted to measure the temperature outside your house, would you consult a satellite measuring microwave transmissions or a thermometer adjacent to your house?I thought the argument was that there is greenhouse effect.
I'm not a climatologist but as far as I've studied, greenhouse effect happens in the upper atmosphere first (unless you're at the poles).
If surface temperature is rising faster than atmospheric temperature, what you have isn't greenhouse effect.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193214</id>
	<title>Environmal Economists?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258904220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>he researchers predict a small decrease this year due to the recession, but further increases from 2010. </i></p><p>So now our environmental scientists are making economic forcasets</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>he researchers predict a small decrease this year due to the recession , but further increases from 2010 .
So now our environmental scientists are making economic forcasets</tokentext>
<sentencetext>he researchers predict a small decrease this year due to the recession, but further increases from 2010.
So now our environmental scientists are making economic forcasets</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194682</id>
	<title>Almost all of the increase this decade after 2000</title>
	<author>mano.m</author>
	<datestamp>1258914720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Would that be because almost all of this decade <i>was</i> after 2000? Who comes up with these brilliant insights, I wonder.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would that be because almost all of this decade was after 2000 ?
Who comes up with these brilliant insights , I wonder .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would that be because almost all of this decade was after 2000?
Who comes up with these brilliant insights, I wonder.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193132</id>
	<title>Falsibility.</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1258903560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At least we now have some falsifiability in this.</p><p>IF the forecast temperature rise is 6C per century, then it is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.6C per decade.   Let's see what we have so far:</p><p><a href="http://www.remss.com/msu/msu\_data\_description.html#msu\_decadal\_trends" title="remss.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.remss.com/msu/msu\_data\_description.html#msu\_decadal\_trends</a> [remss.com]</p><p>Unlike Hadley, RSS uses satellite data, is consistent, and is open.  They DO report a current trend of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.15K per decade.  This is far lower than the forecast.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At least we now have some falsifiability in this.IF the forecast temperature rise is 6C per century , then it is .6C per decade .
Let 's see what we have so far : http : //www.remss.com/msu/msu \ _data \ _description.html # msu \ _decadal \ _trends [ remss.com ] Unlike Hadley , RSS uses satellite data , is consistent , and is open .
They DO report a current trend of .15K per decade .
This is far lower than the forecast .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least we now have some falsifiability in this.IF the forecast temperature rise is 6C per century, then it is .6C per decade.
Let's see what we have so far:http://www.remss.com/msu/msu\_data\_description.html#msu\_decadal\_trends [remss.com]Unlike Hadley, RSS uses satellite data, is consistent, and is open.
They DO report a current trend of .15K per decade.
This is far lower than the forecast.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30195810</id>
	<title>I kew it was a UK post before looking at the body</title>
	<author>peter303</author>
	<datestamp>1258880640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We get the most extreme 'end-of-world' slashdot posts from the UK.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We get the most extreme 'end-of-world ' slashdot posts from the UK .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We get the most extreme 'end-of-world' slashdot posts from the UK.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194090</id>
	<title>Re:Falsibility.</title>
	<author>gorgonite</author>
	<datestamp>1258910760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you look at the temperature from outer sky you might measure the heat emission from earth to outer space. The higher the temperature, the higher the heat emission. If a greenhouse effect is effective, it reduces the heat emission and thus the temperature.
In this scenario there would be a lower temperature in the upper atmospheric region as long as until a new equilibrium is reached, with higher temperatures at the surface of the earth.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you look at the temperature from outer sky you might measure the heat emission from earth to outer space .
The higher the temperature , the higher the heat emission .
If a greenhouse effect is effective , it reduces the heat emission and thus the temperature .
In this scenario there would be a lower temperature in the upper atmospheric region as long as until a new equilibrium is reached , with higher temperatures at the surface of the earth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you look at the temperature from outer sky you might measure the heat emission from earth to outer space.
The higher the temperature, the higher the heat emission.
If a greenhouse effect is effective, it reduces the heat emission and thus the temperature.
In this scenario there would be a lower temperature in the upper atmospheric region as long as until a new equilibrium is reached, with higher temperatures at the surface of the earth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193132</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30199382</id>
	<title>Re:The hack</title>
	<author>Snocone</author>
	<datestamp>1258911060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Having read that story, I saw no evidence that they lied or changed number.</i></p><p>Here you go. Found in comments in the Mann code:</p><p>"shouldn't usually plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures."</p><p>Yep, that's lying.</p><p><a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/22/cru-emails-may-be-open-to-interpretation-but-commented-code-by-the-programmer-tells-the-real-story/#more-13065" title="wattsupwiththat.com">http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/22/cru-emails-may-be-open-to-interpretation-but-commented-code-by-the-programmer-tells-the-real-story/#more-13065</a> [wattsupwiththat.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Having read that story , I saw no evidence that they lied or changed number.Here you go .
Found in comments in the Mann code : " should n't usually plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures .
" Yep , that 's lying.http : //wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/22/cru-emails-may-be-open-to-interpretation-but-commented-code-by-the-programmer-tells-the-real-story/ # more-13065 [ wattsupwiththat.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having read that story, I saw no evidence that they lied or changed number.Here you go.
Found in comments in the Mann code:"shouldn't usually plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures.
"Yep, that's lying.http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/22/cru-emails-may-be-open-to-interpretation-but-commented-code-by-the-programmer-tells-the-real-story/#more-13065 [wattsupwiththat.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30199116</id>
	<title>Re:The hack</title>
	<author>Abcd1234</author>
	<datestamp>1258908300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Sorry to any part of the world negatively affected by global warming. Where I live (away from the ocean, in a cold climate), a degree warming can only be a good thing.</i></p><p>Fuck no.  Assuming you, like I, live in the prairies, then I hope you understand that a) long, cold winters are vital to protect our pine forest from the pine beetle, b) long, cold, snowy winters are very important for the following growing season as they provide much-needed spring-time moisture, and c) changes in temperature also mean changes in rainfall patterns, making drought conditions *far* more likely, something that would be devastating for a region, and a country, strongly dependant on our bread baskets.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry to any part of the world negatively affected by global warming .
Where I live ( away from the ocean , in a cold climate ) , a degree warming can only be a good thing.Fuck no .
Assuming you , like I , live in the prairies , then I hope you understand that a ) long , cold winters are vital to protect our pine forest from the pine beetle , b ) long , cold , snowy winters are very important for the following growing season as they provide much-needed spring-time moisture , and c ) changes in temperature also mean changes in rainfall patterns , making drought conditions * far * more likely , something that would be devastating for a region , and a country , strongly dependant on our bread baskets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry to any part of the world negatively affected by global warming.
Where I live (away from the ocean, in a cold climate), a degree warming can only be a good thing.Fuck no.
Assuming you, like I, live in the prairies, then I hope you understand that a) long, cold winters are vital to protect our pine forest from the pine beetle, b) long, cold, snowy winters are very important for the following growing season as they provide much-needed spring-time moisture, and c) changes in temperature also mean changes in rainfall patterns, making drought conditions *far* more likely, something that would be devastating for a region, and a country, strongly dependant on our bread baskets.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194442</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30199406</id>
	<title>Re:The hack</title>
	<author>Snocone</author>
	<datestamp>1258911420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Having read that story, I saw no evidence that they lied or changed number</i></p><p>Here you go. Found in comments in the Mann code:</p><p>"shouldn't usually plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures."</p><p>That's not just evidence, that's actual proof.</p><p><a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/22/cru-emails-may-be-open-to-interpretation-but-commented-code-by-the-programmer-tells-the-real-story/#more-13065" title="wattsupwiththat.com">http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/22/cru-emails-may-be-open-to-interpretation-but-commented-code-by-the-programmer-tells-the-real-story/#more-13065</a> [wattsupwiththat.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Having read that story , I saw no evidence that they lied or changed numberHere you go .
Found in comments in the Mann code : " should n't usually plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures .
" That 's not just evidence , that 's actual proof.http : //wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/22/cru-emails-may-be-open-to-interpretation-but-commented-code-by-the-programmer-tells-the-real-story/ # more-13065 [ wattsupwiththat.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having read that story, I saw no evidence that they lied or changed numberHere you go.
Found in comments in the Mann code:"shouldn't usually plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures.
"That's not just evidence, that's actual proof.http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/22/cru-emails-may-be-open-to-interpretation-but-commented-code-by-the-programmer-tells-the-real-story/#more-13065 [wattsupwiththat.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193504</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously???</title>
	<author>Rising Ape</author>
	<datestamp>1258906500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They may be responsible for most of the increase, but their per-capita emissions are still well below those of the west - half of Europe's and a quarter of the USA's.</p><p>As others have pointed out, the emissions equipment on cars isn't for reducing CO2, and probably increases it slightly due to loss of efficiency.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They may be responsible for most of the increase , but their per-capita emissions are still well below those of the west - half of Europe 's and a quarter of the USA 's.As others have pointed out , the emissions equipment on cars is n't for reducing CO2 , and probably increases it slightly due to loss of efficiency .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They may be responsible for most of the increase, but their per-capita emissions are still well below those of the west - half of Europe's and a quarter of the USA's.As others have pointed out, the emissions equipment on cars isn't for reducing CO2, and probably increases it slightly due to loss of efficiency.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193882</id>
	<title>Re:re Increase or decline?</title>
	<author>drsquare</author>
	<datestamp>1258909440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is that very few people are actually qualified to debate climate change. Not even NASA. Especially not people who think that a short term cooling precludes overall AGW.</p><p>I blame the Internet, it makes the ignorant, knuckle-dragging, unqualified masses think their views actually count for anything.</p><p>If you actually looked at the graph you linked to, you'd see that annual mean temperature varies by up to 0.2 degrees year by year, but has an overall upward trend. So what if 2008 is the lowest since 2000? It's still higher than 2000, and higher than anything before 1990.</p><p>See what I mean? You can't even interpret a basic line graph and you're trying to debate climate change, disbelieving all the people who actually know something about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that very few people are actually qualified to debate climate change .
Not even NASA .
Especially not people who think that a short term cooling precludes overall AGW.I blame the Internet , it makes the ignorant , knuckle-dragging , unqualified masses think their views actually count for anything.If you actually looked at the graph you linked to , you 'd see that annual mean temperature varies by up to 0.2 degrees year by year , but has an overall upward trend .
So what if 2008 is the lowest since 2000 ?
It 's still higher than 2000 , and higher than anything before 1990.See what I mean ?
You ca n't even interpret a basic line graph and you 're trying to debate climate change , disbelieving all the people who actually know something about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that very few people are actually qualified to debate climate change.
Not even NASA.
Especially not people who think that a short term cooling precludes overall AGW.I blame the Internet, it makes the ignorant, knuckle-dragging, unqualified masses think their views actually count for anything.If you actually looked at the graph you linked to, you'd see that annual mean temperature varies by up to 0.2 degrees year by year, but has an overall upward trend.
So what if 2008 is the lowest since 2000?
It's still higher than 2000, and higher than anything before 1990.See what I mean?
You can't even interpret a basic line graph and you're trying to debate climate change, disbelieving all the people who actually know something about it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193984</id>
	<title>It's hopeless... Humans will destroy themselves</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258910100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is just sad.  I think it's pretty much certain at this point that humanity is going to destroy itself.  We clearly don't have the will or foresight to do anything about stopping a run away green house effect on Earth that will end life as we know it, all because we'd rather be able to do our daily 60 mile commute to the exburbs in our SUB and pay a few dollars less for crappy electronics from China, than do something that benefits the survival of those who will live after us.  Like the numerous pacific island civilizations that destroyed themselves hundreds of years ago by over consumption of resources on their island, it seems inevitable now that the same fate awaits the rest of civilization.  Whether ignorance or just not caring, the politicization of global warming is going to be the end of all of us.  It defies all rational, intellectual thought.  If we do manage to somehow stop it, I have no doubt that the right wingers that are stopping climate change today will be remembered in history with about as much respect as the right wingers of the Middle Age who denied the Earth orbited the sun.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is just sad .
I think it 's pretty much certain at this point that humanity is going to destroy itself .
We clearly do n't have the will or foresight to do anything about stopping a run away green house effect on Earth that will end life as we know it , all because we 'd rather be able to do our daily 60 mile commute to the exburbs in our SUB and pay a few dollars less for crappy electronics from China , than do something that benefits the survival of those who will live after us .
Like the numerous pacific island civilizations that destroyed themselves hundreds of years ago by over consumption of resources on their island , it seems inevitable now that the same fate awaits the rest of civilization .
Whether ignorance or just not caring , the politicization of global warming is going to be the end of all of us .
It defies all rational , intellectual thought .
If we do manage to somehow stop it , I have no doubt that the right wingers that are stopping climate change today will be remembered in history with about as much respect as the right wingers of the Middle Age who denied the Earth orbited the sun .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is just sad.
I think it's pretty much certain at this point that humanity is going to destroy itself.
We clearly don't have the will or foresight to do anything about stopping a run away green house effect on Earth that will end life as we know it, all because we'd rather be able to do our daily 60 mile commute to the exburbs in our SUB and pay a few dollars less for crappy electronics from China, than do something that benefits the survival of those who will live after us.
Like the numerous pacific island civilizations that destroyed themselves hundreds of years ago by over consumption of resources on their island, it seems inevitable now that the same fate awaits the rest of civilization.
Whether ignorance or just not caring, the politicization of global warming is going to be the end of all of us.
It defies all rational, intellectual thought.
If we do manage to somehow stop it, I have no doubt that the right wingers that are stopping climate change today will be remembered in history with about as much respect as the right wingers of the Middle Age who denied the Earth orbited the sun.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30195164</id>
	<title>Re:re Increase or decline?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258918680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Trick" is indeed a common alternative word for "technique". The word simply implies that it is somewhat less obvious than other techniques. Sometimes this becomes even established terminology for certain techniques, e.g. the "kernel trick" in machine learning.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Trick " is indeed a common alternative word for " technique " .
The word simply implies that it is somewhat less obvious than other techniques .
Sometimes this becomes even established terminology for certain techniques , e.g .
the " kernel trick " in machine learning .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Trick" is indeed a common alternative word for "technique".
The word simply implies that it is somewhat less obvious than other techniques.
Sometimes this becomes even established terminology for certain techniques, e.g.
the "kernel trick" in machine learning.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193374</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30196246</id>
	<title>The Hoaxsters</title>
	<author>turkeyfish</author>
	<datestamp>1258883700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"your pre-existing political beliefs tell you all you should need to know. "</p><p>And from this we can conclude that the Climate Deniers, like Nixon, have only one tool left in their quiver.  If one can't come up with any rational scientific explanations to counter the findings of climate scientists that mean global temperatures are in fact rising as the result of burning of fossil fuels, turn to burglary to dig up "dirt" on your opponents, as if somehow the consequence of the entire debate rested upon how it is portrayed in the media.  The entire debate if stalled and manipulated may well further enrich a few oil industry titans, but it won't do much to lower the temperature of what is going to be a much hotter world.</p><p>Personally, I would prefer that we stop burning fossil fuels and start burning oil company executives, but I suspect it will take a few more degrees of global warming before that solution becomes a widely accepted approach to dealing with a very serious crisis facing humanity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" your pre-existing political beliefs tell you all you should need to know .
" And from this we can conclude that the Climate Deniers , like Nixon , have only one tool left in their quiver .
If one ca n't come up with any rational scientific explanations to counter the findings of climate scientists that mean global temperatures are in fact rising as the result of burning of fossil fuels , turn to burglary to dig up " dirt " on your opponents , as if somehow the consequence of the entire debate rested upon how it is portrayed in the media .
The entire debate if stalled and manipulated may well further enrich a few oil industry titans , but it wo n't do much to lower the temperature of what is going to be a much hotter world.Personally , I would prefer that we stop burning fossil fuels and start burning oil company executives , but I suspect it will take a few more degrees of global warming before that solution becomes a widely accepted approach to dealing with a very serious crisis facing humanity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"your pre-existing political beliefs tell you all you should need to know.
"And from this we can conclude that the Climate Deniers, like Nixon, have only one tool left in their quiver.
If one can't come up with any rational scientific explanations to counter the findings of climate scientists that mean global temperatures are in fact rising as the result of burning of fossil fuels, turn to burglary to dig up "dirt" on your opponents, as if somehow the consequence of the entire debate rested upon how it is portrayed in the media.
The entire debate if stalled and manipulated may well further enrich a few oil industry titans, but it won't do much to lower the temperature of what is going to be a much hotter world.Personally, I would prefer that we stop burning fossil fuels and start burning oil company executives, but I suspect it will take a few more degrees of global warming before that solution becomes a widely accepted approach to dealing with a very serious crisis facing humanity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193846</id>
	<title>Re:re Increase or decline?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258909200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or the mere fact that the existing models used don't conform to the reality of the data.  Just saying...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or the mere fact that the existing models used do n't conform to the reality of the data .
Just saying.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or the mere fact that the existing models used don't conform to the reality of the data.
Just saying...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193322</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193832</id>
	<title>Matrix revisited</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1258909080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>With current advancements in internet and virtual reality, maybe a way to stop polluting/emiting greenhouse gases and/or survive to global heathing is to attach ourselves to machines and live a virtual life there, with minimal energy requirements, low pollution, letting the planet heal itself. And tell the machines that guard us to tell anyone who asked that they are dominating and using us to generate energy to not blame the human architects that designed that brilliant plan.<br><br>The only problem could happen is if some idiots want to keep screwing our climate funding a polluting underground city and driving around ships, but we can build an alternate virtual reality s specifically for them, with gateways with the main one.</htmltext>
<tokenext>With current advancements in internet and virtual reality , maybe a way to stop polluting/emiting greenhouse gases and/or survive to global heathing is to attach ourselves to machines and live a virtual life there , with minimal energy requirements , low pollution , letting the planet heal itself .
And tell the machines that guard us to tell anyone who asked that they are dominating and using us to generate energy to not blame the human architects that designed that brilliant plan.The only problem could happen is if some idiots want to keep screwing our climate funding a polluting underground city and driving around ships , but we can build an alternate virtual reality s specifically for them , with gateways with the main one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With current advancements in internet and virtual reality, maybe a way to stop polluting/emiting greenhouse gases and/or survive to global heathing is to attach ourselves to machines and live a virtual life there, with minimal energy requirements, low pollution, letting the planet heal itself.
And tell the machines that guard us to tell anyone who asked that they are dominating and using us to generate energy to not blame the human architects that designed that brilliant plan.The only problem could happen is if some idiots want to keep screwing our climate funding a polluting underground city and driving around ships, but we can build an alternate virtual reality s specifically for them, with gateways with the main one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194178</id>
	<title>Re:Register story</title>
	<author>SockPuppet\_9\_5</author>
	<datestamp>1258911480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For those who want a summary of some of the emails, go read
<a href="http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cuttings-33.html" title="squarespace.com" rel="nofollow">http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cuttings-33.html</a> [squarespace.com]
<br>
Where you can read that the person most responsible for the famous Hockey Stick graph discusses how to destroy a journal that has published skeptic papers.<br>
Yes, it's a political thing that has corrupted the scientific process.  Who would'a figured?</htmltext>
<tokenext>For those who want a summary of some of the emails , go read http : //bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cuttings-33.html [ squarespace.com ] Where you can read that the person most responsible for the famous Hockey Stick graph discusses how to destroy a journal that has published skeptic papers .
Yes , it 's a political thing that has corrupted the scientific process .
Who would'a figured ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For those who want a summary of some of the emails, go read
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cuttings-33.html [squarespace.com]

Where you can read that the person most responsible for the famous Hockey Stick graph discusses how to destroy a journal that has published skeptic papers.
Yes, it's a political thing that has corrupted the scientific process.
Who would'a figured?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193168</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30195634</id>
	<title>Re:6C ? Ho Hum</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258922340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So what is the average temperature of the Earth?  And what is the Standard Deviation?  I'm too lazy to look it up, and you are being so kind and considerate to do the multiplication, I thought you can do my look up for me.  Luvya dear</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So what is the average temperature of the Earth ?
And what is the Standard Deviation ?
I 'm too lazy to look it up , and you are being so kind and considerate to do the multiplication , I thought you can do my look up for me .
Luvya dear</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what is the average temperature of the Earth?
And what is the Standard Deviation?
I'm too lazy to look it up, and you are being so kind and considerate to do the multiplication, I thought you can do my look up for me.
Luvya dear</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30200594</id>
	<title>Re:It doesn't add up...</title>
	<author>Alioth</author>
	<datestamp>1258979100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The British Isles aren't a set of lowlands barely above sea level. Most of the British Isles is significantly above sea level, and indeed there are mountainous regions. Bits of it (East Anglia, the flood plains around the Thames and other major estuaries) would get swamped, but most of it is sufficiently high above sea level.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The British Isles are n't a set of lowlands barely above sea level .
Most of the British Isles is significantly above sea level , and indeed there are mountainous regions .
Bits of it ( East Anglia , the flood plains around the Thames and other major estuaries ) would get swamped , but most of it is sufficiently high above sea level .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The British Isles aren't a set of lowlands barely above sea level.
Most of the British Isles is significantly above sea level, and indeed there are mountainous regions.
Bits of it (East Anglia, the flood plains around the Thames and other major estuaries) would get swamped, but most of it is sufficiently high above sea level.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193552</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193362</id>
	<title>Re:Falsibility.</title>
	<author>MrHanky</author>
	<datestamp>1258905480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, and that's 0.06 per year or 0.06/365 per day. Sorry, but your "test" is simply not credible at all. There will always be natural variation on top of everything else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , and that 's 0.06 per year or 0.06/365 per day .
Sorry , but your " test " is simply not credible at all .
There will always be natural variation on top of everything else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, and that's 0.06 per year or 0.06/365 per day.
Sorry, but your "test" is simply not credible at all.
There will always be natural variation on top of everything else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193132</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194470</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously???</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258913220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember that on a trip to Saudi Arabia (for those who don't know much about geography, it's the largest country in the middle east and it has a quarter of the world's oil) they were just burning up excess gas on a top of a tower. Even if the west reduced its emissions, it's things like this that we have to worry about.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember that on a trip to Saudi Arabia ( for those who do n't know much about geography , it 's the largest country in the middle east and it has a quarter of the world 's oil ) they were just burning up excess gas on a top of a tower .
Even if the west reduced its emissions , it 's things like this that we have to worry about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember that on a trip to Saudi Arabia (for those who don't know much about geography, it's the largest country in the middle east and it has a quarter of the world's oil) they were just burning up excess gas on a top of a tower.
Even if the west reduced its emissions, it's things like this that we have to worry about.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30195860</id>
	<title>Alarming is An Understatment!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258880880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most who are unfamiliar with the biology of most "higher" organisms are woefully unprepared to image the consequences of such a profound temperature increase.  If this pace goes on for only a couple of centuries, it would largely wipe out most vertebrate and plant species, which do not evolve fast enough to alter their basic ecological requirements.  A 6 degree C change per 100 years, would change underlying ecological communities so fast, most species would die out, most likely because they would not be able to survive during vulnerable portions of their life cycles.  This will be especially true for many vertebrates and plants that are unlikely to survive the challenges of being able to find sufficient water for lengthy periods as water scarcity grows more acute.  With a 6 degree rise in global mean temperatures there would be almost no glaciers outside of the poles and a dramatic reduction of  winter ice everywhere, hence dramatic reductions in melt water in virtually all rivers.  Coupled with competition from burgeoning human populations and you can just about kiss most large species good bye.</p><p>If the present trend continues for a couple of hundred years, those of our descendants surviving are likely to look back nostalgically on the past and  for the yearn for the elatively merciful ending of the world portrayed in the movie 2012.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most who are unfamiliar with the biology of most " higher " organisms are woefully unprepared to image the consequences of such a profound temperature increase .
If this pace goes on for only a couple of centuries , it would largely wipe out most vertebrate and plant species , which do not evolve fast enough to alter their basic ecological requirements .
A 6 degree C change per 100 years , would change underlying ecological communities so fast , most species would die out , most likely because they would not be able to survive during vulnerable portions of their life cycles .
This will be especially true for many vertebrates and plants that are unlikely to survive the challenges of being able to find sufficient water for lengthy periods as water scarcity grows more acute .
With a 6 degree rise in global mean temperatures there would be almost no glaciers outside of the poles and a dramatic reduction of winter ice everywhere , hence dramatic reductions in melt water in virtually all rivers .
Coupled with competition from burgeoning human populations and you can just about kiss most large species good bye.If the present trend continues for a couple of hundred years , those of our descendants surviving are likely to look back nostalgically on the past and for the yearn for the elatively merciful ending of the world portrayed in the movie 2012 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most who are unfamiliar with the biology of most "higher" organisms are woefully unprepared to image the consequences of such a profound temperature increase.
If this pace goes on for only a couple of centuries, it would largely wipe out most vertebrate and plant species, which do not evolve fast enough to alter their basic ecological requirements.
A 6 degree C change per 100 years, would change underlying ecological communities so fast, most species would die out, most likely because they would not be able to survive during vulnerable portions of their life cycles.
This will be especially true for many vertebrates and plants that are unlikely to survive the challenges of being able to find sufficient water for lengthy periods as water scarcity grows more acute.
With a 6 degree rise in global mean temperatures there would be almost no glaciers outside of the poles and a dramatic reduction of  winter ice everywhere, hence dramatic reductions in melt water in virtually all rivers.
Coupled with competition from burgeoning human populations and you can just about kiss most large species good bye.If the present trend continues for a couple of hundred years, those of our descendants surviving are likely to look back nostalgically on the past and  for the yearn for the elatively merciful ending of the world portrayed in the movie 2012.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30195888</id>
	<title>Re:Prediction depends on an unproven thesis</title>
	<author>HiThere</author>
	<datestamp>1258881240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>CO2 is a relatively persistent pollutant.  Methane recycles more quickly.</p><p>OTOH, the CO2 window is practically closed, and the methane one is still open.  Perhaps at this time methane *is* more significant.  I don't know, and I doubt that the engineers you consulted know either.  But you're right to the extent that you accept that both are important.  And that the laws aren't written to optimize climatic impact.  (We probably *couldn't* write the laws that way, but we could certainly come a lot closer than we have.)</p><p>OTOH, if you go back 40 years, CO2 was considerably the more significant pollutant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>CO2 is a relatively persistent pollutant .
Methane recycles more quickly.OTOH , the CO2 window is practically closed , and the methane one is still open .
Perhaps at this time methane * is * more significant .
I do n't know , and I doubt that the engineers you consulted know either .
But you 're right to the extent that you accept that both are important .
And that the laws are n't written to optimize climatic impact .
( We probably * could n't * write the laws that way , but we could certainly come a lot closer than we have .
) OTOH , if you go back 40 years , CO2 was considerably the more significant pollutant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CO2 is a relatively persistent pollutant.
Methane recycles more quickly.OTOH, the CO2 window is practically closed, and the methane one is still open.
Perhaps at this time methane *is* more significant.
I don't know, and I doubt that the engineers you consulted know either.
But you're right to the extent that you accept that both are important.
And that the laws aren't written to optimize climatic impact.
(We probably *couldn't* write the laws that way, but we could certainly come a lot closer than we have.
)OTOH, if you go back 40 years, CO2 was considerably the more significant pollutant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193640</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193956</id>
	<title>Re:re Increase or decline?</title>
	<author>Snocone</author>
	<datestamp>1258909860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"why is it that so many people are so eager to believe global warming skeptics? Methinks it is because they do not want to believe that something as innocent as driving a car could be a problem."</p><p>Because when you've just had the third coldest October in 115 years of organized records -- 4 degrees below average -- as part of a year which so far is ranking 43rd in that 115, the thermometers are looking pretty darn skeptical?</p><p><a href="http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=national&amp;year=2009&amp;month=10&amp;submitted=Get+Report" title="noaa.gov">http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=national&amp;year=2009&amp;month=10&amp;submitted=Get+Report</a> [noaa.gov]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" why is it that so many people are so eager to believe global warming skeptics ?
Methinks it is because they do not want to believe that something as innocent as driving a car could be a problem .
" Because when you 've just had the third coldest October in 115 years of organized records -- 4 degrees below average -- as part of a year which so far is ranking 43rd in that 115 , the thermometers are looking pretty darn skeptical ? http : //www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/ ? report = national&amp;year = 2009&amp;month = 10&amp;submitted = Get + Report [ noaa.gov ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"why is it that so many people are so eager to believe global warming skeptics?
Methinks it is because they do not want to believe that something as innocent as driving a car could be a problem.
"Because when you've just had the third coldest October in 115 years of organized records -- 4 degrees below average -- as part of a year which so far is ranking 43rd in that 115, the thermometers are looking pretty darn skeptical?http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=national&amp;year=2009&amp;month=10&amp;submitted=Get+Report [noaa.gov]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193386</id>
	<title>Re:Because we all know....</title>
	<author>WoodstockJeff</author>
	<datestamp>1258905720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except the climatologist doesn't know how much heat is being added to the pot, what the composition of the fluid is within the pot, or even how much fluid is there... and still claims to make precise predictions based upon the imprecise data.</p><p>Or, more correctly, makes predictions like, "If nothing changes...." when, in fact, things are always changing. Increased CO2 in the atmosphere leads to increased plant growth, which decreases atmospheric CO2. Solar radiation changes in intensity. Changes in temp and amount of foliage change the level of water vapor in the atmosphere, changing the planet's reflectivity.</p><p>Tying a prediction like this to "just" an observed short-term increase in CO2 emissions (which, by the way, isn't a 29\% increase in the amount of CO2, but the amount being emitted... without taking into account the amount being absorbed by other players in the ecosystem) ignores 99\% of the data.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except the climatologist does n't know how much heat is being added to the pot , what the composition of the fluid is within the pot , or even how much fluid is there... and still claims to make precise predictions based upon the imprecise data.Or , more correctly , makes predictions like , " If nothing changes.... " when , in fact , things are always changing .
Increased CO2 in the atmosphere leads to increased plant growth , which decreases atmospheric CO2 .
Solar radiation changes in intensity .
Changes in temp and amount of foliage change the level of water vapor in the atmosphere , changing the planet 's reflectivity.Tying a prediction like this to " just " an observed short-term increase in CO2 emissions ( which , by the way , is n't a 29 \ % increase in the amount of CO2 , but the amount being emitted... without taking into account the amount being absorbed by other players in the ecosystem ) ignores 99 \ % of the data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except the climatologist doesn't know how much heat is being added to the pot, what the composition of the fluid is within the pot, or even how much fluid is there... and still claims to make precise predictions based upon the imprecise data.Or, more correctly, makes predictions like, "If nothing changes...." when, in fact, things are always changing.
Increased CO2 in the atmosphere leads to increased plant growth, which decreases atmospheric CO2.
Solar radiation changes in intensity.
Changes in temp and amount of foliage change the level of water vapor in the atmosphere, changing the planet's reflectivity.Tying a prediction like this to "just" an observed short-term increase in CO2 emissions (which, by the way, isn't a 29\% increase in the amount of CO2, but the amount being emitted... without taking into account the amount being absorbed by other players in the ecosystem) ignores 99\% of the data.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193240</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30195654</id>
	<title>Re:6C ?</title>
	<author>toddhisattva</author>
	<datestamp>1258922400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't that like several thousand degrees on the Gore scale?!?!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't that like several thousand degrees on the Gore scale ? ! ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't that like several thousand degrees on the Gore scale?!?
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194958</id>
	<title>peer reviewed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258916940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the quality of peer reviewed depends on the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... peers.</p><p>the fan boys don't understand how dark the 'scientific society' is. ordinarily they are just producing garbage papers in exchange for a living. that is harmless, until a few of them decides to change the world.</p><p>the reliability of climate models is less than economic models, and the latter is pure nonsense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the quality of peer reviewed depends on the ... peers.the fan boys do n't understand how dark the 'scientific society ' is .
ordinarily they are just producing garbage papers in exchange for a living .
that is harmless , until a few of them decides to change the world.the reliability of climate models is less than economic models , and the latter is pure nonsense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the quality of peer reviewed depends on the ... peers.the fan boys don't understand how dark the 'scientific society' is.
ordinarily they are just producing garbage papers in exchange for a living.
that is harmless, until a few of them decides to change the world.the reliability of climate models is less than economic models, and the latter is pure nonsense.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194264</id>
	<title>Re:Hoax?</title>
	<author>meringuoid</author>
	<datestamp>1258912020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Honestly, i don't get the 'hoax' tag, the doom&amp;gloom tag or even fear mongering could be seen as appropriate, but hoax?</i>

<p>Some emails were leaked on Friday from the climate research unit at the university of East Anglia. In about 150 megabytes of text, it turned out that in one of the emails, one of the researchers used the word 'trick' to describe some unspecified method of statistical analysis he had used on some dataset, and mentioned that it would 'hide the decline'. Everyone immediately saw that obviously this trick was dishonest and the decline in question was a real decline in temperatures, and it means that the entire field of climate science has been perpetrating a decades-long hoax on the world, and Al Gore should be tried for treason. Because you don't need any kind of context to know exactly what the word 'trick' refers to and what 'decline' is being hidden and why; your pre-existing political beliefs tell you all you should need to know.

</p><p>That's why articles about climate change can expect to be tagged with such things for quite some time into the future.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Honestly , i do n't get the 'hoax ' tag , the doom&amp;gloom tag or even fear mongering could be seen as appropriate , but hoax ?
Some emails were leaked on Friday from the climate research unit at the university of East Anglia .
In about 150 megabytes of text , it turned out that in one of the emails , one of the researchers used the word 'trick ' to describe some unspecified method of statistical analysis he had used on some dataset , and mentioned that it would 'hide the decline' .
Everyone immediately saw that obviously this trick was dishonest and the decline in question was a real decline in temperatures , and it means that the entire field of climate science has been perpetrating a decades-long hoax on the world , and Al Gore should be tried for treason .
Because you do n't need any kind of context to know exactly what the word 'trick ' refers to and what 'decline ' is being hidden and why ; your pre-existing political beliefs tell you all you should need to know .
That 's why articles about climate change can expect to be tagged with such things for quite some time into the future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Honestly, i don't get the 'hoax' tag, the doom&amp;gloom tag or even fear mongering could be seen as appropriate, but hoax?
Some emails were leaked on Friday from the climate research unit at the university of East Anglia.
In about 150 megabytes of text, it turned out that in one of the emails, one of the researchers used the word 'trick' to describe some unspecified method of statistical analysis he had used on some dataset, and mentioned that it would 'hide the decline'.
Everyone immediately saw that obviously this trick was dishonest and the decline in question was a real decline in temperatures, and it means that the entire field of climate science has been perpetrating a decades-long hoax on the world, and Al Gore should be tried for treason.
Because you don't need any kind of context to know exactly what the word 'trick' refers to and what 'decline' is being hidden and why; your pre-existing political beliefs tell you all you should need to know.
That's why articles about climate change can expect to be tagged with such things for quite some time into the future.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194752</id>
	<title>Anonymous</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258915200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If this study were accurate,</p><p>Temperatures would have been 30C higher in the distant past when CO2 levels were 4,500 ppm for example.  What did we have at this time period instead, one of the biggest ice ages ever.</p><p>You can not believe this people.  It has always been extreme exagerration.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If this study were accurate,Temperatures would have been 30C higher in the distant past when CO2 levels were 4,500 ppm for example .
What did we have at this time period instead , one of the biggest ice ages ever.You can not believe this people .
It has always been extreme exagerration .
   </tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this study were accurate,Temperatures would have been 30C higher in the distant past when CO2 levels were 4,500 ppm for example.
What did we have at this time period instead, one of the biggest ice ages ever.You can not believe this people.
It has always been extreme exagerration.
   </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30197482</id>
	<title>Re:The truth is global warming has stalled out</title>
	<author>Timothy Brownawell</author>
	<datestamp>1258893720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I submitted article with the real truth, wonder if slashdot will post it?</p><p> <a href="http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html" title="spiegel.de">http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html</a> [spiegel.de] </p></div><p>If you look <a href="http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/" title="nasa.gov">here</a> [nasa.gov] it seems temperatures have been alternately going up and staying flat (or even cooling slightly) for 30 years or so, and we're about at the end of 30 years of "going up". Maybe the warming is on hold until around 2040?</p><p>Hey, that could mean that 2038 <em>really is</em> the end of the world --  the 2012 people have the right idea, they've just been working from the wrong calendar.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I submitted article with the real truth , wonder if slashdot will post it ?
http : //www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html [ spiegel.de ] If you look here [ nasa.gov ] it seems temperatures have been alternately going up and staying flat ( or even cooling slightly ) for 30 years or so , and we 're about at the end of 30 years of " going up " .
Maybe the warming is on hold until around 2040 ? Hey , that could mean that 2038 really is the end of the world -- the 2012 people have the right idea , they 've just been working from the wrong calendar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I submitted article with the real truth, wonder if slashdot will post it?
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html [spiegel.de] If you look here [nasa.gov] it seems temperatures have been alternately going up and staying flat (or even cooling slightly) for 30 years or so, and we're about at the end of 30 years of "going up".
Maybe the warming is on hold until around 2040?Hey, that could mean that 2038 really is the end of the world --  the 2012 people have the right idea, they've just been working from the wrong calendar.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30196244</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194786</id>
	<title>Time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258915500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought we were running out of coal and oil.  Won't the problem sort of solve it's self once that happens?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought we were running out of coal and oil .
Wo n't the problem sort of solve it 's self once that happens ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought we were running out of coal and oil.
Won't the problem sort of solve it's self once that happens?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30202650</id>
	<title>So long, suckers!</title>
	<author>thickdiick</author>
	<datestamp>1258995180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While you're all arguing about the INEVITABLE, i'm buying up farmland in Canada. If this all pans out, my dynasty will be a rich and powerful one, commanding great swaths of fertile Canadian farmland that will be ripe when the climate warms up. Canadian oranges, anyone?</htmltext>
<tokenext>While you 're all arguing about the INEVITABLE , i 'm buying up farmland in Canada .
If this all pans out , my dynasty will be a rich and powerful one , commanding great swaths of fertile Canadian farmland that will be ripe when the climate warms up .
Canadian oranges , anyone ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While you're all arguing about the INEVITABLE, i'm buying up farmland in Canada.
If this all pans out, my dynasty will be a rich and powerful one, commanding great swaths of fertile Canadian farmland that will be ripe when the climate warms up.
Canadian oranges, anyone?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30199954</id>
	<title>Re:re Increase or decline?</title>
	<author>riverat1</author>
	<datestamp>1259008380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, you young guys.  What happened between 1940 and 1980 was a rapid increase in industrialization with largely unrestrained emissions of pollution, in particular SO2 and aerosols that had a cooling effect.  In the 1970's we got serious about cleaning up that pollution so it no longer masked the warming signal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , you young guys .
What happened between 1940 and 1980 was a rapid increase in industrialization with largely unrestrained emissions of pollution , in particular SO2 and aerosols that had a cooling effect .
In the 1970 's we got serious about cleaning up that pollution so it no longer masked the warming signal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, you young guys.
What happened between 1940 and 1980 was a rapid increase in industrialization with largely unrestrained emissions of pollution, in particular SO2 and aerosols that had a cooling effect.
In the 1970's we got serious about cleaning up that pollution so it no longer masked the warming signal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30198552</id>
	<title>If you didn't study this in a reputable grad progr</title>
	<author>dkoulomzin</author>
	<datestamp>1258903380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...am, please shut up.  You're making us all dumber.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...am , please shut up .
You 're making us all dumber .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...am, please shut up.
You're making us all dumber.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193918</id>
	<title>The study findings vs the conclusion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258909620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The real science in the article is the measurement of the CO2 levels and their trends. Taking this information and extrapolating it to temperature changes is conjecture. You can call it SWAG (Scientific Wild A** Guessing), but it is still a guess until they can put together a mathematical model for global temperature prediction that is open, peer reviewed, and tested with control data to confirm it is accurate. Let's look at this information and instead ask, if we think CO2 is warming the planet and we want to avoid that, what can be done to contain the meteoric rise of CO2 from China and India? This is an engineer's point of view, but it seemed pretty short sighted to take good raw data and obscure it by presentation with an unproven conclusion. Split your actual data from your speculation and you help the community out a lot more than this does.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The real science in the article is the measurement of the CO2 levels and their trends .
Taking this information and extrapolating it to temperature changes is conjecture .
You can call it SWAG ( Scientific Wild A * * Guessing ) , but it is still a guess until they can put together a mathematical model for global temperature prediction that is open , peer reviewed , and tested with control data to confirm it is accurate .
Let 's look at this information and instead ask , if we think CO2 is warming the planet and we want to avoid that , what can be done to contain the meteoric rise of CO2 from China and India ?
This is an engineer 's point of view , but it seemed pretty short sighted to take good raw data and obscure it by presentation with an unproven conclusion .
Split your actual data from your speculation and you help the community out a lot more than this does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real science in the article is the measurement of the CO2 levels and their trends.
Taking this information and extrapolating it to temperature changes is conjecture.
You can call it SWAG (Scientific Wild A** Guessing), but it is still a guess until they can put together a mathematical model for global temperature prediction that is open, peer reviewed, and tested with control data to confirm it is accurate.
Let's look at this information and instead ask, if we think CO2 is warming the planet and we want to avoid that, what can be done to contain the meteoric rise of CO2 from China and India?
This is an engineer's point of view, but it seemed pretty short sighted to take good raw data and obscure it by presentation with an unproven conclusion.
Split your actual data from your speculation and you help the community out a lot more than this does.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30197422</id>
	<title>Warming may have stalled out?  Not likely!</title>
	<author>turkeyfish</author>
	<datestamp>1258893060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If global warming is now slowing down then those who like to bear false witness about global warming have even more serious explaining to do:</p><p>Rates of ice sheet melting in Greenland and the Antarctic are accelerating (as is the disappearance of terrestrial glaciers).  Since these are based on measures of gravity rather than temperature, the global warming nay-sayers have to account for why the ice is melting more rapidly if the temperature is not going up?</p><p>Well whats the answer for this anomaly?  Cooler temperatures cause ice to melt more rapidly?  If so, how?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If global warming is now slowing down then those who like to bear false witness about global warming have even more serious explaining to do : Rates of ice sheet melting in Greenland and the Antarctic are accelerating ( as is the disappearance of terrestrial glaciers ) .
Since these are based on measures of gravity rather than temperature , the global warming nay-sayers have to account for why the ice is melting more rapidly if the temperature is not going up ? Well whats the answer for this anomaly ?
Cooler temperatures cause ice to melt more rapidly ?
If so , how ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If global warming is now slowing down then those who like to bear false witness about global warming have even more serious explaining to do:Rates of ice sheet melting in Greenland and the Antarctic are accelerating (as is the disappearance of terrestrial glaciers).
Since these are based on measures of gravity rather than temperature, the global warming nay-sayers have to account for why the ice is melting more rapidly if the temperature is not going up?Well whats the answer for this anomaly?
Cooler temperatures cause ice to melt more rapidly?
If so, how?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30196244</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193898</id>
	<title>Inconvenient Truth Analysis</title>
	<author>thepainguy</author>
	<datestamp>1258909500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For those who are interested in how climate change is being marketed, a while back I wrote a piece called <a href="http://www.chrisoleary.com/projects/NeitherThisNorThat/AnInconvenientTruthAnalysis.html" title="chrisoleary.com">"An Inconvenient Truth?"</a> [chrisoleary.com] that is an analysis of some of the charts and diagrams in Al Gore's book and movie from an information design perspective. The bottom line is that Al Gore used every trick in the book to try to strengthen his case.<br> <br>The recent CRU e-mails explain some some of the things I point out in the piece.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For those who are interested in how climate change is being marketed , a while back I wrote a piece called " An Inconvenient Truth ?
" [ chrisoleary.com ] that is an analysis of some of the charts and diagrams in Al Gore 's book and movie from an information design perspective .
The bottom line is that Al Gore used every trick in the book to try to strengthen his case .
The recent CRU e-mails explain some some of the things I point out in the piece .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For those who are interested in how climate change is being marketed, a while back I wrote a piece called "An Inconvenient Truth?
" [chrisoleary.com] that is an analysis of some of the charts and diagrams in Al Gore's book and movie from an information design perspective.
The bottom line is that Al Gore used every trick in the book to try to strengthen his case.
The recent CRU e-mails explain some some of the things I point out in the piece.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193324</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously???</title>
	<author>The MAZZTer</author>
	<datestamp>1258905240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What about all this emissions stuff they've been strapping to my engine?</p></div><p>Won't help much if the Chinese make 10 cars for every car we make "green".</p><p>There was an article on here (or digg?) which showed photographs of the incredible water and air pollution in China.  It looked worse than a third world country.  I can believe they are responsible for most of the CO2 increase.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What about all this emissions stuff they 've been strapping to my engine ? Wo n't help much if the Chinese make 10 cars for every car we make " green " .There was an article on here ( or digg ?
) which showed photographs of the incredible water and air pollution in China .
It looked worse than a third world country .
I can believe they are responsible for most of the CO2 increase .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about all this emissions stuff they've been strapping to my engine?Won't help much if the Chinese make 10 cars for every car we make "green".There was an article on here (or digg?
) which showed photographs of the incredible water and air pollution in China.
It looked worse than a third world country.
I can believe they are responsible for most of the CO2 increase.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30197834</id>
	<title>Re:The hack</title>
	<author>Xyrus</author>
	<datestamp>1258897020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I sort of believe in climate change...</i></p><p>We are not talking about religion. Belief has no place in science.<nobr> <wbr></nobr><i>...but at this point in time, a day after we all got to learn that the top-institute for climate-change knowingly and willingly changed the numbers, lied...</i></p><p>Which is horseshit.</p><p>*sigh*</p><p>Honestly, is that what you think? Have you even read through the emails? And I don't just mean the cherry picked emails and quotes that the frothing skeptics have fed you.</p><p>Almost all the emails pertain to science discussions. Analysis of data, discussion of data sets, the merits of various proxies, etc. . If anything, the emails reveal an insight into the typical discussion that go on behind the scenes when attempting to perform and validate research. There's nothing nefarious about any of it.</p><p>If you can't understand the basics of the subject, then you have no grounds upon which to base your claims and you sound like an idiot when you do. Any fabrications would have have collapsed quite quickly in the face of peer review, which is the whole point for having peer-reviewed research to begin with.</p><p>Your claims are especially hollow when you're basing you're claims on incomplete email threads that lack the full context of the discussion.</p><p><i>I can not take this serious.</i></p><p>Yes, because as we all know one incident invalidates the decades of climate science. Grow up.</p><p><i>First I want to know how much has been fabricated and lied.</i></p><p>None. This has been blown completely out of proportion by people who don't understand (or don't want to understand) what they're looking at.</p><p><i>After that, I might support this type of research again, but only after all the liars are banned from 'research'.</i></p><p>There are thousands of climate researchers. Do you honestly think the CRU could have fabricated all of it's research and not have been discovered? Or are you one of those nut jobs that believes there is a worldwide climate conspiracy?</p><p>~X~</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I sort of believe in climate change...We are not talking about religion .
Belief has no place in science .
...but at this point in time , a day after we all got to learn that the top-institute for climate-change knowingly and willingly changed the numbers , lied...Which is horseshit .
* sigh * Honestly , is that what you think ?
Have you even read through the emails ?
And I do n't just mean the cherry picked emails and quotes that the frothing skeptics have fed you.Almost all the emails pertain to science discussions .
Analysis of data , discussion of data sets , the merits of various proxies , etc .
. If anything , the emails reveal an insight into the typical discussion that go on behind the scenes when attempting to perform and validate research .
There 's nothing nefarious about any of it.If you ca n't understand the basics of the subject , then you have no grounds upon which to base your claims and you sound like an idiot when you do .
Any fabrications would have have collapsed quite quickly in the face of peer review , which is the whole point for having peer-reviewed research to begin with.Your claims are especially hollow when you 're basing you 're claims on incomplete email threads that lack the full context of the discussion.I can not take this serious.Yes , because as we all know one incident invalidates the decades of climate science .
Grow up.First I want to know how much has been fabricated and lied.None .
This has been blown completely out of proportion by people who do n't understand ( or do n't want to understand ) what they 're looking at.After that , I might support this type of research again , but only after all the liars are banned from 'research'.There are thousands of climate researchers .
Do you honestly think the CRU could have fabricated all of it 's research and not have been discovered ?
Or are you one of those nut jobs that believes there is a worldwide climate conspiracy ? ~ X ~</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I sort of believe in climate change...We are not talking about religion.
Belief has no place in science.
...but at this point in time, a day after we all got to learn that the top-institute for climate-change knowingly and willingly changed the numbers, lied...Which is horseshit.
*sigh*Honestly, is that what you think?
Have you even read through the emails?
And I don't just mean the cherry picked emails and quotes that the frothing skeptics have fed you.Almost all the emails pertain to science discussions.
Analysis of data, discussion of data sets, the merits of various proxies, etc.
. If anything, the emails reveal an insight into the typical discussion that go on behind the scenes when attempting to perform and validate research.
There's nothing nefarious about any of it.If you can't understand the basics of the subject, then you have no grounds upon which to base your claims and you sound like an idiot when you do.
Any fabrications would have have collapsed quite quickly in the face of peer review, which is the whole point for having peer-reviewed research to begin with.Your claims are especially hollow when you're basing you're claims on incomplete email threads that lack the full context of the discussion.I can not take this serious.Yes, because as we all know one incident invalidates the decades of climate science.
Grow up.First I want to know how much has been fabricated and lied.None.
This has been blown completely out of proportion by people who don't understand (or don't want to understand) what they're looking at.After that, I might support this type of research again, but only after all the liars are banned from 'research'.There are thousands of climate researchers.
Do you honestly think the CRU could have fabricated all of it's research and not have been discovered?
Or are you one of those nut jobs that believes there is a worldwide climate conspiracy?~X~</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193404</id>
	<title>Reduced CO2 correlated with recessions</title>
	<author>Hal\_Porter</author>
	<datestamp>1258905840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The researchers predict a small decrease this year due to the recession, but further increases from 2010. "</p></div><p>Interesting that a historically rather serious recession can only cause a small decrease. It seems like cutting CO2 back to the levels needed to stop global warming would require or cause a much more serious recession.</p><p>In fact it's very noticable that now everyone is worried about a 30's style global depression pretty much everyone has stopped talking about cutting CO2 emissions in a follow up to Kyoto.</p><p>Not that Kyoto cut CO2 of course</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto\_Protocol#Increase\_in\_greenhouse\_gas\_emission\_since\_1990" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto\_Protocol#Increase\_in\_greenhouse\_gas\_emission\_since\_1990</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>World CO2 emissions went up by 38\% from 1992 to 2007. The US refused to sign, India and China were exempt and in the EU</p><p><div class="quote"><p>As of year-end 2006, the United Kingdom and Sweden were the only EU countries on pace to meet their Kyoto emissions commitments by 2010. While UN statistics indicate that, as a group, the 36 Kyoto signatory countries can meet the 5\% reduction target by 2012, most of the progress in greenhouse gas reduction has come from the stark decline in Eastern European countries' emissions after the fall of communism in the 1990s</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The researchers predict a small decrease this year due to the recession , but further increases from 2010 .
" Interesting that a historically rather serious recession can only cause a small decrease .
It seems like cutting CO2 back to the levels needed to stop global warming would require or cause a much more serious recession.In fact it 's very noticable that now everyone is worried about a 30 's style global depression pretty much everyone has stopped talking about cutting CO2 emissions in a follow up to Kyoto.Not that Kyoto cut CO2 of coursehttp : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto \ _Protocol # Increase \ _in \ _greenhouse \ _gas \ _emission \ _since \ _1990 [ wikipedia.org ] World CO2 emissions went up by 38 \ % from 1992 to 2007 .
The US refused to sign , India and China were exempt and in the EUAs of year-end 2006 , the United Kingdom and Sweden were the only EU countries on pace to meet their Kyoto emissions commitments by 2010 .
While UN statistics indicate that , as a group , the 36 Kyoto signatory countries can meet the 5 \ % reduction target by 2012 , most of the progress in greenhouse gas reduction has come from the stark decline in Eastern European countries ' emissions after the fall of communism in the 1990s</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The researchers predict a small decrease this year due to the recession, but further increases from 2010.
"Interesting that a historically rather serious recession can only cause a small decrease.
It seems like cutting CO2 back to the levels needed to stop global warming would require or cause a much more serious recession.In fact it's very noticable that now everyone is worried about a 30's style global depression pretty much everyone has stopped talking about cutting CO2 emissions in a follow up to Kyoto.Not that Kyoto cut CO2 of coursehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto\_Protocol#Increase\_in\_greenhouse\_gas\_emission\_since\_1990 [wikipedia.org]World CO2 emissions went up by 38\% from 1992 to 2007.
The US refused to sign, India and China were exempt and in the EUAs of year-end 2006, the United Kingdom and Sweden were the only EU countries on pace to meet their Kyoto emissions commitments by 2010.
While UN statistics indicate that, as a group, the 36 Kyoto signatory countries can meet the 5\% reduction target by 2012, most of the progress in greenhouse gas reduction has come from the stark decline in Eastern European countries' emissions after the fall of communism in the 1990s
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30195580</id>
	<title>Nuts</title>
	<author>toddhisattva</author>
	<datestamp>1258921980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This doesn't seem "cherry-picked."</p><p>Somebody <a href="http://www.ehow.com/how\_5669968\_shake-nut-trees.html" title="ehow.com" rel="nofollow">shook the tree</a> [ehow.com] and some nuts fell out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This does n't seem " cherry-picked .
" Somebody shook the tree [ ehow.com ] and some nuts fell out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This doesn't seem "cherry-picked.
"Somebody shook the tree [ehow.com] and some nuts fell out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193322</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30197106</id>
	<title>Re:re Increase or decline?</title>
	<author>aurispector</author>
	<datestamp>1258890240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And exactly what qualifies you to judge my ability to evaluate the data?  My point is that there are small spikes and there are larger spikes and everyone keeps extrapolating to support their favorite conclusion. You illustrate the point by claiming that the 2000 - 2008 data is irrelevant which is like saying black is white.  The data is the data. The temperature dropped.  Want to place bets on where it goes from here?</p><p>There have clearly been periods in history where global temperatures were far warmer than they are now without any help whatsoever from humanity.  But the subject is so emotionally charged, a situation willingly exacerbated and exploited by those that buy into AGW. It isn't even a remotely rational argument anymore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And exactly what qualifies you to judge my ability to evaluate the data ?
My point is that there are small spikes and there are larger spikes and everyone keeps extrapolating to support their favorite conclusion .
You illustrate the point by claiming that the 2000 - 2008 data is irrelevant which is like saying black is white .
The data is the data .
The temperature dropped .
Want to place bets on where it goes from here ? There have clearly been periods in history where global temperatures were far warmer than they are now without any help whatsoever from humanity .
But the subject is so emotionally charged , a situation willingly exacerbated and exploited by those that buy into AGW .
It is n't even a remotely rational argument anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And exactly what qualifies you to judge my ability to evaluate the data?
My point is that there are small spikes and there are larger spikes and everyone keeps extrapolating to support their favorite conclusion.
You illustrate the point by claiming that the 2000 - 2008 data is irrelevant which is like saying black is white.
The data is the data.
The temperature dropped.
Want to place bets on where it goes from here?There have clearly been periods in history where global temperatures were far warmer than they are now without any help whatsoever from humanity.
But the subject is so emotionally charged, a situation willingly exacerbated and exploited by those that buy into AGW.
It isn't even a remotely rational argument anymore.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193882</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193428</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously???</title>
	<author>betterunixthanunix</author>
	<datestamp>1258906020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"All this has been for naught?"<br> <br>

Well, keep in mind that over the past decade, there has been a tremendous growth in the number of automobile and computer owners, and that an enormous number of cell phones have been manufacture.  Just producing enough cars, computers, and phones to keep up with demand probably knocked the CO2 emissions up a few notches.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" All this has been for naught ?
" Well , keep in mind that over the past decade , there has been a tremendous growth in the number of automobile and computer owners , and that an enormous number of cell phones have been manufacture .
Just producing enough cars , computers , and phones to keep up with demand probably knocked the CO2 emissions up a few notches .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"All this has been for naught?
" 

Well, keep in mind that over the past decade, there has been a tremendous growth in the number of automobile and computer owners, and that an enormous number of cell phones have been manufacture.
Just producing enough cars, computers, and phones to keep up with demand probably knocked the CO2 emissions up a few notches.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30195366</id>
	<title>Unit conversion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258920360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The hard part of unit conversions is not the multiplication. This temperature conversion is one of the only unit scales with different zero points that come to my mind--and it's one that people use all the time. Every unit conversion that's just a multiplication is abjectly trivial no matter how esoteric. This one is slightly more complicated and that seems to cause trouble.</p><p>If more people were more familiar with unit conversion in general, the world would be a slightly better place. It's an easy, ten-minute process to learn, and it makes you so much less afraid of math and physics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The hard part of unit conversions is not the multiplication .
This temperature conversion is one of the only unit scales with different zero points that come to my mind--and it 's one that people use all the time .
Every unit conversion that 's just a multiplication is abjectly trivial no matter how esoteric .
This one is slightly more complicated and that seems to cause trouble.If more people were more familiar with unit conversion in general , the world would be a slightly better place .
It 's an easy , ten-minute process to learn , and it makes you so much less afraid of math and physics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The hard part of unit conversions is not the multiplication.
This temperature conversion is one of the only unit scales with different zero points that come to my mind--and it's one that people use all the time.
Every unit conversion that's just a multiplication is abjectly trivial no matter how esoteric.
This one is slightly more complicated and that seems to cause trouble.If more people were more familiar with unit conversion in general, the world would be a slightly better place.
It's an easy, ten-minute process to learn, and it makes you so much less afraid of math and physics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193220</id>
	<title>Re:Falsibility.</title>
	<author>eldavojohn</author>
	<datestamp>1258904220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They DO report a current trend of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.15K per decade.  This is far lower than the forecast.</p></div><p>Is there some reason you picked the Channel TLT data and not the, say, Channel TLS data which reports a <i>negative</i> 0.325 K/decade?  <br> <br>

I'm no expert in any of this but the site you linked to seems to be <b>satellite data</b> for <b>atmospheric temperatures</b>.  <i>Not</i> temperatures at the surface (which is really what we're concerned about, right?  I have no doubt that the average temperature of the entire atmosphere of the earth has changed minimally -- if not been lowered erratically.  The effects of what is happening on the ground are severely diluted when you include such a large volume.  <br> <br>

Tell me, if you wanted to measure the temperature outside your house, would you consult a satellite measuring microwave transmissions or a thermometer adjacent to your house?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They DO report a current trend of .15K per decade .
This is far lower than the forecast.Is there some reason you picked the Channel TLT data and not the , say , Channel TLS data which reports a negative 0.325 K/decade ?
I 'm no expert in any of this but the site you linked to seems to be satellite data for atmospheric temperatures .
Not temperatures at the surface ( which is really what we 're concerned about , right ?
I have no doubt that the average temperature of the entire atmosphere of the earth has changed minimally -- if not been lowered erratically .
The effects of what is happening on the ground are severely diluted when you include such a large volume .
Tell me , if you wanted to measure the temperature outside your house , would you consult a satellite measuring microwave transmissions or a thermometer adjacent to your house ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They DO report a current trend of .15K per decade.
This is far lower than the forecast.Is there some reason you picked the Channel TLT data and not the, say, Channel TLS data which reports a negative 0.325 K/decade?
I'm no expert in any of this but the site you linked to seems to be satellite data for atmospheric temperatures.
Not temperatures at the surface (which is really what we're concerned about, right?
I have no doubt that the average temperature of the entire atmosphere of the earth has changed minimally -- if not been lowered erratically.
The effects of what is happening on the ground are severely diluted when you include such a large volume.
Tell me, if you wanted to measure the temperature outside your house, would you consult a satellite measuring microwave transmissions or a thermometer adjacent to your house?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193132</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194236</id>
	<title>Re:Falsibility.</title>
	<author>Ambitwistor</author>
	<datestamp>1258911840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>TLS is the lower stratosphere, which is not where we live.  (We don't live in the entire lower troposphere, either, but its average temperature trend is much closer to the surface trend than is anything which happens in the stratosphere.)</p><p>Note, by the way, that an enhanced greenhouse effect predicts lower tropospheric warming and lower stratospheric <em>cooling</em>.  Which is in fact what is observed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>TLS is the lower stratosphere , which is not where we live .
( We do n't live in the entire lower troposphere , either , but its average temperature trend is much closer to the surface trend than is anything which happens in the stratosphere .
) Note , by the way , that an enhanced greenhouse effect predicts lower tropospheric warming and lower stratospheric cooling .
Which is in fact what is observed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TLS is the lower stratosphere, which is not where we live.
(We don't live in the entire lower troposphere, either, but its average temperature trend is much closer to the surface trend than is anything which happens in the stratosphere.
)Note, by the way, that an enhanced greenhouse effect predicts lower tropospheric warming and lower stratospheric cooling.
Which is in fact what is observed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30202442</id>
	<title>Re:re Increase or decline?</title>
	<author>Lars T.</author>
	<datestamp>1258993920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nice try, but "the AGW crowd" actually keeps pointing at the whole picture, it's you guys cherry picking small time periods.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nice try , but " the AGW crowd " actually keeps pointing at the whole picture , it 's you guys cherry picking small time periods .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nice try, but "the AGW crowd" actually keeps pointing at the whole picture, it's you guys cherry picking small time periods.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30213016</id>
	<title>Re:re Increase or decline?</title>
	<author>sac13</author>
	<datestamp>1259074320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Speaking of warping science to conform to a belief, why is it that so many people are so eager to believe global warming skeptics?  Methinks it is because they do not want to believe that something as innocent as driving a car could be a problem.</p></div><p>It's most likely because most of the loudest voices in the discussion (on both sides) are those of politicians.  If you want a sure sign there's a lack of truth in a discussion, take a look at how many politicians are involved.</p><p>Also, there's a serious lack of science understanding in the general population.  Most people don't even understand the basics of the scientific method, never mind something as complex as climate science.  So, it's no surprise when people believe politicized junk science.</p><p>It's amazing how people just listen to the politicians instead of the scientists.  Take the CO2/warming link.  The data clearly shows that CO2 rise increase FOLLOWS temperature increase, not the other way around as is commonly asserted.  Even John Houghton, who was co-chair of the IPCC and is a supporter of the idea of antropogenic global warming, admits "Carbon dioxide content and temperature correlate so closely during the last ice age is not evidence of carbon dioxide driving the temperature but rather the other way round... I often show that diagram in my lectures on climate change but always make the point that it gives no proof of global warming due to increased carbon dioxide."  But, has that, along with the fact that the coldest temperatures in the last half billion years were also accompanied by CO2 levels 10 times what they are today, been heard by anyone in the discussion?</p><p>Politics and truth are like oil and water.  As soon as something becomes a political issue, propaganda takes over.  Real science doesn't captivate like a good argument.  So, guess which side is winning the climate discussion.  Politicians - on both sides.  And the masses on both sides are following the politicians that they agree with.  NO ONE seems to be listening to the scientists.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Speaking of warping science to conform to a belief , why is it that so many people are so eager to believe global warming skeptics ?
Methinks it is because they do not want to believe that something as innocent as driving a car could be a problem.It 's most likely because most of the loudest voices in the discussion ( on both sides ) are those of politicians .
If you want a sure sign there 's a lack of truth in a discussion , take a look at how many politicians are involved.Also , there 's a serious lack of science understanding in the general population .
Most people do n't even understand the basics of the scientific method , never mind something as complex as climate science .
So , it 's no surprise when people believe politicized junk science.It 's amazing how people just listen to the politicians instead of the scientists .
Take the CO2/warming link .
The data clearly shows that CO2 rise increase FOLLOWS temperature increase , not the other way around as is commonly asserted .
Even John Houghton , who was co-chair of the IPCC and is a supporter of the idea of antropogenic global warming , admits " Carbon dioxide content and temperature correlate so closely during the last ice age is not evidence of carbon dioxide driving the temperature but rather the other way round... I often show that diagram in my lectures on climate change but always make the point that it gives no proof of global warming due to increased carbon dioxide .
" But , has that , along with the fact that the coldest temperatures in the last half billion years were also accompanied by CO2 levels 10 times what they are today , been heard by anyone in the discussion ? Politics and truth are like oil and water .
As soon as something becomes a political issue , propaganda takes over .
Real science does n't captivate like a good argument .
So , guess which side is winning the climate discussion .
Politicians - on both sides .
And the masses on both sides are following the politicians that they agree with .
NO ONE seems to be listening to the scientists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Speaking of warping science to conform to a belief, why is it that so many people are so eager to believe global warming skeptics?
Methinks it is because they do not want to believe that something as innocent as driving a car could be a problem.It's most likely because most of the loudest voices in the discussion (on both sides) are those of politicians.
If you want a sure sign there's a lack of truth in a discussion, take a look at how many politicians are involved.Also, there's a serious lack of science understanding in the general population.
Most people don't even understand the basics of the scientific method, never mind something as complex as climate science.
So, it's no surprise when people believe politicized junk science.It's amazing how people just listen to the politicians instead of the scientists.
Take the CO2/warming link.
The data clearly shows that CO2 rise increase FOLLOWS temperature increase, not the other way around as is commonly asserted.
Even John Houghton, who was co-chair of the IPCC and is a supporter of the idea of antropogenic global warming, admits "Carbon dioxide content and temperature correlate so closely during the last ice age is not evidence of carbon dioxide driving the temperature but rather the other way round... I often show that diagram in my lectures on climate change but always make the point that it gives no proof of global warming due to increased carbon dioxide.
"  But, has that, along with the fact that the coldest temperatures in the last half billion years were also accompanied by CO2 levels 10 times what they are today, been heard by anyone in the discussion?Politics and truth are like oil and water.
As soon as something becomes a political issue, propaganda takes over.
Real science doesn't captivate like a good argument.
So, guess which side is winning the climate discussion.
Politicians - on both sides.
And the masses on both sides are following the politicians that they agree with.
NO ONE seems to be listening to the scientists.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194078</id>
	<title>Re:Hoax?</title>
	<author>Rockoon</author>
	<datestamp>1258910700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Based on the knowledge we have, there isglobal warming going on, you can argue all you want, but temperatures are going up regardless of what you say about that.</p></div><p>
Not according to the leading climatologists when they talk in private. Instead they discuss how worried that they have no explanation for why real world temperature measurements are going down, rather than up.<br>
<br>
Models are for suckers compared to the value of real world measurements.. and these guys are trying to come up with something, anything, that will explain the global decrease in MEASURED temperatures over the last decade in the context of maintaining the global warming theory.<br>
<br>
And I quote an email from Kevin Trenberth to Michael Mann in August of this year:
<br>
<tt>The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a
travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008
shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing
system is inadequate.</tt></p><p>
CERES is a project to measure earths radiative output... that is.. how much energy is leaving the system.<br>
<br>
This is an admission that (a) its not warming, and (b) we dont have a fucking clue how much radiation leaves the system, or even how it is doing so.br</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Based on the knowledge we have , there isglobal warming going on , you can argue all you want , but temperatures are going up regardless of what you say about that .
Not according to the leading climatologists when they talk in private .
Instead they discuss how worried that they have no explanation for why real world temperature measurements are going down , rather than up .
Models are for suckers compared to the value of real world measurements.. and these guys are trying to come up with something , anything , that will explain the global decrease in MEASURED temperatures over the last decade in the context of maintaining the global warming theory .
And I quote an email from Kevin Trenberth to Michael Mann in August of this year : The fact is that we ca n't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we ca n't .
The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming : but the data are surely wrong .
Our observing system is inadequate .
CERES is a project to measure earths radiative output... that is.. how much energy is leaving the system .
This is an admission that ( a ) its not warming , and ( b ) we dont have a fucking clue how much radiation leaves the system , or even how it is doing so.br</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Based on the knowledge we have, there isglobal warming going on, you can argue all you want, but temperatures are going up regardless of what you say about that.
Not according to the leading climatologists when they talk in private.
Instead they discuss how worried that they have no explanation for why real world temperature measurements are going down, rather than up.
Models are for suckers compared to the value of real world measurements.. and these guys are trying to come up with something, anything, that will explain the global decrease in MEASURED temperatures over the last decade in the context of maintaining the global warming theory.
And I quote an email from Kevin Trenberth to Michael Mann in August of this year:

The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a
travesty that we can't.
The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008
shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong.
Our observing
system is inadequate.
CERES is a project to measure earths radiative output... that is.. how much energy is leaving the system.
This is an admission that (a) its not warming, and (b) we dont have a fucking clue how much radiation leaves the system, or even how it is doing so.br
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30205528</id>
	<title>You must be kidding, right?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258968540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A short while after this story</p><p><a href="http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/11/20/1747257" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/11/20/1747257</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>We get this one. (and I down loaded the data and perused it, the e-mails really are pretty damning)</p><p>I'm sorry, but as I always told my children and staff, trust is a precious commodity. DON'T lie to me, because if you do it will be found out and it will take YEARS for you to fully regain my trust.</p><p>Guess what all knowing and self appointed paleoclimate experts who portray they know what is best for the unwashed masses, the e-mails which leaked indicate you have effectively lied to me, my children, and marketed your position to governments and politicians like some cheesy multinational.</p><p>Collectively you are now no better than any of the self serving, politician buying scum running many of the largest corporations. How many of you will skew your findings to in hope of snaring that next big grant?</p><p>Sorry, but your credibility is gone. If the GW crowd is right, your unethical behavior has doomed man-kind as you blew your credibility. If you're wrong, well being outed may have saved us the trouble of descending into the economic and social abyss you would have guided us too.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/rant</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A short while after this storyhttp : //politics.slashdot.org/article.pl ? sid = 09/11/20/1747257 [ slashdot.org ] We get this one .
( and I down loaded the data and perused it , the e-mails really are pretty damning ) I 'm sorry , but as I always told my children and staff , trust is a precious commodity .
DO N'T lie to me , because if you do it will be found out and it will take YEARS for you to fully regain my trust.Guess what all knowing and self appointed paleoclimate experts who portray they know what is best for the unwashed masses , the e-mails which leaked indicate you have effectively lied to me , my children , and marketed your position to governments and politicians like some cheesy multinational.Collectively you are now no better than any of the self serving , politician buying scum running many of the largest corporations .
How many of you will skew your findings to in hope of snaring that next big grant ? Sorry , but your credibility is gone .
If the GW crowd is right , your unethical behavior has doomed man-kind as you blew your credibility .
If you 're wrong , well being outed may have saved us the trouble of descending into the economic and social abyss you would have guided us too .
/rant</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A short while after this storyhttp://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/11/20/1747257 [slashdot.org]We get this one.
(and I down loaded the data and perused it, the e-mails really are pretty damning)I'm sorry, but as I always told my children and staff, trust is a precious commodity.
DON'T lie to me, because if you do it will be found out and it will take YEARS for you to fully regain my trust.Guess what all knowing and self appointed paleoclimate experts who portray they know what is best for the unwashed masses, the e-mails which leaked indicate you have effectively lied to me, my children, and marketed your position to governments and politicians like some cheesy multinational.Collectively you are now no better than any of the self serving, politician buying scum running many of the largest corporations.
How many of you will skew your findings to in hope of snaring that next big grant?Sorry, but your credibility is gone.
If the GW crowd is right, your unethical behavior has doomed man-kind as you blew your credibility.
If you're wrong, well being outed may have saved us the trouble of descending into the economic and social abyss you would have guided us too.
/rant</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194088</id>
	<title>Re:Falsibility.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258910760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The models are fantasy, of course. I have no idea why obviously daft predictions such as this get air-time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The models are fantasy , of course .
I have no idea why obviously daft predictions such as this get air-time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The models are fantasy, of course.
I have no idea why obviously daft predictions such as this get air-time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193132</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30199268</id>
	<title>Re:The truth is global warming has stalled out</title>
	<author>bill\_mcgonigle</author>
	<datestamp>1258909980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you'd like to see the data from the sceptical view,  check out <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zOXmJ4jd-8" title="youtube.com">Lord Christopher Monckton Speaking in St. Paul</a> [youtube.com] on YouTube.</p><p>I think he raises several valid points that are not getting fair coverage in the debate.  At worst, you'll learn something about how to give a great presentation and the proper use of slides.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 'd like to see the data from the sceptical view , check out Lord Christopher Monckton Speaking in St. Paul [ youtube.com ] on YouTube.I think he raises several valid points that are not getting fair coverage in the debate .
At worst , you 'll learn something about how to give a great presentation and the proper use of slides .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you'd like to see the data from the sceptical view,  check out Lord Christopher Monckton Speaking in St. Paul [youtube.com] on YouTube.I think he raises several valid points that are not getting fair coverage in the debate.
At worst, you'll learn something about how to give a great presentation and the proper use of slides.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30196244</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193602</id>
	<title>Re:The hack</title>
	<author>drooling-dog</author>
	<datestamp>1258907220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Scientists, schmientists. It's all a big conspiracy by liberal scientists who foolishly rely on reason and observation, renouncing all faith in our energy industry, the Republican Party, and God Himself. Don't tell me what these idiot climatologists say; they are far too tainted by having studied this stuff for much of their adult lives. When Rush, O'Reilly, Hannity, and Palin speak, we'll finally know the truth!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Scientists , schmientists .
It 's all a big conspiracy by liberal scientists who foolishly rely on reason and observation , renouncing all faith in our energy industry , the Republican Party , and God Himself .
Do n't tell me what these idiot climatologists say ; they are far too tainted by having studied this stuff for much of their adult lives .
When Rush , O'Reilly , Hannity , and Palin speak , we 'll finally know the truth !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Scientists, schmientists.
It's all a big conspiracy by liberal scientists who foolishly rely on reason and observation, renouncing all faith in our energy industry, the Republican Party, and God Himself.
Don't tell me what these idiot climatologists say; they are far too tainted by having studied this stuff for much of their adult lives.
When Rush, O'Reilly, Hannity, and Palin speak, we'll finally know the truth!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30197474</id>
	<title>Re:Prediction depends on an unproven thesis</title>
	<author>Eukariote</author>
	<datestamp>1258893600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Next time you go to the kitchen, do a little experiment with the sugar: does it dissolve more easily in hot water, or in cold water? I think you'll find it's the same with CO2. Better find another explanation.</p></div></blockquote><p>No it is not the same for dissolved CO2: the solubility of gases in water <em>decreases</em> with increasing temperature. My explanation stands.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Next time you go to the kitchen , do a little experiment with the sugar : does it dissolve more easily in hot water , or in cold water ?
I think you 'll find it 's the same with CO2 .
Better find another explanation.No it is not the same for dissolved CO2 : the solubility of gases in water decreases with increasing temperature .
My explanation stands .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Next time you go to the kitchen, do a little experiment with the sugar: does it dissolve more easily in hot water, or in cold water?
I think you'll find it's the same with CO2.
Better find another explanation.No it is not the same for dissolved CO2: the solubility of gases in water decreases with increasing temperature.
My explanation stands.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30197170</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30198898</id>
	<title>Re:Hoax?</title>
	<author>R2.0</author>
	<datestamp>1258906380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"Some emails were leaked on Friday from the climate research unit at the university of East Anglia. In about 150 megabytes of text, it turned out that in one of the emails, one of the researchers used the word 'trick' to describe some unspecified method of statistical analysis he had used on some dataset, and mentioned that it would 'hide the decline'. Everyone immediately saw that obviously this trick was dishonest and the decline in question was a real decline in temperatures, and it means that the entire field of climate science has been perpetrating a decades-long hoax on the world, and Al Gore should be tried for treason. Because you don't need any kind of context to know exactly what the word 'trick' refers to and what 'decline' is being hidden and why; your pre-existing political beliefs tell you all you should need to know. "</p></div></blockquote><p>Oh, irony.  The example you cite, that one email and the "reaction" to it, was ITSELF cherry-picked by RealClimate.  It was put forth as a preemptive strike, basically saying "This is what the denialists will try to do, and this is why they are wrong."  From a PR standpoint, such a preemptive strike is a good idea.  But in order to do that, RealClimate had to carefully select something that could be readily explained, while ignoring the other bits in the data dump that are not so easily explainable.  They figure if they can put words in the denialists mouths, and then refute them, they will have won the overall argument.  Sort of like a red herring embedded in a classical Scholastic type argument (thesis/antithesis/synthesis).</p><p>Or, in more contemporary terms, some AGW scientists got caught acting just like they accuse others of doing, and RealClimate is trying to spin it.  Whatever you may think about motives and politics, the moral high ground claimed by the Nobel winning Gore and IPCC has just been exploded out from under their feet.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Some emails were leaked on Friday from the climate research unit at the university of East Anglia .
In about 150 megabytes of text , it turned out that in one of the emails , one of the researchers used the word 'trick ' to describe some unspecified method of statistical analysis he had used on some dataset , and mentioned that it would 'hide the decline' .
Everyone immediately saw that obviously this trick was dishonest and the decline in question was a real decline in temperatures , and it means that the entire field of climate science has been perpetrating a decades-long hoax on the world , and Al Gore should be tried for treason .
Because you do n't need any kind of context to know exactly what the word 'trick ' refers to and what 'decline ' is being hidden and why ; your pre-existing political beliefs tell you all you should need to know .
" Oh , irony .
The example you cite , that one email and the " reaction " to it , was ITSELF cherry-picked by RealClimate .
It was put forth as a preemptive strike , basically saying " This is what the denialists will try to do , and this is why they are wrong .
" From a PR standpoint , such a preemptive strike is a good idea .
But in order to do that , RealClimate had to carefully select something that could be readily explained , while ignoring the other bits in the data dump that are not so easily explainable .
They figure if they can put words in the denialists mouths , and then refute them , they will have won the overall argument .
Sort of like a red herring embedded in a classical Scholastic type argument ( thesis/antithesis/synthesis ) .Or , in more contemporary terms , some AGW scientists got caught acting just like they accuse others of doing , and RealClimate is trying to spin it .
Whatever you may think about motives and politics , the moral high ground claimed by the Nobel winning Gore and IPCC has just been exploded out from under their feet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Some emails were leaked on Friday from the climate research unit at the university of East Anglia.
In about 150 megabytes of text, it turned out that in one of the emails, one of the researchers used the word 'trick' to describe some unspecified method of statistical analysis he had used on some dataset, and mentioned that it would 'hide the decline'.
Everyone immediately saw that obviously this trick was dishonest and the decline in question was a real decline in temperatures, and it means that the entire field of climate science has been perpetrating a decades-long hoax on the world, and Al Gore should be tried for treason.
Because you don't need any kind of context to know exactly what the word 'trick' refers to and what 'decline' is being hidden and why; your pre-existing political beliefs tell you all you should need to know.
"Oh, irony.
The example you cite, that one email and the "reaction" to it, was ITSELF cherry-picked by RealClimate.
It was put forth as a preemptive strike, basically saying "This is what the denialists will try to do, and this is why they are wrong.
"  From a PR standpoint, such a preemptive strike is a good idea.
But in order to do that, RealClimate had to carefully select something that could be readily explained, while ignoring the other bits in the data dump that are not so easily explainable.
They figure if they can put words in the denialists mouths, and then refute them, they will have won the overall argument.
Sort of like a red herring embedded in a classical Scholastic type argument (thesis/antithesis/synthesis).Or, in more contemporary terms, some AGW scientists got caught acting just like they accuse others of doing, and RealClimate is trying to spin it.
Whatever you may think about motives and politics, the moral high ground claimed by the Nobel winning Gore and IPCC has just been exploded out from under their feet.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30197720</id>
	<title>Re:This will impact on *your* life</title>
	<author>Russ Nelson</author>
	<datestamp>1258896300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Climate change is a fact.  What is up in the air is whether we caused it or not.  And it's certainly not decided whether the best course of action is to try to stop the climate from changing (think King Canute), or whether it's better to mitigate the bad effects of climate change.  Unfortunately, some people try to tie these last two issues together.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Climate change is a fact .
What is up in the air is whether we caused it or not .
And it 's certainly not decided whether the best course of action is to try to stop the climate from changing ( think King Canute ) , or whether it 's better to mitigate the bad effects of climate change .
Unfortunately , some people try to tie these last two issues together .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Climate change is a fact.
What is up in the air is whether we caused it or not.
And it's certainly not decided whether the best course of action is to try to stop the climate from changing (think King Canute), or whether it's better to mitigate the bad effects of climate change.
Unfortunately, some people try to tie these last two issues together.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30195380</id>
	<title>Re:Hoax?</title>
	<author>AmonTheMetalhead</author>
	<datestamp>1258920480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The politics are completely <b>besides</b> the point if you ask me, regardless of what you believe <b>reducing pollution</b> is a goal to strife for, denying that pollution is bad is completely irrationally stupid.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The politics are completely besides the point if you ask me , regardless of what you believe reducing pollution is a goal to strife for , denying that pollution is bad is completely irrationally stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The politics are completely besides the point if you ask me, regardless of what you believe reducing pollution is a goal to strife for, denying that pollution is bad is completely irrationally stupid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193272</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously???</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258904820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It says "global..." but specifically, look in the general direction of China.</p><p>So no, it has not all been for naught, it's just been much less of a reduction relative to others (and much larger people group) increase.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It says " global... " but specifically , look in the general direction of China.So no , it has not all been for naught , it 's just been much less of a reduction relative to others ( and much larger people group ) increase .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It says "global..." but specifically, look in the general direction of China.So no, it has not all been for naught, it's just been much less of a reduction relative to others (and much larger people group) increase.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30213656</id>
	<title>Re:The hack</title>
	<author>sac13</author>
	<datestamp>1259077920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I sort of believe in climate change...</p></div><p>This is our real problem.  We talk about it in terms of "belief."  That's a religious term, not a scientific one.  That makes the discussion a religious one.  And, there's no such thing as a religious discussion, there's only holy wars.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I sort of believe in climate change...This is our real problem .
We talk about it in terms of " belief .
" That 's a religious term , not a scientific one .
That makes the discussion a religious one .
And , there 's no such thing as a religious discussion , there 's only holy wars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I sort of believe in climate change...This is our real problem.
We talk about it in terms of "belief.
"  That's a religious term, not a scientific one.
That makes the discussion a religious one.
And, there's no such thing as a religious discussion, there's only holy wars.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193396</id>
	<title>I'll be dead by then...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258905780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But assuming I could live until the age of a thousand, what's the worst case scenario assuming things continue as they are? Since oil and coal came from living things, it seems there's a limit to how much burning it all could affect our atmosphere. I'm guessing most of it came from the atmosphere in the first place, and that living things were not combining carbon and oxygen from geological sources. Are we in for a <a href="http://www.mangafox.com/manga/hotel/v01/c001/" title="mangafox.com" rel="nofollow">doomsday scenario that wipes out all life</a> [mangafox.com]? It seems, at worst, things will get a bit warmer, and perhaps a bit wetter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But assuming I could live until the age of a thousand , what 's the worst case scenario assuming things continue as they are ?
Since oil and coal came from living things , it seems there 's a limit to how much burning it all could affect our atmosphere .
I 'm guessing most of it came from the atmosphere in the first place , and that living things were not combining carbon and oxygen from geological sources .
Are we in for a doomsday scenario that wipes out all life [ mangafox.com ] ?
It seems , at worst , things will get a bit warmer , and perhaps a bit wetter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But assuming I could live until the age of a thousand, what's the worst case scenario assuming things continue as they are?
Since oil and coal came from living things, it seems there's a limit to how much burning it all could affect our atmosphere.
I'm guessing most of it came from the atmosphere in the first place, and that living things were not combining carbon and oxygen from geological sources.
Are we in for a doomsday scenario that wipes out all life [mangafox.com]?
It seems, at worst, things will get a bit warmer, and perhaps a bit wetter.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193644</id>
	<title>some insights</title>
	<author>anonieuweling</author>
	<datestamp>1258907520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYLmLW4k4aI" title="youtube.com">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYLmLW4k4aI</a> [youtube.com]

yes, all that. and then our magical input with just a few parts of a million.</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = wYLmLW4k4aI [ youtube.com ] yes , all that .
and then our magical input with just a few parts of a million .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYLmLW4k4aI [youtube.com]

yes, all that.
and then our magical input with just a few parts of a million.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193552</id>
	<title>It doesn't add up...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258906860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a couple of issues with the article (actually more, but this is for starters...)<br>1.  If the vast majority of increases is due to Chinese economic expansion, why are we targeting USA and EU for further cuts in emissions...ever heard of Pareto's law?  Oh, yeah...the point of the Copenhagen meeting is to extract more wealth from the "rich" nations to give to the poor dictatorships...<br>2.  If the melting of all the polar ice is going to occur, and sea levels will rise that much, seems to me the "highly desirable" location of the British Isles will be underwater...or is it going to preferentially not rise there?  I note the cover of Algore's new book which was photoshopped to add four hurricanes (one of which is rotating the wrong direction) and the polar ice cap all "melted" in spite of snow and ice cover in extreme northern Canada, and finally Cuba completely submerged...(can't believe Algore would do that to his commie buddies)</p><p>How stupid do they think we are?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a couple of issues with the article ( actually more , but this is for starters... ) 1 .
If the vast majority of increases is due to Chinese economic expansion , why are we targeting USA and EU for further cuts in emissions...ever heard of Pareto 's law ?
Oh , yeah...the point of the Copenhagen meeting is to extract more wealth from the " rich " nations to give to the poor dictatorships...2 .
If the melting of all the polar ice is going to occur , and sea levels will rise that much , seems to me the " highly desirable " location of the British Isles will be underwater...or is it going to preferentially not rise there ?
I note the cover of Algore 's new book which was photoshopped to add four hurricanes ( one of which is rotating the wrong direction ) and the polar ice cap all " melted " in spite of snow and ice cover in extreme northern Canada , and finally Cuba completely submerged... ( ca n't believe Algore would do that to his commie buddies ) How stupid do they think we are ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a couple of issues with the article (actually more, but this is for starters...)1.
If the vast majority of increases is due to Chinese economic expansion, why are we targeting USA and EU for further cuts in emissions...ever heard of Pareto's law?
Oh, yeah...the point of the Copenhagen meeting is to extract more wealth from the "rich" nations to give to the poor dictatorships...2.
If the melting of all the polar ice is going to occur, and sea levels will rise that much, seems to me the "highly desirable" location of the British Isles will be underwater...or is it going to preferentially not rise there?
I note the cover of Algore's new book which was photoshopped to add four hurricanes (one of which is rotating the wrong direction) and the polar ice cap all "melted" in spite of snow and ice cover in extreme northern Canada, and finally Cuba completely submerged...(can't believe Algore would do that to his commie buddies)How stupid do they think we are?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193986</id>
	<title>This is being cause by politicians</title>
	<author>WindBourne</author>
	<datestamp>1258910100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seriously. They have an EASY answer, but do not want to take. China wants the ability to pollute at will until they are the largest superpower. India is in the same boat (though it really is about bringing their ppl up to a higher standard, not about being a superpower). America does not want to give up its position by doing the largest cuts (for starters, it would likely not be allowed by voters in light of China). Europe, Japan, and Canada are all cutting corners and trying to blame the other guy. Most of the Asian, African and Latin American countries simply want a free hand-out (which is why their focus on lots of money to them, rather than on dropping their own emissions).<br> <br> So, how can we solve it?
<ol>
<li>Have the nations that are concerned (I wish that it was all, but it is not) put a cap based on current emissions. IOW, you will not raise the CO2 at all. To get a handle on things, we need to stop the growth first.</li>
<li>Then put a tax on ALL GOODS, INCLUDING IMPORTS, based on the CO2 emissions from the region where it was built AND where the primary component comes from AS WELL as the CO2 cost of shipping.</li>
</ol><p>
The 2'nd above requires that it be a percentage based on how much CO2 is from your area based on sat measurements ( and skip the garbage about population; that is about spreading responsibility; it will not happen). In addition, it has to be known that the base amount will grow. BUT, by allowing other nations to clean up their act, they can lower the amount that they pay.
<br> <br>
This is probably the ONLY fix for all this. WHy? Because it prevents politicians from cheating. It keeps pols from claiming that another nation is emitting more, and they will. The reason is that this is measurable by sats, it can be easily seen by all.<br> <br> In addition, it takes into account ALL EMISSIONS. Want to lower it, but can not cut back on CO2 right now? Plants trees. Route the CO2 from cement and power plants to algae and greenhouses.<br> <br>
Until a nation has the courage to do this, nothing will change. It is only when ALL NATIONS have to partake, will it change things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously .
They have an EASY answer , but do not want to take .
China wants the ability to pollute at will until they are the largest superpower .
India is in the same boat ( though it really is about bringing their ppl up to a higher standard , not about being a superpower ) .
America does not want to give up its position by doing the largest cuts ( for starters , it would likely not be allowed by voters in light of China ) .
Europe , Japan , and Canada are all cutting corners and trying to blame the other guy .
Most of the Asian , African and Latin American countries simply want a free hand-out ( which is why their focus on lots of money to them , rather than on dropping their own emissions ) .
So , how can we solve it ?
Have the nations that are concerned ( I wish that it was all , but it is not ) put a cap based on current emissions .
IOW , you will not raise the CO2 at all .
To get a handle on things , we need to stop the growth first .
Then put a tax on ALL GOODS , INCLUDING IMPORTS , based on the CO2 emissions from the region where it was built AND where the primary component comes from AS WELL as the CO2 cost of shipping .
The 2'nd above requires that it be a percentage based on how much CO2 is from your area based on sat measurements ( and skip the garbage about population ; that is about spreading responsibility ; it will not happen ) .
In addition , it has to be known that the base amount will grow .
BUT , by allowing other nations to clean up their act , they can lower the amount that they pay .
This is probably the ONLY fix for all this .
WHy ? Because it prevents politicians from cheating .
It keeps pols from claiming that another nation is emitting more , and they will .
The reason is that this is measurable by sats , it can be easily seen by all .
In addition , it takes into account ALL EMISSIONS .
Want to lower it , but can not cut back on CO2 right now ?
Plants trees .
Route the CO2 from cement and power plants to algae and greenhouses .
Until a nation has the courage to do this , nothing will change .
It is only when ALL NATIONS have to partake , will it change things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously.
They have an EASY answer, but do not want to take.
China wants the ability to pollute at will until they are the largest superpower.
India is in the same boat (though it really is about bringing their ppl up to a higher standard, not about being a superpower).
America does not want to give up its position by doing the largest cuts (for starters, it would likely not be allowed by voters in light of China).
Europe, Japan, and Canada are all cutting corners and trying to blame the other guy.
Most of the Asian, African and Latin American countries simply want a free hand-out (which is why their focus on lots of money to them, rather than on dropping their own emissions).
So, how can we solve it?
Have the nations that are concerned (I wish that it was all, but it is not) put a cap based on current emissions.
IOW, you will not raise the CO2 at all.
To get a handle on things, we need to stop the growth first.
Then put a tax on ALL GOODS, INCLUDING IMPORTS, based on the CO2 emissions from the region where it was built AND where the primary component comes from AS WELL as the CO2 cost of shipping.
The 2'nd above requires that it be a percentage based on how much CO2 is from your area based on sat measurements ( and skip the garbage about population; that is about spreading responsibility; it will not happen).
In addition, it has to be known that the base amount will grow.
BUT, by allowing other nations to clean up their act, they can lower the amount that they pay.
This is probably the ONLY fix for all this.
WHy? Because it prevents politicians from cheating.
It keeps pols from claiming that another nation is emitting more, and they will.
The reason is that this is measurable by sats, it can be easily seen by all.
In addition, it takes into account ALL EMISSIONS.
Want to lower it, but can not cut back on CO2 right now?
Plants trees.
Route the CO2 from cement and power plants to algae and greenhouses.
Until a nation has the courage to do this, nothing will change.
It is only when ALL NATIONS have to partake, will it change things.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193572</id>
	<title>Clarifications</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258906980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The century ends after 23:59:59 on December 31, 2100AD (not the year before as some think)<br>2100 ad is not a leap year</p><p>6C is 108 decimal or l in ascii</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The century ends after 23 : 59 : 59 on December 31 , 2100AD ( not the year before as some think ) 2100 ad is not a leap year6C is 108 decimal or l in ascii</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The century ends after 23:59:59 on December 31, 2100AD (not the year before as some think)2100 ad is not a leap year6C is 108 decimal or l in ascii</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30195936</id>
	<title>The Climate Hacks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258881540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Global Warming Deniers are great at hurling insults, discovering conspiracies, and suggesting we should abandon science and return to the age of enlightenment of  7th century,  but they have yet to come up with an explanation as to why all the world glaciers are disappearing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Global Warming Deniers are great at hurling insults , discovering conspiracies , and suggesting we should abandon science and return to the age of enlightenment of 7th century , but they have yet to come up with an explanation as to why all the world glaciers are disappearing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Global Warming Deniers are great at hurling insults, discovering conspiracies, and suggesting we should abandon science and return to the age of enlightenment of  7th century,  but they have yet to come up with an explanation as to why all the world glaciers are disappearing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30202120</id>
	<title>Re:re Increase or decline?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258992240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, don't know about driving the car being harmless... I mean, it does emit gases.<br> <br>
However, what I DO have a problem with is when cars are vilified as the evil in this world, but the biggest, baddest sources of pollution are ignored.<br> <br>
To clarify - I support cleaner environment. I want to do my part. I drive less, I bike more, I walk. I would even use public transit more if there was one that worked in Toronto (Canada).<br> <br>
However, when you have bonehead politicians crying how evil the car is, and then they put 450 diesel trains per day along a corridor that links downtown and the airport, don't talk to me about pollution. Why not make those trains electric, like in Europe? Are we taking carbon emissions seriously, or are we not?<br> <br>
Or, putting nonsense traffic lights where they do not belong. We are going to be the worst city for traffic congestion because there are lights every 200 metres on a major street, why? Because there is a driveway from a hotel, or a parking lot or a shopping plaza. THAT will cause more traffic, more angry drivers and more pollution. So the solution (according to city politicians) is to take a bicycle or public transit. Fine. But the city bus is still stopped at those intersections unnecessarily, and for me as a cyclist, it is very annoying to have to stop and start frequently. Nobody really wins.
<br> <br>
Bottom line - the war on the car has begun, but this war has next to nothing to do with the war on climate change. Consumers, people, peons, taxpayers are hit left right and centre, while areas where it REALLY MATTERS are ignored because, face it, that's the nature of capitalistic dictatorship (when policy, laws are dictated by corporations).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , do n't know about driving the car being harmless... I mean , it does emit gases .
However , what I DO have a problem with is when cars are vilified as the evil in this world , but the biggest , baddest sources of pollution are ignored .
To clarify - I support cleaner environment .
I want to do my part .
I drive less , I bike more , I walk .
I would even use public transit more if there was one that worked in Toronto ( Canada ) .
However , when you have bonehead politicians crying how evil the car is , and then they put 450 diesel trains per day along a corridor that links downtown and the airport , do n't talk to me about pollution .
Why not make those trains electric , like in Europe ?
Are we taking carbon emissions seriously , or are we not ?
Or , putting nonsense traffic lights where they do not belong .
We are going to be the worst city for traffic congestion because there are lights every 200 metres on a major street , why ?
Because there is a driveway from a hotel , or a parking lot or a shopping plaza .
THAT will cause more traffic , more angry drivers and more pollution .
So the solution ( according to city politicians ) is to take a bicycle or public transit .
Fine. But the city bus is still stopped at those intersections unnecessarily , and for me as a cyclist , it is very annoying to have to stop and start frequently .
Nobody really wins .
Bottom line - the war on the car has begun , but this war has next to nothing to do with the war on climate change .
Consumers , people , peons , taxpayers are hit left right and centre , while areas where it REALLY MATTERS are ignored because , face it , that 's the nature of capitalistic dictatorship ( when policy , laws are dictated by corporations ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, don't know about driving the car being harmless... I mean, it does emit gases.
However, what I DO have a problem with is when cars are vilified as the evil in this world, but the biggest, baddest sources of pollution are ignored.
To clarify - I support cleaner environment.
I want to do my part.
I drive less, I bike more, I walk.
I would even use public transit more if there was one that worked in Toronto (Canada).
However, when you have bonehead politicians crying how evil the car is, and then they put 450 diesel trains per day along a corridor that links downtown and the airport, don't talk to me about pollution.
Why not make those trains electric, like in Europe?
Are we taking carbon emissions seriously, or are we not?
Or, putting nonsense traffic lights where they do not belong.
We are going to be the worst city for traffic congestion because there are lights every 200 metres on a major street, why?
Because there is a driveway from a hotel, or a parking lot or a shopping plaza.
THAT will cause more traffic, more angry drivers and more pollution.
So the solution (according to city politicians) is to take a bicycle or public transit.
Fine. But the city bus is still stopped at those intersections unnecessarily, and for me as a cyclist, it is very annoying to have to stop and start frequently.
Nobody really wins.
Bottom line - the war on the car has begun, but this war has next to nothing to do with the war on climate change.
Consumers, people, peons, taxpayers are hit left right and centre, while areas where it REALLY MATTERS are ignored because, face it, that's the nature of capitalistic dictatorship (when policy, laws are dictated by corporations).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30196530</id>
	<title>Re:Hoax?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258886700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>when a professor is conspiring with another professor to falsify data, that is a problem. When a professor pressures a scholarly organization to not publish a diversity of viewpoints, that is a problem. There should be a review of the research and publications of all involved, and a criminal fraud investigation due to the misuse of public funds.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>when a professor is conspiring with another professor to falsify data , that is a problem .
When a professor pressures a scholarly organization to not publish a diversity of viewpoints , that is a problem .
There should be a review of the research and publications of all involved , and a criminal fraud investigation due to the misuse of public funds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>when a professor is conspiring with another professor to falsify data, that is a problem.
When a professor pressures a scholarly organization to not publish a diversity of viewpoints, that is a problem.
There should be a review of the research and publications of all involved, and a criminal fraud investigation due to the misuse of public funds.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193914</id>
	<title>Why does this need to be explained once again?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258909620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/#more-1853" title="realclimate.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/#more-1853</a> [realclimate.org] </p><p><div class="quote"><p>No doubt, instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded &ldquo;gotcha&rdquo; phrases will be pulled out of context. One example is worth mentioning quickly. Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that &ldquo;I&rsquo;ve just completed Mike&rsquo;s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith&rsquo;s to hide the decline.&rdquo; The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the &lsquo;trick&rsquo; is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term &ldquo;trick&rdquo; to refer to a &ldquo;a good way to deal with a problem&rdquo;, rather than something that is &ldquo;secret&rdquo;, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the &lsquo;decline&rsquo;, it is well known that Keith Briffa&rsquo;s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the &ldquo;divergence problem&rdquo;&ndash;see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while &lsquo;hiding&rsquo; is probably a poor choice of words (since it is &lsquo;hidden&rsquo; in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.</p></div><p> <b>There hasn't even been a hint in the emails about any data being falsified.</b> If there had been, the "climate change sceptics" wouldn't try to use quotes such as that one. Now, however, they simply have nothing real to show us.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/ # more-1853 [ realclimate.org ] No doubt , instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded    gotcha    phrases will be pulled out of context .
One example is worth mentioning quickly .
Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that    I    ve just completed Mike    s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years ( ie from 1981 onwards ) and from 1961 for Keith    s to hide the decline.    The paper in question is the Mann , Bradley and Hughes ( 1998 ) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction , and the    trick    is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear .
Scientists often use the term    trick    to refer to a    a good way to deal with a problem    , rather than something that is    secret    , and so there is nothing problematic in this at all .
As for the    decline    , it is well known that Keith Briffa    s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 ( this is more commonly known as the    divergence problem       see e.g .
the recent discussion in this paper ) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 ( Nature , 391 , 678-682 ) .
Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction , and so while    hiding    is probably a poor choice of words ( since it is    hidden    in plain sight ) , not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate , as is further research to understand why this happens .
There has n't even been a hint in the emails about any data being falsified .
If there had been , the " climate change sceptics " would n't try to use quotes such as that one .
Now , however , they simply have nothing real to show us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/#more-1853 [realclimate.org] No doubt, instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded “gotcha” phrases will be pulled out of context.
One example is worth mentioning quickly.
Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear.
Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all.
As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”–see e.g.
the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682).
Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.
There hasn't even been a hint in the emails about any data being falsified.
If there had been, the "climate change sceptics" wouldn't try to use quotes such as that one.
Now, however, they simply have nothing real to show us.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30213858</id>
	<title>Re:Wake me when a prediction comes true</title>
	<author>sac13</author>
	<datestamp>1259078880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Climate model always predict disaster</p></div><p>That's because we don't have many witch doctors around these days...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Climate model always predict disasterThat 's because we do n't have many witch doctors around these days.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Climate model always predict disasterThat's because we don't have many witch doctors around these days...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193754</id>
	<title>The actual paper referred to in the Parent Post</title>
	<author>gordguide</author>
	<datestamp>1258908420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>Trends in the sources and sinks of carbon dioxide<br>Corinne Le Qu&#233;r&#233;, Michael R. Raupach, Josep G. Canadell, Gregg Marland et al.24</p><p>Abstract<br>Efforts to control climate change require the stabilization of atmospheric CO2 concentrations. This can only be achieved through a drastic reduction of global CO2 emissions. Yet fossil fuel emissions increased by 29\% between 2000 and 2008, in conjunction with increased contributions from emerging economies, from the production and international trade of goods and services, and from the use of coal as a fuel source. In contrast, emissions from land-use changes were nearly constant. Between 1959 and 2008, 43\% of each year's CO2 emissions remained in the atmosphere on average; the rest was absorbed by carbon sinks on land and in the oceans. In the past 50 years, the fraction of CO2 emissions that remains in the atmosphere each year has likely increased, from about 40\% to 45\%, and models suggest that this trend was caused by a decrease in the uptake of CO2 by the carbon sinks in response to climate change and variability. Changes in the CO2 sinks are highly uncertain, but they could have a significant influence on future atmospheric CO2 levels. It is therefore crucial to reduce the uncertainties.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..."</p><p>Not a word in the abstract about 6 degrees of anything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...Trends in the sources and sinks of carbon dioxideCorinne Le Qu   r   , Michael R. Raupach , Josep G. Canadell , Gregg Marland et al.24AbstractEfforts to control climate change require the stabilization of atmospheric CO2 concentrations .
This can only be achieved through a drastic reduction of global CO2 emissions .
Yet fossil fuel emissions increased by 29 \ % between 2000 and 2008 , in conjunction with increased contributions from emerging economies , from the production and international trade of goods and services , and from the use of coal as a fuel source .
In contrast , emissions from land-use changes were nearly constant .
Between 1959 and 2008 , 43 \ % of each year 's CO2 emissions remained in the atmosphere on average ; the rest was absorbed by carbon sinks on land and in the oceans .
In the past 50 years , the fraction of CO2 emissions that remains in the atmosphere each year has likely increased , from about 40 \ % to 45 \ % , and models suggest that this trend was caused by a decrease in the uptake of CO2 by the carbon sinks in response to climate change and variability .
Changes in the CO2 sinks are highly uncertain , but they could have a significant influence on future atmospheric CO2 levels .
It is therefore crucial to reduce the uncertainties .
... " Not a word in the abstract about 6 degrees of anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>" ...Trends in the sources and sinks of carbon dioxideCorinne Le Quéré, Michael R. Raupach, Josep G. Canadell, Gregg Marland et al.24AbstractEfforts to control climate change require the stabilization of atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
This can only be achieved through a drastic reduction of global CO2 emissions.
Yet fossil fuel emissions increased by 29\% between 2000 and 2008, in conjunction with increased contributions from emerging economies, from the production and international trade of goods and services, and from the use of coal as a fuel source.
In contrast, emissions from land-use changes were nearly constant.
Between 1959 and 2008, 43\% of each year's CO2 emissions remained in the atmosphere on average; the rest was absorbed by carbon sinks on land and in the oceans.
In the past 50 years, the fraction of CO2 emissions that remains in the atmosphere each year has likely increased, from about 40\% to 45\%, and models suggest that this trend was caused by a decrease in the uptake of CO2 by the carbon sinks in response to climate change and variability.
Changes in the CO2 sinks are highly uncertain, but they could have a significant influence on future atmospheric CO2 levels.
It is therefore crucial to reduce the uncertainties.
..."Not a word in the abstract about 6 degrees of anything.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30195590</id>
	<title>Re:re Increase or decline?</title>
	<author>Russ Nelson</author>
	<datestamp>1258922100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The time for debate is over.  Scientists have spoken.  It's now time for the technocrats to take over, decide what human behavior is needed for us to survive, and then control us so that we comply with that behavior.  If you don't want to do that, well, there's always the final solution.  It worked for Hitler.  He killed off most of the Jews within reach, and look at Germany now.  It's a prosperous country without the Jews.  Well, we can equally do without the climate deniers.  Time to line 'em up and start shooting.</p><p>Doin' my best to move this discussion to its logical conclusion!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The time for debate is over .
Scientists have spoken .
It 's now time for the technocrats to take over , decide what human behavior is needed for us to survive , and then control us so that we comply with that behavior .
If you do n't want to do that , well , there 's always the final solution .
It worked for Hitler .
He killed off most of the Jews within reach , and look at Germany now .
It 's a prosperous country without the Jews .
Well , we can equally do without the climate deniers .
Time to line 'em up and start shooting.Doin ' my best to move this discussion to its logical conclusion !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The time for debate is over.
Scientists have spoken.
It's now time for the technocrats to take over, decide what human behavior is needed for us to survive, and then control us so that we comply with that behavior.
If you don't want to do that, well, there's always the final solution.
It worked for Hitler.
He killed off most of the Jews within reach, and look at Germany now.
It's a prosperous country without the Jews.
Well, we can equally do without the climate deniers.
Time to line 'em up and start shooting.Doin' my best to move this discussion to its logical conclusion!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193152</id>
	<title>The hack</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258903740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I sort of believe in climate change, but at this point in time, a day after we all got to learn that the top-institute for climate-change knowingly and willingly changed the numbers, lied... I can not take this serious. First I want to know how much has been fabricated and lied. After that, I might support this type of research again, but only after all the liars are banned from 'research'.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I sort of believe in climate change , but at this point in time , a day after we all got to learn that the top-institute for climate-change knowingly and willingly changed the numbers , lied... I can not take this serious .
First I want to know how much has been fabricated and lied .
After that , I might support this type of research again , but only after all the liars are banned from 'research' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I sort of believe in climate change, but at this point in time, a day after we all got to learn that the top-institute for climate-change knowingly and willingly changed the numbers, lied... I can not take this serious.
First I want to know how much has been fabricated and lied.
After that, I might support this type of research again, but only after all the liars are banned from 'research'.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30196372</id>
	<title>Re:re Increase or decline?</title>
	<author>izomiac</author>
	<datestamp>1258884900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Speaking of warping science to conform to a belief, why is it that so many people are so eager to believe global warming skeptics?</p></div><p>I figure it's because the AGW non-scientists (and some scientists apparently) exaggerate to the point of dishonesty in the hopes of making people act.  The skeptics also lie, but since they mostly just rebut AGW stuff it's less obvious.  If one were to believe the bigots of each camp you'd think that the other group didn't have a shred of evidence and was intentionally misleading the public out of private interests.<br> <br>

There's also the sad state of research in this day and age, where statistical errors are abundant and you can't find someone without a conflict of interest.  Most studies won't stand up to close scrutiny.  If you point out research errors to a layman he'll believe that the researcher is either incompetent or deceptive.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Speaking of warping science to conform to a belief , why is it that so many people are so eager to believe global warming skeptics ? I figure it 's because the AGW non-scientists ( and some scientists apparently ) exaggerate to the point of dishonesty in the hopes of making people act .
The skeptics also lie , but since they mostly just rebut AGW stuff it 's less obvious .
If one were to believe the bigots of each camp you 'd think that the other group did n't have a shred of evidence and was intentionally misleading the public out of private interests .
There 's also the sad state of research in this day and age , where statistical errors are abundant and you ca n't find someone without a conflict of interest .
Most studies wo n't stand up to close scrutiny .
If you point out research errors to a layman he 'll believe that the researcher is either incompetent or deceptive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Speaking of warping science to conform to a belief, why is it that so many people are so eager to believe global warming skeptics?I figure it's because the AGW non-scientists (and some scientists apparently) exaggerate to the point of dishonesty in the hopes of making people act.
The skeptics also lie, but since they mostly just rebut AGW stuff it's less obvious.
If one were to believe the bigots of each camp you'd think that the other group didn't have a shred of evidence and was intentionally misleading the public out of private interests.
There's also the sad state of research in this day and age, where statistical errors are abundant and you can't find someone without a conflict of interest.
Most studies won't stand up to close scrutiny.
If you point out research errors to a layman he'll believe that the researcher is either incompetent or deceptive.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30199882</id>
	<title>Re:re Increase or decline?</title>
	<author>riverat1</author>
	<datestamp>1259007060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That report only covers the continental United States.  It's called <b>global</b> warming for a reason.  If you dig a little deeper you'll see that Alaska had the 10th warmest October on record.  In South Australia they've had 3 record heat waves in the past 2 years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That report only covers the continental United States .
It 's called global warming for a reason .
If you dig a little deeper you 'll see that Alaska had the 10th warmest October on record .
In South Australia they 've had 3 record heat waves in the past 2 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That report only covers the continental United States.
It's called global warming for a reason.
If you dig a little deeper you'll see that Alaska had the 10th warmest October on record.
In South Australia they've had 3 record heat waves in the past 2 years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193956</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193834</id>
	<title>Re:re Increase or decline?</title>
	<author>Snocone</author>
	<datestamp>1258909080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here, try this one. Read the email,</p><p><a href="http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=146&amp;filename=939154709.txt" title="anelegantchaos.org">http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=146&amp;filename=939154709.txt</a> [anelegantchaos.org]</p><p>examine the effect on the reporting.</p><p><a href="http://i49.tinypic.com/mk8113.jpg" title="tinypic.com">http://i49.tinypic.com/mk8113.jpg</a> [tinypic.com]</p><p>As this archive has only been out for a couple days, it's probably safe to suspect that's not the most dubious thing to be found.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here , try this one .
Read the email,http : //www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php ? eid = 146&amp;filename = 939154709.txt [ anelegantchaos.org ] examine the effect on the reporting.http : //i49.tinypic.com/mk8113.jpg [ tinypic.com ] As this archive has only been out for a couple days , it 's probably safe to suspect that 's not the most dubious thing to be found .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here, try this one.
Read the email,http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=146&amp;filename=939154709.txt [anelegantchaos.org]examine the effect on the reporting.http://i49.tinypic.com/mk8113.jpg [tinypic.com]As this archive has only been out for a couple days, it's probably safe to suspect that's not the most dubious thing to be found.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193374</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30196008</id>
	<title>Re:The hack</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258882020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Take the time to actually read the emails rather than listening to Steve "I failed basic statistics" McIntyre, Pat "I perjured myself before Congress" Mciheals, the Senator from Big Oil Inhofe and the rest of the nut jobs who have posted very carefully edited the emails. The originals have no instances where "top-institute for climate-change knowingly and willingly changed the numbers, lied.." THe deniers have yet again committed a crime for profit. The real question is did Inhofe have a part in the crime as he announced the day before that something big was going to happen that would shake the roots of global warming</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Take the time to actually read the emails rather than listening to Steve " I failed basic statistics " McIntyre , Pat " I perjured myself before Congress " Mciheals , the Senator from Big Oil Inhofe and the rest of the nut jobs who have posted very carefully edited the emails .
The originals have no instances where " top-institute for climate-change knowingly and willingly changed the numbers , lied.. " THe deniers have yet again committed a crime for profit .
The real question is did Inhofe have a part in the crime as he announced the day before that something big was going to happen that would shake the roots of global warming</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Take the time to actually read the emails rather than listening to Steve "I failed basic statistics" McIntyre, Pat "I perjured myself before Congress" Mciheals, the Senator from Big Oil Inhofe and the rest of the nut jobs who have posted very carefully edited the emails.
The originals have no instances where "top-institute for climate-change knowingly and willingly changed the numbers, lied.." THe deniers have yet again committed a crime for profit.
The real question is did Inhofe have a part in the crime as he announced the day before that something big was going to happen that would shake the roots of global warming</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193176</id>
	<title>The poor will die and the rich will go sailing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258903860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unfortunately that's the way it looks from here, Vietnam a developing country which is almost all coastline.</p><p>Well as long as the methane clathrates don't thaw releasing their gigatons of methane we won't kill off ALL of the rest of the biosphere.  (At least that's what my scientist friends are saying, we're far from that doomsday scenario).  Still millions will die and millions of species will go extinct but most of us rich northern hemispherians (N. America, Europe, E. Asia) will do okay.</p><p>Glad that Florida will be underwater though.  I guess Walt Disney knew better than all of us when he put the Experimental Prototype City of Tomorrow there.  Now I know why he predicted we'd be living underwater!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately that 's the way it looks from here , Vietnam a developing country which is almost all coastline.Well as long as the methane clathrates do n't thaw releasing their gigatons of methane we wo n't kill off ALL of the rest of the biosphere .
( At least that 's what my scientist friends are saying , we 're far from that doomsday scenario ) .
Still millions will die and millions of species will go extinct but most of us rich northern hemispherians ( N. America , Europe , E. Asia ) will do okay.Glad that Florida will be underwater though .
I guess Walt Disney knew better than all of us when he put the Experimental Prototype City of Tomorrow there .
Now I know why he predicted we 'd be living underwater !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately that's the way it looks from here, Vietnam a developing country which is almost all coastline.Well as long as the methane clathrates don't thaw releasing their gigatons of methane we won't kill off ALL of the rest of the biosphere.
(At least that's what my scientist friends are saying, we're far from that doomsday scenario).
Still millions will die and millions of species will go extinct but most of us rich northern hemispherians (N. America, Europe, E. Asia) will do okay.Glad that Florida will be underwater though.
I guess Walt Disney knew better than all of us when he put the Experimental Prototype City of Tomorrow there.
Now I know why he predicted we'd be living underwater!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30195028</id>
	<title>Re:Falsibility.</title>
	<author>Timothy Brownawell</author>
	<datestamp>1258917540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Unlike Hadley, RSS uses satellite data, is consistent, and is open. They DO report a current trend of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.15K per decade. This is far lower than the forecast.</p></div><p>I got the impression that the forecast is assuming that economic growth will lead to higher greenhouse emissions in later years, and <em>accelerating</em> temperature increases. So current trends not matching a simple linear path to their endpoint doesn't really mean much.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unlike Hadley , RSS uses satellite data , is consistent , and is open .
They DO report a current trend of .15K per decade .
This is far lower than the forecast.I got the impression that the forecast is assuming that economic growth will lead to higher greenhouse emissions in later years , and accelerating temperature increases .
So current trends not matching a simple linear path to their endpoint does n't really mean much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unlike Hadley, RSS uses satellite data, is consistent, and is open.
They DO report a current trend of .15K per decade.
This is far lower than the forecast.I got the impression that the forecast is assuming that economic growth will lead to higher greenhouse emissions in later years, and accelerating temperature increases.
So current trends not matching a simple linear path to their endpoint doesn't really mean much.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193132</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194982</id>
	<title>This will impact on *your* life</title>
	<author>Bozovision</author>
	<datestamp>1258917240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you are reading this, then you are probably under 45 years old.</p><p>I think the average life expectancy is rising - currently 75 years old or so in most Western countries - for men.</p><p>But more importantly medicine is going through an exponential increase in its abilities. It hasn't yet reached microprocessor rates of doubling every 18 months, but we certainly have learned more in about the last 20 or 30 years about how the human body works than we learned in all of history before that.</p><p>This strongly suggests that the average life expectancy will start rising exponentially too, with a lag to account for the development of applications from the basic discoveries.</p><p>So it is not unreasonable to expect some of you reading this to live to 150, barring any nasty accidents. And that means that climate change will have a direct impact on your life. You may have to live through mass starvation, wars fought over resources like water, extinction of once common species and the rise of diseases once only found in the tropics.</p><p>So, whether or not it's a totally proven phenomenon is irrelevant - \_you\_ personally can't afford to act as if it is unproven: you need to take personal action now, in the hope that it will help to mitigate the consequences.</p><p>We as a species need to learn the lessons of all the previous civilisations that have managed to extinguish themselves through resource starvation; don't spend time arguing that it may not be happening - act as if it is while hoping that it's not. Definitely carrying on with research at the same time. Maybe we will show that it's not happening, and that would be fantastic, but we can't wait for that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you are reading this , then you are probably under 45 years old.I think the average life expectancy is rising - currently 75 years old or so in most Western countries - for men.But more importantly medicine is going through an exponential increase in its abilities .
It has n't yet reached microprocessor rates of doubling every 18 months , but we certainly have learned more in about the last 20 or 30 years about how the human body works than we learned in all of history before that.This strongly suggests that the average life expectancy will start rising exponentially too , with a lag to account for the development of applications from the basic discoveries.So it is not unreasonable to expect some of you reading this to live to 150 , barring any nasty accidents .
And that means that climate change will have a direct impact on your life .
You may have to live through mass starvation , wars fought over resources like water , extinction of once common species and the rise of diseases once only found in the tropics.So , whether or not it 's a totally proven phenomenon is irrelevant - \ _you \ _ personally ca n't afford to act as if it is unproven : you need to take personal action now , in the hope that it will help to mitigate the consequences.We as a species need to learn the lessons of all the previous civilisations that have managed to extinguish themselves through resource starvation ; do n't spend time arguing that it may not be happening - act as if it is while hoping that it 's not .
Definitely carrying on with research at the same time .
Maybe we will show that it 's not happening , and that would be fantastic , but we ca n't wait for that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you are reading this, then you are probably under 45 years old.I think the average life expectancy is rising - currently 75 years old or so in most Western countries - for men.But more importantly medicine is going through an exponential increase in its abilities.
It hasn't yet reached microprocessor rates of doubling every 18 months, but we certainly have learned more in about the last 20 or 30 years about how the human body works than we learned in all of history before that.This strongly suggests that the average life expectancy will start rising exponentially too, with a lag to account for the development of applications from the basic discoveries.So it is not unreasonable to expect some of you reading this to live to 150, barring any nasty accidents.
And that means that climate change will have a direct impact on your life.
You may have to live through mass starvation, wars fought over resources like water, extinction of once common species and the rise of diseases once only found in the tropics.So, whether or not it's a totally proven phenomenon is irrelevant - \_you\_ personally can't afford to act as if it is unproven: you need to take personal action now, in the hope that it will help to mitigate the consequences.We as a species need to learn the lessons of all the previous civilisations that have managed to extinguish themselves through resource starvation; don't spend time arguing that it may not be happening - act as if it is while hoping that it's not.
Definitely carrying on with research at the same time.
Maybe we will show that it's not happening, and that would be fantastic, but we can't wait for that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193434</id>
	<title>Re:The hack</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258906020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Jesus, you effing idiot. Look up a few posts where it is nicely explained that those quotes were out of context, not meant in any way to hide contrary data, and don't mean in any way that the data these predictions are based on is falsified.<br> <br>

Learn something, you moron. Go read about how CO is a strong infrared absorber. Read about the actual mechanisms of greenhouse warming.<br> <br>

The data makes complete sense. The mechanisms make complete sense. You are just looking for an excuse to carry on.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Jesus , you effing idiot .
Look up a few posts where it is nicely explained that those quotes were out of context , not meant in any way to hide contrary data , and do n't mean in any way that the data these predictions are based on is falsified .
Learn something , you moron .
Go read about how CO is a strong infrared absorber .
Read about the actual mechanisms of greenhouse warming .
The data makes complete sense .
The mechanisms make complete sense .
You are just looking for an excuse to carry on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Jesus, you effing idiot.
Look up a few posts where it is nicely explained that those quotes were out of context, not meant in any way to hide contrary data, and don't mean in any way that the data these predictions are based on is falsified.
Learn something, you moron.
Go read about how CO is a strong infrared absorber.
Read about the actual mechanisms of greenhouse warming.
The data makes complete sense.
The mechanisms make complete sense.
You are just looking for an excuse to carry on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30198138</id>
	<title>Re:University of East Anglia</title>
	<author>Xyrus</author>
	<datestamp>1258899600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There were no incriminating emails, as is apparent to anyone who has actually read through them all. Only an idiot would get there talking points on this matter from a skeptic blog or an MSM article.</p><p>The emails and everything else are available on bit-torrent. Read them yourself. It may help you from getting whiplash by jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions based on partial or no context email quotes.</p><p>You'd think people on slashdot would know better than this.</p><p>~X~</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There were no incriminating emails , as is apparent to anyone who has actually read through them all .
Only an idiot would get there talking points on this matter from a skeptic blog or an MSM article.The emails and everything else are available on bit-torrent .
Read them yourself .
It may help you from getting whiplash by jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions based on partial or no context email quotes.You 'd think people on slashdot would know better than this. ~ X ~</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There were no incriminating emails, as is apparent to anyone who has actually read through them all.
Only an idiot would get there talking points on this matter from a skeptic blog or an MSM article.The emails and everything else are available on bit-torrent.
Read them yourself.
It may help you from getting whiplash by jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions based on partial or no context email quotes.You'd think people on slashdot would know better than this.~X~</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193240</id>
	<title>Re:Because we all know....</title>
	<author>Alioth</author>
	<datestamp>1258904400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're confusing weather forecasting and climatology. They aren't the same thing. An analogy (not using cars this time): imagine you have a pot of water on the stove, and the temperature turned to a certain point. The weather forecaster is the person who predicts where the eddies and bubbles will be in this pot of water. Obviously this gets incredibly difficult for predictions more than a few seconds in the future. The climatologist, however, says "after X time, the temperature will have changed to Y", or "Put the lid on the pot, and the temperature will increase to Z".</p><p>Two quite different disciplines.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're confusing weather forecasting and climatology .
They are n't the same thing .
An analogy ( not using cars this time ) : imagine you have a pot of water on the stove , and the temperature turned to a certain point .
The weather forecaster is the person who predicts where the eddies and bubbles will be in this pot of water .
Obviously this gets incredibly difficult for predictions more than a few seconds in the future .
The climatologist , however , says " after X time , the temperature will have changed to Y " , or " Put the lid on the pot , and the temperature will increase to Z " .Two quite different disciplines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're confusing weather forecasting and climatology.
They aren't the same thing.
An analogy (not using cars this time): imagine you have a pot of water on the stove, and the temperature turned to a certain point.
The weather forecaster is the person who predicts where the eddies and bubbles will be in this pot of water.
Obviously this gets incredibly difficult for predictions more than a few seconds in the future.
The climatologist, however, says "after X time, the temperature will have changed to Y", or "Put the lid on the pot, and the temperature will increase to Z".Two quite different disciplines.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193154</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30199342</id>
	<title>Re:Timing of this new information is too convenent</title>
	<author>turkeyfish</author>
	<datestamp>1258910700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most of this information has been embedded in scientific journal articles for months and years.  Its just that the news media and the lay public are periodically focusing on the topic because of the Copenhagen meetings.  Consequently, recent publications and refinements of the subject are getting much press.</p><p>Rest assured, the science predicts much warmer weather ahead, regardless of what the politicians might do or what the global warming deniers might get the masses to believe, or how oblivious to the overall problem the public is or remains.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of this information has been embedded in scientific journal articles for months and years .
Its just that the news media and the lay public are periodically focusing on the topic because of the Copenhagen meetings .
Consequently , recent publications and refinements of the subject are getting much press.Rest assured , the science predicts much warmer weather ahead , regardless of what the politicians might do or what the global warming deniers might get the masses to believe , or how oblivious to the overall problem the public is or remains .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of this information has been embedded in scientific journal articles for months and years.
Its just that the news media and the lay public are periodically focusing on the topic because of the Copenhagen meetings.
Consequently, recent publications and refinements of the subject are getting much press.Rest assured, the science predicts much warmer weather ahead, regardless of what the politicians might do or what the global warming deniers might get the masses to believe, or how oblivious to the overall problem the public is or remains.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30197400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193520</id>
	<title>Sulphur Dioxide to the rescue</title>
	<author>assemblerex</author>
	<datestamp>1258906620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>20 million tons generates approximately 0.5 degrees of cooling when in the upper atmosphere.<br>

We'd have to loft 240 million tons of SO2, which could buy us time to clean up the CO2<br>

Of course one would want some safety measure in case an actual volcano erupted.<br>

So loft 200 tons. <br>

Hot sulfuric acid and copper shavings, you could make it at home.</htmltext>
<tokenext>20 million tons generates approximately 0.5 degrees of cooling when in the upper atmosphere .
We 'd have to loft 240 million tons of SO2 , which could buy us time to clean up the CO2 Of course one would want some safety measure in case an actual volcano erupted .
So loft 200 tons .
Hot sulfuric acid and copper shavings , you could make it at home .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>20 million tons generates approximately 0.5 degrees of cooling when in the upper atmosphere.
We'd have to loft 240 million tons of SO2, which could buy us time to clean up the CO2

Of course one would want some safety measure in case an actual volcano erupted.
So loft 200 tons.
Hot sulfuric acid and copper shavings, you could make it at home.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30197562</id>
	<title>Re:The hack</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258894560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FOIA/mail/1256765544.txt<br>FOIA/mail/1168356704.txt</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FOIA/mail/1256765544.txtFOIA/mail/1168356704.txt</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FOIA/mail/1256765544.txtFOIA/mail/1168356704.txt</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30198828</id>
	<title>Re:Hoax?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258905720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>Honestly, i don't get the 'hoax' tag, the doom&amp;gloom tag or even fear mongering could be seen as appropriate, but hoax?</i></p><p>Some emails were leaked on Friday from the climate research unit at the university of East Anglia. In about 150 megabytes of text, it turned out that in one of the emails, one of the researchers used the word 'trick' to describe some unspecified method of statistical analysis he had used on some dataset, and mentioned that it would 'hide the decline'. Everyone immediately saw that obviously this trick was dishonest and the decline in question was a real decline in temperatures, and it means that the entire field of climate science has been perpetrating a decades-long hoax on the world, and Al Gore should be tried for treason. Because you don't need any kind of context to know exactly what the word 'trick' refers to and what 'decline' is being hidden and why; your pre-existing political beliefs tell you all you should need to know.</p><p>That's why articles about climate change can expect to be tagged with such things for quite some time into the future.</p></div><p>One email used the word 'trick' and it proves the 'entire field of climate science has been perpetrating a decades-long hoax on the world, and Al Gore should be tried for treason'? Maybe you need to take a look at your own 'pre-existing political beliefs'.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Honestly , i do n't get the 'hoax ' tag , the doom&amp;gloom tag or even fear mongering could be seen as appropriate , but hoax ? Some emails were leaked on Friday from the climate research unit at the university of East Anglia .
In about 150 megabytes of text , it turned out that in one of the emails , one of the researchers used the word 'trick ' to describe some unspecified method of statistical analysis he had used on some dataset , and mentioned that it would 'hide the decline' .
Everyone immediately saw that obviously this trick was dishonest and the decline in question was a real decline in temperatures , and it means that the entire field of climate science has been perpetrating a decades-long hoax on the world , and Al Gore should be tried for treason .
Because you do n't need any kind of context to know exactly what the word 'trick ' refers to and what 'decline ' is being hidden and why ; your pre-existing political beliefs tell you all you should need to know.That 's why articles about climate change can expect to be tagged with such things for quite some time into the future.One email used the word 'trick ' and it proves the 'entire field of climate science has been perpetrating a decades-long hoax on the world , and Al Gore should be tried for treason ' ?
Maybe you need to take a look at your own 'pre-existing political beliefs' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Honestly, i don't get the 'hoax' tag, the doom&amp;gloom tag or even fear mongering could be seen as appropriate, but hoax?Some emails were leaked on Friday from the climate research unit at the university of East Anglia.
In about 150 megabytes of text, it turned out that in one of the emails, one of the researchers used the word 'trick' to describe some unspecified method of statistical analysis he had used on some dataset, and mentioned that it would 'hide the decline'.
Everyone immediately saw that obviously this trick was dishonest and the decline in question was a real decline in temperatures, and it means that the entire field of climate science has been perpetrating a decades-long hoax on the world, and Al Gore should be tried for treason.
Because you don't need any kind of context to know exactly what the word 'trick' refers to and what 'decline' is being hidden and why; your pre-existing political beliefs tell you all you should need to know.That's why articles about climate change can expect to be tagged with such things for quite some time into the future.One email used the word 'trick' and it proves the 'entire field of climate science has been perpetrating a decades-long hoax on the world, and Al Gore should be tried for treason'?
Maybe you need to take a look at your own 'pre-existing political beliefs'.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30197400</id>
	<title>Timing of this new information is too convenent</title>
	<author>dila813</author>
	<datestamp>1258892940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have to dismiss out of hand because of the timing.

This is political and not scientific. Any press release right before a summit on climate that makes such disastrous claims has to be assumed to be demonstrably false.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have to dismiss out of hand because of the timing .
This is political and not scientific .
Any press release right before a summit on climate that makes such disastrous claims has to be assumed to be demonstrably false .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have to dismiss out of hand because of the timing.
This is political and not scientific.
Any press release right before a summit on climate that makes such disastrous claims has to be assumed to be demonstrably false.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30195296</id>
	<title>Re:re Increase or decline?</title>
	<author>HiThere</author>
	<datestamp>1258919760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The one I find convincing is the melting of the ice.  It's a crude kind of measure, lacking in detail, but any explanation that doesn't account for that is obviously unacceptable.</p><p>The North-West passage is currently open to ice-breakers, and it is projected to be open to normal passenger liners soon.  This doesn't give me many data points, but the ones it give are irrefutable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The one I find convincing is the melting of the ice .
It 's a crude kind of measure , lacking in detail , but any explanation that does n't account for that is obviously unacceptable.The North-West passage is currently open to ice-breakers , and it is projected to be open to normal passenger liners soon .
This does n't give me many data points , but the ones it give are irrefutable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The one I find convincing is the melting of the ice.
It's a crude kind of measure, lacking in detail, but any explanation that doesn't account for that is obviously unacceptable.The North-West passage is currently open to ice-breakers, and it is projected to be open to normal passenger liners soon.
This doesn't give me many data points, but the ones it give are irrefutable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30196354</id>
	<title>Think positive!</title>
	<author>stalky14</author>
	<datestamp>1258884720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Isn't the bright side of this lots more arable land in places like Canada and Russia? Seems like we'll need it if the population keeps going up.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't the bright side of this lots more arable land in places like Canada and Russia ?
Seems like we 'll need it if the population keeps going up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't the bright side of this lots more arable land in places like Canada and Russia?
Seems like we'll need it if the population keeps going up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30197754</id>
	<title>Re:re Increase or decline?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258896540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>not much... Sought by explorers for centuries as a possible trade route, it was first navigated by Roald Amundsen in 1903-1906. (wikipedia)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>not much... Sought by explorers for centuries as a possible trade route , it was first navigated by Roald Amundsen in 1903-1906 .
( wikipedia )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>not much... Sought by explorers for centuries as a possible trade route, it was first navigated by Roald Amundsen in 1903-1906.
(wikipedia)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30195296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30206614</id>
	<title>Re:re Increase or decline?</title>
	<author>RJBeery</author>
	<datestamp>1258973520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Agreed!  In another email, Phil Jones writes "I'm going to kill my wife tonight and make it appear as an accident so as to collect money from her insurance policy".  Clearly, only those small-minded people that take words in a very literal sense would find anything nefarious in this out-of-context comment.  In the CRU culture, "kill my wife" simply means "mow the lawn", while "as an accident" means "freshly groomed".  Lastly, "so as to collect money from her insurance policy" is another way of saying "then I'm going to make a ham sandwich".

Isn't it funny how dim-witted people can twist what is being read into exactly what they wish it to read??</htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed !
In another email , Phil Jones writes " I 'm going to kill my wife tonight and make it appear as an accident so as to collect money from her insurance policy " .
Clearly , only those small-minded people that take words in a very literal sense would find anything nefarious in this out-of-context comment .
In the CRU culture , " kill my wife " simply means " mow the lawn " , while " as an accident " means " freshly groomed " .
Lastly , " so as to collect money from her insurance policy " is another way of saying " then I 'm going to make a ham sandwich " .
Is n't it funny how dim-witted people can twist what is being read into exactly what they wish it to read ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed!
In another email, Phil Jones writes "I'm going to kill my wife tonight and make it appear as an accident so as to collect money from her insurance policy".
Clearly, only those small-minded people that take words in a very literal sense would find anything nefarious in this out-of-context comment.
In the CRU culture, "kill my wife" simply means "mow the lawn", while "as an accident" means "freshly groomed".
Lastly, "so as to collect money from her insurance policy" is another way of saying "then I'm going to make a ham sandwich".
Isn't it funny how dim-witted people can twist what is being read into exactly what they wish it to read?
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193322</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194602</id>
	<title>Re:re Increase or decline?</title>
	<author>zippthorne</author>
	<datestamp>1258914180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the proxy data isn't valid *now*, how do we know it was valid during the time period it was used?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the proxy data is n't valid * now * , how do we know it was valid during the time period it was used ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the proxy data isn't valid *now*, how do we know it was valid during the time period it was used?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194888</id>
	<title>Being Pro Dinosaur</title>
	<author>duckbillplatypus</author>
	<datestamp>1258916340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I welcome the return of the Mesozoic temperatures. A worldwide reptile paradise.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I welcome the return of the Mesozoic temperatures .
A worldwide reptile paradise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I welcome the return of the Mesozoic temperatures.
A worldwide reptile paradise.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193484</id>
	<title>Prediction depends on an unproven thesis</title>
	<author>Eukariote</author>
	<datestamp>1258906380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A predicted 6 degrees Celsius rise in a century? Oh, how scary! Let's introduce onerous carbon-curbing measures.</p><p>But wait, the models that make these predictions all have CO2 as the driving factor behind climate change. The historical record shows, however, that the atmospheric CO2 concentration <em>follows</em> changes in global temperature instead of leads it. Not surprising: higher temperature -&gt; oceans heat up -&gt; less dissolved CO2.</p><p>Moreover, there is a perfectly plausible alternative explanation for what is causing the rapid climate fluctuations (historically going both up and down on a fairly short timescale): the sun. If you include the EUV and X-Ray bands of the spectrum, it becomes obvious that the sun's output changes much more than it is being given credit for: <a href="http://www.usc.edu/dept/space\_science/sem\_data/SEM\%20Data\%20Graphs/SEM\_1996-2009.jpg" title="usc.edu" rel="nofollow">http://www.usc.edu/dept/space\_science/sem\_data/SEM\%20Data\%20Graphs/SEM\_1996-2009.jpg</a> [usc.edu] </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A predicted 6 degrees Celsius rise in a century ?
Oh , how scary !
Let 's introduce onerous carbon-curbing measures.But wait , the models that make these predictions all have CO2 as the driving factor behind climate change .
The historical record shows , however , that the atmospheric CO2 concentration follows changes in global temperature instead of leads it .
Not surprising : higher temperature - &gt; oceans heat up - &gt; less dissolved CO2.Moreover , there is a perfectly plausible alternative explanation for what is causing the rapid climate fluctuations ( historically going both up and down on a fairly short timescale ) : the sun .
If you include the EUV and X-Ray bands of the spectrum , it becomes obvious that the sun 's output changes much more than it is being given credit for : http : //www.usc.edu/dept/space \ _science/sem \ _data/SEM \ % 20Data \ % 20Graphs/SEM \ _1996-2009.jpg [ usc.edu ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A predicted 6 degrees Celsius rise in a century?
Oh, how scary!
Let's introduce onerous carbon-curbing measures.But wait, the models that make these predictions all have CO2 as the driving factor behind climate change.
The historical record shows, however, that the atmospheric CO2 concentration follows changes in global temperature instead of leads it.
Not surprising: higher temperature -&gt; oceans heat up -&gt; less dissolved CO2.Moreover, there is a perfectly plausible alternative explanation for what is causing the rapid climate fluctuations (historically going both up and down on a fairly short timescale): the sun.
If you include the EUV and X-Ray bands of the spectrum, it becomes obvious that the sun's output changes much more than it is being given credit for: http://www.usc.edu/dept/space\_science/sem\_data/SEM\%20Data\%20Graphs/SEM\_1996-2009.jpg [usc.edu] </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30197510</id>
	<title>The Register?</title>
	<author>WiiVault</author>
	<datestamp>1258893960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is the Register a relevant source for anything? Not in my experience.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is the Register a relevant source for anything ?
Not in my experience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is the Register a relevant source for anything?
Not in my experience.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193168</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193470</id>
	<title>Re:re Increase or decline?</title>
	<author>aurispector</author>
	<datestamp>1258906260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The politicization of climate data will prove to be a disaster in the long run. Everyone has an axe to grind.</p><p>Here's a link to some NASA data about temperature:</p><p><a href="http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/" title="nasa.gov">http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/</a> [nasa.gov]</p><p>Do we believe NASA when they say 2008 was the coolest since 2000? Is that just a tooth in the saw? Which trend to you believe? The one that shows temperatures generally increasing since 1880? Are the relatively flat temperatures between 1950 and 1980 an anomaly?  Is it really correct to even assume the overall trend is anthropogenic? Or do we need to do some fancy footwork to make the data fit the hypothesis?</p><p>What we don't have is good, healthy debate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The politicization of climate data will prove to be a disaster in the long run .
Everyone has an axe to grind.Here 's a link to some NASA data about temperature : http : //data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/ [ nasa.gov ] Do we believe NASA when they say 2008 was the coolest since 2000 ?
Is that just a tooth in the saw ?
Which trend to you believe ?
The one that shows temperatures generally increasing since 1880 ?
Are the relatively flat temperatures between 1950 and 1980 an anomaly ?
Is it really correct to even assume the overall trend is anthropogenic ?
Or do we need to do some fancy footwork to make the data fit the hypothesis ? What we do n't have is good , healthy debate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The politicization of climate data will prove to be a disaster in the long run.
Everyone has an axe to grind.Here's a link to some NASA data about temperature:http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/ [nasa.gov]Do we believe NASA when they say 2008 was the coolest since 2000?
Is that just a tooth in the saw?
Which trend to you believe?
The one that shows temperatures generally increasing since 1880?
Are the relatively flat temperatures between 1950 and 1980 an anomaly?
Is it really correct to even assume the overall trend is anthropogenic?
Or do we need to do some fancy footwork to make the data fit the hypothesis?What we don't have is good, healthy debate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193212</id>
	<title>Re:Falsibility.</title>
	<author>PiSkyHi</author>
	<datestamp>1258904160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Assuming linear interpolation. I think you may well be on your own there.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Assuming linear interpolation .
I think you may well be on your own there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Assuming linear interpolation.
I think you may well be on your own there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193132</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193416</id>
	<title>Re:The hack</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258905900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>climate-change knowingly and willingly changed the numbers, lied</p></div><p>Having read that story, I saw no evidence that they lied or changed number.  They discussed how to spin their results so as their findings wouldn't be used by the opposition to score political points and they discussed politics (including how to marginalize an opponent).  But nowhere did I see evidence that they lied or fabricated numbers.  Do you have proof that they did?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>After that, I might support this type of research again, but only after all the liars are banned from 'research'.</p></div><p>Did you even support it in the first place? Your tone makes me suspect not and that the above sentence is a rhetorical flourish to make your refusal sound more reasonable.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>climate-change knowingly and willingly changed the numbers , liedHaving read that story , I saw no evidence that they lied or changed number .
They discussed how to spin their results so as their findings would n't be used by the opposition to score political points and they discussed politics ( including how to marginalize an opponent ) .
But nowhere did I see evidence that they lied or fabricated numbers .
Do you have proof that they did ? After that , I might support this type of research again , but only after all the liars are banned from 'research'.Did you even support it in the first place ?
Your tone makes me suspect not and that the above sentence is a rhetorical flourish to make your refusal sound more reasonable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>climate-change knowingly and willingly changed the numbers, liedHaving read that story, I saw no evidence that they lied or changed number.
They discussed how to spin their results so as their findings wouldn't be used by the opposition to score political points and they discussed politics (including how to marginalize an opponent).
But nowhere did I see evidence that they lied or fabricated numbers.
Do you have proof that they did?After that, I might support this type of research again, but only after all the liars are banned from 'research'.Did you even support it in the first place?
Your tone makes me suspect not and that the above sentence is a rhetorical flourish to make your refusal sound more reasonable.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30195742</id>
	<title>Re:Hoax?</title>
	<author>Russ Nelson</author>
	<datestamp>1258923180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a lot more than that.  You can see people conspiring to delete data which might impugn their conclusion, and they're trying to do it before they can be hit by a freedom of information request.  Criminal conspiracy to hide publicly-funded data by destroying it, hmmmm?  Prosecutors in the UK should definitely be hitting these folks with an order not to destroy any data nor to delete any emails, and then they should be seeking a copy of the emails directly from the site.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a lot more than that .
You can see people conspiring to delete data which might impugn their conclusion , and they 're trying to do it before they can be hit by a freedom of information request .
Criminal conspiracy to hide publicly-funded data by destroying it , hmmmm ?
Prosecutors in the UK should definitely be hitting these folks with an order not to destroy any data nor to delete any emails , and then they should be seeking a copy of the emails directly from the site .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a lot more than that.
You can see people conspiring to delete data which might impugn their conclusion, and they're trying to do it before they can be hit by a freedom of information request.
Criminal conspiracy to hide publicly-funded data by destroying it, hmmmm?
Prosecutors in the UK should definitely be hitting these folks with an order not to destroy any data nor to delete any emails, and then they should be seeking a copy of the emails directly from the site.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193574</id>
	<title>Wine production</title>
	<author>ProteusQ</author>
	<datestamp>1258906980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then maybe England and Sweden will be able to resume their wine production as they did before the Medieval ice age.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then maybe England and Sweden will be able to resume their wine production as they did before the Medieval ice age .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then maybe England and Sweden will be able to resume their wine production as they did before the Medieval ice age.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193168</id>
	<title>Register story</title>
	<author>Dartz-IRL</author>
	<datestamp>1258903860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/20/cru\_climate\_hack/" title="theregister.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/20/cru\_climate\_hack/</a> [theregister.co.uk]</p><p>Relevant to this story.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/20/cru \ _climate \ _hack/ [ theregister.co.uk ] Relevant to this story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/20/cru\_climate\_hack/ [theregister.co.uk]Relevant to this story.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193972</id>
	<title>Re:Falsibility.</title>
	<author>ShakaUVM</author>
	<datestamp>1258910040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Satellite temperatures are better for climate purposes because ground stations temperatures also pick up heat radiated from the ground and other buildings. Indeed, one of the great points of criticism made about global climate is weather or not the current level state of ground measuring statements is both consistent and accurate. I'd assume that they are not.</i></p><p>Indeed - the Heat Island Effect. Interestingly enough, this was the major premise of State of Fear, that the Heat Island Effect was causing much of the measured temperature gain - that it was being underestimated by climatologists, therefore resulting in perceived global warming.</p><p>Real Climate.org did a long blast on State of Fear, but interestingly enough, their response on the HIE was real weak, which essentially said "We know about it and are already compensating for it". Well, yes... he said so. Why not just ignore stations within heat islands entirely (like he did in several charts)? RC.org's response? Silence. And moderation of comments asking that question, too, interestingly enough. They like a little bit of criticism on the site, but not a lot. (Even if you ask it as nicely as I just did.)</p><p>Michael Crichton also theorizes there is peer pressure in the field to keep global warming dissent out of peer reviewed journals. ("Preposterous!" Real Climate.org claimed.) Of course, with the Climategate emails leaked out, we now see compelling proof that Crichton was actually right on the money with this - with a climate journal which promoted a single GW skeptic to the editorial board being pressured to fire him, and lacking that, for everyone to boycott the journal, take their papers elsewhere, and to refuse to cite any articles in that journal.</p><p>It's all very interesting. I find RC.org informative, though obviously biased - when a British judge ruled that An Inconvenient Truth could be shown in classrooms, but only with a teacher guide explaining that it is a polemic, NOT a documentary, RC.org conveniently left out this latter bit, making it appear Al Gore was completely vindicated in the courtroom.</p><p>I'm giving a guest lecture on global warming next week, and used mainly RC.org, in conjunction with a mix of Green and government information sources to prepare the lecture.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Satellite temperatures are better for climate purposes because ground stations temperatures also pick up heat radiated from the ground and other buildings .
Indeed , one of the great points of criticism made about global climate is weather or not the current level state of ground measuring statements is both consistent and accurate .
I 'd assume that they are not.Indeed - the Heat Island Effect .
Interestingly enough , this was the major premise of State of Fear , that the Heat Island Effect was causing much of the measured temperature gain - that it was being underestimated by climatologists , therefore resulting in perceived global warming.Real Climate.org did a long blast on State of Fear , but interestingly enough , their response on the HIE was real weak , which essentially said " We know about it and are already compensating for it " .
Well , yes... he said so .
Why not just ignore stations within heat islands entirely ( like he did in several charts ) ?
RC.org 's response ?
Silence. And moderation of comments asking that question , too , interestingly enough .
They like a little bit of criticism on the site , but not a lot .
( Even if you ask it as nicely as I just did .
) Michael Crichton also theorizes there is peer pressure in the field to keep global warming dissent out of peer reviewed journals .
( " Preposterous ! " Real Climate.org claimed .
) Of course , with the Climategate emails leaked out , we now see compelling proof that Crichton was actually right on the money with this - with a climate journal which promoted a single GW skeptic to the editorial board being pressured to fire him , and lacking that , for everyone to boycott the journal , take their papers elsewhere , and to refuse to cite any articles in that journal.It 's all very interesting .
I find RC.org informative , though obviously biased - when a British judge ruled that An Inconvenient Truth could be shown in classrooms , but only with a teacher guide explaining that it is a polemic , NOT a documentary , RC.org conveniently left out this latter bit , making it appear Al Gore was completely vindicated in the courtroom.I 'm giving a guest lecture on global warming next week , and used mainly RC.org , in conjunction with a mix of Green and government information sources to prepare the lecture .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Satellite temperatures are better for climate purposes because ground stations temperatures also pick up heat radiated from the ground and other buildings.
Indeed, one of the great points of criticism made about global climate is weather or not the current level state of ground measuring statements is both consistent and accurate.
I'd assume that they are not.Indeed - the Heat Island Effect.
Interestingly enough, this was the major premise of State of Fear, that the Heat Island Effect was causing much of the measured temperature gain - that it was being underestimated by climatologists, therefore resulting in perceived global warming.Real Climate.org did a long blast on State of Fear, but interestingly enough, their response on the HIE was real weak, which essentially said "We know about it and are already compensating for it".
Well, yes... he said so.
Why not just ignore stations within heat islands entirely (like he did in several charts)?
RC.org's response?
Silence. And moderation of comments asking that question, too, interestingly enough.
They like a little bit of criticism on the site, but not a lot.
(Even if you ask it as nicely as I just did.
)Michael Crichton also theorizes there is peer pressure in the field to keep global warming dissent out of peer reviewed journals.
("Preposterous!" Real Climate.org claimed.
) Of course, with the Climategate emails leaked out, we now see compelling proof that Crichton was actually right on the money with this - with a climate journal which promoted a single GW skeptic to the editorial board being pressured to fire him, and lacking that, for everyone to boycott the journal, take their papers elsewhere, and to refuse to cite any articles in that journal.It's all very interesting.
I find RC.org informative, though obviously biased - when a British judge ruled that An Inconvenient Truth could be shown in classrooms, but only with a teacher guide explaining that it is a polemic, NOT a documentary, RC.org conveniently left out this latter bit, making it appear Al Gore was completely vindicated in the courtroom.I'm giving a guest lecture on global warming next week, and used mainly RC.org, in conjunction with a mix of Green and government information sources to prepare the lecture.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30198990</id>
	<title>Re:6C ?</title>
	<author>Kingrames</author>
	<datestamp>1258907220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dude, nobody cares about those temperature scales.<br>
We need to know how many Kelvins that is.<br> <br>
(do not be alarmed, the joke was intentional)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dude , nobody cares about those temperature scales .
We need to know how many Kelvins that is .
( do not be alarmed , the joke was intentional )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dude, nobody cares about those temperature scales.
We need to know how many Kelvins that is.
(do not be alarmed, the joke was intentional)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193640</id>
	<title>Re:Prediction depends on an unproven thesis</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258907520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a new form of taxation. How dare you argue against taxation! Surely you are no patriot, you must hate the Earth (and coming soon) you will be arrested and processed for daring to speak against what is obviously yet another way to reach into our pockets and waste our money on frivolous projects that employ people in useless jobs.</p><p>As the owner of a managed forest, I have seriously looked into being paid (yes PAID) over a million euros per year to NOT cut down my trees. There is a HUGE market for carbon offsetting, and it's growing yearly. The sad thing is, it's all a scam. Since I'm not a scammer I haven't moved ahead with this.</p><p>However what I've discovered through my own research and what my engineers have told me, is that METHANE from decomposing leaves poses a far greater "greenhouse" risk than any CO2 my trees are likely to absorb. Oh dear. But the EU pays (and taxes) based on CO2, not methane. Could it be that the government(s) are simply interested in taxing the most COMMON pollutant, and not the most HARMFUL? After all, everyone produces CO2 - industry, farmers, transportation, cows, humans. Not everyone produces methane (cow farts/burps aside).</p><p>Climate change is REAL. Yet the recently disturbed atmosphere of Jupiter (you've heard about the NEW Red Spot, right?) and the melting martian polar ice caps (oh yeah, it's because Mars is "wobbling" but HEAVEN FORBID that Earth can be wobbling, no - it's SUV's that are to blame here on Earth!) should alert any rational person to the fact that special interests have led politicians down a path they want to go - a path that leads to more revenue for the government, in the name of man-made "global warming".</p><p>It's amazing for me to think that even when they tax anywhere from 3 to 15\% of EVERY SINGLE TRANSACTION MADE (sales/VAT taxes) AND tax your income, tax your fuel, tax your capital gains, and yes, in some places, your death and your estate - GOVERNMENTS ALL OVER THE WORLD ARE PISSING OUT MONEY. WTF? When does it stop? What am I getting for my money? Roads with potholes in them? Bridges that collapse? Brown outs and water shortages? Monopolies in everything from utilities to software? Justice that fails to prevent crime, feeds criminals for life in jail (that is, when they don't get released), and makes me wonder if I will get TASERed the next time I get pulled over for speeding? Oh and governments that are willing to pay people like me (only with less morals) to not cut down my forest? Hell I don't want to cut it down, imagine what 2000 acres of 80 year old teak will be worth to my great-grandchildren...</p><p>Heh, what a world. But by all means, believe what governments tell you. After all, they're right about so many things.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/cynicism</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a new form of taxation .
How dare you argue against taxation !
Surely you are no patriot , you must hate the Earth ( and coming soon ) you will be arrested and processed for daring to speak against what is obviously yet another way to reach into our pockets and waste our money on frivolous projects that employ people in useless jobs.As the owner of a managed forest , I have seriously looked into being paid ( yes PAID ) over a million euros per year to NOT cut down my trees .
There is a HUGE market for carbon offsetting , and it 's growing yearly .
The sad thing is , it 's all a scam .
Since I 'm not a scammer I have n't moved ahead with this.However what I 've discovered through my own research and what my engineers have told me , is that METHANE from decomposing leaves poses a far greater " greenhouse " risk than any CO2 my trees are likely to absorb .
Oh dear .
But the EU pays ( and taxes ) based on CO2 , not methane .
Could it be that the government ( s ) are simply interested in taxing the most COMMON pollutant , and not the most HARMFUL ?
After all , everyone produces CO2 - industry , farmers , transportation , cows , humans .
Not everyone produces methane ( cow farts/burps aside ) .Climate change is REAL .
Yet the recently disturbed atmosphere of Jupiter ( you 've heard about the NEW Red Spot , right ?
) and the melting martian polar ice caps ( oh yeah , it 's because Mars is " wobbling " but HEAVEN FORBID that Earth can be wobbling , no - it 's SUV 's that are to blame here on Earth !
) should alert any rational person to the fact that special interests have led politicians down a path they want to go - a path that leads to more revenue for the government , in the name of man-made " global warming " .It 's amazing for me to think that even when they tax anywhere from 3 to 15 \ % of EVERY SINGLE TRANSACTION MADE ( sales/VAT taxes ) AND tax your income , tax your fuel , tax your capital gains , and yes , in some places , your death and your estate - GOVERNMENTS ALL OVER THE WORLD ARE PISSING OUT MONEY .
WTF ? When does it stop ?
What am I getting for my money ?
Roads with potholes in them ?
Bridges that collapse ?
Brown outs and water shortages ?
Monopolies in everything from utilities to software ?
Justice that fails to prevent crime , feeds criminals for life in jail ( that is , when they do n't get released ) , and makes me wonder if I will get TASERed the next time I get pulled over for speeding ?
Oh and governments that are willing to pay people like me ( only with less morals ) to not cut down my forest ?
Hell I do n't want to cut it down , imagine what 2000 acres of 80 year old teak will be worth to my great-grandchildren...Heh , what a world .
But by all means , believe what governments tell you .
After all , they 're right about so many things .
/cynicism</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a new form of taxation.
How dare you argue against taxation!
Surely you are no patriot, you must hate the Earth (and coming soon) you will be arrested and processed for daring to speak against what is obviously yet another way to reach into our pockets and waste our money on frivolous projects that employ people in useless jobs.As the owner of a managed forest, I have seriously looked into being paid (yes PAID) over a million euros per year to NOT cut down my trees.
There is a HUGE market for carbon offsetting, and it's growing yearly.
The sad thing is, it's all a scam.
Since I'm not a scammer I haven't moved ahead with this.However what I've discovered through my own research and what my engineers have told me, is that METHANE from decomposing leaves poses a far greater "greenhouse" risk than any CO2 my trees are likely to absorb.
Oh dear.
But the EU pays (and taxes) based on CO2, not methane.
Could it be that the government(s) are simply interested in taxing the most COMMON pollutant, and not the most HARMFUL?
After all, everyone produces CO2 - industry, farmers, transportation, cows, humans.
Not everyone produces methane (cow farts/burps aside).Climate change is REAL.
Yet the recently disturbed atmosphere of Jupiter (you've heard about the NEW Red Spot, right?
) and the melting martian polar ice caps (oh yeah, it's because Mars is "wobbling" but HEAVEN FORBID that Earth can be wobbling, no - it's SUV's that are to blame here on Earth!
) should alert any rational person to the fact that special interests have led politicians down a path they want to go - a path that leads to more revenue for the government, in the name of man-made "global warming".It's amazing for me to think that even when they tax anywhere from 3 to 15\% of EVERY SINGLE TRANSACTION MADE (sales/VAT taxes) AND tax your income, tax your fuel, tax your capital gains, and yes, in some places, your death and your estate - GOVERNMENTS ALL OVER THE WORLD ARE PISSING OUT MONEY.
WTF? When does it stop?
What am I getting for my money?
Roads with potholes in them?
Bridges that collapse?
Brown outs and water shortages?
Monopolies in everything from utilities to software?
Justice that fails to prevent crime, feeds criminals for life in jail (that is, when they don't get released), and makes me wonder if I will get TASERed the next time I get pulled over for speeding?
Oh and governments that are willing to pay people like me (only with less morals) to not cut down my forest?
Hell I don't want to cut it down, imagine what 2000 acres of 80 year old teak will be worth to my great-grandchildren...Heh, what a world.
But by all means, believe what governments tell you.
After all, they're right about so many things.
/cynicism</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193246</id>
	<title>6C by the end of the century!</title>
	<author>Ekuryua</author>
	<datestamp>1258904460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>And by the way, let's jump to conclusion, blame the chinese, after all, they love eating dogs who poop a lot, and that has to produce a lot of methane! Also as we all know, since 2000 all of china got big cars, and huge freezers, and use 250L of water per day.<br>
It's also a known fact that since the advent of fuzzy computers, scientists have been able to run models so good they can predict climatic trends on a century basis. Now I even know where to be for my 50th birthday to see snow.(the last snow on earth apparently, because by then it'll be so hot even the poles will look like hell)</htmltext>
<tokenext>And by the way , let 's jump to conclusion , blame the chinese , after all , they love eating dogs who poop a lot , and that has to produce a lot of methane !
Also as we all know , since 2000 all of china got big cars , and huge freezers , and use 250L of water per day .
It 's also a known fact that since the advent of fuzzy computers , scientists have been able to run models so good they can predict climatic trends on a century basis .
Now I even know where to be for my 50th birthday to see snow .
( the last snow on earth apparently , because by then it 'll be so hot even the poles will look like hell )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And by the way, let's jump to conclusion, blame the chinese, after all, they love eating dogs who poop a lot, and that has to produce a lot of methane!
Also as we all know, since 2000 all of china got big cars, and huge freezers, and use 250L of water per day.
It's also a known fact that since the advent of fuzzy computers, scientists have been able to run models so good they can predict climatic trends on a century basis.
Now I even know where to be for my 50th birthday to see snow.
(the last snow on earth apparently, because by then it'll be so hot even the poles will look like hell)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193598</id>
	<title>Re:The hack</title>
	<author>saltydogdesign</author>
	<datestamp>1258907220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's not what we "learned." The information coming from the hacked emails is ambiguous at worst and probably tells us nothing more than that scientists are humans. There's no serious evidence of falsifying data. If you believe there is, out with it, please.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's not what we " learned .
" The information coming from the hacked emails is ambiguous at worst and probably tells us nothing more than that scientists are humans .
There 's no serious evidence of falsifying data .
If you believe there is , out with it , please .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's not what we "learned.
" The information coming from the hacked emails is ambiguous at worst and probably tells us nothing more than that scientists are humans.
There's no serious evidence of falsifying data.
If you believe there is, out with it, please.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30197682</id>
	<title>6C Increase By End of Century</title>
	<author>hisstory student</author>
	<datestamp>1258895940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Interesting. Good to know we have so many climate experts here in Slashdot. Not that it means anything. WAKE UP people!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting .
Good to know we have so many climate experts here in Slashdot .
Not that it means anything .
WAKE UP people !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting.
Good to know we have so many climate experts here in Slashdot.
Not that it means anything.
WAKE UP people!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193650</id>
	<title>Re:Prediction depends on an unproven thesis</title>
	<author>CheshireCatCO</author>
	<datestamp>1258907580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uh, what does that fluctuation in that plot prove?  The change is less than a W/m^2, if I'm doing my math right (out of a total insolation of 1300 W/m^2) and x-rays and EUV don't make it to the surface of the Earth anyway.  (This is why astronomers keep launching those telescopes into space, remember.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh , what does that fluctuation in that plot prove ?
The change is less than a W/m ^ 2 , if I 'm doing my math right ( out of a total insolation of 1300 W/m ^ 2 ) and x-rays and EUV do n't make it to the surface of the Earth anyway .
( This is why astronomers keep launching those telescopes into space , remember .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh, what does that fluctuation in that plot prove?
The change is less than a W/m^2, if I'm doing my math right (out of a total insolation of 1300 W/m^2) and x-rays and EUV don't make it to the surface of the Earth anyway.
(This is why astronomers keep launching those telescopes into space, remember.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30213424</id>
	<title>Re:re Increase or decline?</title>
	<author>sac13</author>
	<datestamp>1259076720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The one I find convincing is the melting of the ice.  It's a crude kind of measure, lacking in detail, but any explanation that doesn't account for that is obviously unacceptable.</p><p>The North-West passage is currently open to ice-breakers, and it is projected to be open to normal passenger liners soon.  This doesn't give me many data points, but the ones it give are irrefutable.</p></div><p>Yesterday, the high temperature where I am was 51F.  Today, it will be 57F.  That indicates that within a week the high temperature should be 99F.</p><p>Sure, I don't have many data points, but the ones I have are irrefutable.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The one I find convincing is the melting of the ice .
It 's a crude kind of measure , lacking in detail , but any explanation that does n't account for that is obviously unacceptable.The North-West passage is currently open to ice-breakers , and it is projected to be open to normal passenger liners soon .
This does n't give me many data points , but the ones it give are irrefutable.Yesterday , the high temperature where I am was 51F .
Today , it will be 57F .
That indicates that within a week the high temperature should be 99F.Sure , I do n't have many data points , but the ones I have are irrefutable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The one I find convincing is the melting of the ice.
It's a crude kind of measure, lacking in detail, but any explanation that doesn't account for that is obviously unacceptable.The North-West passage is currently open to ice-breakers, and it is projected to be open to normal passenger liners soon.
This doesn't give me many data points, but the ones it give are irrefutable.Yesterday, the high temperature where I am was 51F.
Today, it will be 57F.
That indicates that within a week the high temperature should be 99F.Sure, I don't have many data points, but the ones I have are irrefutable.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30195296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30197080</id>
	<title>Re:Wake me when a prediction comes true</title>
	<author>rrohbeck</author>
	<datestamp>1258890000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yup:<br><a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091122/ap\_on\_sc/sci\_climate\_09\_post\_kyoto" title="yahoo.com">http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091122/ap\_on\_sc/sci\_climate\_09\_post\_kyoto</a> [yahoo.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yup : http : //news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091122/ap \ _on \ _sc/sci \ _climate \ _09 \ _post \ _kyoto [ yahoo.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yup:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091122/ap\_on\_sc/sci\_climate\_09\_post\_kyoto [yahoo.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30197170</id>
	<title>Re:Prediction depends on an unproven thesis</title>
	<author>misterpies</author>
	<datestamp>1258890780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>ANot surprising: higher temperature -&gt; oceans heat up -&gt; less dissolved CO2.</p></div><p>Next time you go to the kitchen, do a little experiment with the sugar: does it dissolve more easily in hot water, or in cold water?

I think you'll find it's the same with CO2.

Better find another explanation.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>ANot surprising : higher temperature - &gt; oceans heat up - &gt; less dissolved CO2.Next time you go to the kitchen , do a little experiment with the sugar : does it dissolve more easily in hot water , or in cold water ?
I think you 'll find it 's the same with CO2 .
Better find another explanation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ANot surprising: higher temperature -&gt; oceans heat up -&gt; less dissolved CO2.Next time you go to the kitchen, do a little experiment with the sugar: does it dissolve more easily in hot water, or in cold water?
I think you'll find it's the same with CO2.
Better find another explanation.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30197466</id>
	<title>Re:The hack</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1258893480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>They are suppressing data. They aren't falsifying data, they are tampering with the scientific process.<br> <br>
Science needs to be open.......all the evidence needs to be there for anyone to examine, otherwise it's not science anymore.  In this case, they are actively working to get people fired when they disagree with them. Quote: "I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor" (<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/21/AR2009112102186.html?hpid=moreheadlines" title="washingtonpost.com">source</a> [washingtonpost.com]). There are more examples in that article of how they tried to block any opposing views, including redefining peer review.<br> <br>
That's bad stuff. That's not scientists being humans, that's scientists being dumb.<br> <br>
Now, you might say, "OK, but that isn't evidence against global warming" and you are right, but maybe you would have heard the evidence against global warming if they hadn't been working so actively to stifle opposing opinion. The water has been tainted.</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They are suppressing data .
They are n't falsifying data , they are tampering with the scientific process .
Science needs to be open.......all the evidence needs to be there for anyone to examine , otherwise it 's not science anymore .
In this case , they are actively working to get people fired when they disagree with them .
Quote : " I will be emailing the journal to tell them I 'm having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor " ( source [ washingtonpost.com ] ) .
There are more examples in that article of how they tried to block any opposing views , including redefining peer review .
That 's bad stuff .
That 's not scientists being humans , that 's scientists being dumb .
Now , you might say , " OK , but that is n't evidence against global warming " and you are right , but maybe you would have heard the evidence against global warming if they had n't been working so actively to stifle opposing opinion .
The water has been tainted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are suppressing data.
They aren't falsifying data, they are tampering with the scientific process.
Science needs to be open.......all the evidence needs to be there for anyone to examine, otherwise it's not science anymore.
In this case, they are actively working to get people fired when they disagree with them.
Quote: "I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor" (source [washingtonpost.com]).
There are more examples in that article of how they tried to block any opposing views, including redefining peer review.
That's bad stuff.
That's not scientists being humans, that's scientists being dumb.
Now, you might say, "OK, but that isn't evidence against global warming" and you are right, but maybe you would have heard the evidence against global warming if they hadn't been working so actively to stifle opposing opinion.
The water has been tainted.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194166</id>
	<title>Re:Wake me when a prediction comes true</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258911360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The story you were looking for was "1999 climate model wrong: Global temperatures increasing faster then predicted".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The story you were looking for was " 1999 climate model wrong : Global temperatures increasing faster then predicted " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The story you were looking for was "1999 climate model wrong: Global temperatures increasing faster then predicted".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30197620</id>
	<title>Re:re Increase or decline?</title>
	<author>Xyrus</author>
	<datestamp>1258895100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Debate about what exactly? The science is very well established. Feel free to fill your cranium with the hundreds of peer reviewed articles on the subject.</p><p>The "debate" is mainly from armchair climatologists who expect that find singular statistical anomalies that have negligible impact on conclusions is cause for a paper and a Nobel Prize. A debate could be had if the skeptics were putting forth anything that could get past a peer review. Instead of addressing shortcomings in their research, the skeptics seem for more comfortable performing ad hominem attacks and painting themslves as victims of a great Climate Conspiracy.</p><p>Why not believe that 2008 is the coolest since 2000? Just because temps are warming imply it's a straight uptrend. Other factors come into play that can affect the short term trend. For example, the flat temperatures between 1950 and 1980 was a result of the increased sulfates due to pollution. Ironically, once acid rain legislation kicked into gear the sulfates reduced by quite a bit and the temps started rising again. There's a couple of papers on the subject if you want to look it up.</p><p>"Is it really correct to even assume the overall trend is anthropogenic?"</p><p>The current consensus shows a confidence that the warming is a result of anthropogenic causes. Again, you can search the published research on the subject. There is A LOT.</p><p>"Or do we need to do some fancy footwork to make the data fit the hypothesis?"</p><p>Not really. At least, not in any of the research I've seen.</p><p>"What we don't have is good, healthy debate."</p><p>On the contrary, climate researchers are constantly debating various aspects of their research.<br>~X~</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Debate about what exactly ?
The science is very well established .
Feel free to fill your cranium with the hundreds of peer reviewed articles on the subject.The " debate " is mainly from armchair climatologists who expect that find singular statistical anomalies that have negligible impact on conclusions is cause for a paper and a Nobel Prize .
A debate could be had if the skeptics were putting forth anything that could get past a peer review .
Instead of addressing shortcomings in their research , the skeptics seem for more comfortable performing ad hominem attacks and painting themslves as victims of a great Climate Conspiracy.Why not believe that 2008 is the coolest since 2000 ?
Just because temps are warming imply it 's a straight uptrend .
Other factors come into play that can affect the short term trend .
For example , the flat temperatures between 1950 and 1980 was a result of the increased sulfates due to pollution .
Ironically , once acid rain legislation kicked into gear the sulfates reduced by quite a bit and the temps started rising again .
There 's a couple of papers on the subject if you want to look it up .
" Is it really correct to even assume the overall trend is anthropogenic ?
" The current consensus shows a confidence that the warming is a result of anthropogenic causes .
Again , you can search the published research on the subject .
There is A LOT .
" Or do we need to do some fancy footwork to make the data fit the hypothesis ?
" Not really .
At least , not in any of the research I 've seen .
" What we do n't have is good , healthy debate .
" On the contrary , climate researchers are constantly debating various aspects of their research. ~ X ~</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Debate about what exactly?
The science is very well established.
Feel free to fill your cranium with the hundreds of peer reviewed articles on the subject.The "debate" is mainly from armchair climatologists who expect that find singular statistical anomalies that have negligible impact on conclusions is cause for a paper and a Nobel Prize.
A debate could be had if the skeptics were putting forth anything that could get past a peer review.
Instead of addressing shortcomings in their research, the skeptics seem for more comfortable performing ad hominem attacks and painting themslves as victims of a great Climate Conspiracy.Why not believe that 2008 is the coolest since 2000?
Just because temps are warming imply it's a straight uptrend.
Other factors come into play that can affect the short term trend.
For example, the flat temperatures between 1950 and 1980 was a result of the increased sulfates due to pollution.
Ironically, once acid rain legislation kicked into gear the sulfates reduced by quite a bit and the temps started rising again.
There's a couple of papers on the subject if you want to look it up.
"Is it really correct to even assume the overall trend is anthropogenic?
"The current consensus shows a confidence that the warming is a result of anthropogenic causes.
Again, you can search the published research on the subject.
There is A LOT.
"Or do we need to do some fancy footwork to make the data fit the hypothesis?
"Not really.
At least, not in any of the research I've seen.
"What we don't have is good, healthy debate.
"On the contrary, climate researchers are constantly debating various aspects of their research.~X~</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193470</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194460</id>
	<title>Re:re Increase or decline?</title>
	<author>bartwol</author>
	<datestamp>1258913220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>This will indeed cause certain people to "wonder". Especially people who do not have the faculties to properly understand the idiomatic uses of the English language</p></div></blockquote><p>I possess faculties to understand idiomatic usage.
</p><p>The fact is that climate modeling and prediction is built upon theories that are built upon other theories. Some of those theories are concrete and deterministic in nature, while others are much less certain and non-deterministic.
</p><p>The emotional conundrum for so many climate scientists is their desire to express confidence and specificity in their conclusions. And yet, the accumulated uncertainty of the underlying theories naturally erodes the certainty of the conclusions.
</p><p>Idiomatic usage comes to the rescue. The "trick" is to create a clear picture where things are not so clear.
</p><p>The science is in the data, the correlations, and the known measures of error and noise. But the conclusions...them's a lot of politics. And idiom.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This will indeed cause certain people to " wonder " .
Especially people who do not have the faculties to properly understand the idiomatic uses of the English languageI possess faculties to understand idiomatic usage .
The fact is that climate modeling and prediction is built upon theories that are built upon other theories .
Some of those theories are concrete and deterministic in nature , while others are much less certain and non-deterministic .
The emotional conundrum for so many climate scientists is their desire to express confidence and specificity in their conclusions .
And yet , the accumulated uncertainty of the underlying theories naturally erodes the certainty of the conclusions .
Idiomatic usage comes to the rescue .
The " trick " is to create a clear picture where things are not so clear .
The science is in the data , the correlations , and the known measures of error and noise .
But the conclusions...them 's a lot of politics .
And idiom .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This will indeed cause certain people to "wonder".
Especially people who do not have the faculties to properly understand the idiomatic uses of the English languageI possess faculties to understand idiomatic usage.
The fact is that climate modeling and prediction is built upon theories that are built upon other theories.
Some of those theories are concrete and deterministic in nature, while others are much less certain and non-deterministic.
The emotional conundrum for so many climate scientists is their desire to express confidence and specificity in their conclusions.
And yet, the accumulated uncertainty of the underlying theories naturally erodes the certainty of the conclusions.
Idiomatic usage comes to the rescue.
The "trick" is to create a clear picture where things are not so clear.
The science is in the data, the correlations, and the known measures of error and noise.
But the conclusions...them's a lot of politics.
And idiom.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193322</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30196244</id>
	<title>The truth is global warming has stalled out</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258883700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I submitted article with the real truth, wonder if slashdot will post it?</p><p><a href="http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html" title="spiegel.de">http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html</a> [spiegel.de]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I submitted article with the real truth , wonder if slashdot will post it ? http : //www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html [ spiegel.de ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I submitted article with the real truth, wonder if slashdot will post it?http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html [spiegel.de]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193694</id>
	<title>Global Warming is a stupid term</title>
	<author>Azureflare</author>
	<datestamp>1258907940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why do people use the term Global Warming. It is a misleading term that does not properly identify what is happening to our planet.  The fact is that the atmosphere is variable and will continue to fluctuate in terms of average temperature.<br> <br>
The real problem we are facing is rising sea TEMPERATURES. Here's just one technical article that studies the effects of rising sea temperatures on phytoplankton on Australia's coastline: <a href="http://www.int-res.com/articles/feature/m394p001.pdf" title="int-res.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.int-res.com/articles/feature/m394p001.pdf</a> [int-res.com] If you search the <a href="http://www.int-res.com/" title="int-res.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.int-res.com/</a> [int-res.com] site you'll find a lot more really technical research articles that are great reads if you like this stuff<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
<br> <br>
Rising sea temperatures mess up the sea currents and make fish search out better habitats (or die), perhaps because of the rising temperature itself, or maybe because their food supply is damaged (due to phytoplankton dieoff).  If something doesn't change soon, we are in danger of losing vast populations in the ocean. This will have huge repercussions on our global food supply. <br> <br>
In the end, it doesn't matter if we are the ones causing it, or the sun is. Who cares. It is a complex system, and you can prove, through science, that carbon emissions directly affect sea temperatures. Maybe it's miniscule. Maybe it's not, but we have to do something or we are in severe danger of entirely losing our oceans.<br> <br>
Imagine if the seafood industry went belly up. It would cause a worldwide depression the likes of which we have not seen or dreamed of, especially for areas that depend heavily on the ocean for their nation's food supply.
<br> <br>
AT THE VERY LEAST, if we are not going to reduce carbon emissions or whatever we can to reduce the effect on oceans, we need to have an actionable plan for what to do once the oceans die. Because it will happen if this trend continues. Having a plan doesn't mean it's going to be used, but we need to be able to continue functioning as a species if it does!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do people use the term Global Warming .
It is a misleading term that does not properly identify what is happening to our planet .
The fact is that the atmosphere is variable and will continue to fluctuate in terms of average temperature .
The real problem we are facing is rising sea TEMPERATURES .
Here 's just one technical article that studies the effects of rising sea temperatures on phytoplankton on Australia 's coastline : http : //www.int-res.com/articles/feature/m394p001.pdf [ int-res.com ] If you search the http : //www.int-res.com/ [ int-res.com ] site you 'll find a lot more really technical research articles that are great reads if you like this stuff : ) Rising sea temperatures mess up the sea currents and make fish search out better habitats ( or die ) , perhaps because of the rising temperature itself , or maybe because their food supply is damaged ( due to phytoplankton dieoff ) .
If something does n't change soon , we are in danger of losing vast populations in the ocean .
This will have huge repercussions on our global food supply .
In the end , it does n't matter if we are the ones causing it , or the sun is .
Who cares .
It is a complex system , and you can prove , through science , that carbon emissions directly affect sea temperatures .
Maybe it 's miniscule .
Maybe it 's not , but we have to do something or we are in severe danger of entirely losing our oceans .
Imagine if the seafood industry went belly up .
It would cause a worldwide depression the likes of which we have not seen or dreamed of , especially for areas that depend heavily on the ocean for their nation 's food supply .
AT THE VERY LEAST , if we are not going to reduce carbon emissions or whatever we can to reduce the effect on oceans , we need to have an actionable plan for what to do once the oceans die .
Because it will happen if this trend continues .
Having a plan does n't mean it 's going to be used , but we need to be able to continue functioning as a species if it does !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do people use the term Global Warming.
It is a misleading term that does not properly identify what is happening to our planet.
The fact is that the atmosphere is variable and will continue to fluctuate in terms of average temperature.
The real problem we are facing is rising sea TEMPERATURES.
Here's just one technical article that studies the effects of rising sea temperatures on phytoplankton on Australia's coastline: http://www.int-res.com/articles/feature/m394p001.pdf [int-res.com] If you search the http://www.int-res.com/ [int-res.com] site you'll find a lot more really technical research articles that are great reads if you like this stuff :)
 
Rising sea temperatures mess up the sea currents and make fish search out better habitats (or die), perhaps because of the rising temperature itself, or maybe because their food supply is damaged (due to phytoplankton dieoff).
If something doesn't change soon, we are in danger of losing vast populations in the ocean.
This will have huge repercussions on our global food supply.
In the end, it doesn't matter if we are the ones causing it, or the sun is.
Who cares.
It is a complex system, and you can prove, through science, that carbon emissions directly affect sea temperatures.
Maybe it's miniscule.
Maybe it's not, but we have to do something or we are in severe danger of entirely losing our oceans.
Imagine if the seafood industry went belly up.
It would cause a worldwide depression the likes of which we have not seen or dreamed of, especially for areas that depend heavily on the ocean for their nation's food supply.
AT THE VERY LEAST, if we are not going to reduce carbon emissions or whatever we can to reduce the effect on oceans, we need to have an actionable plan for what to do once the oceans die.
Because it will happen if this trend continues.
Having a plan doesn't mean it's going to be used, but we need to be able to continue functioning as a species if it does!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30196484</id>
	<title>Re:re Increase or decline?</title>
	<author>Falconhell</author>
	<datestamp>1258886280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or when we here in South Australia have an unprecedneted heatwave in Novenmber, the highest temps and longest run of 38C +-10 days and its not even summer yet. This comes on top of a 10 year drought.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or when we here in South Australia have an unprecedneted heatwave in Novenmber , the highest temps and longest run of 38C + -10 days and its not even summer yet .
This comes on top of a 10 year drought .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or when we here in South Australia have an unprecedneted heatwave in Novenmber, the highest temps and longest run of 38C +-10 days and its not even summer yet.
This comes on top of a 10 year drought.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193956</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30195646</id>
	<title>Re:The hack</title>
	<author>Russ Nelson</author>
	<datestamp>1258922340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they're not falsifying data, why do they need to hide it from freedom of information requests?  If you're not guilty, why are you hiding?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they 're not falsifying data , why do they need to hide it from freedom of information requests ?
If you 're not guilty , why are you hiding ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they're not falsifying data, why do they need to hide it from freedom of information requests?
If you're not guilty, why are you hiding?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193374</id>
	<title>Re:re Increase or decline?</title>
	<author>Rising Ape</author>
	<datestamp>1258905660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not that suspicious in itself - I've often used the word "trick" to refer to a clever shortcut with no deception whatsoever. A quick search of my email shows several uses of it in this way.</p><p>I don't know enough about this to say whether there's anything dubious or not, but that quote by itself doesn't say much.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not that suspicious in itself - I 've often used the word " trick " to refer to a clever shortcut with no deception whatsoever .
A quick search of my email shows several uses of it in this way.I do n't know enough about this to say whether there 's anything dubious or not , but that quote by itself does n't say much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not that suspicious in itself - I've often used the word "trick" to refer to a clever shortcut with no deception whatsoever.
A quick search of my email shows several uses of it in this way.I don't know enough about this to say whether there's anything dubious or not, but that quote by itself doesn't say much.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193116</id>
	<title>re Increase or decline?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258903380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. <a href="http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/the\_evidence\_of\_climate\_fraud.html" title="americanthinker.com" rel="nofollow">source</a> [americanthinker.com]</p></div> </blockquote><p>For many years to come one will wonder if the data presented to support claims such as this has been "tricked" to conform to someone's belief instead of representing reality.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've just completed Mike 's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years ( ie from 1981 onwards ) and from 1961 for Keith 's to hide the decline .
source [ americanthinker.com ] For many years to come one will wonder if the data presented to support claims such as this has been " tricked " to conform to someone 's belief instead of representing reality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline.
source [americanthinker.com] For many years to come one will wonder if the data presented to support claims such as this has been "tricked" to conform to someone's belief instead of representing reality.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193930</id>
	<title>Coldest not warmest</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258909740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gosh and to think all the stats and indicators show we're about to enter one of the coldest times in the last 200 years, not warmest. Great going CO2 folks!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gosh and to think all the stats and indicators show we 're about to enter one of the coldest times in the last 200 years , not warmest .
Great going CO2 folks !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gosh and to think all the stats and indicators show we're about to enter one of the coldest times in the last 200 years, not warmest.
Great going CO2 folks!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193102</id>
	<title>How can they tell...</title>
	<author>Quantos</author>
	<datestamp>1258903200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>How do they know if the CO2 is from fossil fuels or from natural sources, is there actually a test for this?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How do they know if the CO2 is from fossil fuels or from natural sources , is there actually a test for this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do they know if the CO2 is from fossil fuels or from natural sources, is there actually a test for this?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194070</id>
	<title>Re:re Increase or decline?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258910640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nothing serious will be done to stop global warming until the, "All I know is that it's colder this year than it was last year why should I pay more to try to make it cooler" crowd is marginalized or educated well enough, which pretty much means our future generations are doomed because of our ignorance today.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nothing serious will be done to stop global warming until the , " All I know is that it 's colder this year than it was last year why should I pay more to try to make it cooler " crowd is marginalized or educated well enough , which pretty much means our future generations are doomed because of our ignorance today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nothing serious will be done to stop global warming until the, "All I know is that it's colder this year than it was last year why should I pay more to try to make it cooler" crowd is marginalized or educated well enough, which pretty much means our future generations are doomed because of our ignorance today.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193322</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193738</id>
	<title>Hoax?</title>
	<author>AmonTheMetalhead</author>
	<datestamp>1258908240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Honestly, i don't get the 'hoax' tag, the doom&amp;gloom tag or even fear mongering could be seen as appropriate, but hoax?<br>
<br>
Based on the knowledge we have, there <b>is</b>global warming going on, you can argue all you want, but temperatures are going up regardless of what you say about that.<br>
However, these are conclusions based on our limited knowledge of the world &amp; how it's climate works completely, it's possible that global warming is part of a normal cycle, it's possible it's due to sun output (although very unlikely, we should've detected that already), and yes, it's possible that mankind is <b>contributing</b> to the problem.<br>
<br>
Given that we have measured &amp; observed temperature rise, and given that we know pollution &amp; CO2 emissions have a negative effect on the climate, why shouldn't we do our best to limit both pollution &amp; emissions? <b>Regardless</b> of the question if we are solely to blame for the problem?<br>
<br>
Hell, it's the air we breathe in, the water we drink, and the food we eat, why do we as a species insist on 'peeing in the pool we drink from'?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Honestly , i do n't get the 'hoax ' tag , the doom&amp;gloom tag or even fear mongering could be seen as appropriate , but hoax ?
Based on the knowledge we have , there isglobal warming going on , you can argue all you want , but temperatures are going up regardless of what you say about that .
However , these are conclusions based on our limited knowledge of the world &amp; how it 's climate works completely , it 's possible that global warming is part of a normal cycle , it 's possible it 's due to sun output ( although very unlikely , we should 've detected that already ) , and yes , it 's possible that mankind is contributing to the problem .
Given that we have measured &amp; observed temperature rise , and given that we know pollution &amp; CO2 emissions have a negative effect on the climate , why should n't we do our best to limit both pollution &amp; emissions ?
Regardless of the question if we are solely to blame for the problem ?
Hell , it 's the air we breathe in , the water we drink , and the food we eat , why do we as a species insist on 'peeing in the pool we drink from ' ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Honestly, i don't get the 'hoax' tag, the doom&amp;gloom tag or even fear mongering could be seen as appropriate, but hoax?
Based on the knowledge we have, there isglobal warming going on, you can argue all you want, but temperatures are going up regardless of what you say about that.
However, these are conclusions based on our limited knowledge of the world &amp; how it's climate works completely, it's possible that global warming is part of a normal cycle, it's possible it's due to sun output (although very unlikely, we should've detected that already), and yes, it's possible that mankind is contributing to the problem.
Given that we have measured &amp; observed temperature rise, and given that we know pollution &amp; CO2 emissions have a negative effect on the climate, why shouldn't we do our best to limit both pollution &amp; emissions?
Regardless of the question if we are solely to blame for the problem?
Hell, it's the air we breathe in, the water we drink, and the food we eat, why do we as a species insist on 'peeing in the pool we drink from'?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30195180</id>
	<title>Re:6C ?</title>
	<author>maxwell demon</author>
	<datestamp>1258918740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or 24 meV.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or 24 meV .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or 24 meV.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193384</id>
	<title>Re:re Increase or decline?</title>
	<author>lumbricus</author>
	<datestamp>1258905720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's been <a href="http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1451926&amp;cid=30176822" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1451926&amp;cid=30176822</a> [slashdot.org]said before but maybe it has to be said again:<p><div class="quote"><p>No doubt, instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded "gotcha" phrases will be pulled out of context. One example is worth mentioning quickly. Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline." The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the 'trick' is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term "trick" to refer to a "a good way to deal with a problem", rather than something that is "secret", and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the 'decline', it is well known that Keith Briffa's maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the "divergence problem"-see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while 'hiding' is probably a poor choice of words (since it is 'hidden' in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's been http : //politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl ? sid = 1451926&amp;cid = 30176822 [ slashdot.org ] said before but maybe it has to be said again : No doubt , instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded " gotcha " phrases will be pulled out of context .
One example is worth mentioning quickly .
Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that " I 've just completed Mike 's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years ( ie from 1981 onwards ) and from 1961 for Keith 's to hide the decline .
" The paper in question is the Mann , Bradley and Hughes ( 1998 ) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction , and the 'trick ' is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear .
Scientists often use the term " trick " to refer to a " a good way to deal with a problem " , rather than something that is " secret " , and so there is nothing problematic in this at all .
As for the 'decline ' , it is well known that Keith Briffa 's maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 ( this is more commonly known as the " divergence problem " -see e.g .
the recent discussion in this paper ) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 ( Nature , 391 , 678-682 ) .
Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction , and so while 'hiding ' is probably a poor choice of words ( since it is 'hidden ' in plain sight ) , not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate , as is further research to understand why this happens .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's been http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1451926&amp;cid=30176822 [slashdot.org]said before but maybe it has to be said again:No doubt, instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded "gotcha" phrases will be pulled out of context.
One example is worth mentioning quickly.
Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline.
" The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the 'trick' is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear.
Scientists often use the term "trick" to refer to a "a good way to deal with a problem", rather than something that is "secret", and so there is nothing problematic in this at all.
As for the 'decline', it is well known that Keith Briffa's maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the "divergence problem"-see e.g.
the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682).
Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while 'hiding' is probably a poor choice of words (since it is 'hidden' in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193260</id>
	<title>Pay No Attention To The Man Behind The Curtain...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258904640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>nor to the statistician modifying data values.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>nor to the statistician modifying data values .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>nor to the statistician modifying data values.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30198904</id>
	<title>Re:Hoax?</title>
	<author>pkphilip</author>
	<datestamp>1258906380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I suppose all the emails from Phil Jones explicitly requiring emails to be deleted in response to a FOIA request for the same information constitutes perfectly legal behaviour?</p><p>I suppose it is also alright that Phil Jones and his ilk write about their attempts to discredit and fire the editor of a peer-reviewed journal for posting articles they didn't agree with.. while at the same time these very same people discredit any articles critical of their findings because these articles have purportedly not been published in peer-reviewed journals?</p><p>Face it - the emails are very, very damaging. At best it indicates that these scientists at CRU are paranoid crazies worried that their precious data would land up in the hands of competing scientists.. at worst they are charlatans who have wantonly manipulated science for their own ends and have deliberately and maliciously censored / discredited all criticisms even valid ones.</p><p>But let us stop pretending that this sort of behaviour is even remotely acceptable.</p><p>CRU has also claimed to have lost data. Would you be ok with an Election Office claiming that they have lost all the votes, but yes, we should take their word for it - Candidate A did actually win?</p><p>Thank you very much, but we may be better off believing witch doctors and mediums than these 'scientists.'</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suppose all the emails from Phil Jones explicitly requiring emails to be deleted in response to a FOIA request for the same information constitutes perfectly legal behaviour ? I suppose it is also alright that Phil Jones and his ilk write about their attempts to discredit and fire the editor of a peer-reviewed journal for posting articles they did n't agree with.. while at the same time these very same people discredit any articles critical of their findings because these articles have purportedly not been published in peer-reviewed journals ? Face it - the emails are very , very damaging .
At best it indicates that these scientists at CRU are paranoid crazies worried that their precious data would land up in the hands of competing scientists.. at worst they are charlatans who have wantonly manipulated science for their own ends and have deliberately and maliciously censored / discredited all criticisms even valid ones.But let us stop pretending that this sort of behaviour is even remotely acceptable.CRU has also claimed to have lost data .
Would you be ok with an Election Office claiming that they have lost all the votes , but yes , we should take their word for it - Candidate A did actually win ? Thank you very much , but we may be better off believing witch doctors and mediums than these 'scientists .
'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suppose all the emails from Phil Jones explicitly requiring emails to be deleted in response to a FOIA request for the same information constitutes perfectly legal behaviour?I suppose it is also alright that Phil Jones and his ilk write about their attempts to discredit and fire the editor of a peer-reviewed journal for posting articles they didn't agree with.. while at the same time these very same people discredit any articles critical of their findings because these articles have purportedly not been published in peer-reviewed journals?Face it - the emails are very, very damaging.
At best it indicates that these scientists at CRU are paranoid crazies worried that their precious data would land up in the hands of competing scientists.. at worst they are charlatans who have wantonly manipulated science for their own ends and have deliberately and maliciously censored / discredited all criticisms even valid ones.But let us stop pretending that this sort of behaviour is even remotely acceptable.CRU has also claimed to have lost data.
Would you be ok with an Election Office claiming that they have lost all the votes, but yes, we should take their word for it - Candidate A did actually win?Thank you very much, but we may be better off believing witch doctors and mediums than these 'scientists.
'</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194740</id>
	<title>New research with what data?</title>
	<author>pkphilip</author>
	<datestamp>1258915080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Given the happenings of the past couple of days, I think it is pertinent at least at this time for the University of Anglia to release the data that was used in the study and the algorithm used to calculate the 6c/century figures. Let independent scientists verify that the algorithm actually works and does give the purported result.</p><p>Or are we still expected to believe the 6c figures because they said so?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Given the happenings of the past couple of days , I think it is pertinent at least at this time for the University of Anglia to release the data that was used in the study and the algorithm used to calculate the 6c/century figures .
Let independent scientists verify that the algorithm actually works and does give the purported result.Or are we still expected to believe the 6c figures because they said so ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given the happenings of the past couple of days, I think it is pertinent at least at this time for the University of Anglia to release the data that was used in the study and the algorithm used to calculate the 6c/century figures.
Let independent scientists verify that the algorithm actually works and does give the purported result.Or are we still expected to believe the 6c figures because they said so?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193136</id>
	<title>Seriously???</title>
	<author>Xeleema</author>
	<datestamp>1258903620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>29 per cent increase in global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel between 2000 and 2008</i></p> </div><p>You have *got* to be kidding me?  What about all this emissions stuff they've been strapping to my engine?</p><p>Those crappy "Eco-Friendly" disposable cups and cutlery my employer's been stocking up on?</p><p>The recycled-paper-everything?</p><p>The ethanol they've put in my gas?</p><p>Those tiny cars I have to dodge around the highways?</p><p>All this has been for naught?</p><p>To hell with the hippies and their soy meat, time to go light some tires on fire or something....</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>29 per cent increase in global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel between 2000 and 2008 You have * got * to be kidding me ?
What about all this emissions stuff they 've been strapping to my engine ? Those crappy " Eco-Friendly " disposable cups and cutlery my employer 's been stocking up on ? The recycled-paper-everything ? The ethanol they 've put in my gas ? Those tiny cars I have to dodge around the highways ? All this has been for naught ? To hell with the hippies and their soy meat , time to go light some tires on fire or something... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> 29 per cent increase in global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel between 2000 and 2008 You have *got* to be kidding me?
What about all this emissions stuff they've been strapping to my engine?Those crappy "Eco-Friendly" disposable cups and cutlery my employer's been stocking up on?The recycled-paper-everything?The ethanol they've put in my gas?Those tiny cars I have to dodge around the highways?All this has been for naught?To hell with the hippies and their soy meat, time to go light some tires on fire or something....
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194368</id>
	<title>Re:Reduced CO2 correlated with recessions</title>
	<author>Ambitwistor</author>
	<datestamp>1258912620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Interesting that a historically rather serious recession can only cause a small decrease.</p></div><p>That's because recessions are not economically efficient ways to lower carbon emissions.  They don't address the energy sector specifically, they don't specifically target low-emissions technology development or efficiency measures, etc.  They just indiscriminately suppress economic activity, and obviously have effects far beyond the carbon-related sector.</p><p>For more on the economics of climate policy, see <a href="http://www.thebigmoney.com/articles/hey-wait-minute/2009/02/11/surprise-economists-agree" title="thebigmoney.com">here</a> [thebigmoney.com] and <a href="http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/book.asp?isbn=9780300137484" title="yale.edu">here</a> [yale.edu].</p><p><div class="quote"><p>It seems like cutting CO2 back to the levels needed to stop global warming would require or cause a much more serious recession.</p></div><p>That's probably true, which is why nobody is proposing to cut CO2 levels to <em>stop</em> global warming.  Or at least, not stop it at current temperatures.  Most want to stabilize it at 2 C above pre-industrial.  That will still have serious costs (as would unstabilized climate change), but if appropriately designed to specifically promote low-carbon activity, it's not going to create a severe recession; see the above links.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting that a historically rather serious recession can only cause a small decrease.That 's because recessions are not economically efficient ways to lower carbon emissions .
They do n't address the energy sector specifically , they do n't specifically target low-emissions technology development or efficiency measures , etc .
They just indiscriminately suppress economic activity , and obviously have effects far beyond the carbon-related sector.For more on the economics of climate policy , see here [ thebigmoney.com ] and here [ yale.edu ] .It seems like cutting CO2 back to the levels needed to stop global warming would require or cause a much more serious recession.That 's probably true , which is why nobody is proposing to cut CO2 levels to stop global warming .
Or at least , not stop it at current temperatures .
Most want to stabilize it at 2 C above pre-industrial .
That will still have serious costs ( as would unstabilized climate change ) , but if appropriately designed to specifically promote low-carbon activity , it 's not going to create a severe recession ; see the above links .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting that a historically rather serious recession can only cause a small decrease.That's because recessions are not economically efficient ways to lower carbon emissions.
They don't address the energy sector specifically, they don't specifically target low-emissions technology development or efficiency measures, etc.
They just indiscriminately suppress economic activity, and obviously have effects far beyond the carbon-related sector.For more on the economics of climate policy, see here [thebigmoney.com] and here [yale.edu].It seems like cutting CO2 back to the levels needed to stop global warming would require or cause a much more serious recession.That's probably true, which is why nobody is proposing to cut CO2 levels to stop global warming.
Or at least, not stop it at current temperatures.
Most want to stabilize it at 2 C above pre-industrial.
That will still have serious costs (as would unstabilized climate change), but if appropriately designed to specifically promote low-carbon activity, it's not going to create a severe recession; see the above links.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193404</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30196216</id>
	<title>I call bs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258883580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Give it a rest, it's over. Climate change was debunked the other day. Can't you report on something real?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Give it a rest , it 's over .
Climate change was debunked the other day .
Ca n't you report on something real ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Give it a rest, it's over.
Climate change was debunked the other day.
Can't you report on something real?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30195900</id>
	<title>Re:Wake me when a prediction comes true</title>
	<author>jpmorgan</author>
	<datestamp>1258881360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except the real story is '1999 climate model wrong: Global temperatures unchanged over past decade.'</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except the real story is '1999 climate model wrong : Global temperatures unchanged over past decade .
'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except the real story is '1999 climate model wrong: Global temperatures unchanged over past decade.
'</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193564</id>
	<title>Re:Pay No Attention To The Man Behind The Curtain.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258906920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>And yet another idiot proves he can take quotes out of context and is too lazy to educate himself on what was actually being discussed.<br> <br>

See the posts above linking to the response from the people involved. Moron.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And yet another idiot proves he can take quotes out of context and is too lazy to educate himself on what was actually being discussed .
See the posts above linking to the response from the people involved .
Moron .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And yet another idiot proves he can take quotes out of context and is too lazy to educate himself on what was actually being discussed.
See the posts above linking to the response from the people involved.
Moron.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30195236</id>
	<title>Re:This is being cause by politicians</title>
	<author>dr2chase</author>
	<datestamp>1258919220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>And China's counterargument is that they have one quarter the US per capita CO2 emissions, and they've had a draconian national policy of limiting family sizes to cut population growth.  Is the US doing anything comparable?  I think they can make a pretty good case for applying those tariffs to US.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And China 's counterargument is that they have one quarter the US per capita CO2 emissions , and they 've had a draconian national policy of limiting family sizes to cut population growth .
Is the US doing anything comparable ?
I think they can make a pretty good case for applying those tariffs to US .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And China's counterargument is that they have one quarter the US per capita CO2 emissions, and they've had a draconian national policy of limiting family sizes to cut population growth.
Is the US doing anything comparable?
I think they can make a pretty good case for applying those tariffs to US.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193986</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30195992</id>
	<title>Re:Wake me when a prediction comes true</title>
	<author>jpmorgan</author>
	<datestamp>1258882020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hear-hear.</p><p>I do a lot of modelling (mostly electromagnetics, not climate), but the first thing that pops into my head every time  is 'how did they validate the model?' And as far as I can tell, they don't. At least, not to what I would consider a scientifically acceptable standard. Hell, give me a couple of days, and the data, and I'll come up with a model that predicts past climate to within 0.1C every year and predicts that next year will be the sudden start of a new ice age.</p><p>Oh wait, I can't. These researchers won't give anybody else the data.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hear-hear.I do a lot of modelling ( mostly electromagnetics , not climate ) , but the first thing that pops into my head every time is 'how did they validate the model ?
' And as far as I can tell , they do n't .
At least , not to what I would consider a scientifically acceptable standard .
Hell , give me a couple of days , and the data , and I 'll come up with a model that predicts past climate to within 0.1C every year and predicts that next year will be the sudden start of a new ice age.Oh wait , I ca n't .
These researchers wo n't give anybody else the data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hear-hear.I do a lot of modelling (mostly electromagnetics, not climate), but the first thing that pops into my head every time  is 'how did they validate the model?
' And as far as I can tell, they don't.
At least, not to what I would consider a scientifically acceptable standard.
Hell, give me a couple of days, and the data, and I'll come up with a model that predicts past climate to within 0.1C every year and predicts that next year will be the sudden start of a new ice age.Oh wait, I can't.
These researchers won't give anybody else the data.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30201090</id>
	<title>And I quote:</title>
	<author>rickb928</author>
	<datestamp>1258986000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Almost all of the increase this decade occurred after 2000"</p><p>And how much of the increase this decade would have occurred BEFORE 2000?</p><p>Honestly, sometimes the global warming crew just makes me weep.  Can they at least start thinking again?</p><p>?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Almost all of the increase this decade occurred after 2000 " And how much of the increase this decade would have occurred BEFORE 2000 ? Honestly , sometimes the global warming crew just makes me weep .
Can they at least start thinking again ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Almost all of the increase this decade occurred after 2000"And how much of the increase this decade would have occurred BEFORE 2000?Honestly, sometimes the global warming crew just makes me weep.
Can they at least start thinking again?
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194442</id>
	<title>Re:The hack</title>
	<author>scamper\_22</author>
	<datestamp>1258913100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a Canadian I say...</p><p>If it is not true... wonderful climate change is not that bad.<br>If it is true... wonderful... no more snow in winter!</p><p>Sorry to any part of the world negatively affected by global warming.  Where I live (away from the ocean, in a cold climate), a degree warming can only be a good thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a Canadian I say...If it is not true... wonderful climate change is not that bad.If it is true... wonderful... no more snow in winter ! Sorry to any part of the world negatively affected by global warming .
Where I live ( away from the ocean , in a cold climate ) , a degree warming can only be a good thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a Canadian I say...If it is not true... wonderful climate change is not that bad.If it is true... wonderful... no more snow in winter!Sorry to any part of the world negatively affected by global warming.
Where I live (away from the ocean, in a cold climate), a degree warming can only be a good thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193896</id>
	<title>Re:re Increase or decline?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258909500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Only those who read one sentence, and never bother to read anything else.  Some of the data from a previous paper was found to be faulty <b>in that it didn't support our preconceived notions regarding our religious belief in AGW</b>, and a method of adjusting to show a longer term trend based on several data source was required <b>to support our religion</b>.  Not only is this not unheard of, it is a routine technique in studies where some data cannot be duplicated <b>so we have to make something up that supports our beliefs</b> -- such as a temperature reading.</p><p>Speaking of warping science to conform to a belief, why is it that so many people are so eager to believe global warming <b>doomsayers, who even today refuse to release their raw data because "they have so much time invested in it</b>?  Methinks it is because they do not want to believe that something as <b>evil</b> as <b>a human</b> driving a car <b>and polluting precious Gaia</b> could be <b>in any way innocuous.</b></p></div><p> <b>FTFY</b></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Only those who read one sentence , and never bother to read anything else .
Some of the data from a previous paper was found to be faulty in that it did n't support our preconceived notions regarding our religious belief in AGW , and a method of adjusting to show a longer term trend based on several data source was required to support our religion .
Not only is this not unheard of , it is a routine technique in studies where some data can not be duplicated so we have to make something up that supports our beliefs -- such as a temperature reading.Speaking of warping science to conform to a belief , why is it that so many people are so eager to believe global warming doomsayers , who even today refuse to release their raw data because " they have so much time invested in it ?
Methinks it is because they do not want to believe that something as evil as a human driving a car and polluting precious Gaia could be in any way innocuous .
FTFY</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only those who read one sentence, and never bother to read anything else.
Some of the data from a previous paper was found to be faulty in that it didn't support our preconceived notions regarding our religious belief in AGW, and a method of adjusting to show a longer term trend based on several data source was required to support our religion.
Not only is this not unheard of, it is a routine technique in studies where some data cannot be duplicated so we have to make something up that supports our beliefs -- such as a temperature reading.Speaking of warping science to conform to a belief, why is it that so many people are so eager to believe global warming doomsayers, who even today refuse to release their raw data because "they have so much time invested in it?
Methinks it is because they do not want to believe that something as evil as a human driving a car and polluting precious Gaia could be in any way innocuous.
FTFY
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193336</id>
	<title>Re:Falsibility.</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1258905300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Is there some reason you picked the Channel TLT data and not the, say, Channel TLS data which reports a negative 0.325 K/decade? </i></p><p>The TLT channel is for lower troposphere and it is, indeed, the closest to ground level.</p><p>Satellite temperatures are better for climate purposes because ground stations temperatures also pick up heat radiated from the ground and other buildings. Indeed, one of the great points of criticism made about global climate is weather or not the current level state of ground measuring statements is both consistent and accurate. I'd assume that they are not.</p><p>The satellite, because it is the same instrument and same methodology, is consistent, and so in my lay opinion, is the more reliable source of information when considering global climate trends.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there some reason you picked the Channel TLT data and not the , say , Channel TLS data which reports a negative 0.325 K/decade ?
The TLT channel is for lower troposphere and it is , indeed , the closest to ground level.Satellite temperatures are better for climate purposes because ground stations temperatures also pick up heat radiated from the ground and other buildings .
Indeed , one of the great points of criticism made about global climate is weather or not the current level state of ground measuring statements is both consistent and accurate .
I 'd assume that they are not.The satellite , because it is the same instrument and same methodology , is consistent , and so in my lay opinion , is the more reliable source of information when considering global climate trends .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there some reason you picked the Channel TLT data and not the, say, Channel TLS data which reports a negative 0.325 K/decade?
The TLT channel is for lower troposphere and it is, indeed, the closest to ground level.Satellite temperatures are better for climate purposes because ground stations temperatures also pick up heat radiated from the ground and other buildings.
Indeed, one of the great points of criticism made about global climate is weather or not the current level state of ground measuring statements is both consistent and accurate.
I'd assume that they are not.The satellite, because it is the same instrument and same methodology, is consistent, and so in my lay opinion, is the more reliable source of information when considering global climate trends.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193220</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194546</id>
	<title>Re:6C ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258913700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes but the ENTIRE concept of global warming has completely and utterly failed to gain public mainstream acceptance. You can't tell people exactly how it will affect them today in a 15 second soundbite, so they think you're either a) full of shit (most of them) or b) talking about things that won't affect them except to require them to give up luxuries NOW for some nebulous future problem. I'm tired of hearing about global warming, and I feel that it has a modicum of truth to it.</p><p>I think this should all be taken in a completely different direction: pollution and its local effects. ALL the things we worry about: cars, factories, generators, bovine emissions. ALL of them have immediate, quantifiable, testable, and most importantly VISIBLE to the untrained eye effects. Instead of taking the long view in the press and in front of the public, and appearing like wild eyed prophets of the end of the world, the scientific community needs to COMPLETELY retool their message and focus on killing the problem points by looking at pollution's immediate effects as the reason to change.</p><p>You show people 3 legged frogs, dead fish by the thousands, dying corral reefs... and you tie all that to man kind's activities with proven chemical science (and visuals of all the things causing this destruction) and people start to listen. Nobody argued about acid rain. Nobody argues about pollutants dumped in rivers. Nobody argues about the BROWN DOME you can see above cities like Houston or Detroit on a clear blue day when you're 30 miles out. These are ALL quantifiable things the public can touch, caused by the SAME MAN-MADE INPUTS in to the biosphere.</p><p>Scientists have proven to be piss poor publicists. They need to completely rethink how they're talking to the public. I agree with all the problems they want to solve. Every one of them. It's just that to get the public behind them, they've got to step back and really honestly assess how they're going about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes but the ENTIRE concept of global warming has completely and utterly failed to gain public mainstream acceptance .
You ca n't tell people exactly how it will affect them today in a 15 second soundbite , so they think you 're either a ) full of shit ( most of them ) or b ) talking about things that wo n't affect them except to require them to give up luxuries NOW for some nebulous future problem .
I 'm tired of hearing about global warming , and I feel that it has a modicum of truth to it.I think this should all be taken in a completely different direction : pollution and its local effects .
ALL the things we worry about : cars , factories , generators , bovine emissions .
ALL of them have immediate , quantifiable , testable , and most importantly VISIBLE to the untrained eye effects .
Instead of taking the long view in the press and in front of the public , and appearing like wild eyed prophets of the end of the world , the scientific community needs to COMPLETELY retool their message and focus on killing the problem points by looking at pollution 's immediate effects as the reason to change.You show people 3 legged frogs , dead fish by the thousands , dying corral reefs... and you tie all that to man kind 's activities with proven chemical science ( and visuals of all the things causing this destruction ) and people start to listen .
Nobody argued about acid rain .
Nobody argues about pollutants dumped in rivers .
Nobody argues about the BROWN DOME you can see above cities like Houston or Detroit on a clear blue day when you 're 30 miles out .
These are ALL quantifiable things the public can touch , caused by the SAME MAN-MADE INPUTS in to the biosphere.Scientists have proven to be piss poor publicists .
They need to completely rethink how they 're talking to the public .
I agree with all the problems they want to solve .
Every one of them .
It 's just that to get the public behind them , they 've got to step back and really honestly assess how they 're going about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes but the ENTIRE concept of global warming has completely and utterly failed to gain public mainstream acceptance.
You can't tell people exactly how it will affect them today in a 15 second soundbite, so they think you're either a) full of shit (most of them) or b) talking about things that won't affect them except to require them to give up luxuries NOW for some nebulous future problem.
I'm tired of hearing about global warming, and I feel that it has a modicum of truth to it.I think this should all be taken in a completely different direction: pollution and its local effects.
ALL the things we worry about: cars, factories, generators, bovine emissions.
ALL of them have immediate, quantifiable, testable, and most importantly VISIBLE to the untrained eye effects.
Instead of taking the long view in the press and in front of the public, and appearing like wild eyed prophets of the end of the world, the scientific community needs to COMPLETELY retool their message and focus on killing the problem points by looking at pollution's immediate effects as the reason to change.You show people 3 legged frogs, dead fish by the thousands, dying corral reefs... and you tie all that to man kind's activities with proven chemical science (and visuals of all the things causing this destruction) and people start to listen.
Nobody argued about acid rain.
Nobody argues about pollutants dumped in rivers.
Nobody argues about the BROWN DOME you can see above cities like Houston or Detroit on a clear blue day when you're 30 miles out.
These are ALL quantifiable things the public can touch, caused by the SAME MAN-MADE INPUTS in to the biosphere.Scientists have proven to be piss poor publicists.
They need to completely rethink how they're talking to the public.
I agree with all the problems they want to solve.
Every one of them.
It's just that to get the public behind them, they've got to step back and really honestly assess how they're going about it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193322</id>
	<title>Re:re Increase or decline?</title>
	<author>Laxitive</author>
	<datestamp>1258905240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Response from the RealClimate website, here (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/#more-1853):</p><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>No doubt, instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded &ldquo;gotcha&rdquo; phrases will be pulled out of context. One example is worth mentioning quickly. Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that &ldquo;I&rsquo;ve just completed Mike&rsquo;s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith&rsquo;s to hide the decline.&rdquo; The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the &lsquo;trick&rsquo; is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term &ldquo;trick&rdquo; to refer to a &ldquo;a good way to deal with a problem&rdquo;, rather than something that is &ldquo;secret&rdquo;, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the &lsquo;decline&rsquo;, it is well known that Keith Briffa&rsquo;s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the &ldquo;divergence problem&rdquo;&ndash;see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while &lsquo;hiding&rsquo; is probably a poor choice of words (since it is &lsquo;hidden&rsquo; in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.</p></div> </blockquote></div><p>This will indeed cause certain people to "wonder".  Especially people who do not have the faculties to properly understand the idiomatic uses of the English language, and people who are willing to take words and phrases of out of context, as well as people who are willing to formulate their opinions without considering the actual analysis and instead relying on secondhand hysteria generated by others who are also not willing to consider the actual analysis.</p><p>So it goes.</p><p>-Laxitive</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Response from the RealClimate website , here ( http : //www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/ # more-1853 ) : No doubt , instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded    gotcha    phrases will be pulled out of context .
One example is worth mentioning quickly .
Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that    I    ve just completed Mike    s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years ( ie from 1981 onwards ) and from 1961 for Keith    s to hide the decline.    The paper in question is the Mann , Bradley and Hughes ( 1998 ) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction , and the    trick    is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear .
Scientists often use the term    trick    to refer to a    a good way to deal with a problem    , rather than something that is    secret    , and so there is nothing problematic in this at all .
As for the    decline    , it is well known that Keith Briffa    s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 ( this is more commonly known as the    divergence problem       see e.g .
the recent discussion in this paper ) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 ( Nature , 391 , 678-682 ) .
Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction , and so while    hiding    is probably a poor choice of words ( since it is    hidden    in plain sight ) , not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate , as is further research to understand why this happens .
This will indeed cause certain people to " wonder " .
Especially people who do not have the faculties to properly understand the idiomatic uses of the English language , and people who are willing to take words and phrases of out of context , as well as people who are willing to formulate their opinions without considering the actual analysis and instead relying on secondhand hysteria generated by others who are also not willing to consider the actual analysis.So it goes.-Laxitive</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Response from the RealClimate website, here (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/#more-1853):No doubt, instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded “gotcha” phrases will be pulled out of context.
One example is worth mentioning quickly.
Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear.
Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all.
As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”–see e.g.
the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682).
Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.
This will indeed cause certain people to "wonder".
Especially people who do not have the faculties to properly understand the idiomatic uses of the English language, and people who are willing to take words and phrases of out of context, as well as people who are willing to formulate their opinions without considering the actual analysis and instead relying on secondhand hysteria generated by others who are also not willing to consider the actual analysis.So it goes.-Laxitive
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30202368</id>
	<title>Re:re Increase or decline?</title>
	<author>Lars T.</author>
	<datestamp>1258993440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You know, if many of the graphs made by AGW deniers didn't have much more convenient cut-off points or even outright mislabeling, I would actually give a damn about their damnations.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , if many of the graphs made by AGW deniers did n't have much more convenient cut-off points or even outright mislabeling , I would actually give a damn about their damnations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, if many of the graphs made by AGW deniers didn't have much more convenient cut-off points or even outright mislabeling, I would actually give a damn about their damnations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193834</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194532</id>
	<title>Re:re Increase or decline?</title>
	<author>daveime</author>
	<datestamp>1258913640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Take a close look at that NASA graph.</p><p>See, the problem is that the AGW crowd will quite happily cherry pick the period from about 1980 to 2008 and then extrapolate the sky-is-falling scenario to suit their agenda / funding.</p><p>But, consider the period 1920 to 1940<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... pretty much the same dramatic upward trend as in the 1980 to 2008 period<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and look what happened next between 1940 and 1980<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... an actual decrease in temperature.</p><p>The question is, what happened between 1940 and 1980 ? Did we decrease our carbon emissions ? Hell no. Did we suddenly reforest half the planet ? Don't think so. So why did the temperature behave in that way during a pretty recent *industrialised* period of humanity ? Inconvenient huh ?</p><p>If they'd present their work honestly then maybe I'd have a bit more respect for them. But they all too easily discount or often simply omit any data that doesn't suit them.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Take a close look at that NASA graph.See , the problem is that the AGW crowd will quite happily cherry pick the period from about 1980 to 2008 and then extrapolate the sky-is-falling scenario to suit their agenda / funding.But , consider the period 1920 to 1940 ... pretty much the same dramatic upward trend as in the 1980 to 2008 period ... and look what happened next between 1940 and 1980 ... an actual decrease in temperature.The question is , what happened between 1940 and 1980 ?
Did we decrease our carbon emissions ?
Hell no .
Did we suddenly reforest half the planet ?
Do n't think so .
So why did the temperature behave in that way during a pretty recent * industrialised * period of humanity ?
Inconvenient huh ? If they 'd present their work honestly then maybe I 'd have a bit more respect for them .
But they all too easily discount or often simply omit any data that does n't suit them .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Take a close look at that NASA graph.See, the problem is that the AGW crowd will quite happily cherry pick the period from about 1980 to 2008 and then extrapolate the sky-is-falling scenario to suit their agenda / funding.But, consider the period 1920 to 1940 ... pretty much the same dramatic upward trend as in the 1980 to 2008 period ... and look what happened next between 1940 and 1980 ... an actual decrease in temperature.The question is, what happened between 1940 and 1980 ?
Did we decrease our carbon emissions ?
Hell no.
Did we suddenly reforest half the planet ?
Don't think so.
So why did the temperature behave in that way during a pretty recent *industrialised* period of humanity ?
Inconvenient huh ?If they'd present their work honestly then maybe I'd have a bit more respect for them.
But they all too easily discount or often simply omit any data that doesn't suit them.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193882</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193154</id>
	<title>Because we all know....</title>
	<author>nscott89</author>
	<datestamp>1258903740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that the weather forecast is always right.<br>Oh wait, I thought it was supposed to be raining today?!?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that the weather forecast is always right.Oh wait , I thought it was supposed to be raining today ? !
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that the weather forecast is always right.Oh wait, I thought it was supposed to be raining today?!
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30198470</id>
	<title>Re:Hoax?</title>
	<author>destrowolffe</author>
	<datestamp>1258902600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The "trick" email is only one such email and flippantly dismissing it does you no credit.  The significance of the leaked emails is not the claim that AGW is a hoax.  That is nonsense.  The significance of the emails is that they demonstratively prove that a small subset of scientists from leading universities have perverted the scientific method to promote their own eco-warrior beliefs about global warming.  I would sincerely hope that Slashdot readers would defend the scientific method first and foremost above dogma.
<br> <br>
Here is the shortlist:
<br>(A more complete list can be found at: <a href="http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cuttings-33.html" title="squarespace.com" rel="nofollow">Bishop Hill</a> [squarespace.com]) or (you can search the emails yourself at: <a href="http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/" title="anelegantchaos.org" rel="nofollow">An Elegant Chaos</a> [anelegantchaos.org] )
<br> <br>
<b>(1)</b> Regarding the "trick" that you are so quick to dismiss.  The quote below was taken from this thread at <a href="http://go2.wordpress.com/?id=725X1342&amp;site=wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com&amp;url=http\%3A\%2F\%2Fwww.realclimate.org\%2Findex.php\%2Farchives\%2F2004\%2F12\%2Fmyths-vs-fact-regarding-the-hockey-stick\%2F\%23comment-345" title="wordpress.com" rel="nofollow">RealClimate.org</a> [wordpress.com])
<br> <br>
<i>"Whatever the reason for the divergence, it would seem to suggest that the practice of grafting the thermometer record onto a proxy temperature record &ndash; as I believe was done in the case of the &lsquo;hockey stick&rsquo; &ndash; is dubious to say the least.</i>
<br> <br>
Mike Mann&rsquo;s response speaks for itself. (by the way RealClimate.org is run/moderated by Mike Mann --not the most reliable source given these emails).
<br> <br>
<i>"No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, &ldquo;grafted the thermometer record onto&rdquo; any reconstrution. It is somewhat disappointing to find this specious claim (which we usually find originating from industry-funded climate disinformation websites) appearing in this forum."</i>
<br> <br>
Now go re-read the email about the "trick". <a href="http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=154&amp;filename=942777075.txt" title="anelegantchaos.org" rel="nofollow">email in question</a> [anelegantchaos.org]
<br> <br>
<b>(2)</b> Purposefully denying, lying, and deleting emails and information that were requested in a Freedom of Information Act request.  Hiding information on the grounds that the other party only wants to find faults with it.???? Really?  What about the idea behind repeating results and falsifying hypothesis.  Isn't that what science is all about.
<br> <br>
<b>(3)</b> Calling contacts at the BBC to find out why a skeptic article was allowed to be published.
<br> <br>
<b>(4)</b> Basing the "hockey stick" graph on 14 hand picked tree samples as proxys to 1960 and smoothing the average flat, then using real temperature data forward in time with padding to project an upward trend, but not the same smoothing used on the pre-1960 numbers.  (by the way trees only cover roughly 15\% of the earth.  Taking 14 samples from that already small sample area does not make for "global" evidence)
<br> <br>
<b>(5)</b> Revkin quotes von Storch as saying it is time to toss the Hockey Stick back in 2004.
<br> <br>
<b>(6)</b> Truncating data to stop an apparent cooling trend showing up in the results.
<br> <br>
<b>(7)</b> Admitting to each other that they cannot account for the lack of warming in recent years.
<br> <br>
<b>(8)</b> Funkhouser says he's pulled every trick up his sleeve to milk his Kyrgistan series. Doesn't think it's productive to juggle the chronology statistics any more than he has.  Wigley discusses fixing an issue with sea surface temperatures in the context of making the results look both warmer but still plausible.
<br> <br>
<b>(9)</b> Only having papers reviewed by a list of "known quantities" that will give favorable reviews.  At the same time making sure that skeptical papers cannot get published in legitimate journals.  So, they say publicly that if skeptics were practising "real" science they would be peer reviewed, but behind the scenes they were doing everything in their power to prevent published of any skeptic papers.  For a scientist this is intellectually dishonest at best.
<br> <br>
The list goes on and on.
<br> <br>
<b>Let me be clear.  This DOES NOT provide evidence against global warming or that AGW is a hoax.  This information ONLY DEMONSTRATES that the science behind a large portion of AGW to date has been heavily manipulated by those with an agenda.  Those responsible should be prosecuted and cast out of the scientific community so that REAL SCIENCE can resume.  I am not a denier, but I do tolerate pervasion of science for political goals --least of all when the scientists are the ones responsible.  If AGW is real then these people have done a huge disservice to the entire global community.</b></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The " trick " email is only one such email and flippantly dismissing it does you no credit .
The significance of the leaked emails is not the claim that AGW is a hoax .
That is nonsense .
The significance of the emails is that they demonstratively prove that a small subset of scientists from leading universities have perverted the scientific method to promote their own eco-warrior beliefs about global warming .
I would sincerely hope that Slashdot readers would defend the scientific method first and foremost above dogma .
Here is the shortlist : ( A more complete list can be found at : Bishop Hill [ squarespace.com ] ) or ( you can search the emails yourself at : An Elegant Chaos [ anelegantchaos.org ] ) ( 1 ) Regarding the " trick " that you are so quick to dismiss .
The quote below was taken from this thread at RealClimate.org [ wordpress.com ] ) " Whatever the reason for the divergence , it would seem to suggest that the practice of grafting the thermometer record onto a proxy temperature record    as I believe was done in the case of the    hockey stick       is dubious to say the least .
Mike Mann    s response speaks for itself .
( by the way RealClimate.org is run/moderated by Mike Mann --not the most reliable source given these emails ) .
" No researchers in this field have ever , to our knowledge ,    grafted the thermometer record onto    any reconstrution .
It is somewhat disappointing to find this specious claim ( which we usually find originating from industry-funded climate disinformation websites ) appearing in this forum .
" Now go re-read the email about the " trick " .
email in question [ anelegantchaos.org ] ( 2 ) Purposefully denying , lying , and deleting emails and information that were requested in a Freedom of Information Act request .
Hiding information on the grounds that the other party only wants to find faults with it. ? ? ? ?
Really ? What about the idea behind repeating results and falsifying hypothesis .
Is n't that what science is all about .
( 3 ) Calling contacts at the BBC to find out why a skeptic article was allowed to be published .
( 4 ) Basing the " hockey stick " graph on 14 hand picked tree samples as proxys to 1960 and smoothing the average flat , then using real temperature data forward in time with padding to project an upward trend , but not the same smoothing used on the pre-1960 numbers .
( by the way trees only cover roughly 15 \ % of the earth .
Taking 14 samples from that already small sample area does not make for " global " evidence ) ( 5 ) Revkin quotes von Storch as saying it is time to toss the Hockey Stick back in 2004 .
( 6 ) Truncating data to stop an apparent cooling trend showing up in the results .
( 7 ) Admitting to each other that they can not account for the lack of warming in recent years .
( 8 ) Funkhouser says he 's pulled every trick up his sleeve to milk his Kyrgistan series .
Does n't think it 's productive to juggle the chronology statistics any more than he has .
Wigley discusses fixing an issue with sea surface temperatures in the context of making the results look both warmer but still plausible .
( 9 ) Only having papers reviewed by a list of " known quantities " that will give favorable reviews .
At the same time making sure that skeptical papers can not get published in legitimate journals .
So , they say publicly that if skeptics were practising " real " science they would be peer reviewed , but behind the scenes they were doing everything in their power to prevent published of any skeptic papers .
For a scientist this is intellectually dishonest at best .
The list goes on and on .
Let me be clear .
This DOES NOT provide evidence against global warming or that AGW is a hoax .
This information ONLY DEMONSTRATES that the science behind a large portion of AGW to date has been heavily manipulated by those with an agenda .
Those responsible should be prosecuted and cast out of the scientific community so that REAL SCIENCE can resume .
I am not a denier , but I do tolerate pervasion of science for political goals --least of all when the scientists are the ones responsible .
If AGW is real then these people have done a huge disservice to the entire global community .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The "trick" email is only one such email and flippantly dismissing it does you no credit.
The significance of the leaked emails is not the claim that AGW is a hoax.
That is nonsense.
The significance of the emails is that they demonstratively prove that a small subset of scientists from leading universities have perverted the scientific method to promote their own eco-warrior beliefs about global warming.
I would sincerely hope that Slashdot readers would defend the scientific method first and foremost above dogma.
Here is the shortlist:
(A more complete list can be found at: Bishop Hill [squarespace.com]) or (you can search the emails yourself at: An Elegant Chaos [anelegantchaos.org] )
 
(1) Regarding the "trick" that you are so quick to dismiss.
The quote below was taken from this thread at RealClimate.org [wordpress.com])
 
"Whatever the reason for the divergence, it would seem to suggest that the practice of grafting the thermometer record onto a proxy temperature record – as I believe was done in the case of the ‘hockey stick’ – is dubious to say the least.
Mike Mann’s response speaks for itself.
(by the way RealClimate.org is run/moderated by Mike Mann --not the most reliable source given these emails).
"No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, “grafted the thermometer record onto” any reconstrution.
It is somewhat disappointing to find this specious claim (which we usually find originating from industry-funded climate disinformation websites) appearing in this forum.
"
 
Now go re-read the email about the "trick".
email in question [anelegantchaos.org]
 
(2) Purposefully denying, lying, and deleting emails and information that were requested in a Freedom of Information Act request.
Hiding information on the grounds that the other party only wants to find faults with it.????
Really?  What about the idea behind repeating results and falsifying hypothesis.
Isn't that what science is all about.
(3) Calling contacts at the BBC to find out why a skeptic article was allowed to be published.
(4) Basing the "hockey stick" graph on 14 hand picked tree samples as proxys to 1960 and smoothing the average flat, then using real temperature data forward in time with padding to project an upward trend, but not the same smoothing used on the pre-1960 numbers.
(by the way trees only cover roughly 15\% of the earth.
Taking 14 samples from that already small sample area does not make for "global" evidence)
 
(5) Revkin quotes von Storch as saying it is time to toss the Hockey Stick back in 2004.
(6) Truncating data to stop an apparent cooling trend showing up in the results.
(7) Admitting to each other that they cannot account for the lack of warming in recent years.
(8) Funkhouser says he's pulled every trick up his sleeve to milk his Kyrgistan series.
Doesn't think it's productive to juggle the chronology statistics any more than he has.
Wigley discusses fixing an issue with sea surface temperatures in the context of making the results look both warmer but still plausible.
(9) Only having papers reviewed by a list of "known quantities" that will give favorable reviews.
At the same time making sure that skeptical papers cannot get published in legitimate journals.
So, they say publicly that if skeptics were practising "real" science they would be peer reviewed, but behind the scenes they were doing everything in their power to prevent published of any skeptic papers.
For a scientist this is intellectually dishonest at best.
The list goes on and on.
Let me be clear.
This DOES NOT provide evidence against global warming or that AGW is a hoax.
This information ONLY DEMONSTRATES that the science behind a large portion of AGW to date has been heavily manipulated by those with an agenda.
Those responsible should be prosecuted and cast out of the scientific community so that REAL SCIENCE can resume.
I am not a denier, but I do tolerate pervasion of science for political goals --least of all when the scientists are the ones responsible.
If AGW is real then these people have done a huge disservice to the entire global community.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193140</id>
	<title>6C ?</title>
	<author>jdb2</author>
	<datestamp>1258903680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>For those to lazy to multiply, that's a 10.8 degree Fahrenheit increase in the mean global temperature.
<br> <br>
Sounds pretty alarming.
<br> <br>
jdb2</htmltext>
<tokenext>For those to lazy to multiply , that 's a 10.8 degree Fahrenheit increase in the mean global temperature .
Sounds pretty alarming .
jdb2</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For those to lazy to multiply, that's a 10.8 degree Fahrenheit increase in the mean global temperature.
Sounds pretty alarming.
jdb2</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193346</id>
	<title>University of East Anglia</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258905420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's even better - the source cited in the story above is the CRU (funny how "University of East Anglia" started being the source when everyone found out that CRU was more than a bit corrupt) - the same people who just got busted with all of that leaked data and incriminating emails just this week.</p><p>So they apparently decided to double down on their predictions, instead of trying to pretend nothing happened - but hiding the provenance.</p><p>Anyone want to bet the lead author on the paper wasn't the lead author last week, and got "promoted" when the real researchers' names were tainted?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's even better - the source cited in the story above is the CRU ( funny how " University of East Anglia " started being the source when everyone found out that CRU was more than a bit corrupt ) - the same people who just got busted with all of that leaked data and incriminating emails just this week.So they apparently decided to double down on their predictions , instead of trying to pretend nothing happened - but hiding the provenance.Anyone want to bet the lead author on the paper was n't the lead author last week , and got " promoted " when the real researchers ' names were tainted ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's even better - the source cited in the story above is the CRU (funny how "University of East Anglia" started being the source when everyone found out that CRU was more than a bit corrupt) - the same people who just got busted with all of that leaked data and incriminating emails just this week.So they apparently decided to double down on their predictions, instead of trying to pretend nothing happened - but hiding the provenance.Anyone want to bet the lead author on the paper wasn't the lead author last week, and got "promoted" when the real researchers' names were tainted?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193152</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193766</id>
	<title>How do they calculate this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258908600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I haven't seen anyone mention this yet...how can they say the temperature is going to rise 6C based on these CO2 levels? Do they have a working simulation of the global climate? As far as I know, they don't even have conclusive evidence that CO2 causes warming yet. The global climate is far too complex to predict to that degree of accuracy, especially when we're adding factors to it that can't be modeled based on historical trends.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have n't seen anyone mention this yet...how can they say the temperature is going to rise 6C based on these CO2 levels ?
Do they have a working simulation of the global climate ?
As far as I know , they do n't even have conclusive evidence that CO2 causes warming yet .
The global climate is far too complex to predict to that degree of accuracy , especially when we 're adding factors to it that ca n't be modeled based on historical trends .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I haven't seen anyone mention this yet...how can they say the temperature is going to rise 6C based on these CO2 levels?
Do they have a working simulation of the global climate?
As far as I know, they don't even have conclusive evidence that CO2 causes warming yet.
The global climate is far too complex to predict to that degree of accuracy, especially when we're adding factors to it that can't be modeled based on historical trends.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30196768</id>
	<title>Re:Hoax?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258887960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And well deserved it would be.</p><p>In the financial sector, mis-selling and misleading statements has made it one of the most tightly regulated sectors in the world. Breaches of the laws, even with regards to disclosure of data to competent authorities, are punished with heavy fines and prison.</p><p>Much like people rely on financial advisors for their choices, so do they rely on scientists for their choices.</p><p>To me, it looks like scientists have had it far too good for far too long. Enforced transparency, ultra-tight regulation and prison sentences for misleading statements would serve them extremely well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And well deserved it would be.In the financial sector , mis-selling and misleading statements has made it one of the most tightly regulated sectors in the world .
Breaches of the laws , even with regards to disclosure of data to competent authorities , are punished with heavy fines and prison.Much like people rely on financial advisors for their choices , so do they rely on scientists for their choices.To me , it looks like scientists have had it far too good for far too long .
Enforced transparency , ultra-tight regulation and prison sentences for misleading statements would serve them extremely well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And well deserved it would be.In the financial sector, mis-selling and misleading statements has made it one of the most tightly regulated sectors in the world.
Breaches of the laws, even with regards to disclosure of data to competent authorities, are punished with heavy fines and prison.Much like people rely on financial advisors for their choices, so do they rely on scientists for their choices.To me, it looks like scientists have had it far too good for far too long.
Enforced transparency, ultra-tight regulation and prison sentences for misleading statements would serve them extremely well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194264</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193490</id>
	<title>!Relevant</title>
	<author>betterunixthanunix</author>
	<datestamp>1258906380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There was no lying.  People who already doubt the results pull a sentence out of context, demand that we all forget normal idiomatic uses of English words in that sentence, and then claim that it is an indication of falsified data.  That is all, nothing to see here, move along.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There was no lying .
People who already doubt the results pull a sentence out of context , demand that we all forget normal idiomatic uses of English words in that sentence , and then claim that it is an indication of falsified data .
That is all , nothing to see here , move along .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was no lying.
People who already doubt the results pull a sentence out of context, demand that we all forget normal idiomatic uses of English words in that sentence, and then claim that it is an indication of falsified data.
That is all, nothing to see here, move along.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193168</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30196142</id>
	<title>Re:This is being cause by politicians</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1258882860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So Africa doesn't get to industrialize, because the Western world polluted too much before they got their chance? Right.</p></div><p>That is a stupid argument by any measurement. Africa doesn't get to industrialize while polluting like mad bastards would be much better. Ditto for China. Guess what? Emissions controls won't stop industrialization, the worst they can do is slow it down a little. Permitting developing nations to repeat our mistakes unnecessarily is not going to help anyone. You have presented a false dichotomy, which is of course a logical fallacy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So Africa does n't get to industrialize , because the Western world polluted too much before they got their chance ?
Right.That is a stupid argument by any measurement .
Africa does n't get to industrialize while polluting like mad bastards would be much better .
Ditto for China .
Guess what ?
Emissions controls wo n't stop industrialization , the worst they can do is slow it down a little .
Permitting developing nations to repeat our mistakes unnecessarily is not going to help anyone .
You have presented a false dichotomy , which is of course a logical fallacy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So Africa doesn't get to industrialize, because the Western world polluted too much before they got their chance?
Right.That is a stupid argument by any measurement.
Africa doesn't get to industrialize while polluting like mad bastards would be much better.
Ditto for China.
Guess what?
Emissions controls won't stop industrialization, the worst they can do is slow it down a little.
Permitting developing nations to repeat our mistakes unnecessarily is not going to help anyone.
You have presented a false dichotomy, which is of course a logical fallacy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30195710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193436</id>
	<title>Wake me when a prediction comes true</title>
	<author>hedgehogbrains</author>
	<datestamp>1258906020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>'Climate models predict disaster' is not news.  Climate model always predict disaster.

<br>
<br>
'1999 climate model validated by 10 years of actual data'.  *That* would be news.</htmltext>
<tokenext>'Climate models predict disaster ' is not news .
Climate model always predict disaster .
'1999 climate model validated by 10 years of actual data' .
* That * would be news .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'Climate models predict disaster' is not news.
Climate model always predict disaster.
'1999 climate model validated by 10 years of actual data'.
*That* would be news.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193366</id>
	<title>Re:re Increase or decline?</title>
	<author>betterunixthanunix</author>
	<datestamp>1258905540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Only those who read one sentence, and never bother to read anything else.  Some of the data from a previous paper was found to be faulty, and a method of adjusting to show a longer term trend based on several data source was required.  Not only is this not unheard of, it is a routine technique in studies where some data cannot be duplicated -- such as a temperature reading.<br> <br>

Speaking of warping science to conform to a belief, why is it that so many people are so eager to believe global warming skeptics?  Methinks it is because they do not want to believe that something as innocent as driving a car could be a problem.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Only those who read one sentence , and never bother to read anything else .
Some of the data from a previous paper was found to be faulty , and a method of adjusting to show a longer term trend based on several data source was required .
Not only is this not unheard of , it is a routine technique in studies where some data can not be duplicated -- such as a temperature reading .
Speaking of warping science to conform to a belief , why is it that so many people are so eager to believe global warming skeptics ?
Methinks it is because they do not want to believe that something as innocent as driving a car could be a problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only those who read one sentence, and never bother to read anything else.
Some of the data from a previous paper was found to be faulty, and a method of adjusting to show a longer term trend based on several data source was required.
Not only is this not unheard of, it is a routine technique in studies where some data cannot be duplicated -- such as a temperature reading.
Speaking of warping science to conform to a belief, why is it that so many people are so eager to believe global warming skeptics?
Methinks it is because they do not want to believe that something as innocent as driving a car could be a problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193660</id>
	<title>Re:6C ?</title>
	<author>mister\_dave</author>
	<datestamp>1258907640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Alarming, or alarmist?</p><p> <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8299079.stm" title="bbc.co.uk" rel="nofollow">Global warming stopped in 1998</a> [bbc.co.uk], and we're now getting <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17742-worlds-climate-could-cool-first-warm-later.html" title="newscientist.com" rel="nofollow">predictions for twenty years of global cooling</a> [newscientist.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Alarming , or alarmist ?
Global warming stopped in 1998 [ bbc.co.uk ] , and we 're now getting predictions for twenty years of global cooling [ newscientist.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Alarming, or alarmist?
Global warming stopped in 1998 [bbc.co.uk], and we're now getting predictions for twenty years of global cooling [newscientist.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30195302</id>
	<title>Correlating CO2 levels with temperature</title>
	<author>n2rjt</author>
	<datestamp>1258919820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is interesting that they measured an increase in CO2 levels and conclude that temperatures will rise by 6C in a century. The correlation between CO2 levels and temperature, however, might want to be investigated yet again. The period 2000 - 2008, when the increase in CO2 levels took place, experienced a steady drop in global temperatures. That in itself suggests a negative correlation. Don't get me wrong; I don't believe that temperatures will tend to fall as CO2 rises, but instead they should definitely rise. I'm just suggesting that world climate is an incredibly complex system, and we can't accurately estimate future temperatures without understanding how all of the variables contribute to the system.</p><p>We have a problem, but not an emergency.<br>Let's work to cut emissions and (more importantly IMHO) conserve our limited fossil fuel resources.<br>But let's not panic about global warming.<br>After all, the science is still fairly immature.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is interesting that they measured an increase in CO2 levels and conclude that temperatures will rise by 6C in a century .
The correlation between CO2 levels and temperature , however , might want to be investigated yet again .
The period 2000 - 2008 , when the increase in CO2 levels took place , experienced a steady drop in global temperatures .
That in itself suggests a negative correlation .
Do n't get me wrong ; I do n't believe that temperatures will tend to fall as CO2 rises , but instead they should definitely rise .
I 'm just suggesting that world climate is an incredibly complex system , and we ca n't accurately estimate future temperatures without understanding how all of the variables contribute to the system.We have a problem , but not an emergency.Let 's work to cut emissions and ( more importantly IMHO ) conserve our limited fossil fuel resources.But let 's not panic about global warming.After all , the science is still fairly immature .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is interesting that they measured an increase in CO2 levels and conclude that temperatures will rise by 6C in a century.
The correlation between CO2 levels and temperature, however, might want to be investigated yet again.
The period 2000 - 2008, when the increase in CO2 levels took place, experienced a steady drop in global temperatures.
That in itself suggests a negative correlation.
Don't get me wrong; I don't believe that temperatures will tend to fall as CO2 rises, but instead they should definitely rise.
I'm just suggesting that world climate is an incredibly complex system, and we can't accurately estimate future temperatures without understanding how all of the variables contribute to the system.We have a problem, but not an emergency.Let's work to cut emissions and (more importantly IMHO) conserve our limited fossil fuel resources.But let's not panic about global warming.After all, the science is still fairly immature.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30196152</id>
	<title>Yeah, right...</title>
	<author>TaleSpinner</author>
	<datestamp>1258882920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like anyone is going to believe that, now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like anyone is going to believe that , now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like anyone is going to believe that, now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193536</id>
	<title>Re:Prediction depends on an unproven thesis</title>
	<author>betterunixthanunix</author>
	<datestamp>1258906740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"A predicted 6 degrees Celsius rise in a century? Oh, how scary! Let's introduce onerous carbon-curbing measures."<br> <br>

I take it you've never tried to grow your own food?  A few degrees can mean the difference between getting a juicy tomato or just a leafy vine.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" A predicted 6 degrees Celsius rise in a century ?
Oh , how scary !
Let 's introduce onerous carbon-curbing measures .
" I take it you 've never tried to grow your own food ?
A few degrees can mean the difference between getting a juicy tomato or just a leafy vine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"A predicted 6 degrees Celsius rise in a century?
Oh, how scary!
Let's introduce onerous carbon-curbing measures.
" 

I take it you've never tried to grow your own food?
A few degrees can mean the difference between getting a juicy tomato or just a leafy vine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193484</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30195296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30213424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30195710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30196142
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193434
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30198470
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194442
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30199116
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30195164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193956
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30199882
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30197080
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30202368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30196244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30197482
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30197562
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30198828
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30199954
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194090
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30196246
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30196332
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30197400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30199342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30213656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30197510
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30197466
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194546
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30206614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30195236
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30199406
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30213016
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30195426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30195380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30195646
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193428
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30197596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194672
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30202120
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194236
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30198138
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30196530
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30195888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30197834
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30198898
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194206
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30198904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30196372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30213858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30198990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193846
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30195900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30199382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193972
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30195860
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193504
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30213828
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30196942
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193220
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30195366
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30195634
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30202442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194602
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30195936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30196008
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193384
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30197720
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194470
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193602
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30197106
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30196768
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30195296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30197754
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30197620
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30195590
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193386
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193536
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194088
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30195180
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30196244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30197422
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30195742
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30197170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30197474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30195992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30195028
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30196244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30199268
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193650
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30195654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30200594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193956
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30196484
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193240
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194498
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30195580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_22_1254238_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_22_1254238.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193520
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_22_1254238.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193946
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_22_1254238.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30196244
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30197482
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30197422
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30199268
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_22_1254238.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193102
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_22_1254238.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194786
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30197596
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_22_1254238.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193986
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30195236
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30195710
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30196142
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_22_1254238.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193132
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193212
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193362
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193220
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193638
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30195426
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193336
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193972
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194236
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194088
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193252
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30195028
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194090
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194206
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_22_1254238.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193766
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_22_1254238.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193168
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30197510
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194178
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193490
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_22_1254238.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193176
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_22_1254238.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194982
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30197720
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_22_1254238.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193680
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_22_1254238.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193738
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194078
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194264
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30198828
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30198904
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30196246
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30195742
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30198470
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30196530
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30195380
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30196768
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30198898
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_22_1254238.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193694
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_22_1254238.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193552
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30200594
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_22_1254238.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193396
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_22_1254238.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30197400
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30199342
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_22_1254238.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194888
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_22_1254238.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193140
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193660
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194546
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30195180
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30198990
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30195634
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30195860
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30195654
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30195366
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_22_1254238.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193116
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193366
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30202120
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193956
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30199882
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30196484
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193896
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30213016
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30196372
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193318
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194602
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193470
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30195590
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30197620
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193882
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30197106
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194532
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30199954
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30202442
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30195296
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30197754
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30213424
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193384
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193374
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30195164
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193834
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30202368
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193322
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30206614
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30195580
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194460
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193846
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30196942
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194070
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_22_1254238.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193436
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30213858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30195992
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194166
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30197080
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30195900
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_22_1254238.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30195302
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_22_1254238.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193152
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193598
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30197466
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30195646
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30197562
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30213656
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30197834
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194442
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30199116
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193602
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193434
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193914
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193416
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30199406
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30199382
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30196332
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30195936
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30213828
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30196008
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193346
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30198138
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_22_1254238.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193574
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194672
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_22_1254238.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30196354
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_22_1254238.32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193260
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193564
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_22_1254238.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193136
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193370
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194470
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193428
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193272
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193324
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193504
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_22_1254238.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193754
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_22_1254238.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193154
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193240
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193386
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194498
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_22_1254238.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193484
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193640
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30195888
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193536
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193650
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30197170
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30197474
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_22_1254238.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193898
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_22_1254238.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30193404
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194368
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_22_1254238.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_22_1254238.30194740
</commentlist>
</conversation>
